How gamergate ruined games

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

Neverhoodian:
Oh look, judging a person solely by their outward appearance. I guess it's fair game when said person has a "Y" chromosome, amirite?

Boogie may fall on the 'gater side of the debate, but he's one of the more calm, level-headed ones. I for one have never heard him belittle the likes of Ms. Sarkeesian, or anyone else for that matter, based on their appearance. Indeed, he hasn't been very vocal about Gamergate at all despite supporting it because he was harassed and bullied into silence early on (yes, BOTH sides are guilty of this).

Yet he's still making a living partly from feeding off the gamergate antifeminist hate machine. He spends forever building up to a brief conversation among adults where slightly harsh words were delivered. That's all. Just so the Anita hate-train can nod their heads at how horrible she is.

Considering that Boogie was raised by a physically, mentally and sexually abusive mother and he overate in an attempt to cope, considering that he has put up with all manner of ridicule and harassment due to his weight, considering that he has tried for years to lose said weight under all manner of doctor-approved diets and nothing worked, to the point where he's about to undergo gastric bypass surgery...

...Yeah, I'd say you WERE a bit mean.

So he's a professional victim? Sorry but people like him kinda piss me off. He's obviously been through some shit, one would THINK it would've made him more compassionate towards others. Instead, he throws in with a movement that only exists due to this lingering sexist gatekeeping that exists in gaming.

WeepingAngels:

Phoenixmgs:

WeepingAngels:
Where are you on male gamers being called misogynistic?

I really couldn't care less.

Surely you can understand gamers not accepting that label?

You really can't "accept" any label given to you (outside of genetics/ethnics/age). If someone wants to believe gamers are misogynistic or women are bad drivers, why go out of your way to prove them wrong? It's someone's right to be prejudiced against anyone or any group if they want. That person(s) is just ignorant and why are you bothering even interacting with them? It's really just wasting your own time (which is the most valuable resource). It's not like you have to put down you're a gamer on a job application (or anything important) where you can actually be discriminated against.

It really just boils down to people feeling they have a right to not be offended for whatever fucking reason that is. It is YOUR choice to be offended by something, and you can choose to not be offended. There's nothing anyone could ever say that would offend me because it's a concept that I deem to be meaningless because all being "offended" boils down to is someone said something you didn't like. Well, that's going to happen all the time. You choose not interact with someone after you judge them to be someone you don't like from what they say and do and that's really it. Why should I interact with people I don't like when there's plenty of people to interact with that I do like?

Are the people that think gamers are misogynistic actually negatively affecting the quality of your life if you were to just ignore them? If something does actually affect your life (like say the new healthcare bill or net neutrality), then it's worth fighting against/for. If not, you're just wasting your own time.

BeetleManiac:

So standing up for herself is victimizing other people now?

Yes, because if you asked those other people, in their heads they were also standing up for themselves by defending their hobby. We can only judge if an act is bad or not, how you feel about it shouldn't enter in the picture because a lot of deluded people can rationalize some pretty heinous stuff.

Critique cannot be a creative act in and of itself?

It surely can be creative but it shouldn't be done with the aim to entertain or amuse but rather to inform. It's the same issue we run in with the news being more entertainment than education/information.

By the same token, you obviously have no education in feminism or other social justice topics, limited understanding of art theory or criticism, and appear largely ignorant of modern mass media theory. So why should I take you seriously when you opine on these topics? What can you offer to prove I should take what you have to say seriously?

One need not be formally educated in something they are immersed in to be able to accurately describe the forces that operate within it. That you choose to ignore truths because you don't deem the one who utters them credible enough is simply your own arrogance and I honestly don't mind if you don't take what I say seriously since my solace is in simply being correct. It's not anti-intellectual to put some weight in things outside of what formal education entails, it is, however, to think that nothing outside of that purview has any merit and is not worth taking heed of.

But she is indeed looking at the games and taking away different impressions. That she is using the lens of feminism does not automatically disqualify her perceptions. Your refusal to want to learn new things is no fault of hers.

And where do you draw the line? Because from where I'm sitting it looks completely arbitrary.

The line I pinpointed during my very first post. If you come across as someone merely trying to use games for some other end (as she did even before admitting it) then you have crossed it. Looking at games and taking away different impressions is not the same as what she described to be doing. That's something anyone can do even if they've never touched a game in their life. That's like your grandmother walking in and staring for a minute confused and then taking away an impression out of that. Nobody would have a serious debate about changing games based on your grandmothers very confused interpretation, but we're doing it here, and it makes zero sense.

Discussions about gaming's future and how it should change isn't the place to go learn new things. In that setting we are like the parents of a child planning out its future, not testing out wild theories. We can learn things without toying with a medium in the process in a separate setting. To generalize preposterous things such as people "not wanting to learn new things" out of wanting to delineate clear boundaries between topics is quite silly.

Dreiko:
Yes, because if you asked those other people, in their heads they were also standing up for themselves by defending their hobby. We can only judge if an act is bad or not, how you feel about it shouldn't enter in the picture because a lot of deluded people can rationalize some pretty heinous stuff.

That is some of the most ridiculous bullshit I've ever heard. Sargon of Akkad is a dude who makes money spouting hateful, anti-feminist sophistry and you're making him out to be this oppressed underdog. Why are you standing up for bullies?

It surely can be creative but it shouldn't be done with the aim to entertain or amuse but rather to inform. It's the same issue we run in with the news being more entertainment than education/information.

Why? Why can't it do both? Isn't that kind of what Yahtzee built his series on? Isn't that what observational comedians do?

One need not be formally educated in something they are immersed in to be able to accurately describe the forces that operate within it. That you choose to ignore truths because you don't deem the one who utters them credible enough is simply your own arrogance and I honestly don't mind if you don't take what I say seriously since my solace is in simply being correct. It's not anti-intellectual to put some weight in things outside of what formal education entails, it is, however, to think that nothing outside of that purview has any merit and is not worth taking heed of.

That's a lovely paragraph of sophistry, but it does not provide me with any reason why I should consider you informed on this topic. If anything, it's made you look even more ignorant because now you're talking like an Evangelical Christian who tried to convince a biologist that evolution is crap.

Sorry dude. How seriously people will take you is inversely proportionate to how seriously you take yourself.

The line I pinpointed during my very first post. If you come across as someone merely trying to use games for some other end (as she did even before admitting it) then you have crossed it. Looking at games and taking away different impressions is not the same as what she described to be doing. That's something anyone can do even if they've never touched a game in their life. That's like your grandmother walking in and staring for a minute confused and then taking away an impression out of that. Nobody would have a serious debate about changing games based on your grandmothers very confused interpretation, but we're doing it here, and it makes zero sense.

How is this not gatekeeping on your part?

Discussions about gaming's future and how it should change isn't the place to go learn new things. In that setting we are like the parents of a child planning out its future, not testing out wild theories. We can learn things without toying with a medium in the process in a separate setting. To generalize preposterous things such as people "not wanting to learn new things" out of wanting to delineate clear boundaries between topics is quite silly.

No, you've made it pretty obvious that you're not interested in learning new things, because you've convinced you already known everything worth knowing about whatever topic you're opining on and using dorm room sophistry to justify your unwillingness to pick up a book.

You say Anita is a like a controlling mother planning a child's future without their consent. I see you as more of a helicopter parent who gets shitty with other people when they tell your misbehaving child to settle down.

TBH I never really bothered with this whole issue as it all felt completely toxic. Does this more or less sum up the stances -

image

hanselthecaretaker:
TBH I never really bothered with this whole issue as it all felt completely toxic. Does this more or less sum up the stances -

That's definitely an accurate portrayal of how GGers see themselves and the rest of the world. There are few things more obnoxious than fools who think they're geniuses.

BeetleManiac:

hanselthecaretaker:
TBH I never really bothered with this whole issue as it all felt completely toxic. Does this more or less sum up the stances -

That's definitely an accurate portrayal of how GGers see themselves and the rest of the world. There are few things more obnoxious than fools who think they're geniuses.

It always seems like a double entendre though with no clear definition. Like, is the "pro-GG'er" a GG'er in the above example? Because that sounds like they are actually the more pleasant and rational ones. But GG is a bad thing to begin with so, *sigh*

hanselthecaretaker:
It always seems like a double entendre though with no clear definition. Like, is the "pro-GG'er" a GG'er in the above example? Because that sounds like they are actually the more pleasant and rational ones. But GG is a bad thing to begin with so, *sigh*

Gatekeepers always try to make themselves out to be the most virtuous of all.

BeetleManiac:

hanselthecaretaker:
It always seems like a double entendre though with no clear definition. Like, is the "pro-GG'er" a GG'er in the above example? Because that sounds like they are actually the more pleasant and rational ones. But GG is a bad thing to begin with so, *sigh*

Gatekeepers always try to make themselves out to be the most virtuous of all.

Well what the...who the hell are Gatekeepers...the ones who want to keep Gamergate going?

hanselthecaretaker:
Well what the...who the hell are Gatekeepers...the ones who want to keep Gamergate going?

I should clarify. Gamergate is and always has been about gatekeeping. Gamergaters believes themselves to be the "core" demographic, the audience that was there from the start and therefor must be prioritized. The industry is changing however. More voices are coming into it, new ideas are being tested out, and the medium is receiving serious critique as a legitimate mass media and artform. Gamergaters perceive this as forcing them out of the hobby, when in reality it just means there are now more markets to be catered to than simply the core gamers.

The result is Gamergaters acting as gatekeepers. Since they are the core of gaming's audience, they know better than anyone else what is and isn't good for the medium and also criticism must have their approval to be considered legitimate. Numerous Gaters will tell you that there is a right and a wrong way to even consume videogames. If you want to apply an artistic analysis that they don't like, then you're not a real gamer even if you've been an avid player for decades. Want to make a game a certain way or tell a story that isn't heard very often? If GGers don't like it (and most of them won't) you're branded an SJW and accused of trying to ruin the medium.

Every community has its gatekeepers. Gamergate are hardly unique in that respect. They're just particularly loud about it.

BeetleManiac:
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.

No one was pushing that all songs must be protest songs, or at a minimum utterly inoffensive to anyone who might want protest songs. Look at the Last Night and the recent shitstorm around it and Tim Sorret. Look at the hate directed at Deliverance: Kingdom Come earlier in it's development. Hell, Larian got hatemail, harassment and threats over the cover art having a female character with an exposed midriff.

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

Boogie is conflict averse to an extreme. It's not hard to be more willing to argue in his defense than he is. It's like kicking a puppy -- the puppy will probably come back to you and even forgive it, but that doesn't mean everyone else is cool with kicking puppies.

Gethsemani:

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.

You've got events substantially mixed up. Two panels are involved, both of which had Anita as a speaker, one of which also had Boogie as a speaker.

Anita called out Sargon during the Women Online panel well before Q&A started, making the comment you quoted. At that point the front right three rows of anti-SJW folks had done nothing but sit quietly and listen to the panel.

What Anita confronted Boogie over was from the end of the Cyberbullying panel.

BeetleManiac:
Sargon of Akkad crashing her panel to make it all about him.

LOL. He literally sat near the front with a group of similar YouTubers (~30 in total) in attendance of the panel. Had Anita picked out MundaneMatt or one of the Honey Badgers to call out (also in that same part of the crowd) would that have made them someone who "crashed the panel to make it all about them" instead of Sargon (hint the point is that Sargon took no action other than to be present in the crowd with a like minded group)? Sargon didn't "crash" the panel, unless by that you mean standing in line to be part of the audience like anyone else, and he wasn't the one who made any part of the panel about him unless by that you mean sitting in the audience.

Chewster:
Honestly, if someone saying "gamers are misogynist" upsets you, grow a thicker skin or else take some time to reflect on why you're upset because maybe, just maybe, the label accurately applies to you.

So if someone says some group are some negative thing, then either I should grow a thicker skin or reflect on how that label applies to me, huh?

Somehow, I expect you don't think that would apply in the general case.

Of course this is just another example of the whole "disagreeing with me means I'm right" argument that's so common in feminist circles.

jademunky:
While obviously true, it is so frequently used as a derailing tactic to avoid talking more about the specific kind of sexually charged harassment that mostly only women face.

Internet trolls attack whatever they perceive as a weak point. That sexually charged harassment is primarily directed at women reflects that it's expected to hit them harder. Just like I expect Boogie gets quite a bit invoking his weight.

I bet Karen Straughn's harassment is atypical for a woman, since she's literally publicly joked about receiving rape threats in the past I expect most of her harassment tries to target something else.

jademunky:

CaitSeith:

I'd say it was pretty mean. He is levelheaded, and didn't deserve his fears come true. I'm glad that he knew how to properly face her.

I think, after watching the video, I can shed some light on why Anita would express mild disappointment to him thereby totally ruining him emotionally and forcing him to blab that moment of confrontation to his apparent 800,000 viewers (who, no doubt, also only really want to just talk about journalistic integrity but keep having to obsess over some youtube feminist instead)

The issue, from the way he tells it, seems to come from the point he tries to make that "all" people, regardless of race, gender or orientation can experience harassment. While obviously true, it is so frequently used as a derailing tactic to avoid talking more about the specific kind of sexually charged harassment that mostly only women face.

I know that. It's not unusual to see it on the Internet. But seeing how different he acts compared to those people, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to Boogie.

Schadrach:

Internet trolls attack whatever they perceive as a weak point. That sexually charged harassment is primarily directed at women reflects that it's expected to hit them harder.

But it does not necessarily hit them harder, it just hits them more. I would likely be just as traumatized to be on the receiving end of graphic propositions and dick/vagina pics from complete strangers yet it is something that I, as a man, never really worry about. A lot of definitely non-famous women I know in real life have had to take active steps to avoid that kind of thing happening again.

This is not about women being more vulnerable to rape threats (because most of us would be if we got them) as much it is about the people sending them and the deeper reasons behind that harassment.

Just like I expect Boogie gets quite a bit invoking his weight.

I wouldn't call my spiteful and unclever comment about his weight to be harassment. Rather it started as an idea of me doing a goof of reversing all that crap Anita & co. get for their physical appearance but then lazily just devolved into "fuck this guy."

I bet Karen Straughn's harassment is atypical for a woman, since she's literally publicly joked about receiving rape threats in the past I expect most of her harassment tries to target something else.

Once I google who Karen Straughn is, I might agree with you but probably not. Be a woman with an online presence, probably dick-picks at some point.

hanselthecaretaker:

BeetleManiac:

hanselthecaretaker:
TBH I never really bothered with this whole issue as it all felt completely toxic. Does this more or less sum up the stances -

That's definitely an accurate portrayal of how GGers see themselves and the rest of the world. There are few things more obnoxious than fools who think they're geniuses.

It always seems like a double entendre though with no clear definition. Like, is the "pro-GG'er" a GG'er in the above example? Because that sounds like they are actually the more pleasant and rational ones. But GG is a bad thing to begin with so, *sigh*

Don't believe blindly on propaganda. It always twists the facts and tells half the truth.

CaitSeith:
I know that. It's not unusual to see it on the Internet. But seeing how different he acts compared to those people, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to Boogie.

Gah, thats probably the right thing to do. Still grating to do so considering that even taking his version of events at face-value, he was never bullied. Essentially someone took issue with a thing he said and had angry words for him. This is literally the end of the story.

People in his comments section are talking to him like he just returned from spending 444 days as a hostage in Iran.

jademunky:

Neverhoodian:
Oh look, judging a person solely by their outward appearance. I guess it's fair game when said person has a "Y" chromosome, amirite?

Boogie may fall on the 'gater side of the debate, but he's one of the more calm, level-headed ones. I for one have never heard him belittle the likes of Ms. Sarkeesian, or anyone else for that matter, based on their appearance. Indeed, he hasn't been very vocal about Gamergate at all despite supporting it because he was harassed and bullied into silence early on (yes, BOTH sides are guilty of this).

Yet he's still making a living partly from feeding off the gamergate antifeminist hate machine. He spends forever building up to a brief conversation among adults where slightly harsh words were delivered. That's all. Just so the Anita hate-train can nod their heads at how horrible she is.

I'm subscribed to Boogie's channel, and he hardly ever talks about GG. The last time he uploaded something like this was...a year ago, I think? I wouldn't exactly call that "making a living" off of the movement. This happened to be an incident that directly involved him, so why wouldn't he discuss it? Is he suddenly not allowed to talk about it because it happened to involve Ms. Sarkeesian?

jademunky:

Neverhoodian:

Considering that Boogie was raised by a physically, mentally and sexually abusive mother and he overate in an attempt to cope, considering that he has put up with all manner of ridicule and harassment due to his weight, considering that he has tried for years to lose said weight under all manner of doctor-approved diets and nothing worked, to the point where he's about to undergo gastric bypass surgery...

...Yeah, I'd say you WERE a bit mean.

So he's a professional victim? Sorry but people like him kinda piss me off. He's obviously been through some shit, one would THINK it would've made him more compassionate towards others. Instead, he throws in with a movement that only exists due to this lingering sexist gatekeeping that exists in gaming.

That's a bit of blanket assumption, don't you think? Writing off everyone involved in a movement as sexist due to the actions of the lunatic fringe? That's like calling all anti-gators (is that the term?) misandrist because a few of them have used the #killallmen hashtag unironically.

Also, I never brought up the "professional victim" card. I have no doubt that both Boogie and Ms. Sarkeesian have had to endure all sorts of undue harassment and death threats. Such behavior should never be acceptable regardless of where one stands on the issue, and talking about it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as "virtue signaling" and being a "professional victim."

Neverhoodian:

That's a bit of blanket assumption, don't you think? Writing off everyone involved in a movement as sexist due to the actions of the lunatic fringe? That's like calling all anti-gators (is that the term?) misandrist because a few of them have used the #killallmen hashtag unironically.

Also, I never brought up the "professional victim" card. I have no doubt that both Boogie and Ms. Sarkeesian have had to endure all sorts of undue harassment and death threats. Such behavior should never be acceptable regardless of where one stands on the issue, and talking about it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as "virtue signaling" and being a "professional victim."

I don't actually think he is a professional victim and although I've never heard of him before now, I'm sure that most of the content he puts out is just fine.

To be honest, it is kinda hard for me personally to not write off gamergate supporters as a lost cause. I've been into gaming for a long time and would've been overjoyed to see a movement truly dedicated to more honesty and accountability in games coverage. If the catalyst for that event were one of several, far more egregious acts of journalistic shittiness in games media, I might've even wanted to be part of it. Instead, a good chunk of the gaming fandom decided that the hill they were willing to die on was a harassment campaign founded on a conspiracy theory that was, in turn, founded on a letter penned by a jilted ex.

hanselthecaretaker:

Because that sounds like they are actually the more pleasant and rational ones.

You would be mistaken...

Schadrach:

Chewster:
Honestly, if someone saying "gamers are misogynist" upsets you, grow a thicker skin or else take some time to reflect on why you're upset because maybe, just maybe, the label accurately applies to you.

So if someone says some group are some negative thing, then either I should grow a thicker skin or reflect on how that label applies to me, huh?

Yeah. Or you could do what the majority of gamers do and ignore all the drama and just play games. Up to you, really.

Somehow, I expect you don't think that would apply in the general case.

Obviously not. Not all groups are the same and "ignore the haters" won't always apply. Someone saying "all black folk are criminals" is not equal to "all gamers are misogynist" even if both statements are horribly ignorant and wrong.

Gaming is a pretty mainstream hobby at this point, I think we can all drop the whole "gamers are so persecuted" narrative, don't you think?

Of course this is just another example of the whole "disagreeing with me means I'm right" argument that's so common in feminist circles.

Which circles? And why is that relevant? I never said anything like that. Try harder.

BeetleManiac:

hanselthecaretaker:
Well what the...who the hell are Gatekeepers...the ones who want to keep Gamergate going?

I should clarify. Gamergate is and always has been about gatekeeping. Gamergaters believes themselves to be the "core" demographic, the audience that was there from the start and therefor must be prioritized. The industry is changing however. More voices are coming into it, new ideas are being tested out, and the medium is receiving serious critique as a legitimate mass media and artform. Gamergaters perceive this as forcing them out of the hobby, when in reality it just means there are now more markets to be catered to than simply the core gamers.

The result is Gamergaters acting as gatekeepers. Since they are the core of gaming's audience, they know better than anyone else what is and isn't good for the medium and also criticism must have their approval to be considered legitimate. Numerous Gaters will tell you that there is a right and a wrong way to even consume videogames. If you want to apply an artistic analysis that they don't like, then you're not a real gamer even if you've been an avid player for decades. Want to make a game a certain way or tell a story that isn't heard very often? If GGers don't like it (and most of them won't) you're branded an SJW and accused of trying to ruin the medium.

Every community has its gatekeepers. Gamergate are hardly unique in that respect. They're just particularly loud about it.

Well, that clarified quite a bit, thanks.

Smithnikov:

hanselthecaretaker:

Because that sounds like they are actually the more pleasant and rational ones.

You would be mistaken...

I think hansel may be right. I see a lot of unpleasantness from certain people who insist on categorizing all gg people one way because they are mad about being categorized themselves. The anti-gg crowd seems to be a lot of toxic bullies.

BeetleManiac:

hanselthecaretaker:
TBH I never really bothered with this whole issue as it all felt completely toxic. Does this more or less sum up the stances -

That's definitely an accurate portrayal of how GGers see themselves and the rest of the world. There are few things more obnoxious than fools who think they're geniuses.

I could say the same about the abusive bullies who are anti-gg.
Seeing that you have mocked others for having what you deem to be mental illness before, I have a hard time trusting your call on what is abusive aND WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

BeetleManiac:
then don't presume to speak for him because you're a fucking liar.

Where does all this vitriol and hate come from? Please don't be so abusive to others here. i find it hard to have a civil discussion when you are being so flagrantly abusive. She picked on boogie who was innocent and made a better point than she did. She admitted she wants to fight and struggle. She is just being histrionic to fund her coffers. Stop defending abuse just because it originates from "your side." You are defending an abusive bully just because she has received abuse previously. Her bullying and hateful speech are not justified. Anita is a bully and anyone defending her is a de facto bullying advocate.

FriendoftheFallen:

Where does all this vitriol and hate come from? Please don't be so abusive to others here. i find it hard to have a civil discussion when you are being so flagrantly abusive. She picked on boogie who was innocent and made a better point than she did. She admitted she wants to fight and struggle. She is just being histrionic to fund her coffers. Stop defending abuse just because it originates from "your side." You are defending an abusive bully just because she has received abuse previously. Her bullying and hateful speech are not justified. Anita is a bully and anyone defending her is a de facto bullying advocate.

Yes, why can't we have a civil discussion about how Anita Sarkeesian is a bully and how anyone who disagrees is a bullying advocate.

Weird, that.

Or or somepeople just ignored Gamer Gate. One of my favorite slightly below average video games this generation is Code Name steam for the the 3ds. Its metacritic is sitting at a 69 out of a hundred. Most reviews focused on its game play that was pretty clunky. That being said, its one of the most Diverse video games by Nintendo. Nintendo didnt trot this game out as them trying to apease SJWs and no one attacked Nintendo by saying Nintendo is trying to pander.

I sware to god its the most assnine thing to see people bitch about FF15 Haveing all dudes when FFX2, was all girls or people bitching about Battle Field 1 haveing Black German Soliders.

kilenem:

I sware to god its the most assnine thing to see people bitch about FF15 Haveing all dudes when FFX2, was all girls or people bitching about Battle Field 1 haveing Black German Soliders.

Very few people bitched about FFXV having all-dudes. Lotta people made homoerotic jokes but very little bitching. Most people accepted Squenix's justification that guys simply behave differently when they are alone with no girls and this was the kind of story they wanted to tell.

Contrast this with Ubisoft's asinine justification for not having a female player character in an Assassin's Creed being that women are simply too tough to draw.

undeadsuitor:

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

"GG was always about women in gaming getting 'undeserved' attention"

Seems a bit of a stretch to assign a single motive to what was at best a very loose coalition of people in a group with no entry credentials or formal structure of any kind, be that coalition "feminist" or "gamergaters" (if that's what they are called).

I think we tend to ascribe these groups of people motives that support our own narratives. I know I do.

hanselthecaretaker:

BeetleManiac:

hanselthecaretaker:
Well what the...who the hell are Gatekeepers...the ones who want to keep Gamergate going?

I should clarify. Gamergate is and always has been about gatekeeping. Gamergaters believes themselves to be the "core" demographic, the audience that was there from the start and therefor must be prioritized. The industry is changing however. More voices are coming into it, new ideas are being tested out, and the medium is receiving serious critique as a legitimate mass media and artform. Gamergaters perceive this as forcing them out of the hobby, when in reality it just means there are now more markets to be catered to than simply the core gamers.

The result is Gamergaters acting as gatekeepers. Since they are the core of gaming's audience, they know better than anyone else what is and isn't good for the medium and also criticism must have their approval to be considered legitimate. Numerous Gaters will tell you that there is a right and a wrong way to even consume videogames. If you want to apply an artistic analysis that they don't like, then you're not a real gamer even if you've been an avid player for decades. Want to make a game a certain way or tell a story that isn't heard very often? If GGers don't like it (and most of them won't) you're branded an SJW and accused of trying to ruin the medium.

Every community has its gatekeepers. Gamergate are hardly unique in that respect. They're just particularly loud about it.

Well, that clarified quite a bit, thanks.

Take that with a grain of salt. Beetle's not exactly an unbiased source.

In all honesty, I'd say the people actually keeping GG a thing are those opposed to it, if only because it provides a convenient boogieman to rally against. It's most apparent in just how many places have made unrelated articles that just name drops GG into them, to the point KiA came up with a term for it. Game-Dropping.

I'd also wager a guess that many of those people are also using it as an easy way to virtue signal given just how many anti-gaters turn out to be complete and utter scumbags. Granted, it's not like GG doesn't as well, Ralph Retort being a HUGE example, but one would expect better behavior from people claiming to be on the side of progressive justice, than a group made up of anons from 4/8Chan.

Granted, you should also be taking ME with a grain of salt. I'm pretty staunchly PRO GamerGate, so I'm not exactly unbiased myself.

And just like that I show more journalistic integrity than most Videogame Journalists.

As for the topic of Gatekeeping, I'd take a look at GameJournoPros and the indi scene if you want to see some REAL good examples of that.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

undeadsuitor:

sanquin:

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

"GG was always about women in gaming getting 'undeserved' attention"

Seems a bit of a stretch to assign a single motive to what was at best a very loose coalition of people in a group with no entry credentials or formal structure of any kind, be that coalition "feminist" or "gamergaters" (if that's what they are called).

I think we tend to ascribe these groups of people motives that support our own narratives. I know I do.

I'd also like to know how bashing on a woman who cheated on her boyfriend with five different guys, at least one of whom was married and the wife got into a pretty heated argument with her on that subject, all the while gaslighting the poor sap into thinking he was being paranoid and a bad boyfriend, is somehow anti-feminist.

Don't even get me started on those who claimed she was being Slut-Shamed. Anyone who knows the history of THAT particular word should've been more than a little P.O.ed at seeing it used to defend Quinn.

Hell, the biggest reason feminism even entered the discussion to begin with is because most of the people defending Quinn tried to paint the people asking questions about the whole mess as nothing but a pack of mysogonerds.

Metalix Knightmare:

I'd also like to know how bashing on a woman who cheated on her boyfriend with five different guys, at least one of whom was married and the wife got into a pretty heated argument with her on that subject, all the while gaslighting the poor sap into thinking he was being paranoid and a bad boyfriend, is somehow anti-feminist.

Don't even get me started on those who claimed she was being Slut-Shamed. Anyone who knows the history of THAT particular word should've been more than a little P.O.ed at seeing it used to defend Quinn.

Hell, the biggest reason feminism even entered the discussion to begin with is because most of the people defending Quinn tried to paint the people asking questions about the whole mess as nothing but a pack of mysogonerds.

My view on the matter is that it was a private matter who Quinn slept with and whether she cheated on her boyfriend. It is really no business of the Internet Gossip Hens. The only thing that was of public interest in the whole affair was whether Grayson gave her a positive review after she slept with him. That aspect was discredited yet people still wanted to discuss her sexual history as a way of shaming her. It lacked basic human decency.

FriendoftheFallen:

I think hansel may be right. I see a lot of unpleasantness from certain people who insist on categorizing all gg people one way because they are mad about being categorized themselves. The anti-gg crowd seems to be a lot of toxic bullies.

There's an infamous quote by Muhammed Ali, asked about his stance on the Vietnam Conflict. He summed it up simple.

No VC ever called me a n!gger

I emulate his stance by simply saying "No Anti-GG ever threatened to throw me out of a helicopter".

It's this simple. I didn't get threats, insults, and told "Normie, get out" by anti-GG'ers. I got told that by GG'ers.

Dreiko:

It surely can be creative but it shouldn't be done with the aim to entertain or amuse but rather to inform. It's the same issue we run in with the news being more entertainment than education/information.

Chiming in, I disagree there. Critique can be done for the sake of fun, it's why people like the Nostalgia Critic are (for me at least) entertaining. I certainly agree that the news should be first and foremost about information, but critique in this day and age I can give more leeway.

I like labels.

They allow me to spontaneously cook up a curry without having to go through all the pots and jars of brownish, yellowish or reddish powders trying to figure out what's what. I also like to label my books and sort my CD collection so I can find shit.

I don't much appreciate labels on human beings outside of work, as it tends to dehumanize them.

I am pro GG, for what it's worth. I am pro GG and that was why I was faced with adversity on this forum way before the gloves came off for good. It's why I left it to rot and come back to see it live out its days in eternal undeath.

It's what inspired me to get back into learning the wonderful Japanese language, as the Japanese are true masters of escapism. Mock them all you want for their supposed repressed nature. You've probably never fucked a Japanese. They're great. They appreciate good sex. Their sweat tastes of adventure and their games provide me with the escapism I seek. Anybody even just trying to fuck with that... I don't like you very much. I do not appreciate it when them folks try to tell me what is and isn't acceptable. Fuck hat noise. We've overcome Jack Thompson only to be faced with a whole generation of regressive rabble-rousers dreaming of that sweet, sweet revolution extravaganza? The Japanese have dick museums and days dedicated to praising dicks. Just about every mushroom or vegetable is a sexual innuendo. Sure, there is censorship for sexual content in Japan... that sucks, but even with the most extreme and disturbing panels/images/scenes, it usually consists of but some pixellation or limited camera angles. I greatly prefer that over the constant baying of muh misogyny.

I don't like Ashley Burch. She's one of you. And yet she did an excellent job with Horizon: Zero Dawn. I didn't feel indecently touched by any agenda when going for the platinum trophy. The only thing that annoyed the pants off my head was the fact that all the Mad Max furry crap our heroine was facing when it came to the big old wardrobe question kinda looked samey and lame. Don't even get me started on the Antiriad suit. Handy, sure, but just another lame patch of fur with a bit of a special effect over it. We can't let the player enjoy their sweet ass achievement by making every other YouTube gamer look lame in comparison, can we. That's how it felt to me. Do I now need to formulate that as a thesis and spread my intellectual farts over forty pages, complete with made-up customer reactions and questionnaires, feeding bs numbers into SPSS because I just can't be arsed to interact with real people? Hell no.

GamerGate was back when a bunch of colluding regressive fucks thought they'd gained critical mass, and they launched an attack on a supposed, oversimplified idea of an identity on one of the most varied communities of them all, and all they did was to divide it along political lines. Fuck them and fuck everyone who thinks that's cool.

Every push I will answer in kind.
Every shove I will make you regret.

I am GamerGate.

Headdrivehardscrew:
I like labels.

They allow me to spontaneously cook up a curry without having to go through all the pots and jars of brownish, yellowish or reddish powders trying to figure out what's what. I also like to label my books and sort my CD collection so I can find shit.

I don't much appreciate labels on human beings outside of work, as it tends to dehumanize them.

I am pro GG, for what it's worth. I am pro GG and that was why I was faced with adversity on this forum way before the gloves came off for good. It's why I left it to rot and come back to see it live out its days in eternal undeath.

It's what inspired me to get back into learning the wonderful Japanese language, as the Japanese are true masters of escapism. Mock them all you want for their supposed repressed nature. You've probably never fucked a Japanese. They're great. They appreciate good sex. Their sweat tastes of adventure and their games provide me with the escapism I seek. Anybody even just trying to fuck with that... I don't like you very much. I do not appreciate it when them folks try to tell me what is and isn't acceptable. Fuck hat noise. We've overcome Jack Thompson only to be faced with a whole generation of regressive rabble-rousers dreaming of that sweet, sweet revolution extravaganza? The Japanese have dick museums and days dedicated to praising dicks. Just about every mushroom or vegetable is a sexual innuendo. Sure, there is censorship for sexual content in Japan... that sucks, but even with the most extreme and disturbing panels/images/scenes, it usually consists of but some pixellation or limited camera angles. I greatly prefer that over the constant baying of muh misogyny.

I don't like Ashley Burch. She's one of you. And yet she did an excellent job with Horizon: Zero Dawn. I didn't feel indecently touched by any agenda when going for the platinum trophy. The only thing that annoyed the pants off my head was the fact that all the Mad Max furry crap our heroine was facing when it came to the big old wardrobe question kinda looked samey and lame. Don't even get me started on the Antiriad suit. Handy, sure, but just another lame patch of fur with a bit of a special effect over it. We can't let the player enjoy their sweet ass achievement by making every other YouTube gamer look lame in comparison, can we. That's how it felt to me. Do I now need to formulate that as a thesis and spread my intellectual farts over forty pages, complete with made-up customer reactions and questionnaires, feeding bs numbers into SPSS because I just can't be arsed to interact with real people? Hell no.

GamerGate was back when a bunch of colluding regressive fucks thought they'd gained critical mass, and they launched an attack on a supposed, oversimplified idea of an identity on one of the most varied communities of them all, and all they did was to divide it along political lines. Fuck them and fuck everyone who thinks that's cool.

Every push I will answer in kind.
Every shove I will make you regret.

I am GamerGate.

...is this a copy paste? This feels like a copy paste.

Fuck, I hope it's a copy paste.

Hawki:

Dreiko:

It surely can be creative but it shouldn't be done with the aim to entertain or amuse but rather to inform. It's the same issue we run in with the news being more entertainment than education/information.

Chiming in, I disagree there. Critique can be done for the sake of fun, it's why people like the Nostalgia Critic are (for me at least) entertaining. I certainly agree that the news should be first and foremost about information, but critique in this day and age I can give more leeway.

I see those as using critique to make entertainment, so by definition it's entertainment that they end up being, not critique. Nostalgia Critic doesn't act like his opinions are serious views that changes must be based on.

There's nothing wrong with using critique in your entertainment or in your political crusades, the issue comes when one pretends they're not actually doing that but are simply offering vanilla critique when in fact they're propagandists. When you make an entertainment video that uses critique to entertain, you're making entertainment. Same goes for sociopolitical videos which use critique to deliver a sociopolitical message; they're not critique. To pretend that this critique is actually valuable as critique and is not simply driven by a desire for sociopolitical change would be like pretending Nostalgia Critic's wording is done not out of a desire to entertain his audience but because he really feels this way and really expresses himself this way normally when just being himself. I don't think either is very likely a scenario but for some reason we act as though sociopolitical videos are the same as vanilla critique videos and that makes no sense.

Smithnikov:

No VC ever called me a n!gger

I emulate his stance by simply saying "No Anti-GG ever threatened to throw me out of a helicopter".

It's this simple. I didn't get threats, insults, and told "Normie, get out" by anti-GG'ers. I got told that by GG'ers.

No GGer ever told me the black on white racist violence I experienced wasn't true racism or told me my understanding of racism was "naive." No GGer told me I was a horrible person for shitposting or shitchatting in-game chat. A-gg' s are the ones who have mocked or tuned out my arguments due to me being a cis white male.
An A-Gger was the one who told me that people who hold different opinions need to be culled from society.

Does that justify disparaging everyone in the other group because some in both groups are mean?

FriendoftheFallen:
No GGer told me I was a horrible person for shitposting or shitchatting in-game chat.

Perhaps they should. The latter of those activities is especially awful and really does ruin online gaming.

FriendoftheFallen:

Smithnikov:

No VC ever called me a n!gger

I emulate his stance by simply saying "No Anti-GG ever threatened to throw me out of a helicopter".

It's this simple. I didn't get threats, insults, and told "Normie, get out" by anti-GG'ers. I got told that by GG'ers.

No GGer ever told me the black on white racist violence I experienced wasn't true racism or told me my understanding of racism was "naive." No GGer told me I was a horrible person for shitposting or shitchatting in-game chat. A-gg' s are the ones who have mocked or tuned out my arguments due to me being a cis white male.
An A-Gger was the one who told me that people who hold different opinions need to be culled from society.

Does that justify disparaging everyone in the other group because some in both groups are mean?

Isn't that what you do now? So apparently, it does.

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

Reply to Thread

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