Drama in the indy gaming biz ?

[Malcador]

Thunderf00t's videos often rub me the wrong way but this is pretty good:

 

Beating BruceVC to the punch with this

 

 

Even if it's just a lot of passive aggressive snarking, but that comes with the territory

[Nonek]

As a moderate and a gamer (one who plays games recreationally, there is no other definition) I am fairly sure now that of the two sides: Those whom allegedly send death and rape threats, and those whom are trying to silence any dissenting voices to their lies, corruption and nepotism, while condemning millions of gamers as subhumans and in need of extermination, that the latter are more of a problem. Mainly because the former have done nothing, while the latter are complicit in censorship, corruption and nepotism on a massive scale.

 

With their juvenile agendas, self righteous preaching, total lack of ethics or accountability, a total failure to see why they need ethical or moral guidelines, and yet a firm belief that they are doing what is right, they present an utterly unpleasant and disgusting movement that propogates hate, untruths and the worst kind of currently fashionable political correctness. Obviously some developers whom are in bed with them, and have garnered perfect scores for clearly degenerate products will support them, as they can expect more perfect ten out of ten "professional" reviews. That and they propogate the same blunt, clumsy stereotyping and preaching at the audience, that shows a basic lack of respect for ones customers.

 

Once again as a moderate and a gamer I cannot turn a blind eye to such rampant corruption, nepotism, hate speech, and demonisation of me and millions of others whom are innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever. I especially resent this accusation coming from unethical, corrupt, bullying, censoring liars, whom are leeching off the industry we pay for, and yet see fit to criticise us.

 

Henceforth I shall withold my custom from anybody whom has dealings with these hate mongers, and if any petition arises that asks for us millions of gamers to be shown some basic respect, have a journalistic industry that is ethical and fit for purpose and stands up for integrity, freedom of speech and expression (which these people obviously hate) then I shall sign it without hesitation.

[Malcador]

Well, this drama has spawned the ultimate horror. TotalBiscuit singing

 

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/shania-bain-that-dont-impressa-me-much

[BruceVC]

I was curious what you guys are up to regarding all this, and felt compelled enough to log in regarding this:

 

 

 

No, just no. This is just the newest defence by some people in the SWJ crowd. No one is against more games with more diversity. This whole thing is about journalistic integrity and how some indie devs are sometimes literally in bed with reporters. Since they can't defend the act itself this is what they are doing: Gamers are bad. Gamers are misogynist. Gamers are sexist. Gamers are against change.

 

I don't take any offense to an article such as Leigh Alexander's reference to "gamers" (and the quotes is significant) because I know she's not talking about me.  She's not talking about a lot of people that do play video games.

 

Plenty of people are against games with more diversity.  I've seen them on BioWare's boards.  I've seen them on this board.  I see them on Youtube.  I see them on twitter.

 

 

The issue here is, as Bruce points out, there's a very loud group that is very, very particular about the title of "Gamer."  I literally had an exchange today on Twitter with some asshat that got defensive because I commented that I didn't care if someone that loved Candy Crush or other casual games self-identified as a gamer, and in fact welcomed it.  What I got was some exceptionally narrow retort about how it waters down the term and is (his words) "I wouldn't buy a steak from someone who see's beef flavored noodles on the same level as prime rib."  For him, the application of the term "Gamer" bestows some level of cultural capital and he is adamantly against those that do not fit his particularly definition applying the term to themselves.

 

There's a group of people that are very, very resistant towards outside influences that it resembles the proto-fascism that existed in Munich 1918.  That is, if outsiders join the group and try to assimilate, their credibility is questioned ("Fake geek gamer girls").  If they come in with their own ideas, then they are alien and ruining the purity of gaming as it is.  Both cases rely on some mythical, idyllic concept of purity that I question ever actually existed.  But they are loud and can be militant.  I see it on BioWare's message boards all the time.  Heck, with some of the announcements we've made it's all about the "corruption of the SP only experience" and attacking anyone that expresses an enthusiasm or interest in the idea of DAI having multiplayer.  The very idea that not only are we deviating from What Gaming is All About™ but that other people have the incredulity to actually support this?  Oh my god the sanctity of SP gaming is being eroded and I need to call to arms my brethren to ensure that this doesn't happen!

 

 

I identify as a gamer.  I have no issues with anyone that games, regardless of what they play, identifying as a gamer.  I like casual games because I know that some of those casual gamers will end up playing games that I like.  And hey, when I'm waiting in a doctor's office it's nice to play something simple that I can stop at any time and not care.  There's a symbiosis here that I have no issues with.  I like gaming.  I like gamers.  I want more people to become gamers.  But, to me, it was pretty clear whom the media was referring to when they said "gamers" and the particular identity that an insular, don't come into my club group of individuals are.  I can't really estimate how many of these people there are... but in my own anecdotal interactions they do appear to be well represented in a lot of online discourse.  From videos that go off all about how "why can't we make games that heterosexuals like" (we can) and all sorts of other bizarre points of view that I frankly didn't glean from any of Anita's videos but other people are insistent that she is saying in them.  For me, someone like Anita comes across as a pretty tame critique of what I do (and I have literally worked on games she has called out).  Basically "Hey guys, you tend to use a rather narrow range of tropes a lot of the time, and those tropes are kind of sketchy towards women... how about we mix it up a bit?"  But that certainly isn't the impression a lot of other people get.  This isn't even touching on the people that tweet me (or just come right onto the forum) to tell us (and others) how we aren't interested in "just making fun games" anymore and are more interested in pushing a PC agenda or whatever.  And it happens all the time.

 

 

Like almost any topic, the extremists get over represented, and I see someone like Leigh pointing the gun at the "Gamers" who are extremist and insular.  The over representation they have IS bad for the image of gamers to the rest of the world.  So I can understand the articles as being an explicit distancing from those extremist through alienating dialogue and so forth.  The idea of stating to people "these people do not represent us."  Whether or not alienating is better than "taking back the term" is up for debate.  I lean more towards trying to be more proactive as a relative moderate to add my voice to those other moderates.  Though if non-extremists don't join me, I suppose it'll end up being futile.

 

 

As for this all being about corruption in games journalism and whatnot.  Honestly I'm skeptical.  There's plenty of ammunition against games journalism already out there, and the arguments that many people make are rooted in aspects that are completely irrelevant to gaming journalism and instead founded upon the idea of discrediting someone like Zoe or Anita in the hopes that the well will be poisoned and people will find them irrelevant and no longer listen.  Every time someone mentions that Zoe considers cheating to be rape, they are making an argument that is irrelevant towards game journalism.  They're making a personal attack on her character to undermine her character.  Zoe sounds like she could be a pretty awful person, but that is pretty irrelevant.  And I have no real issue with places like Reddit and the likes shutting down the discussion because (as I know by helping out on BioWare's forums) the idea that people would ONLY discuss the relevant bits and NOT start going into her personal stuff is nil.  Unfortunately for those that wanted to discuss the corruption, their reddit forums for discussing were undermined by those that just couldn't wait to stick it to Zoe.  And those existed.

 

The idea that Zoe is already polarizing among some, in particular 4chan, isn't new.  With the Wizardchan controversy the seeds of animosity were already sown.  All it took was an upset ex-boyfriend to deploy the narrative that they wanted to see, and they ran with it.  Confirmation bias is easy to manifest, and hardly unique to 4chan or anyone else really.  Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable thing and the idea of hearing things that already support our views is pretty powerful and reaffirming.  Factor in Anita, a figure that is already quite polarizing in the discussion (hi Chaz!), and you have a group of very outraged individuals that perceive two targets as not only painting gaming as some awful, misogynistic feeding zone (I do not get this impression, but c'est la vie) but that they appear to be profiting off of it as well.  Damn skippy you're going to get some irrationally hateful individuals coming up out of that mess.

 

 

As for her having sex with people.  I think that that goes back to the problematic idea that some people have which makes sex a currency.  So no, I don't consider it equivalent to giving someone like Grayson actual funds.  People focus too much on the sex aspect and I agree with the notion that it's irrelevant and a complete non-sequitur.  Unless your goal is to shame and discredit.  But that's my 2 pennies on the subject and I'll return from whence I came!  It's late so I probably didn't make any sense anyway!

 

 

 

EDIT: I have no issues with Jim Sterling either, and he is frequently taking the company I work for to gears as well.  I don't really consider him an extreme SJW, and agree with him that the term is overused (same with MRA as a pejorative).  That said, in response to his criticism I don't threaten him or harass him online either!

 

Hi Alan "waves"

 

Excellent post, really good work. Great insights positioned in a way that  is reasonable and isn't belligerent. I miss your insights on SJ matters.

 

Hopefully you'll be posting more regularly but I imagine with DA:I imminent release you are quite busy on BSN

[Fighter]

Even if it's just a lot of passive aggressive snarking, but that comes with the territory

 

Yeah, yeah... But he is right here about Joss Whedon and SJW logic.

[Malcador]

Meant Logic Bomb or whatever, not Thunderf00t. Someone should ask Sarkeesian for a positive video, in that it is one where she lays out her ideal. Help to get a sense of what her endgame is.

[Fighter]

Meant Logic Bomb or whatever, not Thunderf00t. Someone should ask Sarkeesian for a positive video, in that it is one where she lays out her ideal. Help to get a sense of what her endgame is.

 

Yeah. I guess I should have qouted the whole post. I meant whatever real flaws Thunderf00t has this video gets it right.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Wow, that was dumb.

Was expecting more from you than that. Why do you think it is dumb?

 

 

Malc if you want insight on this matter read Alan's post, that's something that looks at this  whole development holistically and logically

 

But why is that video dumb IMO. Lets see...

 

• He uses constant profanity to make his point. He is obviously pandering to people who think the word  f***k  is cool and clever
• He offers no new insight into this matter and just regurgitates the same argument we have heard over and over again from people opposed to any understanding around what equality means in gaming
• He makes blanket generalizations about gaming journalists  and how much he detests them for not doing there job ( funny thing is before this Zoe incident I didn't think people like him cared much about gaming journalists...now people are so disappointed with there lack of integrity)
• And he does what many  people do when they intentionally choose to misunderstand the meaning of the word " gamers". I get why people do this, it gives a good excuse to vent and demonstrate outrage against these "evil feminists that are undermining our way of life"

I can give more reasons but this is just what I remember

Edited September 3, 2014 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

As a moderate and a gamer (one who plays games recreationally, there is no other definition) I am fairly sure now that of the two sides: Those whom allegedly send death and rape threats, and those whom are trying to silence any dissenting voices to their lies, corruption and nepotism, while condemning millions of gamers as subhumans and in need of extermination, that the latter are more of a problem. Mainly because the former have done nothing, while the latter are complicit in censorship, corruption and nepotism on a massive scale.

 

With their juvenile agendas, self righteous preaching, total lack of ethics or accountability, a total failure to see why they need ethical or moral guidelines, and yet a firm belief that they are doing what is right, they present an utterly unpleasant and disgusting movement that propogates hate, untruths and the worst kind of currently fashionable political correctness. Obviously some developers whom are in bed with them, and have garnered perfect scores for clearly degenerate products will support them, as they can expect more perfect ten out of ten "professional" reviews. That and they propogate the same blunt, clumsy stereotyping and preaching at the audience, that shows a basic lack of respect for ones customers.

 

Once again as a moderate and a gamer I cannot turn a blind eye to such rampant corruption, nepotism, hate speech, and demonisation of me and millions of others whom are innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever. I especially resent this accusation coming from unethical, corrupt, bullying, censoring liars, whom are leeching off the industry we pay for, and yet see fit to criticise us.

 

Henceforth I shall withold my custom from anybody whom has dealings with these hate mongers, and if any petition arises that asks for us millions of gamers to be shown some basic respect, have a journalistic industry that is ethical and fit for purpose and stands up for integrity, freedom of speech and expression (which these people obviously hate) then I shall sign it without hesitation.

 

Nonek did you read Alans post earlier? If not I recommend you do, it may change your opinion on this matter

[Malcador]

Nothing Schumacher wrote was any news to me even if it is gospel to you. Well maybe the insinuation that the Wrong People are proto-fascists, haven't heard that before. No surprise he thinks Alexander was alright with her diatribe, but a lot of the other articles on "gamers" being bad have a tone or just state that people that like the big named games or aren't into the art games are vile. Also having 10 articles or so drop at the same time all preaching at the audience will, get people's backs up.

 

It's fun for me, I'm rather enjoying watching this fight and the gaming "journalists" getting uppity.

 

Not too sure profanity is much of a slight against it, and as for repeating talking points...hmm, I'd say both do that. He does say that gaming "journalism" being whores isn't anything new, think there was a video last week where someone said all they ever were, are and will be are marketing dressed up as critics.

 

Fair enough, was a rather amusing rant to me. Point of the gaming "press" scolding their consumers was pretty on, even if all it is clickbait.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

Nothing Schumacher wrote was any news to me even if it is gospel to you. Well maybe the insinuation that the Wrong People are proto-fascists, haven't heard that before. Not too sure profanity is much of a slight against it, and as for repeating talking points...hmm, I'd say both do that. He does say that gaming "journalism" being whores isn't anything new, think there was a video last week where someone said all they ever were, are and will be are marketing dressed up as critics.

 

Fair enough, was a rather amusing rant to me. Point of the gaming "press" scolding their consumers was pretty on, even if all it is clickbait.

 

You know me Malc, I am not opposed to listening to a different argument. But its got to be done in a reasonable way or it loses emphasis for me  

 

The guy in the video just started annoying me after  about 40 seconds but I did watch the entire video

[Bos_hybrid]

 

 

 

 

Two questions. Who the hell is that Sean R. Moorhead? And why his/her/their/its tweets have any actual merit (that make them some other than social media noise from person that just want to get a rise out of other people) in one way or another in what the scandal/conspiracy/what ever of the day currently is?

 

Shows the mental deficiencies that some SJW have. But no one should paint all SJW with the same brush right? Pity it doesn't work that way for 'gamers'.

 

Instead some asshat threatens rape and all of a sudden we are all degenerate women hating chauvinists.

 

 

And what do you mean with SJW (paint people with same brush so that they are easier to attack?)?

 

You mean like the term 'gamer'.

 

 

Probably, I haven't read any of the so called gamergate articles so I can't be sure how term is used and who it is targeted at. But if I would guess I would say that it probably is similar, although I am bit skeptic that it is used same way to invalidate anything that people with different view of things are tried to silence as SJW is here and many other forums in internet

 

 

Current Journalists: If you criticize us, your a gamer(gamer now being a rape threatening chauvinist) and therefore any criticism you level against are questionable ethics and professionalism is invalid. To prove it we'll link to some asshats threatening rape against Anita, and insulting ZQ. And say nothing about the pretty damning claims made by other outlets. Now we are going to create a new name for gamers that can distinguish ourselves from the petty evil 'gamer'.

 

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

Two questions. Who the hell is that Sean R. Moorhead? And why his/her/their/its tweets have any actual merit (that make them some other than social media noise from person that just want to get a rise out of other people) in one way or another in what the scandal/conspiracy/what ever of the day currently is?

 

Shows the mental deficiencies that some SJW have. But no one should paint all SJW with the same brush right? Pity it doesn't work that way for 'gamers'.

 

Instead some asshat threatens rape and all of a sudden we are all degenerate women hating chauvinists.

 

 

And what do you mean with SJW (paint people with same brush so that they are easier to attack?)?

 

You mean like the term 'gamer'.

 

 

Probably, I haven't read any of the so called gamergate articles so I can't be sure how term is used and who it is targeted at. But if I would guess I would say that it probably is similar, although I am bit skeptic that it is used same way to invalidate anything that people with different view of things are tried to silence as SJW is here and many other forums in internet

 

 

Current Journalists: If you criticize us, your a gamer(gamer now being a rape threatening chauvinist) and therefore any criticism you level against are questionable ethics and professionalism is invalid. To prove it we'll link to some asshats threatening rape against Anita, and insulting ZQ. And say nothing about the pretty damning claims made by other outlets. Now we are going to create a new name for gamers that can distinguish ourselves from the petty evil 'gamer'.

 

 

 

It nice that you see fit to use very wide brush (entire profession) to attack people when you accuse them using too wide brush to attack people. I don't think that will help situation in anyway. 

[Nonek]

 

Nonek did you read Alans post earlier? If not I recommend you do, it may change your opinion on this matter

 

 

Yes I did Bruce, and to me it was an apologist statement for the hate mongers, bought into their demonisation of gamers as the problem, and handwaved away game journalists and developers bearing any responsibility or having any basic journalistic integrity.

[Malcador]

You know me Malc, I am not opposed to listening to a different argument. But its got to be done in a reasonable way or it loses emphasis for me  

 

The guy in the video just started annoying me after  about 40 seconds but I did watch the entire video

If I can suffer through Sarkeesian's nasal voice and the smirk etched on her face or Stirling's voice (strangely only he and Rob Ford make me homicidal just by seeing them on screen for 30 seconds), you can take some cussing Cuban guy.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

 

 

Nonek did you read Alans post earlier? If not I recommend you do, it may change your opinion on this matter

 

 

Yes I did Bruce, and to me it was an apologist statement for the hate mongers, bought into their demonisation of gamers as the problem, and handwaved away game journalists and developers bearing any responsibility or having any basic journalistic integrity.

 

Okay then I give up trying to convince you that you have an overly negative outlook on this whole matter. I'm not saying you are wrong in everything you say because I know there are extremist views on both sides and I do understand how you think you are being treated with contempt by gaming journalists. I don't agree with it but I understand that's how you feel

 

But question, how is that people like me and many others don't see the negative description around the word " gamers" , we know it refers to certain gamers only? Why is it you feel its an attack on all gamers despite all the explanations given?

[BruceVC]

 

You know me Malc, I am not opposed to listening to a different argument. But its got to be done in a reasonable way or it loses emphasis for me  

 

The guy in the video just started annoying me after  about 40 seconds but I did watch the entire video

If I can suffer through Sarkeesian's nasal voice and the smirk etched on her face or Stirling's voice (strangely only he and Rob Ford make me homicidal just by seeing them on screen for 30 seconds), you can take some cussing Cuban guy.

 

 

Yeah true, and that's why I did watch the whole video

[Bos_hybrid]

 

It nice that you see fit to use very wide brush (entire profession) to attack people when you accuse them using too wide brush to attack people. I don't think that will help situation in anyway. 

 

Have yet to see ONE journalist say anything against this. Sure plenty of bloggers and Youtube personalities have, but not one from a single major gaming site. Therefore one must assume they all hold the view.  Or been told to have this view.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Bos_hybrid

[Nonek]

 

 

 

Nonek did you read Alans post earlier? If not I recommend you do, it may change your opinion on this matter

 

 

Yes I did Bruce, and to me it was an apologist statement for the hate mongers, bought into their demonisation of gamers as the problem, and handwaved away game journalists and developers bearing any responsibility or having any basic journalistic integrity.

 

 

Okay then I give up trying to convince you that you have an overly negative outlook on this whole matter. I'm not saying you are wrong in everything you say because I know there are extremist views on both sides and I do understand how you think you are being treated with contempt by gaming journalists. I don't agree with it but I understand that's how you feel

 

But question, how is that people like me and many others don't see the negative description around the word " gamers" , we know it refers to certain gamers only? Why is it you feel its an attack on all gamers despite all the explanations given?

 

 

Because there is only one definition of gamer Bruce, and that's what they mean, the millions of us whom play games recreationally. English is the largest language in the world, there are plenty of other words to choose. They have proved over many years that they have no respect for their audience, have no qualms about preaching at them like they are dumb children, forcing their own intellectually bankrupt and untruthful agendas on their readers, all while exercising no journalistic integrity, ethical behaviour or reasonable seperation from their source maater.

 

They are unfit for purpose, my view is not negative but moderate and critical. When one practises journalism in politics one does not take money, prizes and awards from politicians, nor do you become their friends. You gain acquaintances and associates, whom you must report on and use, but not whom you act as a mouthpiece for. If this happens then you are facing a conflict of interest and must recuse yourselves. This is basic journalistic integrity, that these people do not obey nor see any need to.

 

I question the intentions of anybody who handwaves this away and apologises for the hate speech they are now propogating against millions, if they choose to be blind towards any negative aspects of the movement they are serving as a mouthpiece for that is their priority, but to me this makes them mindless puppets parroting their masters dogma.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Nonek

[Elerond]

 

 

It nice that you see fit to use very wide brush (entire profession) to attack people when you accuse them using too wide brush to attack people. I don't think that will help situation in anyway. 

 

Have yet to see ONE journalist say anything against this. Sure plenty of bloggers and Youtube personalities have, but not one from a single major gaming site. Therefore one must assume they all hold the view.  Or been told to have this view.

 

 

You didn't speak what journalist have said or not said, but instead you said that if you criticize any journalist (not specified even in gaming journalist) in any subject (as you didn't specify subject that you or other are criticizing) they will say that you are gamer, which they mean a rape threatening chauvinist and they will brush of you criticism as invalid. 

 

And now you are saying that anybody that don't speak against something is for it, did I understand correctly? So anybody that has not said something against death and rape threats that some people mentioned in this topic have got, or we can go even further and say people that haven't said anything against specific murders, rapes or other crimes that constantly happen around world must be assumed being in favor of those things? Have I understood your logic correctly?

[Amentep]

I was curious what you guys are up to regarding all this, and felt compelled enough to log in regarding this:

 

No, just no. This is just the newest defence by some people in the SWJ crowd. No one is against more games with more diversity. This whole thing is about journalistic integrity and how some indie devs are sometimes literally in bed with reporters. Since they can't defend the act itself this is what they are doing: Gamers are bad. Gamers are misogynist. Gamers are sexist. Gamers are against change.

 

I don't take any offense to an article such as Leigh Alexander's reference to "gamers" (and the quotes is significant) because I know she's not talking about me.  She's not talking about a lot of people that do play video games.

 

I take offense at people taking a term that SHOULD be neutral and SHOULD be inclusive of all gamers and declaring the meaning actually means a sub-group of gamers. Language means certain things, and I'm not fond of the concept of changing the meanings of words so as to label a subgroup and marginalize them, even if I don't agree with that subgroup.

 

Because when you start applying a negative label to people, it becomes a cudgel to curb disagreement.

 

"Oh you didn't like my game/article/award/list?  YOU'RE A GAMER!"

 

Plenty of people are against games with more diversity.  I've seen them on BioWare's boards.  I've seen them on this board.  I see them on Youtube.  I see them on twitter.

 

And plenty of people are asshats online who'd never be in real life. 

 

The issue here is, as Bruce points out, there's a very loud group that is very, very particular about the title of "Gamer."  I literally had an exchange today on Twitter with some asshat that got defensive because I commented that I didn't care if someone that loved Candy Crush or other casual games self-identified as a gamer, and in fact welcomed it.  What I got was some exceptionally narrow retort about how it waters down the term and is (his words) "I wouldn't buy a steak from someone who see's beef flavored noodles on the same level as prime rib."  For him, the application of the term "Gamer" bestows some level of cultural capital and he is adamantly against those that do not fit his particularly definition applying the term to themselves.

 

And he's wrong. If he wants to make an exclusive term for himself, let him, but gamer is a general term, it has implications outside of video games and the people interested in that type of gaming.

 

By classing all gamers as the "white guy who doesn't want women and minorities in his club" you've not just classed video gamers, but board gamers, card gamers, pen and paper role playing gamers into it as well. A board gamer who goes to Gen-Con and naively identifies himself as a gamer just stepped on a land mine he may have had no way to know was planted - all because someone has decided to arbitrarily decide that gamer is an exclusive, not inclusive word.

 

I'm not for that.  I'm not for turning a general term into an exclusive label, and I'm not for tarring a lot of good people because there are bad amid their group.

 

There's a group of people that are very, very resistant towards outside influences that it resembles the proto-fascism that existed in Munich 1918.  That is, if outsiders join the group and try to assimilate, their credibility is questioned ("Fake geek gamer girls").  If they come in with their own ideas, then they are alien and ruining the purity of gaming as it is.  Both cases rely on some mythical, idyllic concept of purity that I question ever actually existed.  But they are loud and can be militant.  I see it on BioWare's message boards all the time.  Heck, with some of the announcements we've made it's all about the "corruption of the SP only experience" and attacking anyone that expresses an enthusiasm or interest in the idea of DAI having multiplayer.  The very idea that not only are we deviating from What Gaming is All About™ but that other people have the incredulity to actually support this?  Oh my god the sanctity of SP gaming is being eroded and I need to call to arms my brethren to ensure that this doesn't happen!

 

Isn't this just an outgrowth of the elitism in the industry? I've been posting online since the early 90s and the console wars, the console vs PC dichotomy has been a negative aspect of the fandom of video games for some time and IMO it is this kind of idea that perpetuates people being "well this is what gaming is all about."

 

BUT that doesn't mean that is what being a gamer is.  A gamer is a person who plays games and anyone who argues otherwise is WRONG.

 

I identify as a gamer.  I have no issues with anyone that games, regardless of what they play, identifying as a gamer.  I like casual games because I know that some of those casual gamers will end up playing games that I like.  And hey, when I'm waiting in a doctor's office it's nice to play something simple that I can stop at any time and not care.  There's a symbiosis here that I have no issues with.  I like gaming.  I like gamers.  I want more people to become gamers.  But, to me, it was pretty clear whom the media was referring to when they said "gamers" and the particular identity that an insular, don't come into my club group of individuals are.

 

And that would be fine if the suggestion was "lets root out the exclusionary elements of gaming". If this was "#embracegaming" as a movement (as stupid as I think hashtag activism is).

 

Instead its a label, and its a mis-attributed label because now a lot of people like yourself who identify as a "gamer" can't use the word without being thought of as an exclusionary idiot.

 

And coming on the heels of potential ethical problems within the game industry, and game journalism in particular, for that industry to up and declare a label that applies to all gamers is now the domain of exclusionary idiots who have always been the fringe element in gaming looks an awful lot like starting a fire in the trashcan across the street so no one notices that your garage is burning.

 

Like almost any topic, the extremists get over represented, and I see someone like Leigh pointing the gun at the "Gamers" who are extremist and insular.

 

But the problem is, she's pointed the gun at the larger group and said "you're all extremists and insular" unless, of course, you choose to adopt a word - a label - other than gamer to call yourself.  And anyone who doesn't is going to be labeled as an extremist or insular.

 

Language, concepts are important and we shouldn't stand idly by as they're co-opted to become labels that are, in their way, as exclusionary as the asshats they intended to marginalize.

 

As for this all being about corruption in games journalism and whatnot.  Honestly I'm skeptical.  There's plenty of ammunition against games journalism already out there, and the arguments that many people make are rooted in aspects that are completely irrelevant to gaming journalism and instead founded upon the idea of discrediting someone like Zoe or Anita in the hopes that the well will be poisoned and people will find them irrelevant and no longer listen.  Every time someone mentions that Zoe considers cheating to be rape, they are making an argument that is irrelevant towards game journalism.  They're making a personal attack on her character to undermine her character.  Zoe sounds like she could be a pretty awful person, but that is pretty irrelevant.  And I have no real issue with places like Reddit and the likes shutting down the discussion because (as I know by helping out on BioWare's forums) the idea that people would ONLY discuss the relevant bits and NOT start going into her personal stuff is nil.  Unfortunately for those that wanted to discuss the corruption, their reddit forums for discussing were undermined by those that just couldn't wait to stick it to Zoe.  And those existed.

 

I don't disagree that every time a person mentions the "Zoe Quinn definition of Rape" they're not talking about the larger issues and instead are just pulling in unsavory personal life aspects that are none of our business to pillory someone they don't like (or who they think represents issues in gaming they don't like).

 

When people are talking about game reporters who've slept with game developers and wrote positively about their games (in one case, including links to where to buy said game in their positive article) , about how a group of friends and people in relationships are interconnected through a PR firm and that PR firm is tied to gaming websites, game producers and an "independent" game award, then certainly there seems to be the potential for suspicious influence worth investigating.

 

As the saying goes, "it is not enough to have done no wrong, one must avoid the appearance of impropriety"

 

As for her having sex with people.  I think that that goes back to the problematic idea that some people have which makes sex a currency.  So no, I don't consider it equivalent to giving someone like Grayson actual funds.  People focus too much on the sex aspect and I agree with the notion that it's irrelevant and a complete non-sequitur.  Unless your goal is to shame and discredit.  But that's my 2 pennies on the subject and I'll return from whence I came!  It's late so I probably didn't make any sense anyway!

 

There's a reason why its bad ethical conduct to hire people you're in a relationship with for your company, so generally speaking the fact that a game developer may have slept with 5, 100, 1000 people is irrelevant, but if they slept with someone who could give them a job over other candidates, give them favorable coverage over other games, give them an award over other games then, I disagree with you.  There is an ethical issue that has nothing to do with the sex and a lot to do on having an undue influence in what should be unbiased professional decisions.

 

I get it, the video gaming industry - particularly the indy scene - probably is a case of "everyone knows everyone else" and there are a lot of friendships, relationships that will naturally crop up. That's okay - even if it is a game journalist and a game developer provided that the journalist recuses themselves from reviewing the developer's games and provided the journalist makes the relationship clear to the reader (even if its a simple "X and I are friends" in the article. I'd also argue such disclaimers would be necessary even if the relationship breaks-up at some point so the reader can gauge if the article has a bias against the person now that the relationship has soured.

 

But its pretty clear that there are a few incidents where this kind of disclosure hasn't happened (or has happened only now, years after the fact with the two articles that were mentioned changed by the Kotaku writer who has nothing to do with the "Zoe Quinn" bit in one of those videos).

[Malcador]

It nice that you see fit to use very wide brush (entire profession) to attack people when you accuse them using too wide brush to attack people. I don't think that will help situation in anyway. 

Seems pretty widespread, reading about one does feel they are all of the same mind about this. And the set of "journalists" is quite a lot smaller. Not that you're much concerned about "helping" the situation.

[Elerond]

 

It nice that you see fit to use very wide brush (entire profession) to attack people when you accuse them using too wide brush to attack people. I don't think that will help situation in anyway. 

Seems pretty widespread, reading about one does feel they are all of the same mind about this. And the set of "journalists" is quite a lot smaller. Not that you're much concerned about "helping" the situation.

 

 

I am only spectator, at least so I see my relationship with the situation, from perspective of this topic, in the situation, who comments things to his own amusement, so it isn't my intention or purpose to be helpful in this situation.  

 

 

EDIT:

This piece from a journalist about situation fits quite well with my view of the situation.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn

Edited September 3, 2014 by Elerond

[Fearabbit]

But its pretty clear that there are a few incidents where this kind of disclosure hasn't happened (or has happened only now, years after the fact with the two articles that were mentioned changed by the Kotaku writer who has nothing to do with the "Zoe Quinn" bit in one of those videos).

 

Could you be more specific? Because I haven't heard of any articles where someone who has slept with a developer gave that person a good review or anything of the kind.

That's what I found so fascinating about this "scandal" - the facts were entirely made up.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFSYAn6pPFg

Wow, that was dumb.

Was expecting more from you than that. Why do you think it is dumb?

 

 

He's screaming profanities at the screen about how an industry (in this case, video game journalism) makes profits off him while offering no worthwile products in return and how it's been going on for years now. I'm sorry, but if one continues to feed money to the providers of a service he actively hates, for years after determining how said service is not to his liking, that person is fully deserving of the label "dumb".

 

 

They have proved over many years that they have no respect for their audience, have no qualms about preaching at them like they are dumb children, forcing their own intellectually bankrupt and untruthful agendas on their readers, all while exercising no journalistic integrity, ethical behaviour or reasonable seperation from their source maater.

 

They are unfit for purpose, my view is not negative but moderate and critical. When one practises journalism in politics one does not take money, prizes and awards from politicians, nor do you become their friends. You gain acquaintances and associates, whom you must report on and use, but not whom you act as a mouthpiece for. If this happens then you are facing a conflict of interest and must recuse yourselves. This is basic journalistic integrity, that these people do not obey nor see any need to.

 

Amen brother.

 

Still, we didn't need this scandal to see how gaming journalism is rife with nepotism, the complete lack of professionalism they display, or them being talentless hacks. Actually, none of these things have anything to do with the message they're pushing, and I think conflating the two issues serves only as a convenient defense: the journalists involved can point to their detractors and decry them as backwards-dwelling cavemen (or what was the charming expression an enthusiastic young man has used here a few months ago?) who wish nothing more than to obstruct Progress and Justice, while subliterate idiots who can't differentiate between a fresh turd and an actual article can scream about how they totally want Standards and Journalistic Integrity while in reality the only wish they have is to silence any socially conscious critique of their favorite games.