Drama in the indy gaming biz ?

[Fighter]

In Anita's own words games are teaching men misogyny and they need to change. This is one of the main points she pushes. So, no, it's not just about having more games that are for women or both. It's also about feminist oversight of games that are for men, she wants games and other media to be your feminist nanny.

[Amentep]

 

Maybe its nothing - often I find situations like this in my normal employment involve accidental oversights on follow-through rather than intentional malfeasance (it didn't occur to me to disclose that we were once friends) but maybe its something too. I can't really say unless someone impartial (is there anyone impartial though to do this?) is able to view the facts, divorce them from the "narratives" and the "relationships" (real and imagined) being spun by people with agendas and look and see what - if anything - actually exists.

 

This is how I feel about it as well. I actually do not think that you have to disclose friendships unless you're actually reviewing a game though. But then again I think that people take this way too seriously. I'm not actually paying Kotaku anything for their services, so calling for journalistic standards feels weird from the start. If you want to demand something, pay for it.

While I can see your point, if the newspaper (for example) was publicizing a play (not reviewing, just talking it up a bit) at the local theater and the star of the show was dating the person who wrote the article, wouldn't that feel like a conflict of interest? That the paper is being used as a tool to hide what would be a PR piece as substantive culture news?

 

Or maybe the play is culturally significant and deserves to be publicized on its artistic merit regardless of who does it, but at least in stating the relationship you give the reader information that helps them understand that significance is deserved and not through personal relationships.

 

But I've ruled myself an old fart by mentioning newspapers, so maybe my views are skewed by traditional media outlets. All I know is these bloggers need to get off my lawn.

 

And yet they actually care about integrity (of course, since it's good for business) and the worst we could find are two articles about games made by friends, both of which were written more in a "well this is interesting, take a look" way and weren't actual endorsements (also one game was a free browser game). I think they're doing quite good. *shrugs*

I'd think so as well at this point, and as I mentioned very likely it is a simple oversight that weren't intended to intentionally mislead. Can't really know without investigation (which maybe isn't our business but that of Kotaku's management).

 

As for the whole "gamers" thing - come on. We all know that lots of people think in terms of "true gamer vs. Candy Crush player". There is an elitist subculture that is actively trying to claim the title "gamer" for themselves. The articles where they say that "gamers are dying" and so on are clearly directed at this subculture. Either you're* part of that group, then you can be offended if you want (but nobody would care and you'd actually be proving the point), or you're just being offended over semantics, which is silly.

I agree there is an elitist subculture in gaming (there are, in my opinion, several, to be honest). I disagree its not an important issue to discuss though. As someone who has, as a primary hobby gaming (video games, board games, pen and paper role playing games) I have to consider myself a gamer by definition. But I'm being told that due to a sub-culture that is considered undesirable and that I in no way identify with (I'd argue several different ones, but still) that suddenly I can't embrace my hobby.

 

Maybe it is wrong to feel put out, but I fail to understand why - when I've done nothing wrong *I* suddenly have to change, my definition and concepts have to change. I didn't do anything wrong. These people don't represent me, they don't represent gamers in the true sense and we should be embracing being a gamer and rejecting them, not rejecting them both.

 

IMO. I'm old and cranky. And people who love and play smartphone games are every bit as much a gamer as I am.

 

I want to ask you two questions Amentep and anyone else is also welcome to answer

I am Amentep, and I shall answer these questions.

 

• When I started the feminist thread I used two English dictionary definitions of the word Feminism to explain what the word actually meant. I did this because several members on these forums kept saying the word meant " a hatred of men "," advancement of women at the expense of men", " a world where men had no place and were redundant " and other similar false definitions. But despite what the dictionary said I was told repeatedly by several members that the definition nowadays has a connotation and it " doesn't matter what the dictionary says because that's not what the word means". I don't remember you or Nonek jumping into that discussion and making the point that the dictionary definition should always be relevant. I believe Nonek actually disagreed with me around what the word means nowadays. In fact at the end of that discussion I actually agreed the dictionary definition wasn't accurate anymore around feminism and decided to say I cared about gender equality going forward.

To be honest, I just avoided that thread in general because (IMO) people's perceptions of feminism so completely colors the discussion that discussion of it is always going to be rendered a pointless tug of war online.

 

That said, the definition is the definition. Feminism is no more about the hatred of men than communism is about the hatred of communes.

 

One (rather annoying) habit of arguments - particularly regarding academic approaches to sociological structures is that people on both side like to play fast and loose with definitions and therfore change the playing field for the opponent. It becomes hard to argue intelligently your point when the other side has given new and arbitrary definitions to key words in the debate.

 

Its just damn wrong.

 

So which is it? Do we believe dictionary definitions or do we accept that certain words in a certain context don't mean the literal meaning in the dictionary?.

A living language will have evolved meanings. What is happening in these cases is that people are loading words with meanings beyond what they are so as to recontextualize the other side. To - in essence - label them. Labeling something (or someone) is the first step in diminishing and decreasing their viability as a monolithic group because people who dislike how the label is loaded will find a new self-adopted label to distinguish themselves and only those who are steadfast will stick with the label (or will adopt it to be "edgy" or "ironic").

 

But loading context to a word doesn't change its meaning in society unless the society accepts it. I think we should reject these things, on general principal. We should be better than labels and we should be able to admit that our group isn't what it should be, look at it critically and find other ways to deal with those aspects of our group we don't like.

 

 

• I have often mentioned on these forums I get my game reviews from several sources that include websites like Gamespot, Eurogamer and RPS. The response was almost universally comments like " heh, you think gaming journalists have any integrity" or " you can't trust any gaming website for accurate reviews". So most of the people on this thread had very little respect for gaming journalists from 2 years ago. But yet now we hear comments like " gaming journalists have betrayed our trust", and " gaming journalists have comprised there integrity ", and " gaming journalists have sold out there fans". But most people thought this about them anyway. So why all this outrage now? Surly it shouldn't feel like a such a crusade against gamers if you didn't value there opinion anyway. So where is this anger and disappointment really coming from?

I look forward to the responses that follow

I'm neutral on games reviews - just like movie review and book reviews. You read any reviewer who has a shred of consistency in thought and you'll be able to figure out from what they thought whether you'll like the reviewed movie/book/play/game.

 

I think - in general - though people online tend towards cynicism with regard to anyone else online. Nature of the beast kind of thing. And it has been a concern that for years the primary money in games journalism is from game and those who make game technology. This has been stated since the 1980s, so its not new, its not terribly secret. The point is to go in with eyes open, and hope that the journalists meet you halfway and - at the very least - are honest about their dealings.

 

There does seem to be a blur with game websites between what we'd call "journalism" and "bloggers" and it is perhaps a point in time where gamesites need to decide if they're game journalists or game bloggers and make such a distinction clear to their readers?

 

In Anita's own words games are teaching men misogyny and they need to change. This is one of the main points she pushes. So, no, it's not just about having more games that are for women or both. It's also about feminist oversight of games that are for men, she wants games and other media to be your feminist nanny.

And to be fair, she's only one voice, whose specific concerns (good, bad or indifferent) can be addressed and analyzed. The idea that there will be a secret cabal of women who will suddenly make games "their way" and we who are not in the cabal will suddenly have nothing to play is, at best, silly.

 

Because at the end of the day, games are business and the dictates of the market will decide what gets made. But at the end of the day if one game developer sits down and asks - "Does this game need to go to strip club and does it really need to make you walk past the dancers and does it really need to you to be able to see the dancers in their dressing rooms?" before including a strip club in the game, then is the world really hurt?

Edited September 3, 2014 by Amentep

[Nonek]

And as someone in one of those "gamers are dying out" articles wrote, this kind of criticism is to be expected for a medium that wants to be taken seriously. Look at the reviews for Hollywood blockbusters and you'll find the same arguments.

 

 

Haven't we moderates been arguing for more impartial criticism from the beginning? With the principles of journalistic integrity upheld, games judged impartially by critics who have no personal connection to the industry, who maintain only associates and acquaintances in the industry not friends, who will not accept cash gifts, prizes or awards from the industry, who will not act as pr for publishers hype, who most certainly will not appear in developers games, who will not have sexual relations with developers without recusing themselves from any matter pertaining to them, who will declare any friendships or potential conflicts of interest as a matter of course, who will try and suppress any bias and maintain objectivity at all times.

 

Ideally we would also have an independent body to oversee this and levy financial fines and worse against anybody whom flaunts these very basic guidelines, that should come naturally to anybody with a journalism degree. Anybody interested in integrity should be asking for the same, instead of thinking that they are free to pick and choose what ethics they adhere to. Until some semblance of this is achieved, I will continue to argue that games journalism is unfit for purpose.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Nonek

[Longknife]

In Anita's own words games are teaching men misogyny and they need to change. This is one of the main points she pushes. So, no, it's not just about having more games that are for women or both. It's also about feminist oversight of games that are for men, she wants games and other media to be your feminist nanny.

 

At this point I think we can all agree we don't want her or Silverstring as our nanny. A few of us may say "honestly I don't give a **** cause the issue seems too small to matter" and that's understandable, but I think if given a choice of supporting or condemning that group, all of us pretty much condemn it. If not for a disagreement with the feminist agenda, then for the fact that the woman is a liar and is incapable of being non-bias. Even if you too have a distaste for the "hardc0re gamurz" culture that calls you a phag when they land a noscope 360 MLGpro headshot, that doesn't warrant lying zealots taking over the industry instead. AT LEAST the 1337 gamurz can just be muted and GG, cause none of them go out of their way to try and gain influence to tell everyone how 1337 they are.

 

 

 

 

  To me we all seem to be in agreement more or less, so the real question is where does it all go from here? Can we change anything? Will we? I mean what's frustrating is I get the sense that none of us listened to this girl or her ideologies that much anyways (because even from a feminist perspective, her lies and deceit make her hard to take seriously)...yet the very same journalism market we've complained about before for other reasons seems to eat this crap up to an extent. And when someone speaks out, it's a matter of "OMG SEXIST!" It's like how often I hear in political stories that people are "race-baiting" and playing the race card just to gain sympathy. I've never found that to be too widespread; at most you will encounter a guy who is not-so-ideally-resistant and helps escalate the situation thusly, but you don't doubt his sincerity and that he truly was scared that his race made him a target. Here though? I'm sure they're convinced this truly is about gender, but omg the ****ing gender-baiting is ridiculous. And sadly it's effective. Or at least, moreso than it should be.

 

 

Sadly, in my honest opinion....I likely see this ending up with status quo and nothing but. Silverstring media may lose credibility when all this is said and done, but they're STILL zealots. They're not gonna go away. So gg everyone, we get to hear feminist mantras preached to us when we read gaming news or watch gaming-related events and awards ceremonies....even when they're entirely unwarranted. (again, see Anita implying New Vegas was sexist)

[Orogun01]

Well, it was impossible for this not to spill into the real world. Now real journals seem to be taking notice

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126

[Longknife]

Well, it was impossible for this not to spill into the real world. Now real journals seem to be taking notice

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126

 

 

Good, honestly. We need this.

 

 

Here's something that popped in my mind though: so obviously there's fringe stances on all sides. Yes there are total losers who scream insults on the internet and in games and treat women like ****. Yes there are feminists who are absolutely insane. Why on earth though does it seem like feminism is the movement where somehow, the fringe zealots always seem to "rise to the top" and find their way to the pedestal to give speeches? I mean gamers don't really have a representative on a pedestal with the ability to give speeches to the community as a whole who has nothing to add but "**** scrubz and filthy casuls, also women shuld go make sammiches" and instead we get dorky dudes and corrupt game reviewers. Feminism however consistently seems to pop up here and there in little sub cultures or whatever and the fringe voices are ALWAYS there and ALWAYS loud with plenty of "support" in the sense that while there's plenty of women shouting that "they do NOT represent us or feminism," those fringe-feminists somehow managed to get to a position that allows them to speak "on behalf" of all feminists.

 

 

How the HELL does that keep happening? It seems rather odd to me the more I thought about it. The vast majority of self-proclaimed feminists I know are just female friends who want equal rights in society. That's the most reasonable stance in the world. But when it comes to them as a collective or attempting any sort of movement, omfg we get the psychos.

 

Just kinda baffles me considering there ARE plenty of loser gamers. We could all log Counter Strike, TF2, CoD or any other online game right now and find idiots screaming like children, but when we form as a collective or for some sort of movement, those idiots get locked in the basement so they can't speak. How do feminists consistently forget to lock away their fringe idiots? Kind of odd.

 

And before anyone accuses, no I'm not implying "IT'S BECAUSE ALL FEMINISTS SECRETLY SUPPORT THOSE EXTREMISTS!" I'm sincerely curious as to how that seems to happen and how the extremists repeatedly plague and speak on behalf of feminism as I know from personal experience that the vast majority of women would name themselves feminists but disagree with the extremists.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I'm not for the censorship or governance of art. PERIOD. Art is about expression, no matter how sexist, racist, ignorant or simple-minded your expression may be. That Anita would name "I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" as sexist is practically the posterchild for why censorship or governance of art doesn't work: because those governing art are bound to misinterpet or not understand certain types of art and then art as a whole stagnates and loses diversity, which goes against EVERYTHING art is about. I'm concerned because a group of people involving this very same overzealous, idealistic, close-minded, manipulative and deceitful (yes, she does lie and yes, she does present info in misleading ways. That's not debate, that's fact) woman seem to have the clear goal of gaining influence within the industry. Yes it's par for the course as the gaming industry was already bias and corrupt for other reasons (money buying off good reviews, Doritos pope), but from an artistic perspective...? (and no I'm by NO MEANS claiming games are incredible art as a mere .5% probably qualify as "art" in my book) From an artistic perspective this group is worse. Doritos pope wasn't trying to dictate what games can and cannot do, he was simply taking Bungie's **** in his mouth in exchange for cash.

 

 

 

I've still yet to see how they could possibly gain enough influence to actually affect game development in any tangible way. Until I receive proof that there is actually a way for them to force big publishers to listen to them, I'm going to treat these fears as having zero roots in reality.

 

And if we're all agreeing that there is no proof of their ability to curtail artistic freedom, then people who are throwing around these accusations are basically saying that because they don't like Silverstring & Co's message, they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions. Which is kind of ironic, because I really can't see the big difference between their group desperately wanting to stop developers from making games they don't like while having no power to enforce said desire, and their opponents desperately wanting to stop them making critiques and articles said opponents don't like, while also having no power to stop them.

 

 

 

Silverstring media may lose credibility when all this is said and done, but they're STILL zealots. They're not gonna go away. So gg everyone, we get to hear feminist mantras preached to us when we read gaming news or watch gaming-related events and awards ceremonies....even when they're entirely unwarranted. (again, see Anita implying New Vegas was sexist)

 

 

And this is bad because people are holding a gun to your head and forcing you to consume what these journalists put out.

 

I mean, really, "vote with your wallet" is sound advice.

[Fighter]

They have already exerted influence. The disproportionate fuss and outrage campaigns that these people are able to put up over 'problematic' content are probably now taken into account in at least some companies. Plus they can be downright gatekeepers when it comes to smaller indie devs that aren't these social justice snowflakes.

 

EDIT: Here come the scam artists and opportunists:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lawyers-against-gaming-corruption

Edited September 3, 2014 by Fighter

[Azdeus]

I'm not surprised though, it's indiegogo, they let anything up on their site, sillyness like perpetual motion machines amongst others.

[Zoraptor]

 

...has it actually been confirmed if she slept with people? If not then what’s the fuss about (besides the death threats and other BS that have spawned from the cesspool that can be the Internet)? Her ex accused her of sleeping around, sure, but it wouldn’t be the first time someone was an asshat after a break-up and I’m, honestly, slightly skeptical of his word unless there is some other evidence.

 

 

Yes, there's independent confirmation for two at least. OTOH, two of the initial 'suspects' appear not to have been involved at all, so it's a 50-50 strike rate either way.

 

 

Papers Please lost in a competition to Depression Quest because of the panel which had close connections to Zoe Quinn.

 

Okay I checked it and this is not true.

 

 

Orogun's is a garbled version of an infographic of what happened at Night Games, which was run by one of ZQ's alleged romantic liasons. Not one of the more inherently convincing accusations, certainly.

[Shallow]

 

Well, it was impossible for this not to spill into the real world. Now real journals seem to be taking notice

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126

 

 

Good, honestly. We need this.

 

 

Here's something that popped in my mind though: so obviously there's fringe stances on all sides. Yes there are total losers who scream insults on the internet and in games and treat women like ****. Yes there are feminists who are absolutely insane. Why on earth though does it seem like feminism is the movement where somehow, the fringe zealots always seem to "rise to the top" and find their way to the pedestal to give speeches? I mean gamers don't really have a representative on a pedestal with the ability to give speeches to the community as a whole who has nothing to add but "**** scrubz and filthy casuls, also women shuld go make sammiches" and instead we get dorky dudes and corrupt game reviewers. Feminism however consistently seems to pop up here and there in little sub cultures or whatever and the fringe voices are ALWAYS there and ALWAYS loud with plenty of "support" in the sense that while there's plenty of women shouting that "they do NOT represent us or feminism," those fringe-feminists somehow managed to get to a position that allows them to speak "on behalf" of all feminists.

 

 

How the HELL does that keep happening? It seems rather odd to me the more I thought about it. The vast majority of self-proclaimed feminists I know are just female friends who want equal rights in society. That's the most reasonable stance in the world. But when it comes to them as a collective or attempting any sort of movement, omfg we get the psychos.

 

Just kinda baffles me considering there ARE plenty of loser gamers. We could all log Counter Strike, TF2, CoD or any other online game right now and find idiots screaming like children, but when we form as a collective or for some sort of movement, those idiots get locked in the basement so they can't speak. How do feminists consistently forget to lock away their fringe idiots? Kind of odd.

 

And before anyone accuses, no I'm not implying "IT'S BECAUSE ALL FEMINISTS SECRETLY SUPPORT THOSE EXTREMISTS!" I'm sincerely curious as to how that seems to happen and how the extremists repeatedly plague and speak on behalf of feminism as I know from personal experience that the vast majority of women would name themselves feminists but disagree with the extremists.

 

Just a guess, but in general gamers aren't shy about ****talking eachother if they disapprove of something the other person/group is doing, it's an integral part of gamer culture outside the casual lands of occasional tetris, this is a hobby and the people practicing it generally have strong beliefs in support of free speech, and anonymity, the hobby also existed and gave us plenty of time to start throwing **** at eachother before this whole thing started and big groups of us more or less unite in disapproval. Feminism isn't a hobby, it's an ideology, the same way it is generally ultranerds who take the mantle up against the journalists here, it is the dedicated feminists who are willing to rise to the occasion. The dedicated portions of both groups have a disproportionally large amount of whackjobs, as we're people with a hobby, and we've been ********alking and arguing with eachother since the dawn of gaming, no one is gonna accuse us of "betraying the movement", seeing as we aren't really a movement, and seeing as us behaving like that is tradition.

Feminism on the other hand is a political movement, and debate isn't democratic, just because most females agree with the moderate dedicateds doesn't mean they're the ones with the power to shape public perception, nor the power to shape the debate. The reason the whackjobs end up with the power they have is probably a mixture of two things:

If you distance yourself from the whackjobs up front, regardless of whether you're up front or not, you'll be actively causing conflict within the movement, which even other moderates will disapprove of (as it is weakening the greater goal), therefore the most extremist portions of the group that don't actively distance themselves from the moderates will be able to say what they say, and any internal opposition is supressed.

It's hard to know whether someone has a point before you pay them to make their statement, even if you know how whackjob they are, you don't know if they've got a reason to be, and if you're a casual gamer but still a feminist, you won't know whether what they're saying about games is true, Anita's a good example. When you have a moderate person making reasonably argued statements in a pleasant manner you won't see deaththreats, you won't see insults, you won't see large amounts of disapproval and smaller amounts of insane disapproval, sure such a moderate might be capable of convincing us that some change would be nice, but she won't get the free advertising someone like Anita gets, the insults, threats and hate alone gets feminists giving Anita more money, the same thing plus the massive drama plus knowing feminists will support you gets journalists writing about how great she is and how horrible we are, the power of negative response propels her forwards, making her the flagship of feminism in gaming. And if you think you'd be considered a traitor, or just destabilize and damage the movement by distancing yourself from a deducated feminist, it'll be a million times worse when you attempt to sink the flagship.

 

tl:dr The main purpose of gaming isn't pushing the gaming agenda, it's having fun playing games, thus we can freely destabilize the potential greater agenda without betraying a bit of what we stand for. The main purpose of feminism is advancing its policies, thus any act that could destabilize the movement, or push it back slightly, is seen as high treason.

 

Also, that whole death threat thing is probably taken way out of proportion, how many of us have never had someone shout deaththreats at us in a fit of rage before calming himself down, during a very heated argument or towards the end of a fight? Let alone had someone write such in a fit of rage.

[Orogun01]

 

EDIT: Here come the scam artists and opportunists:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lawyers-against-gaming-corruption

I know that one of the guys that started this has been on the GamerGate issue for a while, it basically began as him and a few other posters on 4chan.

 

Anyways the TFYC campaign is 15k short of meeting their goal with a month to go, it looks as if they might make it. Which is a good thing.

[kirottu]

*snip*

I'm sorry. I should have explained myself better, but I was never one for long posts. I'll try to do better this time.

 

The reason why I used "hate speech", even when it didn't fit the definition, was because the rhetoric used is the same. Examples:

 

"Muslims are terrorist."

"That's racist. Majority of muslims aren't terrorists."

"Obviously I'm talking only about the muslims who are terrorists."

 

"Blacks take advantage of welfare."

"That's racist. Majority of blacks aren't like that."

"Obviously I'm talking only about the blacks who do that."

 

"Women can't drive."

"That's sexist. Majority of women can drive."

"Obviously I'm talking only about the women who can't drive."

 

They use this technique so they can safely blame whole group of people for actions of few. They use this technique because in their minds all muslims are terrorists etc. and they want you to think the same. What's even worse that it seems to work, at least when you don't see it for what it is.

 

"Gamers are misogynists."

"That's not cool. Majority of gamers aren't like that."

"Obviously I'm talking only about the gamers who are misogynist."

 

To my mind that is hate speech even when it doesn't fit the definition, because it's only used to spread hate.

 

I still don't like long posts so I'm going to end this with a video from boogie.

Edited September 4, 2014 by kirottu

[Fighter]

And to be fair, she's only one voice, whose specific concerns (good, bad or indifferent) can be addressed and analyzed. The idea that there will be a secret cabal of women who will suddenly make games "their way" and we who are not in the cabal will suddenly have nothing to play is, at best, silly.

 

Because at the end of the day, games are business and the dictates of the market will decide what gets made. But at the end of the day if one game developer sits down and asks - "Does this game need to go to strip club and does it really need to make you walk past the dancers and does it really need to you to be able to see the dancers in their dressing rooms?" before including a strip club in the game, then is the world really hurt?

 

For developers to be asking that. They should because it's a cheap and overdone trick, and for that specific example the world would not be worse off. But they shouldn't be intimidated to 'be inclusive' when they don't want to be. Not everything has to be targeted at everyone and if they want to make something that's just pure and base male fantasy they should without fear of the mob.

 

Not a cabal of women and not any hyperbolic feminazi regime obviously. And they won't necessarily succeed any time soon. But a hostile atmosphere in the media where content is nitpicked and games get bad publicity for bull**** reasons by overcompensating social justice types where people aren't just weary of the aforementioned strip clubs but ironically enough even of complex and flawed female characters.

 

I'm a big fan of a free for all. Want female centric content? Create a demand for it but don't police what others have.

[Longknife]

 

I mean, really, "vote with your wallet" is sound advice.

Agreed and that's what you or I would rationally do, but unfortunately the gaming community doesn't exactly seem rational.

 

We're talking about communities where australium frying pans are three thousand dollars and dozens of people throw cash at FarmVille daily to get just a smidgen more progress, and somehow corrupt gaming sites are still afloat.

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of....

 

 

Wasn't this one of the websites supposedly being influenced by Silverstring media? I forget: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/HeidiMcDonald/20140903/224782/Why_Women_Should_Be_Angry_About_The_Sims_4.php

[Fearabbit]

Saying that "gamers are misogynist" is in any way the quintessence of the articles I read is nothing but gross falsification. In those articles, nobody says that. It is not implied either. What is being said is that a hardcore group that used to be the dominant market is losing its importance and that the individuals who belong to this group are angry about that, and that this anger manifests itself in different ways.

 

The articles are also pretty clear about who they're talking about. They're not saying "all gamers", they're saying "these gamers". Or they put it in quotation marks to signify that the word is not theirs, but that the group itself uses it to describe itself. In any case, it is clear that not all gamers are being targeted. They're obviously not talking about "casual gamers" in their articles for example. That's actually the whole point, the breakdown of these barriers that have been put up by the "true gamers".

 

And I think if we want to have an intelligent discussion about this, then we need to try to understand what the author is actually trying to say, not what it could imply if we prefer to be dramatic about it.

[kirottu]

It's exactly what they are doing. First they say how bad the gamers are and then later on "clarify" that they are only talking about small group of gamers, but the connection has already been made: "all gamers are bad".

 

It's a basic trick, but if you can't see it then you can't see it.

[Fearabbit]

It's exactly what they are doing. First they say how bad the gamers are and then later on "clarify" that they are only talking about small group of gamers, but the connection has already been made: "all gamers are bad".

 

It's a basic trick, but if you can't see it then you can't see it.

 

Why would gaming journalists do that?

[Longknife]

 

It's exactly what they are doing. First they say how bad the gamers are and then later on "clarify" that they are only talking about small group of gamers, but the connection has already been made: "all gamers are bad".

It's a basic trick, but if you can't see it then you can't see it.

 

 

Why would gaming journalists do that?

The same reason they'd accuse the Sims 4 of being sexist for having a Bro personality trait?

[Fighter]

The articles are also pretty clear about who they're talking about. They're not saying "all gamers", they're saying "these gamers". Or they put it in quotation marks to signify that the word is not theirs, but that the group itself uses it to describe itself. In any case, it is clear that not all gamers are being targeted. They're obviously not talking about "casual gamers" in their articles for example. That's actually the whole point, the breakdown of these barriers that have been put up by the "true gamers".

 

These people have no right to use the word "gamers" in this way just because they explain something or other. Because these are the same people that will start pissing acid if you use "women", "feminists", "SWJs", etc. in a similar manner.

 

In their own views this is stereotyping that affects negatively the entire community which falls under the umbrella of the term in question. They know what they are doing perfectly well. So you can say "they've explained who they mean" but they know what they are doing between those lines. It is calculated to attack not just the minority of insult and threat tossing trolls but the people who disagree moderately. Because they can't attack them directly but hate just as much. It's doing so in a subtler more insidious way by attaching the negativity to all of us by association.

 

When they drop blatant hypocrisy then maybe they can make claim to using "gamer" in such a way.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Fighter

[Meshugger]

 

Saying that "gamers are misogynist" is in any way the quintessence of the articles I read is nothing but gross falsification. In those articles, nobody says that. It is not implied either. What is being said is that a hardcore group that used to be the dominant market is losing its importance and that the individuals who belong to this group are angry about that, and that this anger manifests itself in different ways.

 

The articles are also pretty clear about who they're talking about. They're not saying "all gamers", they're saying "these gamers". Or they put it in quotation marks to signify that the word is not theirs, but that the group itself uses it to describe itself. In any case, it is clear that not all gamers are being targeted. They're obviously not talking about "casual gamers" in their articles for example. That's actually the whole point, the breakdown of these barriers that have been put up by the "true gamers".

 

And I think if we want to have an intelligent discussion about this, then we need to try to understand what the author is actually trying to say, not what it could imply if we prefer to be dramatic about it.

 

I remember when Death Metal and Black Metal was on the rise in beginning of the 90's. It caused a great schism in the the ever so tight metal-community. It was a time of confusion as well, since this put into question whether NWOBHM bands such as Iron Maiden and Judas Priest were "true" metal to begin with. Or vice versa, maybe Morbid Angel and Mayhem have created true metal once and for all.

 

But thankfully, the journalists of Revolver, Decibel and so on showed great courage and stepped up and created a new narrative, one that saved the industry. Through intelligent discourse and with perfect classist/marxist dialect, they declared Metal-fans as a dead identity and that everyone should accept the new Metal that includes everyone, no matter if they were more interested Satan or in Industrial decline. Thus, the genre was saved as new fans replaced the old ones and everyone came together as one, happiness was on the horizon.

 

 

 

 

Or maybe it didn't happen and genre(s) just developed organically without any outside force. The argument "True Metal" became an argument on some message boards, but nothing more.

[Fearabbit]

Guys. "They" are gaming journalists and they are gamers themselves. You're saying that they're generalizing and attacking all gamers - of course they don't do that. Why would they? That'd be shooting yourself in the foot. Just... think about it for a minute, what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

 

The same reason they'd accuse the Sims 4 of being sexist for having a Bro personality trait?

 

Not the same people. (Also not a gaming journalist, at least not one I'd heard of before.) That article is obviously stupid and ridiculous and I don't know why you brought it up. It adds nothing to the discussion except "look how stupid some of them are". Yeah, great.

 

@Meshugger: In the articles I'm referring to, that's exactly what's being described. An organic change that can't be stopped. And some people are having problems with it. I don't know where you get the idea from that these articles want to enforce some kind of new world order. They talk about the change and the unwillingness to cope with it in some groups of gamers.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Fighter]

Guys. "They" are gaming journalists and they are gamers themselves. You're saying that they're generalizing and attacking all gamers - of course they don't do that. Why would they? That'd be shooting yourself in the foot. Just... think about it for a minute, what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

 

Again apply their own logic to them. This is internalized hatred just like the women that are not pro "collective Sarkissian" would be dismissed. They would be fine to not identify as gamers anymore if they can burn the people who disagree with them in the process.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Fighter

[Meshugger]

 

@Meshugger: In the articles I'm referring to, that's exactly what's being described. An organic change that can't be stopped. And some people are having problems with it. I don't know where you get the idea from that these articles want to enforce some kind of new world order. They talk about the change and the unwillingness to cope with it in some groups of gamers.

 

 

No, the point clearly went all over your head. No metal magazine, certainly not 10 in unison declared the "Metal-fan" or "True Metal" identity is dead and everyone should adapt. It was never even on the radar because the whole point is simply too stupid.

 

Now apply the same logic back to games.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Meshugger

[Malcador]

What is wrong with elitism anyway (one of the charges these enlightened 'journalists' are making)? This whole "games must be for everyone" approach is why I can't get a decent Rainbow Six game ever again