Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[Zoraptor]

And I'd bet that 99% of sjws don't think that way. It's probably true of the theorists and those like McIntosh but the vast majority are just mildly self important people disappointed that the main social justice battles have already been fought and desperately looking for added meaning to their lives. The only post modern thing about it is that previous they'd end up distributed amongst groups like anarchists, communists, religious groups and the whacky Randian fringe rather than being concerned about Bert and Ernie not being allowed to marry in Kazakhstan or Pacman being a misogynist tale of drug addiction and domestic violence. And a few years later they'd almost all move on, as their life got actual meaning; now twitter favourites seem to fill the void semi permanently for rather a lot of people.

 

(Though to be fair, quite a lot of that applies to any trivial cause, including elements of GG as well)

[Ineth]

indie devs stealing exposure with their devil vaginas

 

Yikes Alu, as far as hostile misrepresentations of another's argument go, this is pretty bottom-barrel. You didn't use to be such a nasty poster - what happened?

 

Anybody who thinks gaming journalism's biggest problems are [...] is ****ing stupid.

 

You picked two issues out of a list. Misrepresentation aside, what are you trying to prove by pointing out that you don't consider these two to be the "biggest" problems? The whole point was that they are various smaller problems arising from the same underlying issue.

 

So is, for that matter, anybody who seriously believes people depend on gaming journalism to "grasp a very large and confusing industry".

 

Advertisers, politicians, and the mainstream media certainly do.

As do publishers to some extent, although admittedly not as much since they have their own sales numbers to draw conclusions from.

 

Gamers' knowledge of the gaming industry is also shaped by the journos much more than apparent at first sight. Why do you think all of us know a lot about tiny niche games by San Francisco hipsters (Gone Home etc), but have barely even heard about most games from other parts of world, even ones that have much bigger scope and more "audience appeal" potential (if only the audience knew about them)?

 

The global gaming culture and industry is very large and confusing, and most people only have insight into the same small slice of it which the English-language gaming media (which, despite serving a global audience, is mostly concentrated in the hipster scene of San Francisco, USA) focuses on. Even gamers who never read game journos themselves are affected, because what is published there shapes what is discussed on gaming forums.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Ineth

[kirottu]

 

DiGRA staying classy and blocking actual developers.

 

As someone who is not all that familiar with Twitter, it looks more like they are trying to interact with an announcement account that simply doesn't allow any interaction.  Is there any more evidence about this than a few tweets by the dev?

 

I'm not familiar with Twitter either or how DiGRA wishes to be contacted, but according to KiA thread some are blocked by the DiGRA account and some aren't. So my point stands.

 

How to get banned at NeoGAF. He even agrees that harassment happens, but it still wasn't enough.

 

Former CGW Writer and Current Level Designer at a AAA Studio Sean Elliot:"McIntosh reads like a migraine; a fundamentalist who's switched sides; a lipless old moralist who yesterday warned you that Dungeons & Dragons is a welcome sign to Satan,"

[BruceVC]

It just dawned on me that Volourn is doing all this ironically.  Well played sir.

 

No

 

I don't think Volo is that deep. I think he makes these misplaced comments of hyperbole because he is jaded and frustrated with criticism from SJW that he feels is unnecessary

People like Bruce have frequently accused GamerGate of not having a self-consistent idea of what it is all about - is it attacking games journalism for Indie nepotism, or for corporate bribery, or for feminism, or what? The movement can look like a mess of orthogonal agendas and pet peeves from the outside, so that is a fair criticism.

 

I think there's a good case to be made though, that all those things which GG has been (and is) up in arms against are symptoms of the same core issue, which is the unprofessionalism and moral deficiency that has taken a hold on gaming journalism and gaming research. For lack of a better phrase, GG'ers have variously referred to this as "corruption" (a word which, mind you, does not exclusively have monetary connotations) or "lack of ethics".

 

Here's a recent twitter statement from some GG'er explaining how it all fits together. It sounds pretty reasonable to me, and - I believe - indirectly covers all targets of GG criticism (from the problems with how several journalist+dev relationships were handled, to the patronising ideological lecturing that came with the rise of academic-feminist entryism into gaming):

 

 

To any anti-GG people reading this thread: If all of GG sincerely stood behind Robin's statement, would you still oppose them? Do you disregard the ideas at the heart of this statement as a matter of principle, or is it just that you reject the particular group of people promoting those ideas and/or doubt their sincerity?

This is a good post by the way, I appreciate the way you wanting to understand the core reasons for this dichotomy between GG and anti-GG

 

So yes these are all reasonable objectives, I fail to see how anyone would object to these...if this was what GG was really about. Or rather I should say " if GG was about for all its members " 

 

 

Now maybe you right and the constant criticism about SJ initiatives is a symptom for  people who  see SJ campaigns as a form unethical behavior. But this thread is a good example of what is fundamentally wrong with GG ( and for the record I see the people on this thread as moderates where GG is concerned ...with the exception of people like Luzarius )

 

Most discussions on this thread are about SJ people and SJ ideas, people literally trawl the internet and look for this Twitter comment or this blog and then this gets ridiculed and attacked. How does this really help with unethical behavior in the gaming industry?

 

So what may be a interesting question ïs " why do people dislike SJ initiatives ?" .  Now of course this will vary from person to person but the main reason to gamers  that should be relevant is " SJ ideas are diluting and changing our gaming experience where it is not necessary " ..yet this is patently not true and is really just rhetoric. I asked people a while ago to name just 3 examples of where games have changed due to SJ pressure and your gaming experience has been negatively impacted and guess what? People couldn't give me one valid example ...not one.

 

Removing the limerick from PoE doesn't actually change your gaming experience if you are honest...and I didn't expect people to be able to name 3 because you still get games like GTAV ( which I love ) and you still get your male-centric shooters like COD and this is not going to change 

 

So then we need to ask what is the real objection to Anita and others? So I think its the constant grandstanding and lecturing...gamers feel guilty even though they shouldn't. They don't like being told they are sexist or they are resistant to change. They feel they are beset by gaming media and the reaction is a movement like GG created on the pretense its about "ethics in the gaming journalist industry " 

 

I don't care if Anita thinks GTAV is sexist game or misogynistic. What people like her say sometimes makes sense but sometimes its misplaced. End of the day people take it too personally because unless it is  fundamentally changing your gaming experience why do you care ?

 

And finally outside of gaming many SJ initiatives do make sense and are relevant, for example societal abuse of women in some places and homophobia is real and needs to criticized

 

So anti-GG has associated itself with SJW who do care about this, like me, and now GG is seen as an unhelpful and irrelevant  movement because it appears to attack the people who support SJ changes. People take SJ seriously in RL and they only see the doxxing and internet abuse but the objective to enforce ethics is now lost

 

 

[Calax]

 

It just dawned on me that Volourn is doing all this ironically.  Well played sir.

 

No

 

I don't think Volo is that deep. I think he makes these misplaced comments of hyperbole because he is jaded and frustrated with criticism from SJW that he feels is unnecessary

People like Bruce have frequently accused GamerGate of not having a self-consistent idea of what it is all about - is it attacking games journalism for Indie nepotism, or for corporate bribery, or for feminism, or what? The movement can look like a mess of orthogonal agendas and pet peeves from the outside, so that is a fair criticism.

 

I think there's a good case to be made though, that all those things which GG has been (and is) up in arms against are symptoms of the same core issue, which is the unprofessionalism and moral deficiency that has taken a hold on gaming journalism and gaming research. For lack of a better phrase, GG'ers have variously referred to this as "corruption" (a word which, mind you, does not exclusively have monetary connotations) or "lack of ethics".

 

Here's a recent twitter statement from some GG'er explaining how it all fits together. It sounds pretty reasonable to me, and - I believe - indirectly covers all targets of GG criticism (from the problems with how several journalist+dev relationships were handled, to the patronising ideological lecturing that came with the rise of academic-feminist entryism into gaming):

 

 

To any anti-GG people reading this thread: If all of GG sincerely stood behind Robin's statement, would you still oppose them? Do you disregard the ideas at the heart of this statement as a matter of principle, or is it just that you reject the particular group of people promoting those ideas and/or doubt their sincerity?

This is a good post by the way, I appreciate the way you wanting to understand the core reasons for this dichotomy between GG and anti-GG

 

 

So yes these are all reasonable objectives, I fail to see how anyone would object to these...if this was what GG was really about. Or rather I should say " if GG was about for all its members " 

 

 

 

Now maybe you right and the constant criticism about SJ initiatives is a symptom for  people who  see SJ campaigns as a form unethical behavior. But this thread is a good example of what is fundamentally wrong with GG ( and for the record I see the people on this thread as moderates where GG is concerned ...with the exception of people like Luzarius )

 

Most discussions on this thread are about SJ people and SJ ideas, people literally trawl the internet and look for this Twitter comment or this blog and then this gets ridiculed and attacked. How does this really help with unethical behavior in the gaming industry?

 

I think this is more a case of how the entire situation has been covered and grown over time. I mean the entire thing came out, in part, because of the fact that Zoe Quinn cheated on her at-the-time boyfriend and yet her cheating was responded to with "Does it matter?" by the journalists who, as I stated before, changed the narrative to push the fact that GG was anti-feminist and so on. Understand, I'm willing to bet my meager life savings on the fact that if the Zoe Quinn thing had been gender swapped you would have seen a much different conversation and narrative created by media.

So what may be a interesting question ïs " why do people dislike SJ initiatives ?" .  Now of course this will vary from person to person but the main reason to gamers  that should be relevant is " SJ ideas are diluting and changing our gaming experience where it is not necessary " ..yet this is patently not true and is really just rhetoric. I asked people a while ago to name just 3 examples of where games have changed due to SJ pressure and your gaming experience has been negatively impacted and guess what? People couldn't give me one valid example ...not one.

 

Removing the limerick from PoE doesn't actually change your gaming experience if you are honest...and I didn't expect people to be able to name 3 because you still get games like GTAV ( which I love ) and you still get your male-centric shooters like COD and this is not going to change

I think this is partly because the GG movement is only a year-ish old at this point. Most games that have been released since were heavily in development at the point that it started so the devs and publishers can say "to late in the cycle to change it". And even if they say that in one form or another they still get yelled at about it in the worst ways. (Assassins Creed Unity and female assassins for example).  What people are more upset about as a direct consequence of this "feminist" movement is that the entire gaming media is grabbing your hand if you like something akin to the Witcher, and telling you that you're a horrible person for looking at pixel ****.

So then we need to ask what is the real objection to Anita and others? So I think its the constant grandstanding and lecturing...gamers feel guilty even though they shouldn't. They don't like being told they are sexist or they are resistant to change. They feel they are beset by gaming media and the reaction is a movement like GG created on the pretense its about "ethics in the gaming journalist industry " 

 

I don't care if Anita thinks GTAV is sexist game or misogynistic. What people like her say sometimes makes sense but sometimes its misplaced. End of the day people take it too personally because unless it is  fundamentally changing your gaming experience why do you care ?

 

And finally outside of gaming many SJ initiatives do make sense and are relevant, for example societal abuse of women in some places and homophobia is real and needs to criticized

 

So anti-GG has associated itself with SJW who do care about this, like me, and now GG is seen as an unhelpful and irrelevant  movement because it appears to attack the people who support SJ changes. People take SJ seriously in RL and they only see the doxxing and internet abuse but the objective to enforce ethics is now lost

People are fine with SJ, but personally I'm not fine when one person is given the power of creating the labels. Anita is the most focused critic because it's REALLY easy to annihilate her argument because she doesn't understand anything she's talking about. But because of this focus from the GG supporters, the Anti-GG crew create just as much pressure saying that her points are correct. The problem with the feminist/SSJ movement in general is the same one with any political campaign, much of what is publicly heard is from their most fringe element of it. It's like when you ask your black roommates "Yo, you seen my phone?" and he immediately turns around stating "You asking because I'm black ain't ya?" The sheer level of "Woe is me, everything is horrible to be a woman/gay/non-white" while not acknowledging  A) the fact there have been massive strides in this situation and B) There's discrimination on the societal scale towards your 'prosecutor' in other fields, tends to drive many people up the wall.

 

Understand, I'm not saying 'It sucks to be a white male" or anything like that. Instead I'm saying that "being a woman probably isn't journey-to-rapeville without any money because men take everything!" I mean, look at the common Social Justice response to the critique that "You probably shouldn't go to the club wearing a slip on dress, no panties, and 6 inch platforms..." of "Teach your sons not to rape, don't tell me what to wear!"  To me that screams not "I want equality", it's instead "I take no responsibility for my actions and expect to be protected no matter what happens." It's akin to living in a low rent area, writing "Get Meth Here" on a sign, and sticking it on your lawn, and then telling the cops that it's not your fault an addict broke in and destroyed your stuff looking for his next fix.

 

The other major problem that GG has, that I've gone over before, is that ultimately there's very little we can do to change the dynamic within the industry. The entire industry is built upon itself in a sad way, where the media relies upon the publisher for ad revenue, and the developers/publishers rely on the media to be an extension of their marketing department.

 

If  developer snubs the journalists, all of a sudden their game ends up on a blacklist of things that are either smeared or ignored by the media. If a journalist snubs a publisher all of a sudden they don't get review copies of games and ad's are pulled from their site. Developers are left out in the cold and sniped at by the media, but if the media gets to snarky at a dev the publisher admonishes them. The only way to break this cycle is to figure out a way to make the media not reliant on the publishers and vis-versa. Ideally by spreading the media to points so that the NY Times would be taken seriously if they had a games critic or four on staff.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Calax

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

indie devs stealing exposure with their devil vaginas

 

Yikes Alu, as far as hostile misrepresentations of another's argument go, this is pretty bottom-barrel. You didn't use to be such a nasty poster - what happened?

 

 

 

I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all. People are still whining about Grayson not disclosing the fact that he had intercourse with Quinn when he mentioned her game (a grand total of, what, two times? three? invariably in contexts where it was easily overlooked?). Hence the accusation that she somehow "stole" exposure from "more deserving" developers. With her vagina. Obviously.

 

I mean, if we're talking about hostile misrepresentation, we could bring up the whole "Sargon of Akkad doesn't know jack **** about statistics but is sure as hell feminists are purposefully lying to us" thing, or "a coordinated attack of 12 articles declaring gamers 'dead'" (more like three articles, none of which appeared in gamer-facing websites, distinct lack of the phrasing "gamers are dead", etc.) all over again, but really, why bother?

 

 

 

Anybody who thinks gaming journalism's biggest problems are feminist infiltration and indie devs stealing exposure with their devil vaginas is ****ing stupid.

 

You picked two issues out of a list. Misrepresentation aside, what are you trying to prove by pointing out that you don't consider these two to be the "biggest" problems?

 

 

They're what kicked off the entire movement. Depression Quest receiving three sentences that could vaguely be seen as undue praise, and Leigh Alexander calling 'gamers' bad names. Not the fact that gaming "journalism" has been **** for decades, not the fact that most of the content is vaguely-rephrased marketing talk about games that aren't even out yet, not the fact that journalists can be fired for giving a bad score to heavily-advertised games. Not, y'know, actual issues with lack of professionalism that have been present for at least a decade before GG even existed. Gamers have been fine with those. Just how much of a shortsighted fool does somebody need to be in order to fail to notice how the entire industry of gaming journalism has consistently been terrible since forever, but cry bloody murder over the fact that it now also publishes feminism-flavored crap alongside the regular crap?

Edited May 23, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

 

indie devs stealing exposure with their devil vaginas

 

Yikes Alu, as far as hostile misrepresentations of another's argument go, this is pretty bottom-barrel. You didn't use to be such a nasty poster - what happened?

 

 

 

I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all. People are still whining about Grayson not disclosing the fact that he had intercourse with Quinn when he mentioned her game (a grand total of, what, two times? three? invariably in contexts where it was easily overlooked?). Hence the accusation that she somehow "stole" exposure from "more deserving" developers. With her vagina. Obviously.

 

I mean, if we're talking about hostile misrepresentation, we could bring up the whole "Sargon of Akkad doesn't know jack **** about statistics but is sure as hell feminists are purposefully lying to us" thing, or "a coordinated attack of 12 articles declaring gamers 'dead'" (more like three articles, none of which appeared in gamer-facing websites, distinct lack of the phrasing "gamers are dead", etc.) all over again, but really, why bother?

 

 

 

Anybody who thinks gaming journalism's biggest problems are feminist infiltration and indie devs stealing exposure with their devil vaginas is ****ing stupid.

 

You picked two issues out of a list. Misrepresentation aside, what are you trying to prove by pointing out that you don't consider these two to be the "biggest" problems?

 

 

They're what kicked off the entire movement. Depression Quest receiving three sentences that could vaguely be seen as undue praise, and Leigh Alexander calling 'gamers' bad names. Not the fact that gaming "journalism" has been **** for decades, not the fact that most of the content is vaguely-rephrased marketing talk about games that aren't even out yet, not the fact that journalists can be fired for giving a bad score to heavily-advertised games. Not, y'know, actual issues with lack of professionalism that have been present for at least a decade before GG even existed. Gamers have been fine with those. Just how much of a shortsighted fool does somebody need to be in order to fail to notice how the entire industry of gaming journalism has consistently been terrible since forever, but cry bloody murder over the fact that it now also publishes feminism-flavored crap alongside the regular crap?

 

 

This is a very good post and does raise some valid criticisms of GG, the one I never understand is the misinformation that exists that allowed GG to be created, the part below summarizes this 

 

" Sargon of Akkad doesn't know jack **** about statistics but is sure as hell feminists are purposefully lying to us" thing, or "a coordinated attack of 12 articles declaring gamers 'dead'" (more like three articles, none of which appeared in gamer-facing websites, distinct lack of the phrasing "gamers are dead", etc.) all over again, but really, why bother? "

 

 

Most GG  people, like Nonek, have bought into this lie of " 12 articles all attacking gamers " ..and yet don't  seem interested in the truth. Its like some people just want to display outrage and vent 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

They're what kicked off the entire movement. Depression Quest receiving three sentences that could vaguely be seen as undue praise, and Leigh Alexander calling 'gamers' bad names. Not the fact that gaming "journalism" has been **** for decades, not the fact that most of the content is vaguely-rephrased marketing talk about games that aren't even out yet, not the fact that journalists can be fired for giving a bad score to heavily-advertised games. Not, y'know, actual issues with lack of professionalism that have been present for at least a decade before GG even existed. Gamers have been fine with those. Just how much of a shortsighted fool does somebody need to be in order to fail to notice how the entire industry of gaming journalism has consistently been terrible since forever, but cry bloody murder over the fact that it now also publishes feminism-flavored crap alongside the regular crap?

 

 

Sorry but this is also another excellent point, why have you guys been silent for so long about the obvious issues in the gaming industry ?

[Calax]

 

 

indie devs stealing exposure with their devil vaginas

 

Yikes Alu, as far as hostile misrepresentations of another's argument go, this is pretty bottom-barrel. You didn't use to be such a nasty poster - what happened?

 

 

 

I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all. People are still whining about Grayson not disclosing the fact that he had intercourse with Quinn when he mentioned her game (a grand total of, what, two times? three? invariably in contexts where it was easily overlooked?). Hence the accusation that she somehow "stole" exposure from "more deserving" developers. With her vagina. Obviously.

 

I mean, if we're talking about hostile misrepresentation, we could bring up the whole "Sargon of Akkad doesn't know jack **** about statistics but is sure as hell feminists are purposefully lying to us" thing, or "a coordinated attack of 12 articles declaring gamers 'dead'" (more like three articles, none of which appeared in gamer-facing websites, distinct lack of the phrasing "gamers are dead", etc.) all over again, but really, why bother?

 

 

 

Anybody who thinks gaming journalism's biggest problems are feminist infiltration and indie devs stealing exposure with their devil vaginas is ****ing stupid.

 

You picked two issues out of a list. Misrepresentation aside, what are you trying to prove by pointing out that you don't consider these two to be the "biggest" problems?

 

 

They're what kicked off the entire movement. Depression Quest receiving three sentences that could vaguely be seen as undue praise, and Leigh Alexander calling 'gamers' bad names. Not the fact that gaming "journalism" has been **** for decades, not the fact that most of the content is vaguely-rephrased marketing talk about games that aren't even out yet, not the fact that journalists can be fired for giving a bad score to heavily-advertised games. Not, y'know, actual issues with lack of professionalism that have been present for at least a decade before GG even existed. Gamers have been fine with those. Just how much of a shortsighted fool does somebody need to be in order to fail to notice how the entire industry of gaming journalism has consistently been terrible since forever, but cry bloody murder over the fact that it now also publishes feminism-flavored crap alongside the regular crap?

I think GG is just the people really pushing with the unrest that had already been there. It's just that the 'other side' kinda lept on this train rather than others sepecifically because it's so easy to derail. 2 years before the Zoe Quinn thing popped up there was another article, this time from within the industry that kicked off a minor kerfuffle at Eurogamer, but didn't become hyper major because many of the media that allows GG to flourish, and shoot itself in the foot, hadn't been as firmly entrenched as it is now.

 

Doritos Gate (yes, that's a bloody thing...) It didn't have the sex, and obvious industrial-incest found within the Gamergate thing. Or the direct attack on the cultural definition of "Gamer's". 

 

You bring up the Leigh Alexander piece and how it was only released in three spots. Which might be true, the specific language from Alexander's piece was only limited to a few spots, but the overall narrative that "HAW HAW we're an industry built on you guys buying our ****, but we think you're scumbags and want you to go away!" And served to seriously push the idea that Anita and her ilk were "the future" that we should all listen to if we "want to be taken seriously as an art form". Ars Technica's article called her Tropes Vs Women series "well researched" as part of this blitz play to try and push the narrative to one where the predominant culture of gaming (and their audience) was ignored or declared as "bad".

 

It's really easy for you to make the otherside seem like **** when you deliberately change the subject and whine when they try to change it back.

 

I'd stopped watching him because I got overall tired with some of his consistent outrage, but Thunderf00t's video where he picks apart the Gamergate thing seems pretty good. He used to just do young earth creationists, but he switched to feminists recently and well, this was the result of part of it.

[Nonek]

 

This is a very good post and does raise some valid criticisms of GG, the one I never understand is the misinformation that exists that allowed GG to be created, the part below summarizes this 

 

" Sargon of Akkad doesn't know jack **** about statistics but is sure as hell feminists are purposefully lying to us" thing, or "a coordinated attack of 12 articles declaring gamers 'dead'" (more like three articles, none of which appeared in gamer-facing websites, distinct lack of the phrasing "gamers are dead", etc.) all over again, but really, why bother? "

 

 

Most GG  people, like Nonek, have bought into this lie of " 12 articles all attacking gamers " ..and yet don't  seem interested in the truth. Its like some people just want to display outrage and vent 

 

 

There were twelve articles attacking gamers, this is the simple truth, deny and try to weasel out of it all they wish. It takes a real leap of imagination to read any of them and imagine them as anything but a straight up attack, and a spur to demonise the gamers whom dare to ask for ethics, for journalists to not sleep with the developers they are supposed to report on, and for some basic respect and a little simple disclosure from the industry that is supposed to represent them.

 

Then again social justice isn't really about any kind of social justice is it? It's proven that it is a hate movement dedicated to harassment of anybody not buying into their sick ideology, empowering self professed proud abusers of women like Bruce to preach at his betters, to advocate genocide, laugh at the victims of bomb threats, lie and misrepresent in the media and demonise millions of diverse people whom play games recreationally.

 

Edit: And to say that GG has been blind to years of journalistic abuses is just simply lying, the whole point of Gamergate is that the twelve articles attacking gamers was a last straw. After decades of demonising gamers, corruption and failure to be fit for purpose, it is when they started so blatantly preaching at the audience they are supposed to serve that gamers snapped back. They were not going to be lectured by unethical, corrupt, harassing and spoiled children screaming at being caught out yet again. No one forgot the previous years of endemic corruption and they are still brought up regularly.

 

After all whom but an immoral idiot could support the scum whom engaged in such blatant corruption? Or oppose a movement striving for morality and ethics?

Edited May 23, 2015 by Nonek

[kirottu]

Women, Action, & the Media published a report about Twitter harassment. By TechRaptor.

Only 12% of 512 alleged harassing accounts were GamerGate related, which is 65 accounts total.

 

Let’s go a step further.  There are nearly 10,000 accounts in the ggautoblocker blacklist that’s been used by nearly everyone to “identify” GamerGate supporters.  Of those 10,000, only 65 accounts were flagged as harassing.  Written as a percentage, .65% of GamerGate supporting accounts are harassing accounts.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

And to say that GG has been blind to years of journalistic abuses is just simply lying, the whole point of Gamergate is that the twelve articles attacking gamers was a last straw. After decades of demonising gamers, corruption and failure to be fit for purpose, it is when they started so blatantly preaching at the audience they are supposed to serve that gamers snapped back.

 

First off, GG has been blind to years of journalistic abuses due to being nonexistent, unless time travel has been invented while I wasn't looking. You could argue that the people who later become gamergaters weren't, but that's a statement impossible to prove or disprove (although we can point at the circumstantial evidence of their prolonged silence, which doesn't seem to support your statement).

 

Second, you're basically just reinforcing my point. The straw that broke the camel's back wasn't Gamespot firing an editor for the oh-so-horrible crime of handing out scores lower than 8 to AAA games (a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with gaming journalism), it was people "preaching at you" (read: discussing feminist issues in articles you're in no way forced to read). It's a ****ing temper tantrum over the SJ equivalent of TotalBiscuit's weird, but essentially harmless obsession with graphical setting options.

Edited May 23, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[kgambit]

 

 

 

Most GG  people, like Nonek, have bought into this lie of " 12 articles all attacking gamers " ..and yet don't  seem interested in the truth. Its like some people just want to display outrage and vent 

 

 

Bruce what exactly is the "lie" here?  Is it the number of articles?  Is it how many "really" attack gamers?  Is it who is actually being attacked?    What is the actual issue you have with this specific claim?  Don't go off on tangents please.  Just stick to the issue of   " 12 articles all attacking gamers " please.

 

Do you actually know which 12 articles Nonek is referencing?

 

PS:  I'm actually trying to establish a point of reference here and not trying to take sides. 

Edited May 23, 2015 by kgambit

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Bruce what exactly is the "lie" here?  Is it the number of articles?  Is it how many "really" attack gamers?  Is it who is actually being attacked?    What is the actual issue you have with this specific claim?  Don't go off on tangents please.  Just stick to the issue of   " 12 articles all attacking gamers " please.

 

Do you actually know which 12 articles Nonek is referencing?

 

 

I assume these.

[Calax]

 

And to say that GG has been blind to years of journalistic abuses is just simply lying, the whole point of Gamergate is that the twelve articles attacking gamers was a last straw. After decades of demonising gamers, corruption and failure to be fit for purpose, it is when they started so blatantly preaching at the audience they are supposed to serve that gamers snapped back.

 

First off, GG has been blind to years of journalistic abuses due to being nonexistent, unless time travel has been invented while I wasn't looking. You could argue that the people who later become gamergaters weren't, but that's a statement impossible to prove or disprove (although we can point at the circumstantial evidence of their prolonged silence, which doesn't seem to support your statement).

 

Second, you're basically just reinforcing my point. The straw that broke the camel's back wasn't Gamespot firing an editor for the oh-so-horrible crime of handing out scores lower than 8 to AAA games (a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with gaming journalism), it was people "preaching at you" (read: discussing feminist issues in articles you're in no way forced to read). It's a ****ing temper tantrum over the SJ equivalent of TotalBiscuit's weird, but essentially harmless obsession with graphical setting options.

 

Except that that particular article is when things went from simple lack of ethics, to openly demonizing your core demographic.

 

Like I said, Doritos-gate happened, and it gave people hope because somebody within the industry was saying "Yeah, the amount of merchandising here is Bull****" rather than passing it off when called upon it.

[Hurlshort]

I don't really care if there were 12 or 24 or 48 articles attacking gamers.  I've been a gamer long enough to see it go from being sold in zip lock baggies to it being a massive industry.  It is a great time to be a gamer, our hobby has blossomed incredibly.  I really see no issue with lobbying for better journalism around the gaming industry, but do try to sound less like an insecure little b when doing it.  

[kgambit]

I don't really care if there were 12 or 24 or 48 articles attacking gamers.  I've been a gamer long enough to see it go from being sold in zip lock baggies to it being a massive industry.  It is a great time to be a gamer, our hobby has blossomed incredibly.  I really see no issue with lobbying for better journalism around the gaming industry, but do try to sound less like an insecure little b when doing it.  

 

So have I.    I don't care about the number either - I was simply asking Bruce what he sees as the "lie".  If its just a numbers game then big effing deal, but if it goes beyond that, then it's a valid question.     FFS I am simply trying to get Bruce to clarify his comment.  Would you guys let HIM answer? 

 

Btw, I do agree with the latter part.

 

@ Al2O3, yes *I* know which articles Nonek is referring to. 

Edited May 23, 2015 by kgambit

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Except that that particular article is when things went from simple lack of ethics, to openly demonizing your core demographic.

 

 

...Except that article was published on a website aimed at developers, and I'm pretty sure Alexander openly states she doesn't think of the particular subset of gamers she's writing about as her audience, so I'm unsure "demonizing your core demographic" is an accurate description of events.

 

 

Like I said, Doritos-gate happened, and it gave people hope because somebody within the industry was saying "Yeah, the amount of merchandising here is Bull****" rather than passing it off when called upon it.

 

It did?

 

I mean, I've never even heard of the thing up until now, so I severely doubt its ability to "give people hope". I'd be grateful if you could provide me with links to the discussions that sprang up around it back in '12 (or so?).

Edited May 23, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

And to say that GG has been blind to years of journalistic abuses is just simply lying, the whole point of Gamergate is that the twelve articles attacking gamers was a last straw. After decades of demonising gamers, corruption and failure to be fit for purpose, it is when they started so blatantly preaching at the audience they are supposed to serve that gamers snapped back.

 

First off, GG has been blind to years of journalistic abuses due to being nonexistent, unless time travel has been invented while I wasn't looking. You could argue that the people who later become gamergaters weren't, but that's a statement impossible to prove or disprove (although we can point at the circumstantial evidence of their prolonged silence, which doesn't seem to support your statement).

 

Second, you're basically just reinforcing my point. The straw that broke the camel's back wasn't Gamespot firing an editor for the oh-so-horrible crime of handing out scores lower than 8 to AAA games (a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with gaming journalism), it was people "preaching at you" (read: discussing feminist issues in articles you're in no way forced to read). It's a ****ing temper tantrum over the SJ equivalent of TotalBiscuit's weird, but essentially harmless obsession with graphical setting options.

 

 

He's right Nonek your outrage does seem misplaced and full of hyperbole. I have often alluded to that...you know the whole " soapbox sermons " 

[Calax]

 

Except that that particular article is when things went from simple lack of ethics, to openly demonizing your core demographic.

 

 

...Except that article was published on a website aimed at developers, and I'm pretty sure Alexander openly states she doesn't think of the particular subset of gamers she's writing about as her audience, so I'm unsure "demonizing your core demographic" is an accurate description of events.

 

The thing is however, that it was posted, VERBATIM on websites like Kotaku, which is a tacit approval of the piece by that organization. And if you read through the other articles mentioned in conjunction with this one they're all praise for Alexander and Anita for their "brave stand" against the mouth breathers and neckbeards that are part of the gamer community. None of those that are linked mention that "We don't condone or agree with this person" or try to argue against her points, instead they're agreeing with it (or the pieces they pull from it if they don't post the entire bloody thing)

 

Like I said, Doritos-gate happened, and it gave people hope because somebody within the industry was saying "Yeah, the amount of merchandising here is Bull****" rather than passing it off when called upon it.

 

 

It did?

 

I mean, I've never even heard of the thing up until now, so I severely doubt its ability to "give people hope". I'd be grateful if you could provide me with links to the discussions that sprang up around it back in '12 (or so?).

 

It was mostly on Neogaf and I'm not a community member there.  That said, I just remember that even back then people trusted the reviews (although not the scores) of different publications because ideally the reviewers were giving the score for the money, but what the reviewer said could contradict the score.

 

The important thing about "Gamers Are Dead" Is that it took the very people who'd be reading that article... and said that they were worthless ****slingers. Even if she was aiming it at Developers, she posted it on gamasutra which also has fans who browse it for things like post mortems and such to learn more about their favorite games, and what to expect in the industry.

 

It'd be like saying "I think corvette drivers are pieces of garbage and should all go die so REAL people can buy corvettes!" on the official GM message board and saying that it wasn't meant for the Corvette Enthusiast.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Calax

[BruceVC]

 

 

Bruce what exactly is the "lie" here?  Is it the number of articles?  Is it how many "really" attack gamers?  Is it who is actually being attacked?    What is the actual issue you have with this specific claim?  Don't go off on tangents please.  Just stick to the issue of   " 12 articles all attacking gamers " please.

 

Do you actually know which 12 articles Nonek is referencing?

 

 

I assume these.

 

Yes these, it becomes a subjective debate whether all 12 articles attacked and demonized all gamers

 

As has been pointed out several times many gamers, like myself, took no offense to all 12 articles. Yet there were " 12 articles that attacked gamers" ...its an exaggeration  and subjective and needs to be rejected if people are going to use it as fact for a valid reason for the creation of GG

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Except that that particular article is when things went from simple lack of ethics, to openly demonizing your core demographic.

 
 
...Except that article was published on a website aimed at developers, and I'm pretty sure Alexander openly states she doesn't think of the particular subset of gamers she's writing about as her audience, so I'm unsure "demonizing your core demographic" is an accurate description of events.

 

 

The thing is however, that it was posted, VERBATIM on websites like Kotaku, which is a tacit approval of the piece by that organization. And if you read through the other articles mentioned in conjunction with this one they're all praise for Alexander and Anita for their "brave stand" against the mouth breathers and neckbeards that are part of the gamer community. None of those that are linked mention that "We don't condone or agree with this person" or try to argue against her points, instead they're agreeing with it (or the pieces they pull from it if they don't post the entire bloody thing).

 

 

Well, actually...

 

Kotaku's stance:

 

There are a lot of opinions going around about this sad state of affairs at the moment, and you don't have to travel far to find some, but if you want to read something beyond a simple recap, something more substantive, my advice - as someone horrified by the degree of hostility, bigotry and sheer inhumanity that has been on show - is to start

with these two articles.

 

[snip first article]

 

The second, by Leigh Alexander, is called "'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over." It's a similar piece, albeit one aimed a little more at developers. "'Gamer' isn't just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use", she writes. "Gamers are over. That's why they're so mad."

 

"These obtuse ****slingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers — they are not my audience. They don't have to be yours. There is no 'side' to be on, there is no 'debate' to be had."

 

Note they're not talking about everyone who plays games, or who self-identifies as a "gamer", as being the worst. It's being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by gaming's widening horizons. If you call yourself a "gamer" and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person.

 

 

 

I can't read that as "we condone and agree with people who think gamers, as a whole, are reprehensible".

 

 

 

The important thing about "Gamers Are Dead Over" Is that it took the very people who'd be reading that article... and said that they were worthless ****slingers. Even if she was aiming it at Developers, she posted it on gamasutra which also has fans who browse it for things like post mortems and such to learn more about their favorite games, and what to expect in the industry.
 
It'd be like saying "I think corvette drivers are pieces of garbage and should all go die so REAL people can buy corvettes!" on the official GM message board and saying that it wasn't meant for the Corvette Enthusiast.

 

 

 

There's a very applicable Hungarian saying for this situation; so far, I haven't found English analogues. It's sort of like "if the cap fits, wear it", but in the inverse. It could be loosely translated as "if it's not your shirt, don't put it on".

 

That's pretty much the full extent of my opinion on the matter.

[Nonek]

 

And to say that GG has been blind to years of journalistic abuses is just simply lying, the whole point of Gamergate is that the twelve articles attacking gamers was a last straw. After decades of demonising gamers, corruption and failure to be fit for purpose, it is when they started so blatantly preaching at the audience they are supposed to serve that gamers snapped back.

 

First off, GG has been blind to years of journalistic abuses due to being nonexistent, unless time travel has been invented while I wasn't looking. You could argue that the people who later become gamergaters weren't, but that's a statement impossible to prove or disprove (although we can point at the circumstantial evidence of their prolonged silence, which doesn't seem to support your statement).

 

Second, you're basically just reinforcing my point. The straw that broke the camel's back wasn't Gamespot firing an editor for the oh-so-horrible crime of handing out scores lower than 8 to AAA games (a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with gaming journalism), it was people "preaching at you" (read: discussing feminist issues in articles you're in no way forced to read). It's a ****ing temper tantrum over the SJ equivalent of TotalBiscuit's weird, but essentially harmless obsession with graphical setting options.

 

 

Sorry but scientifically and statistically you can't say that Gamergaters haven't flagged up issues from years before Gamergate began, this is pure rhetoric and a lying strawnman. Mr Gerstman's firing has been referenced by Gamergate dozens if not hundreds of times as a blatant example of journalitic corruption.

 

Secondly you're just reinforcing my point that there are so many abuses and corruption endemic in game journalism for the longest time that only the immoral, stupid, corrupt and unethical with a vested interest in continuing this hate movement can support and defend it. Throwing a spoiled childish temper tantrum and screaming that millions are sexist harassers, when it is scientifically and statistically disproven, is the resort of spoiled little children whom don't like that their disdain of normal diverse people has been called out.

 

When people support corruption, unethical behaviour, genocide, accusations of terrorism that are now revealed as lies, laughing at the victims of bomb threats and demonising millions for a passtime, those people are neither moderate or reasonable, they are mad little fanatics lost in their own little hateful world. And despite their wish that gamers were dead and their twelve gibberish articles repeating that sentiment, gamers are not dead, they're thriving unlike the vicious, toxic creatures whom launched that attack.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Nonek

[TrashMan]

B.t.w alu, no one cares about Zoe.

 

What started GamerGate was the coordinated censorship and vilification that happened afterwards. (are we imagining that one?)

Had people been able to just normally vent and moan about it, it would have blown over in a few days. But no, the journos and the incestuous clique overplayed their hands and the Streisand effect took off in full.

Now the industry is burning and it is GLORIOUS.

It was a long time coming.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Sorry but scientifically and statistically you can't say that Gamergaters haven't flagged up issues from years before Gamergate began, this is pure rhetoric and a lying strawnman.

 

 

I'm saying they weren't gamergaters back then. Given that GG itself is about six months old, it seems quite impossible to me that GGers were kicking up much of a fuss about those issues back when they were recent (ie. years ago).

 

Also, Nonek, in my years of posting here I have come to know you as a gentleman of impeccable taste and excellent education, so please understand that this question in no way reflects upon your intelligence, but... you have no idea what a strawman is, do you?

Edited May 23, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid