GaymerX2 Promises Bigger, Longer Show For 2014

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

GaymerX2 Promises Bigger, Longer Show For 2014

GaymerX2 logo

GaymerX2, the next iteration of the videogame convention dedicated to the LGBT community, is moving to a bigger location and expanding its schedule for 2014.

Despite suffering a few bumps and bruises from a trademark hassle that forced a change of name, GaymerX went ahead this past August in San Francisco and was by all reports a big success, attracting 2300 attendees over two days. Today, GaymerConnect announced details about next year's show, the slightly-renamed GaymerX2, which will see the convention expanded significantly.

GaymerX2 will take place at the Intercontinental San Francisco Hotel and will run for three-and-a-half days, from July 11 through July 13. The lineup of speakers has grown as well, and will include David Gaider, Mattie Brice, Alexis Ohanian, Gordon Bellamy, Jaime Woo and John Scalzi, plus returning guests like Ellen McLain, John Patrick Lowrie and Zach Weinersmith.

"For games to be taken seriously as the pieces of art that they are, they can't live in a culture that is afraid to tackle and discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity," said GaymerX co-founder Matt Conn. "The amount of support that we've gotten for GaymerX shows that the gaming community is coming around to the idea of having serious debates on how to improve the medium."

Registration for GaymerX2 is now open. To get your tickets or find out more about the new venue and expanded plans, go to gaymerconnect.com.

Source: Joystiq

Permalink

Hehe... I get it... it's bigger and longer because... hehe

Tolkienfanatic:
Hehe... I get it... it's bigger and longer because... hehe

Because there will be more people attending and more stuff to see and talk about? Don't see any other way that sentence could be interpreted.

they can't live in a culture that is afraid to tackle and discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

mad825:

they can't live in a culture that is afraid to tackle and discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

Bingo. While I do believe games are most definitely art, I almost don't want video games to be held to the same standard, because these days every movie or book, even comics, has to be "about something" or tackle this or that issue. While I'm all for video games exploring ideas and doing new things, I'm just worried that we'll stop getting games that are just meant to be fun, despite being weird or kinky (Bayonetta comes to mind), because they're not "inclusive" enough or some crap.

mad825:

they can't live in a culture that is afraid to tackle and discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

You know, letting one group that HAS been largely ignored by the mainstream gaming industry, and is still derided on places like Xbox Live, have an event where they can truly feel safe to express themselves isn't going to kill 'teh vidja gamez.'

And yes, I do realize I say that while having a Grand Theft Auto V avatar.

LysanderNemoinis:

mad825:

they can't live in a culture that is afraid to tackle and discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

Bingo. While I do believe games are most definitely art, I almost don't want video games to be held to the same standard, because these days every movie or book, even comics, has to be "about something" or tackle this or that issue. While I'm all for video games exploring ideas and doing new things, I'm just worried that we'll stop getting games that are just meant to be fun, despite being weird or kinky (Bayonetta comes to mind), because they're not "inclusive" enough or some crap.

so, how many games can you count that have been legitimately improved by the inclusion of questionable material as opposed to being present for the sole purpose of selling more games based on the perception of popular demand?

like, if the characters were slightly less "sexy" or didn't feature large boobs, and wore moderately conservative clothing as opposed to skintight bodysuits or strips of chainmail or clothing with low cut tops and tiny to zero pants, would that have made you have less fun or put the game down?

mad825:
Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

I'm sure the people attending this would love to attend your idealized, fantasy con where everything's fun and no one harasses another. Shame douchebags attending most cons harass other people so much that they're no longer having fun and have to go out and make their own con to enjoy themselves.

trty00:

mad825:

they can't live in a culture that is afraid to tackle and discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

You know, letting one group that HAS been largely ignored by the mainstream gaming industry, and is still derided on places like Xbox Live, have an event where they can truly feel safe to express themselves isn't going to kill 'teh vidja gamez.'

And yes, I do realize I say that while having a Grand Theft Auto V avatar.

The problem with expressing yourself in a secluded echo chamber is that the very people you're looking to express yourself to are likely not even be there.

It's like advertising for gay rights on the homosexual focus channel. A feel-good gesture for all involved but it betrays the intent of the action from the onset.

Abomination:

trty00:

mad825:

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

You know, letting one group that HAS been largely ignored by the mainstream gaming industry, and is still derided on places like Xbox Live, have an event where they can truly feel safe to express themselves isn't going to kill 'teh vidja gamez.'

And yes, I do realize I say that while having a Grand Theft Auto V avatar.

The problem with expressing yourself in a secluded echo chamber is that the very people you're looking to express yourself to are likely not even be there.

It's like advertising for gay rights on the homosexual focus channel. A feel-good gesture for all involved but it betrays the intent of the action from the onset.

Maybe, but sometimes a safe spot is enough. Maybe it won't revolutionize the way we think, but it still serves as a nice gesture. One that's probably important for a lot of people.

EDIT: Just have a little empathy, that's all.

trty00:

Abomination:

trty00:

You know, letting one group that HAS been largely ignored by the mainstream gaming industry, and is still derided on places like Xbox Live, have an event where they can truly feel safe to express themselves isn't going to kill 'teh vidja gamez.'

And yes, I do realize I say that while having a Grand Theft Auto V avatar.

The problem with expressing yourself in a secluded echo chamber is that the very people you're looking to express yourself to are likely not even be there.

It's like advertising for gay rights on the homosexual focus channel. A feel-good gesture for all involved but it betrays the intent of the action from the onset.

Maybe, but sometimes a safe spot is enough. Maybe it won't revolutionize the way we think, but it still serves as a nice gesture. One that's probably important for a lot of people.

EDIT: Just have a little empathy, that's all.

Then say that's the reason for the event... not that they're there to debate issues of sexuality and race in an area that is going to, by default, be exclusively pro-one viewpoint.

That's not a debate. That's an echo chamber.

If it's a con for gay, trans, race... (non-white? I don't know) to go without the fear of being persecuted (?) then all the power to them. But to say it's a movement or event that makes major ground in promoting tolerance of diversity they're just kidding themselves.

LifeCharacter:

mad825:
Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

I'm sure the people attending this would love to attend your idealized, fantasy con where everything's fun and no one harasses another. Shame douchebags attending most cons harass other people so much that they're no longer having fun and have to go out and make their own con to enjoy themselves.

I'm not too sure if you're trying to quote history...Because....That never really turned out well.

Abomination:
The problem with expressing yourself in a secluded echo chamber is that the very people you're looking to express yourself to are likely not even be there.

What about developers that might be interested in discussing whether they should be tackling issues of gender and sexuality in gaming? Because they'll be there.

It's hardly an 'echo chamber'. One thing I despise about contemporary media is the belief that to have a 'balanced debate' you need to have two people with radically opposed viewpoints. You see it all the time with AGW: rather than have a debate between a climate scientist and a geologist who both accept the science but disagree on long term projections, they'll have a debate between a climate scientist and a political commentator with no scientific credibility at all. Same thing applies here: even if everyone in the room were a proud card-carrying member of the LGBT community, you could still have a nuanced debate. You don't need to stick someone like Fred Phelps in there for it to become a 'debate'.

Shamanic Rhythm:

Abomination:
The problem with expressing yourself in a secluded echo chamber is that the very people you're looking to express yourself to are likely not even be there.

What about developers that might be interested in discussing whether they should be tackling issues of gender and sexuality in gaming? Because they'll be there.

To think what? "Okay, this con sure is much smaller than the other cons. Prices are less. Less merchandise is moving..."

The developers who go there don't go there for the Gaymers, they go their for the PR of waving the Gaymer flag.

It's hardly an 'echo chamber'. One thing I despise about contemporary media is the belief that to have a 'balanced debate' you need to have two people with radically opposed viewpoints. You see it all the time with AGW: rather than have a debate between a climate scientist and a geologist who both accept the science but disagree on long term projections, they'll have a debate between a climate scientist and a political commentator with no scientific credibility at all. Same thing applies here: even if everyone in the room were a proud card-carrying member of the LGBT community, you could still have a nuanced debate. You don't need to stick someone like Fred Phelps in there for it to become a 'debate'.

Who said anything about needing a polar opposite or radically opposed viewpoint? All you need is an opposing view point, otherwise it's not much of a debate.

As for the scientist comparison... I didn't know being a homosexual was a profession.

If you REALLY want to break ground in video games and have more games focused on LGBT issues then there is one definitive way to do that. GO MAKE GAMES THAT FOCUS ON SUCH ISSUES!

But, making games where the protagonist HAS to be LGBT, or a woman, or black, or anything kind of defeats the purpose of making it feel like such things are natural and fine. You know I've played a few games in the last couple of months that have featured a woman as the protagonist. "Remember Me", "They Bleed Pixels", and "Bleed". In all of these games never once was their a huge revelation or big major fuss made about the characters being female. Nilin just happens to be a girl, they make a big fuss about how she can alter memories, never about her being a girl. The young girl in "They Bleed Pixels" is a girl, and the story uses this to put the plot in an interesting setting, an all girls boarding school, but they never make a fuss about her BEING a girl. And Bleed just says, "This person wants to go kill all the heroes that are now the oppressors" but they never bring any real attention to the fact she is a girl, she just happens to be one. These games just present it naturally. Here is your protagonist, go nuts. Oh and she just happens to be a girl.

I feel like if you really want to make a game that legitimizes LGBT people then just go MAKE that game. Make a game where at some point it just happens to be the protagonist is lesbian or gay. I've been listening to the Podcast "Welcome to Nightvale" and they did this perfectly. The main character Cecil never makes mention that he is Gay or Bi. He's just a average person (average for Nightvale at least) and then in one episode he goes on a date with a guy and suddenly you realize, "Oh I guess he is gay." It's not some huge earth shattering moment, there isn't some huge announcement of "HE'S GAY!!!". It's just based on how the story goes, it's obvious he's gay or bi and that's that.

Creating an echo chamber where a bunch of people go to prattle on about how they should be taken seriously isn't going to get anything done, because ultimately you're not reaching the audience that needs to hear you out. This just makes me take them less seriously and makes me mad. Because at the end of the day if you want something to be done, then you should go out and DO IT! If you want games to conquer race, gender, sexuality, or any other issue then go out and do it! There has never been a time in history that it has been SO VERY EASY to create video games. Games that took months to make back in the day can be made in weeks. Games that use to take years to make can be done in months. Some games can still take years but all in all it's easier to do.

I'm just going to leave this video here that pretty much sums up my feelings on this issue. It talks about women in video games but you can easily apply it to LBGT or anything else.

Abomination:
As for the scientist comparison... I didn't know being a homosexual was a profession.

Scientists make a career out of knowing more about science then the majority of people. While homosexuals don't get paid for being homosexual, I would be under the assumption someone who's gay would have a better understanding of what it's like to be gay then the majority of people. It's really not difficult to see the comparison.

Frozengale:
Snip

But wouldn't the presence of people who want to see more of this sort of thing be enough to spark some attention? Obviously one convention isn't going to change the entire way the industry thinks, but just the presence of such an event demonstrates that there is some interest. Maybe not quite as noble as becoming a game developer to chase your dreams and make it a reality, but it's a video game developer's job to meet a need isn't it?

GeneralFungi:

Abomination:
As for the scientist comparison... I didn't know being a homosexual was a profession.

Scientists make a career out of knowing more about science then the majority of people. While homosexuals don't get paid for being homosexual, I would be under the assumption someone who's gay would have a better understanding of what it's like to be gay then the majority of people. It's really not difficult to see the comparison.

And yet, they could only offer one point of view on the issue.

Scientists can disagree about scientific principles, tests and what constitutes as evidence.

Homosexuals can't really disagree on what it means to be homosexual.

Now, if the panel was to include say... a major decision maker for an AAA company with a homosexual gaming community representative then I could see us having a "debate" but we know as well as anyone else it's not going to be a "debate". It's going to be a PR stunt.

But wouldn't the presence of people who want to see more of this sort of thing be enough to spark some attention? Obviously one convention isn't going to change the entire way the industry thinks, but just the presence of such an event demonstrates that there is some interest. Maybe not quite as noble as becoming a game developer to chase your dreams and make it a reality, but it's a video game developer's job to meet a need isn't it?

It's a video game developer's job to make games. Businessmen(er, people) assess the need then direct resources towards fulfilling that need based upon their projections for profit. Businessmen hire the developers.

Hope in one hand and shit in the other, which one fills up first? If a group wants big companies to take their niche seriously then they need to perhaps get together, with the funding they could be raising from this expo perhaps, and HIRE developers to make that game. Perhaps the bigger companies will take notice of the supposed success of the game if it is successful.

But don't expect the companies that have to answer to shareholders to take a niche risk.

mad825:

they can't live in a culture that is afraid to tackle and discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

Its called relating. Its nice to talk to other people who arent talking about how the want to bone my mom and actually WONT call me a faggot. Its only segregating if non LGBT arent allowed, which Im doubting.

Saelune:

mad825:

they can't live in a culture that is afraid to tackle and discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

Its called relating. Its nice to talk to other people who arent talking about how the want to bone my mom and actually WONT call me a faggot. Its only segregating if non LGBT arent allowed, which Im doubting.

Does this really happen at cons? I mean, I've heard people say it does but I've never actually seen any evidence of it.

Wouldn't con-goers get tossed out for harassing other goers?

Abomination:

GeneralFungi:

Abomination:
As for the scientist comparison... I didn't know being a homosexual was a profession.

Scientists make a career out of knowing more about science then the majority of people. While homosexuals don't get paid for being homosexual, I would be under the assumption someone who's gay would have a better understanding of what it's like to be gay then the majority of people. It's really not difficult to see the comparison.

And yet, they could only offer one point of view on the issue.

Scientists can disagree about scientific principles, tests and what constitutes as evidence.

Homosexuals can't really disagree on what it means to be homosexual.

Now, if the panel was to include say... a major decision maker for an AAA company with a homosexual gaming community representative then I could see us having a "debate" but we know as well as anyone else it's not going to be a "debate". It's going to be a PR stunt.

They wouldn't be debating what it means to be homosexual though. If there was a debate (while I'll concede there probably won't be, unless the con is hosting panels specifically for that kind of discussion) it would be about what would be acceptable representation in video games. Where would you draw the line, examples of video games that have already respectably explored the issue, etc. While yes, the majority of people who would join into this hypothetical discussion would be homosexual, this is where the differing opinions would begin to show. How central to the plot would the protagonist's sexuality have to be? Some may think it would be better as a detail. Some might think that it would be better as a more central theme throughout the entire game. There are many details that can be discussed, and in this I believe that a real debate will happen. The LGBT is not a hivemind. They are allowed to have differing opinions, even in discussions revolving around the LGBT.

Scientists explore multiple branches of science. They don't just repeatedly pummel the idea of what science is. While we don't know all of what science entails yet, and there is debate about what is and isn't scientifically accurate, we do share the same fundamental concepts of what science is as a concept. We all understand what homosexuality is, but we may not all come to the same conclusion of how to create a compelling video gaming experience exploring the theme.

GeneralFungi:

But wouldn't the presence of people who want to see more of this sort of thing be enough to spark some attention? Obviously one convention isn't going to change the entire way the industry thinks, but just the presence of such an event demonstrates that there is some interest. Maybe not quite as noble as becoming a game developer to chase your dreams and make it a reality, but it's a video game developer's job to meet a need isn't it?

Yes, and that would be a niche market. And we know there is that niche market for LGBT. We don't need an entire convention to tell us about that niche market though. And obviously the niche market is not being filled since we still have all these discussions. And if a niche isn't being filled it is NOT the job of game developers who already serve their own niche or own audience to then fill another niche. They have their audience, they don't need to try to please another. And like that video said, people who don't have that point of view have a harder time creating a game with that point of view in mind. So asking developers who are mostly straight males to develop for people that aren't any of those is a hard thing to ask. And that's why I don't like this con. I don't hate the LBGT community, I want them to toughen up and do it themselves instead of whining that someone else doesn't fill their niche.

I mean what do you have at this con that you wouldn't have at any other? If you look at the schedule and events for the first GaymerX it's pretty much a normal con, but they have a few more talks about LGBT stuff in games. Which would serve a better purpose at a bigger con where you can get people who aren't already gun-ho about the issue interested in it. Holding a con for people only interested in your subject and then thinking that will make developers listen is kind of hilarious. Making games about LGBT issues that sale, and sale well, would be much more convincing.

It's plain and simple. If you want to have your view represented then go represent it! Don't get a whole bunch of people together to just say, "HEY WE SHOULD HAVE OUR VIEW REPRESENTED!" and expect the people, who already have audiences mind you, to listen.

GeneralFungi:
If there was a debate (while I'll concede there probably won't be, unless the con is hosting panels specifically for that kind of discussion)

And that's the problem. It's not an avenue for what they have said in the article is for.

Sounds great on paper but come on... it's just a con for non-straight and non-cis people to go to so they can feel "safe"(?) at a con without the fear(?) of someone making fun of them for their gender and sexuality.

But I guess saying that doesn't sell as many tickets.

Damed if you do, Damned if you don't.

The common response when a group wants to change "x" more into something they want is "If you want x to be different make it yourself". When said group goes out and actually does this they still get attacked. Something about segregation and pointlessness?

Abomination:

GeneralFungi:
If there was a debate (while I'll concede there probably won't be, unless the con is hosting panels specifically for that kind of discussion)

And that's the problem. It's not an avenue for what they have said in the article is for.

Sounds great on paper but come on... it's just a con for non-straight and non-cis people to go to so they can feel "safe"(?) at a con without the fear(?) of someone making fun of them for their gender and sexuality.

But I guess saying that doesn't sell as many tickets.

I don't think that debating the value of a con is valid when the evidence for it's value to people is there. Over 2,000 people attended the convention. If there wasn't a need for such a convention then it wouldn't have been as much of a success as it has been. There are cons about stranger and more niche things that aren't openly scrutinized like this convention in particular. What sort of industry changing objectives does the 'National Redhead Day' convention held in the Netherlands need to have in order to be a legitimate con?

Frozengale:
Snip

For the record I am in agreement with you for the most part. I just think that if there was enough demand for it some developer somewhere may decide to tap into the niche market. This convention would be a valid piece of evidence for interest in games featuring LGBT themes. But of course a single convention wouldn't be enough to sway a major developer.

wulf3n:
Damed if you do, Damned if you don't.

The common response when a group wants to change "x" more into something they want is "If you want x to be different make it yourself". When said group goes out and actually does this they still get attacked. Something about segregation and pointlessness?

I am in full agreement with you. Similar to how some people are criticizing the idea of having a con for gay gamers, people would be very quick to critique the idea of having a game for gay gamers. "Do they really need their own video game?" etc etc etc.

wulf3n:
Damed if you do, Damned if you don't.

The common response when a group wants to change "x" more into something they want is "If you want x to be different make it yourself". When said group goes out and actually does this they still get attacked. Something about segregation and pointlessness?

Er, but that's not them going about and doing something about it. It's having a con.

If the medium lacks games of a certain nature and you wish there to be more games of a certain nature holding a con about that fact there are no games of a certain nature isn't going to magically result in there suddenly being more games of a certain nature.

Now, if they were actually funding the niche directly and people were "attacking" (that's very disingenuous by the way) them for that you would have a point.

weirdguy:

LysanderNemoinis:

mad825:

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

Bingo. While I do believe games are most definitely art, I almost don't want video games to be held to the same standard, because these days every movie or book, even comics, has to be "about something" or tackle this or that issue. While I'm all for video games exploring ideas and doing new things, I'm just worried that we'll stop getting games that are just meant to be fun, despite being weird or kinky (Bayonetta comes to mind), because they're not "inclusive" enough or some crap.

so, how many games can you count that have been legitimately improved by the inclusion of questionable material as opposed to being present for the sole purpose of selling more games based on the perception of popular demand?

like, if the characters were slightly less "sexy" or didn't feature large boobs, and wore moderately conservative clothing as opposed to skintight bodysuits or strips of chainmail or clothing with low cut tops and tiny to zero pants, would that have made you have less fun or put the game down?

I'm not saying that having sexy characters is automatically some benefit or I demand every game to be a T&A fest. Having cited Bayonetta, you could have stripped out all the sex appeal and still have an awesome game. The over the top sexuality just added a thick layer of irony and silliness to the proceedings. Conversely, X Blades tried to sell itself on its main character's ass and was an absolute snore-fest. What I was trying to say was if a game creator wanted to make a cheesy, over the top game like Bayonetta or Lollipop Chainsaw but decided to wind the game back, or Resident Evil Code Veronica nixed having a villain be a cross-dresser because that might be "offensive" to some group, then we're getting dangerously close to self-censorship.

If someone wants to make a pervy game, let them make the perviest game they can. And if it doesn't have the gameplay to back it up, then it rightfully won't make a dime. Likewise, if some game wants to be gay as could be, by all means let that die on the vine if the gameplay's shoddy, but let's not automatically think it's artistically superior to something that's just fun and silly for its own sake. Or that it should be immune to criticism because of it's message, see the bait and switch of Gone Home, and the reaction for some of its defenders.

Abomination:
Er, but that's not them going about and doing something about it. It's having a con.

Exactly, a con they want to go to. Rather than try to get other gaming conventions to cater for them they simply made their own. Where's the problem there? How is this proactive approach to creating something new rather than change something existing anything but respectable?

Abomination:

If the medium lacks games of a certain nature and you wish there to be more games of a certain nature holding a con about that fact there are no games of a certain nature isn't going to magically result in there suddenly being more games of a certain nature.

Because it couldn't possibly be a way for like minded people with individual skills to network and form groups with the goal of making games.

Abomination:

Now, if they were actually funding the niche directly and people were "attacking" (that's very disingenuous by the way) them for that you would have a point.

What does it matter what they're reason or goal is?

For whatever reason other gaming conventions aren't what they're looking for so they made their own. It in no way negatively affects anyone so why is there contention?

Straight male gamer here. I see no harm in what this does, like it or not, there are a lot of people who make it hard for others to enjoy this hobby. So when that happens, people seek out those who are alike and form groups to enjoy the activity and be comfortable with what they are doing, and they have every right. The more awareness of this sort of thing, and the better the situation hopefully gets, one day we can all be comfortable in gaming together.

I cannot wait for the day when majority of gamers are those that have fun, enjoy the hobby and don't hassle anyone due to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else that some people consider "different" and don't understand.

But I can understand the want and need for a con like this. Heck, I was bullied a lot at school etc and video games became something for me to escape that, plus I made a lot of friends to do with the hobby and it made me feel like I was part of something. In that way, I know what it is like to a degree, I'm sure there would be very few people who couldn't relate to that in some way shape or form.

I hope one day we can all get along and have fun with our games, because that is what the hobby should be about!

wulf3n:

Abomination:
Er, but that's not them going about and doing something about it. It's having a con.

Exactly, a con they want to go to. Rather than try to get other gaming conventions to cater for them they simply made their own. Where's the problem there? How is this proactive approach to creating something new rather than change something existing anything but respectable?

Because it's not how they're advertising it. So people are questioning the point of the thing.

wulf3n:

Abomination:

If the medium lacks games of a certain nature and you wish there to be more games of a certain nature holding a con about that fact there are no games of a certain nature isn't going to magically result in there suddenly being more games of a certain nature.

Because it couldn't possibly be a way for like minded people with individual skills to network and form groups with the goal of making games.

But they're not advertising it as such... that's why people like me are questioning what their goals are and, at times, suggesting ways they could have more effect.

wulf3n:

Abomination:

Now, if they were actually funding the niche directly and people were "attacking" (that's very disingenuous by the way) them for that you would have a point.

What does it matter what they're reason or goal is?

For whatever reason other gaming conventions aren't what they're looking for so they made their own. It in no way negatively affects anyone so why is there contention?

Because I want to see them satisfied and I do not believe their current methods are the most effective methods of doing so.

It's possible to ask questions or have an opinion over something without "attacking" it or the community attached to it.

yay for a convention for a whopping 2% of the population?

Can we have a con for red headed gamers next? There are about as many of them as gay gamers.

Really though, just seems like a waste of time and money. Far more will be accomplished at panels which were to be had at places like PAX that bring the issues to people who have no stake in it one way or another than to have an echo chamber.

Abomination:
Because it's not how they're advertising it. So people are questioning the point of the thing.

Exactly. It's existence is being questioned by those who have no investment in it, and are not impacted whatsoever by it's existance.

Abomination:

But they're not advertising it as such... that's why people like me are questioning what their goals are and, at times, suggesting ways they could have more effect.

Assuming they are oblivious to what you've suggested. Unless you go to the convention you really have no idea what the discussion/debate on the issues is going to involve.

Effectively you're questioning the effect of the convention without knowing the actions it's taking.

Abomination:

Because I want to see them satisfied and I do not believe their current methods are the most effective methods of doing so.

What are their current methods?

Abomination:

It's possible to ask questions or have an opinion over something without "attacking" it or the community attached to it.

When they get accused of "segregation" because they're holding a convention with a specific theme it's pretty easy to conclude they're being attacked.

this thread is a good example of why the convention is needed. you cant even have a news thread about a convention that deals with the LGBT aspects of gaming, etc without people saying it shouldnt happen.

no one would even be kicking up a fuss if it was a convention catering to different groups instead like disabled gamers, or female gamers, or rpg gamers, or flight sim gamers.

the more conventions the better and while it might not change the entire planet if its a safe area, where people can connect with others over their hobby and people take some good things away from it. brilliant.

as for saying its segregation .. having a look at the site involved covering the convention there is actually no rule saying you must be lgbt to attend!

Abomination:

Shamanic Rhythm:

Abomination:
The problem with expressing yourself in a secluded echo chamber is that the very people you're looking to express yourself to are likely not even be there.

What about developers that might be interested in discussing whether they should be tackling issues of gender and sexuality in gaming? Because they'll be there.

To think what? "Okay, this con sure is much smaller than the other cons. Prices are less. Less merchandise is moving..."

The developers who go there don't go there for the Gaymers, they go their for the PR of waving the Gaymer flag.

Which means they'll be more than happy to participate in any debates they have. Their opinions will then be reported by the media, and they'll make their way to the ears of people outside the conference.

As for the scientist comparison... I didn't know being a homosexual was a profession.

Point being what? My argument was that it's not just an 'echo chamber' simply because everyone there is gay or pro equal rights. There are multiple nuances of opinion one can take on the subject. The science comparison was intended simply to indicate how people with radically hostile views to the subject matter are chosen to take part in debates at the expense of people with moderately differing views who are eminently more qualified to engage in discussion, because media outlets are more interested in making them bicker and point-score than they are in having a real debate.

LifeCharacter:

mad825:
Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

I'm sure the people attending this would love to attend your idealized, fantasy con where everything's fun and no one harasses another. Shame douchebags attending most cons harass other people so much that they're no longer having fun and have to go out and make their own con to enjoy themselves.

Y'all should try going to cons in Canada.

wulf3n:

Abomination:
Because it's not how they're advertising it. So people are questioning the point of the thing.

Exactly. It's existence is being questioned by those who have no investment in it, and are not impacted whatsoever by it's existance.

I don't get what you're saying here. People are questioning what they're doing because it's not fully explained. Just because people are not "impacted" or whatever is not reason for their questions to be suddenly invalid.

Abomination:

But they're not advertising it as such... that's why people like me are questioning what their goals are and, at times, suggesting ways they could have more effect.

Assuming they are oblivious to what you've suggested. Unless you go to the convention you really have no idea what the discussion/debate on the issues is going to involve.

Effectively you're questioning the effect of the convention without knowing the actions it's taking.

Because from how it appears it's not being explained very well. At face value the whole thing doesn't seem very effective in carrying out its goals.

Abomination:

Because I want to see them satisfied and I do not believe their current methods are the most effective methods of doing so.

What are their current methods?

That's a great question. That's what people are asking.

Abomination:

It's possible to ask questions or have an opinion over something without "attacking" it or the community attached to it.

When they get accused of "segregation" because they're holding a convention with a specific theme it's pretty easy to conclude they're being attacked.

Yeah, funny that. I suppose I should be more considerate given the type of comments that have been directed at me for daring to question how they believe this would be effective while being accused of homophobia in the past.

Then again it's more self-segregation than actual segregation. Point still stands though. How do you convince the wider gaming audience of something when you remove yourself from the wider gaming audience?

 Pages 1 2 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