Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[Elerond]

Is Kotaku known from its critical coverage, especially reviews about VPN services?

 

Because I feel that there is quite big difference to do sponsored articles about subjects that you/your site don't cover in regular basis than doing same for subjects that you regularly cover. Which is I find sponsored gaming content in gaming sites/channels/etc. be bit more troubling than sponsored coverage of content that those sites/channels/etc. don't regularly cover. 

 

And I find it maybe bit ironic to claim that sponsored content don't matter as site that I think to be corrupted does so too.

 

For full disclosure: I personally think that Kotaku is poor gaming site that I read only when somebody else links it in conversation and I watch boogie's videos occasionally, as I find them somewhat entertaining.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think the journalists are just mad because they aren't getting paid as much.

[Nonek]

Mr Pot? Hello i'm Mr Kettle.

 

A touch singed aren't you Mr Kettle?

[Oerwinde]

Is Kotaku known from its critical coverage, especially reviews about VPN services?

 

Because I feel that there is quite big difference to do sponsored articles about subjects that you/your site don't cover in regular basis than doing same for subjects that you regularly cover. Which is I find sponsored gaming content in gaming sites/channels/etc. be bit more troubling than sponsored coverage of content that those sites/channels/etc. don't regularly cover.

 

And I find it maybe bit ironic to claim that sponsored content don't matter as site that I think to be corrupted does so too.

 

For full disclosure: I personally think that Kotaku is poor gaming site that I read only when somebody else links it in conversation and I watch boogie's videos occasionally, as I find them somewhat entertaining.

Kotaku, at least lately, is a weird mash of odd gaming-related stuff, like guys killing everyone in Fallout 3, or a guy in Shadoes of Mordor replacig a warchief's entire retinue with his slaves, japanese culture stuff, vaguely gaming related crossposts from around Gawker media, and ad articles for services. With the occasional gaming news post. It used to be much more gaming centric.

[Ineth]

Ok, remember when I called Erik Kain an "anti-gamergate moderate" earlier in this thread?

Well I guess I have to revise that, as his more recent writing sounds decidedly pro-gamergate (though still moderate and professional): http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/

 

Maybe the hate he received from culture warriors and other journalists for failing to toe the party line 100%, pushed him over the fence...

 

Anyway, the sad thing is that there is now not a single anti-gamergate journalist whom I respect - from where I'm standing, it looks like their side is now entirely represented in public by writers who are only interested in furiously vilifying and denouncing both #gamergate and gamers (and anyone who does not join them in that crusade).

[Ganrich]

I think The Dell guy and the Verge article pushed Erik Kain to a more Pro-GG stance. I think it is also that he has been trying to push a sit down debate on the issue, and from what I have seen the Pro-GG people have been pretty agreeable while the journalists keep pouring gasoline on the fire.

[kirottu]

*snip excellent points*

 

At the same time, I do not approve of people constantly attacking you in abusive and ridiculing ways and I wish they would stop. We are trying to have a discussion here and that's not helpful. If anything, they are giving weight to the claims that Gamers want to shut dissenting voices up.

 

You made excellent points on why that Verge article isn't valid. I didn't have the strength for that and instead lashed out. I'm sorry.

 

But do think Bruce will reply to your points? No. He will simply go silent for few pages and then come back when the next "gamers are dead" article is posted: "Oh, look! All those valid points this article is making." *Smiley face* 

[kirottu]

Left- diverse xoxo convention. Right- button mash tournament.

 

[Longknife]

...and in today's news of GamerGate:

 

Kotaku writing about corruption with youtube-reviewers/LPs: https://archive.today/SgCx8

 

Francis, that fat, white, cis-privileged neeeeerd with his channel of 1.9 million subscribers, did not like it:

 

 

Oh, guess who wrote the article? Nathan Grayson.

 

"Hey everyone!! LOOK OVER THERE!!"

 

Even if it were true, that does not absolve kotaku of guilt. It merely adds boogie and some others to the boycott list. And as stated, boogie was entirely transparent about it and warned about the deal before showing the game. That kotaku can't figure that out is pretty pathetic.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, someone else with Michael Jackson's syndrome! That's rare!

Edited October 10, 2014 by Longknife

[Lexx]

I am wondering if all this talk is racist against white boys. I mean, it all sounds like you should be ashamed if you are a white boy. :>

[Fighter]

 

Left- diverse xoxo convention. Right- button mash tournament.

 

 

I'm honestly amazed at just how many of these I have seen. They just keep pedalling that "white cis male" mantra without any thought.

 

 

I am wondering if all this talk is racist against white boys. I mean, it all sounds like you should be ashamed if you are a white boy. :>

 

According to many SJWs white men are too low on the oppression scale to warrant any consideration when it comes to bigotry.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Fighter

[Blarghagh]

I might be offended if I defined myself as "white man", but how I was born does not define me or anyone else.

 

Of course i know, but Francis is much more funnier, dammit!

 

Hey I noted my confusion about that I couldn't tell, tone on the internet is hard to read! I was of two minds about it.

 

I think The Dell guy and the Verge article pushed Erik Kain to a more Pro-GG stance. I think it is also that he has been trying to push a sit down debate on the issue, and from what I have seen the Pro-GG people have been pretty agreeable while the journalists keep pouring gasoline on the fire.

 

Erik Kain did a great job organising those debates. This is how it's done. I also respect Greg Tito for showing up and speaking up for the journalists in the face of the entire internet scrutinizing him. I may not agree with most of his arguments (i.e. boycott being censorship) but that took some stones.

 

 

*snip excellent points*

 

At the same time, I do not approve of people constantly attacking you in abusive and ridiculing ways and I wish they would stop. We are trying to have a discussion here and that's not helpful. If anything, they are giving weight to the claims that Gamers want to shut dissenting voices up.

 

You made excellent points on why that Verge article isn't valid. I didn't have the strength for that and instead lashed out. I'm sorry.

 

But do think Bruce will reply to your points? No. He will simply go silent for few pages and then come back when the next "gamers are dead" article is posted: "Oh, look! All those valid points this article is making." *Smiley face* 

 

 

I don't need him to reply. I'm pretty sure he read it, regardless of whether or not he acknowledges it. At the same time, let's say Bruce is objectively in the wrong here. Does it mean he can be lumped in with people doing harassment? It's that sort of behaviour that made this whole mess happen in the first place. Here's a good rule of thumb: If Leigh Alexander would do it, intelligent people shouldn't.

 

 

See, this is the kind of thing that ****ing pisses me off. Ironically, it makes my SJW blood boil because these ****ing **** are super racist and if they are supposed to be the open-minded people, then the human race is ****ing doomed. How can they be so ****ing racist and still pretend to be the good guys? It's things like this that make me want to go right back and go unabashedly Pro#GG because it would actually be defending minorities from white mansplaining hipster douchebags. But I'm not going to, because minorities in #GG have consistently proven they can stand up for themselves just fine and don't need me to it for them.

[Longknife]

 

 

*snip excellent points*

 

At the same time, I do not approve of people constantly attacking you in abusive and ridiculing ways and I wish they would stop. We are trying to have a discussion here and that's not helpful. If anything, they are giving weight to the claims that Gamers want to shut dissenting voices up.

 

You made excellent points on why that Verge article isn't valid. I didn't have the strength for that and instead lashed out. I'm sorry.

 

But do think Bruce will reply to your points? No. He will simply go silent for few pages and then come back when the next "gamers are dead" article is posted: "Oh, look! All those valid points this article is making." *Smiley face* 

 

 

I don't need him to reply. I'm pretty sure he read it, regardless of whether or not he acknowledges it. At the same time, let's say Bruce is objectively in the wrong here. Does it mean he can be lumped in with people doing harassment? It's that sort of behaviour that made this whole mess happen in the first place. Here's a good rule of thumb: If Leigh Alexander would do it, intelligent people shouldn't.

 

 

 

I think his point was more that he's questioning Bruce's desire to actually have productive and open-minded debate while accusing everything Bruce says as being highly bias and meaningless. There is no consideration of right and wrong, there is no consideration one's own stance might be the wrong one or flawed in some way, there's only blind loyalty. And I'd be inclined to agree with this stance; hell, I may have invented it. I think I was the first to bluntly state there's nothing productive to be seen from debating with Bruce.

 

  While harassment shouldn't happen of course, I believe people are simply becoming frustrated and sick of it all. It's that sense and that attitude of....why do you keep coming here pretending to be interested in productive debate when in reality you only give opposing views a blanketed "excellent post" statement while otherwise ignoring them and focusing on things that promote your OWN agenda?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you heard me correctly. Feminism - at least the portion that supports that quote - is literally attacking....facts.

Oh please, let's not act like we're not attacking a group as a whole here, Long. This post is completely transparent. 

 

So this thread has just devolved into a circle jerk about how dumb feminists are. 

 

Okay.

 

 

 

I missed this pages back, but...

 

What? Not quite understanding your point here. You saying I AM attacking all feminists with this? I clearly state "at least the ones who agree with that quote" in my post, and I meant it. If it's one lesson to take away from this, it's that feminism is by no means an organized ideology. Gamergate itself is proof of this, as it's an example of various feminists with various beliefs managing to fight and disagree with one another. That's why I almost always explicitly state "at least some" when referring to it, because I know plenty of self-proclaimed feminists who want nothing more than equal pay in jobs who don't deserve the negative attention that some of the more extreme ones do.

 

  And IF feminism as a collective adopts a negative connotation despite such little statements of clarification....? Kindly do not shift the blame to people like myself who simply respond to self-proclaimed feminists who say terrible things, and blame the people saying the terrible things.

[Blarghagh]

I get what you are saying. Let's say, for sake of argument because I don't really care to make that value judgement about him, that Bruce isn't interested in serious debate. Does that mean others should sink to that level? Is it helpful to abuse him? If he's not interested in serious debate, do we show him to be better by showing him not being interested in serious debate either?

 

I just don't like people being ridiculed because they're not perfect. So far he seems to be only be guilty of harming people's patience.

[Longknife]

I get what you are saying. Let's say, for sake of argument because I don't really care to make that value judgement about him, that Bruce isn't interested in serious debate. Does that mean others should sink to that level? Is it helpful to abuse him? If he's not interested in serious debate, do we show him to be better by showing him not being interested in serious debate either?

 

I just don't like people being ridiculed because they're not perfect. So far he seems to be only be guilty of harming people's patience.

 

 

I get that too, but I think the general attitude is "what do we have to lose?"

 

Not to sound like an ass, but when I spoke out and said I don't think anyone values his opinions as he's seemingly undeniably bias, I got ignored by him until now. No offense, but I didn't miss a thing. I don't feel like I've missed out on ANYTHING by being ignored, or like I passed up opportunities at productive debate.

 

Personally I'm less worried about it though because while I'm not blind to the hostility in this thread, I don't think (or at least I hope) anyone would take it personal or hold a grudge about it that carries on outside of this thread and this subject. To me, THAT would be harassment if that happened. What we see now isn't ideal, but I'm sure it'll calm down. It's just (understandably) kind of difficult to tell someone "hey your opinion is kinda worthless to me on this matter" without SOME degree of hostility. ;P 

 

But hey that's just my opinion and I get where you're coming from completely.

[Blarghagh]

I get your point too. I just prefer to try and respect everyone's opinion and be polite, whether they have merit or not. Lord knows I've lost my temper on this board myself before, but I don't think that should be the accepted default. The internet has enough rude jerks as it is without me adding to it. In fact, a lot of this debate has taught me that keeping a level head is important. It's the TotalBiscuits that are going to get out of this with dignity and respect, not the Thunderf33t.

 

EDIT: Another thing regarding the validity of that The Verge article by that guy with no qualifications, education or factual observation via Erik Kain.

 

 

 

“The gamer is threatened by women who share his tastes, and calls them “fake geek girls,”" he writes, no matter that the “fake geek girls” article in question was written by a woman.

 

I think at this point, the lack of validity of that article is entirely unquestionable.

Edited October 10, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Left- diverse xoxo convention. Right- button mash tournament.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that a group composed almost entirely of white men using white male as an insult is strange?

 

Edited cause lack of morning caffeine.

Edited October 10, 2014 by KaineParker

[Blarghagh]

I don't think you are because the 90% straight white men among game journalists statistic has been lampooned several times in this thread.

 

At times I think the projection of angry white guys who get their toys taken away is a projection, as YouTubers supplanting these games journalists at a rapid pace means they are angry white guys getting their toys taken away.

[Elerond]

 

EDIT: Another thing regarding the validity of that The Verge article by that guy with no qualifications, education or factual observation via Erik Kain.

 

 

“The gamer is threatened by women who share his tastes, and calls them “fake geek girls,”" he writes, no matter that the “fake geek girls” article in question was written by a woman.

 

I think at this point, the lack of validity of that article is entirely unquestionable.

 

I am not sure what the original point behind quote is, but that article that is linked in the quote laments the fact that people dismiss girls in geekdom by using "fake geek girl" stereotype. Meaning that article's writer don't claim accuse anybody to be "fake geek girl", but instead ask people not to use such term as she feels that it's term used by elitist jerks. Although article refers to one article from Forbes written by one of their female contributors that has tittle that seems to attack girls that fake to be geeks, but even it is more general lament about fact that geeky things are in this days popular and accepted by society and people embrace term geek instead of be branded by it.

 

But anyway said article don't seems to be great for any point of view that quote reflects. EDIT: As article is about usage of term "fake geek girl" among comic book reader so it is weak reference for such thing happening in gaming circles. And I don't see why article that laments about people dismissing girls by using term "fake geek girl"  loses it significance just because it is written by a woman? 

Edited October 10, 2014 by Elerond

[Longknife]

Am I the only one who thinks that a group composed almost entirely of white men using white male as an insult is strange?

 

As a huge comedy fan, I can say with a very high sense of certainty that this is the type of thing you would see be the target of scathing jokes on something like the Daily Show, were GamerGate relevant enough.

[Blarghagh]

 

 

EDIT: Another thing regarding the validity of that The Verge article by that guy with no qualifications, education or factual observation via Erik Kain.

 

 

“The gamer is threatened by women who share his tastes, and calls them “fake geek girls,”" he writes, no matter that the “fake geek girls” article in question was written by a woman.

 

I think at this point, the lack of validity of that article is entirely unquestionable.

 

I am not sure what the original point behind quote is, but that article that is linked in the quote laments the fact that people dismiss girls in geekdom by using "fake geek girl" stereotype. Meaning that article's writer don't claim accuse anybody to be "fake geek girl", but instead ask people not to use such term as she feels that it's term used by elitist jerks. Although article refers to one article from Forbes written by one of their female contributors that has tittle that seems to attack girls that fake to be geeks, but even it is more general lament about fact that geeky things are in this days popular and accepted by society and people embrace term geek instead of be branded by it.

 

But anyway said article don't seems to be great for any point of view that quote reflects. EDIT: As article is about usage of term "fake geek girl" among comic book reader so it is weak reference for such thing happening in gaming circles. And I don't see why article that laments about people dismissing girls by using term "fake geek girl"  loses it significance just because it is written by a woman? 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Kain was referring to the article by Tara Tiger Strong piece. The article on The Verge links to this article as the support that Gamers, meaning white male misogynists, hate and revile women as Fake Geek Girls, yet the only source in this article that refers to fake geek girls in a negative manner is the Tara Tiger Strong piece about "Fake Geek Girls, Go Away", written by a woman.

[Longknife]

 

 

EDIT: Another thing regarding the validity of that The Verge article by that guy with no qualifications, education or factual observation via Erik Kain.

 

 

“The gamer is threatened by women who share his tastes, and calls them “fake geek girls,”" he writes, no matter that the “fake geek girls” article in question was written by a woman.

 

I think at this point, the lack of validity of that article is entirely unquestionable.

 

I am not sure what the original point behind quote is, but that article that is linked in the quote laments the fact that people dismiss girls in geekdom by using "fake geek girl" stereotype. Meaning that article's writer don't claim accuse anybody to be "fake geek girl", but instead ask people not to use such term as she feels that it's term used by elitist jerks. Although article refers to one article from Forbes written by one of their female contributors that has tittle that seems to attack girls that fake to be geeks, but even it is more general lament about fact that geeky things are in this days popular and accepted by society and people embrace term geek instead of be branded by it.

 

But anyway said article don't seems to be great for any point of view that quote reflects. EDIT: As article is about usage of term "fake geek girl" among comic book reader so it is weak reference for such thing happening in gaming circles. And I don't see why article that laments about people dismissing girls by using term "fake geek girl"  loses it significance just because it is written by a woman? 

 

 

 

I find the whole thing strange in general.

 

 

I actually play Team Fortress 2 with various friends, amongst them a french girl with an outrageous french accent. One day she spoke and the server flipped a **** to realize Bella was infact a female and not just a feminine name, and omg a female with a hot french accent aswell! She immediately got questions like what's her favorite TF2 class in the chat. Thing was she and I were on a ventrilo server, and I specifically asked her to answer "Scout" - my best and favorite class - believing we'd soon see a mass switch of desperate guys going Scout, and I was gonna have a jolly ****ing time curbstomping the little twerps and crushing their dreams of winning Bella's love by showing their pro Scout gameplay. Spoiler alert: It ****ing happened and it was hilarious.

   Point is, while I'm sure women occassionally get harassment, I think they're more prone to unwanted affection and unneccesary attention moreso than anything negative. I'm not doubting that women may find this absolutely annoying after a point, but is it intended negatively? Hell no, these are sad people with sad lives chasing delusional fantasies of putting their **** in the first female they encounter in their favorite game.

 

 

  The only thing I can imagine that matches that "fake geek girl" mentality is sometimes you come across a woman who's sooooo attention starved and has found the gaming world not because of their love of games so much, but because it's a culture that'll feed their lust for attention since many guys rarely encounter women in games and thus they have to fight said guys off with baseball bats. I consider myself to have a VERY good sense of people and good intuition with people (this is a skill I'm learning that I have with experience) and yes, for people like myself, these women come off as very desperate and try-hard, and I dunno, it's just annoying to see someone THAT starved for attention that every conversation has to begin with a statement that might as well be "yes, it is I! a woman that plays video games! You may now kiss my feet and ask me what my favorite flowers and chocolates are so you can buy them for me!"

   But that's hardly exclusive to women. Once again it's not an issue of gender, because there's try-hard men too. PLENTY of them. The only difference is men can't really flaunt their gender as a point of garnering attention in the gaming world. And of course, such women are in the vast minority. I'm merely acknowledging the existence of such a "fake gamer girl" (or what they might be referring to) and trying to put an explanation to it.

 

 

Side note? Seriously considering taking Bella to a TF2 server filled with kids (most younger than 16) and having her speak, recording it and uploading the damned thing to Youtube. Iunno what they're complaining about, being a female in online games seems like hours of entertainment to me.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Longknife

[Shallow]

Does it really matter whether someone has titties or testies when you'll never see them, let alone engage in sexual relations? So what if some guys pretend to be women, judge them by the merit of their arguments, not their crotch, the idea that you can dismiss opposing views due to the gender and race of the people stating them is also ridiculous, the great thing about internet anonymity is that none of that crap can be verified, so you'll either have to look at whoever you're arguing withs arguments or prove yourself a sexist/racist/whateverist.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

EDIT: Another thing regarding the validity of that The Verge article by that guy with no qualifications, education or factual observation via Erik Kain.

 

 

“The gamer is threatened by women who share his tastes, and calls them “fake geek girls,”" he writes, no matter that the “fake geek girls” article in question was written by a woman.

 

I think at this point, the lack of validity of that article is entirely unquestionable.

 

I am not sure what the original point behind quote is, but that article that is linked in the quote laments the fact that people dismiss girls in geekdom by using "fake geek girl" stereotype. Meaning that article's writer don't claim accuse anybody to be "fake geek girl", but instead ask people not to use such term as she feels that it's term used by elitist jerks. Although article refers to one article from Forbes written by one of their female contributors that has tittle that seems to attack girls that fake to be geeks, but even it is more general lament about fact that geeky things are in this days popular and accepted by society and people embrace term geek instead of be branded by it.

 

But anyway said article don't seems to be great for any point of view that quote reflects. EDIT: As article is about usage of term "fake geek girl" among comic book reader so it is weak reference for such thing happening in gaming circles. And I don't see why article that laments about people dismissing girls by using term "fake geek girl"  loses it significance just because it is written by a woman? 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Kain was referring to the article by Tara Tiger Strong piece. The article on The Verge links to this article as the support that Gamers, meaning white male misogynists, hate and revile women as Fake Geek Girls, yet the only source in this article that refers to fake geek girls in a negative manner is the Tara Tiger Strong piece about "Fake Geek Girls, Go Away", written by a woman.

 

 

Verge's article don't directly link on that article, but it links this article(that focuses on ranting about how bad "gamers" [what ever that means] behave), written by Peter Frase from Jacobin magazine that links to that mary sue article. Jacobin's article uses that Mary Sue article as reference about "gamers" (what ever that means) dismissing women by stereotyping them as "fake geek girls", in which as I previously pointed that particular Mary Sue article is quite weak reference as it focuses on comic book geeks and geek stereotypes in comic book circles, but it seems to reference article as whole not any particular piece of it (like for example that reference to Tara's article, which don't actually call anybody as fake geek, but instead seem to held notion that these days doors to geekdom are too wide open and geekdom should be more elitist society). Jacobin's article concludes that problems in withing gaming do actually have little to do with gaming itself and more with wider political agendas (right wing agendas more precisely  and capitalism (which make me think that Jacobin is probably  politically left leaning publication). Verge uses Jacobin's article to reference that Gamergate has right-wing flavor all over it ("there’s a reactionary right-wing flavor to all of Gamergate’s desperate yelling."). Verge's article has several references how gamergate is right-wing or conservative movement that opposes progressiveness.

 

So in short it was not Verge's article that referred to Mary Sue's article, but Jacobin's article, which used Mary Sue's article as example how male "gamers" call women "fake geek girls", even though Mary Sue's article is about usage of "Fake Geek Girl" term in comic book geekdom, Verge used Jacobin's article to refer how gamergate is actually about right-wing agenda and all three articles make my head hurt.

[Volourn]

"I just don't like people being ridiculed because they're not perfect. So far he seems to be only be guilty of harming people's patience."
 

\He's accused me and other gamers as being white male racist sexist rapists. That's harming more than just pateince. I'm not racist, sexist, and certainly no rapist. And, if I'm sexist against anyone it's mean as I find them unattractive.