Gold_Loot
Member
Don’t be silly. That’s not what the alt-right is. At least, not the ones I have questioned. And Sargon of Akkad is a British liberal.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GamerGate: a discussion without internet-murdering each other about it
- Thread starter TheGraykid
- Start date
Don’t be silly. That’s not what the alt-right is. At least, not the ones I have questioned. And Sargon of Akkad is a British liberal.
And they are.
KevinKeene
Banned
Yes!
That's really one of the main things to understand about GamerGate: It's not special, it's not new, it's really nothing *Seinfeldgif*.
What GamerGate purports are reasonable, logical common knowledge ideas. Games should be about fun, facts are more important than feelings, and censorship sucks - like that's anything out of the ordinary. Which is why, as you just called them, Gamergators don't really attach the name 'GamerGate' to themselves. In the end, they want to play games without all the annoying baggage that people like Anita, Zoey, Wu, Jason Schreier and Co. induce into the gaming industry. That would be okay, if it hadn't been made into this all-dominating topic, leaving no thread unharmed. To see a negative extreme of what happened, just take a look at resetera, where literally every game is a profound political statement, and if anything surrounding said game doesn't pass the political purity test, it sucks ... even if it's a great game really.
If you don't care about politics in games or are slightly annoyed by the constant focus on that, you might as well call yourself a GamerGator - if GamerGate-aligning people did do that.
The anti-censorship isn't only about sexual stuff, but all censorship. It's just that current day feminists are so incredibly sex-negative that it has kinda become the focus of any censorship discussion.
And nobody tries to censor any review. But criticism is legitimate, too, right
Last edited:
Alx
Member
Yes!
That's really one of the main things to understand about GamerGate: It's not special, it's not new, it's really nothing *Seinfeldgif*.
All the more reasons to dissociate yourself from the gamergate label then. If all your belief is an old criticism of prudish censorship that has been going for decades, it doesn't seem appropriate to use a name that appeared at the same time as people having an excessive and violent take on this topic (among others). It makes the association hard to avoid, leave the "gamergate" name to the misogynists and avoid any confusion, it will be easier for everybody.
KevinKeene
Banned
No it will not since it will become the same by the "press" they clearly controlled this attack about gamers are dead as well. I am sorry but I do not care if the press or industry things I am a misogynist. The moment you criticize people like Anita you are on the same road no matter what.
Alx
Member
Eh, the name is tainted, and trying to redeem it only looks like you're trying to redeem the bullies. Also it's not even a great name to begin with, nor an old/traditional one. There's nothing to win by clearing the name, the situation is already too confusing as it is.
Last edited:
KevinKeene
Banned
If a new movement started with the same core principles, how long would it take for them to be accused of being GamerGators? Exactly.
Also the same has long before said about feminism. Feminism was a great movement in the beginning. Nowadays it's associated with men-hating revenge fantasists. And yet the label 'feminism' is kept in place.
Last edited:
Everything human beings do is political because it is based off our our feelings/intellect which is informed by how we view the world, AKA politics. Games need to be inclusive and celebrate diversity not just from a moral standpoint but from an economic one. New movies like Fast N Furious franchise are huge partially because of diversity, there is a market towards catering to people of all different types, not just the old "white male is the protagonist" which dominated the majority of media in the West/etc. for decades/centuries. A lot of the vitriolic Gamersgaters harassing women and stuff online/etc. are bad apples who mostly seemed mad at women daring to have a voice.
Luckily games have improved a lot for diversity in the last few years, along with other forms of media. Hoping this continues and accelerates as we continue into the future
Luckily games have improved a lot for diversity in the last few years, along with other forms of media. Hoping this continues and accelerates as we continue into the future
Last edited:
Alx
Member
Well feminism has been a very constructive movement for a long time, and even now can be one, among its multiple variations. How long did it take before Gamergate was associated to sexism, a couple of days ? Like I said there's no history to salvage.
Also defining a new name while the name gamergate is still running is a good way to make clear that it's a different view on the issue, and not just a rebranding.
(on the other hand if all your action comes down to disagreeing in silence, you may not even need a name for it)
Nightstick10
Neo Member
Essentially. Gamergate, from my reading of it, is mainly about gamers reacting against attempts at censorship of games. The harassment narrative doesn't really fly, considering those against Gamergate were just as bad, if not worse.
We have to remember that Gamergate exploded after the "Gamers are dead" articles, not the Zoe Post. Overnight, the "System Warz" ended as gamers invoked an "attack on one is an attack on all" clause.
Granted, the whole ordeal spiraled way out of control because instead of just letting people play animu dating simulators in peace, their opponents tried to get the mainstream media, FBI, and legislators involved in an attempt to bully cheetoh-munching neckbeards into submission but that didn't exactly go as planned.
Its not disagreeing in silence it watching in satisfaction how these people destroy itself. Its ahow not to support developers, "journalists" who go these routes and watch them "die" out of this industry Anita is done with gaming, Wu is an offically nucase. Zoe and alexandra have not done anything in a while, Polygon is doing everything to laugh about them etc.
And when Bioware does something like Andromeda with people like Manver its a joy to watch to be honest. I support the people who go against it. Be it a Kingdom come guy like Vavra or Tim Sorret who makes the last night. I have not visit any games journalism site in Ages. Only one is Giant Bomb for some content ohterwise there are ton of great youtubers and Twitch streamers to get information about games. They did not want me as Audience they got their wish. I do not care one bit about these people anymore.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Sounds like nobody really knows what it is about. Perhaps it is just a buzz word to be used when you disagree with something in gaming.
Games moving away from splitscreen really gets up my gamergate.
Games moving away from splitscreen really gets up my gamergate.
One thing I never understood about the whole situation, is why the moderates who felt both sides in the debate had fair points were instantly branded GG's by those who were against it. That really rubbed me wrong as someone who felt:
1) The games media, by and large, certainly did not seem to consistently play above board with readers, and I believe the changes many sites made to their disclosure policies proved that (regardless if they admit what lead them to the changes). While the straw that broke the camels back may or may not have been manufactured outrage (no way for me to possibly say), there most certainly was a build up of distrust and anger caused by sites pushing these glowing previews, and then for whatever reason not mentioning how shitty the end result was until after most pre-orders were picked up.
2) There is nothing wrong with people advocating for games that suit their personal preferences at all. While I may disagree that their preferences are mine, asking for something that appeals to you is natural and generally harmless.
3) Attacking devs / pubs for their design choices by demanding stores stop selling said games, calling them derogatory names on twitter, etc., is something I do not agree is right regardless of your right to do it. My personal opinion is don't buy it if it angers you, change the channel, etc. If we are talking illegal content that's different of course.
4) Anyone who makes death threats over video games and opinions about video games belongs in prison. While calling for Target not to sell a game I like pisses me off, that is certainly not a reason to threaten someone's life.
1) The games media, by and large, certainly did not seem to consistently play above board with readers, and I believe the changes many sites made to their disclosure policies proved that (regardless if they admit what lead them to the changes). While the straw that broke the camels back may or may not have been manufactured outrage (no way for me to possibly say), there most certainly was a build up of distrust and anger caused by sites pushing these glowing previews, and then for whatever reason not mentioning how shitty the end result was until after most pre-orders were picked up.
2) There is nothing wrong with people advocating for games that suit their personal preferences at all. While I may disagree that their preferences are mine, asking for something that appeals to you is natural and generally harmless.
3) Attacking devs / pubs for their design choices by demanding stores stop selling said games, calling them derogatory names on twitter, etc., is something I do not agree is right regardless of your right to do it. My personal opinion is don't buy it if it angers you, change the channel, etc. If we are talking illegal content that's different of course.
4) Anyone who makes death threats over video games and opinions about video games belongs in prison. While calling for Target not to sell a game I like pisses me off, that is certainly not a reason to threaten someone's life.
D
Deleted member 738645
Unconfirmed Member
What's the problem with fighting for social justice?
KevinKeene
Banned
I explained what it is :/
Sound like the good people would be building an echo chamber, in that case.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Everyone seems to have their own view of what it is though, judging by a few I skimmed here.
KevinKeene
Banned
bitbydeath
Gold Member
I explained why that is so, too
People trying to bend it to their own agendas?
Last edited:
So some people care about stuff you don't care about, and that's good enough for you to defame them.
AnimalFather
Banned
videogames are about fantasy. they are not about realism. the sooner vg companies get that the better. we all saw what happened when SJBS got into Andromeda..
KevinKeene
Banned
balgajo
Member
Though the action that people did in name of GG has nothing to do about it. And that's what matter to me.That's what GamerGate wants developers to think like.
Gamergate never went against developer they went against "journalists" and people attacking them.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
That's what GamerGate wants developers to think like.
Sounds pointless as is the status quo. Should just shut it down.
D
Deleted member 738645
Unconfirmed Member
nowhat
Member
Just to be absolutely clear - does this include for example including LGBT characters or feminist themes, if that's what the developers want to do?That's what GamerGate wants developers to think like.
Grits N Gravy
Banned
Wasn't this from like four years ago?
People are still about this oppressed gamer shit?
lmfao go outside you fucking subhumans
People are still about this oppressed gamer shit?
lmfao go outside you fucking subhumans
Ok the first one was Lizzard squad whoa also ddosed Sony several times. The second one was part of the clique who villified Gamergate in the begining because they all were very close with Quinn and co. EXample how scummy the IGDA was
How The IGDA Is Ripping Off Game Developers Inside the massive fraud that is the IGDA
And for the last one they spoke about harrassment in general as well. Again Gamergate never went against developer who did not attack them first,
TheGraykid
Member
Really? I think that game was bad because of all the poor animation, bugs and shitty writing.
I find it difficult to agree with you when gamergate appears to be a movement for people who, for a wide variety of reasons, think games with a certain viewpoint should not exist, and who also think that you should not be able to critique a game from a certain viewpoint.
In my opinion that is an inherently destructive way to live and consume art. It is stifling an artform in order to present your preconceived notions of what that artform should be. It is the gatekeeping of our culture, and leads to a place where we stop talking about ideas, because we're so obsessed with protecting gaming from those we consider to not be "true gamers", whatever that means. It isn't the death of gaming, but a kind of stagnation that comes from demanding that all art must appeal to "us" because, of course, we know better than all what gaming even is, and in doing so we lose the ability to ask the most important question of all. What should gaming even be?
InterMusketeer
Gold Member
I think you're ignoring a large chunk of the activism that has happened in the last few years. We've got people criticizing the prevalence of violent games, or story tropes, or character archetypes, game mechanics etc. That's not just saying: "Hey I wish there were more women and non-white characters." That's wanting to change everything about games to suit their ideology.
Let's be real here. It's not just about representation for minorities anymore. It totally is about pushing social justice in video games.
TheGraykid
Member
I barely see anyone of note criticising the mere presence of violence in video games. Also, as I said earlier "we're simply talking about certain groups being able to even appear in games in a way that isn't a basic stereotype", is that social justice to you? That appears to be what you're presenting as being "story tropes, or character archetypes," and so social justice. I don't believe that a critique being social justice related automatically invalidates it or means that it's just someone trying to "push an agenda".
Cybrwzrd
Banned
Nice strawman.
What games have Gamergators attacked for having the wrong viewpoints? Most of the backlash I have ever heard of from them is stuff about genuinely shitty games.
On the other side of the isle, the sheer number calling for games not to have certain viewpoints is staggering. Hell, look at tomorrow's big game release, Kingdom Come.
TheGraykid
Member
There are people in this thread who say they are gamergators, who have criticised specific games for their content. Not to mention all the people who have vaguely done the same by saying something like "games should be fun and fun only, politics in games are bad." so please do elaborate on my strawman.
Kingdom Come is being critiqued because it's developers are acting like assholes to people. There are many games of the same genre that have the same racial content that do not have this issue.
KevinKeene
Banned
Of course. The problem today is that it's hard to judge if a given developer chose to include lgbt characters or feminist themes out of their own choice or because of outside pressure (that isn't correlated to financial success). New franchises have it easier here, because nothing is establish. As I mentioned before, if Link was female in the next Zelda, I'd never believe that this was Aonuma's own wish, after all the female link-circus before BotW's release. I'd criticize that heavily. Other franchises without such history depend on execution. Lgbt characters such as in the Mass Effect-games were terrible, because they were created to represent their non-normative properties first, their personality last (with the exception of Vidal, who was great). More video games should treat lgbt characters like, ironically, normal people. By putting them on a pedestal, they never quite fit in as naturally as other characters. I've seen people ask for gay people in Xenoblade Chronicles 2 - for all we know there are plenty gay characters, but the only portrayed romance is that between Rex and Pyra (and one more tragic party :/).It wouldn't have made sense for there to be a gay romance,because there were no other romances at all. It would have felt alienating towards the hypothetical gay characters being put in the spotlight only because ...they're gay.
So, I'm all for diversity. But have it come naturally and with quality, not driven by activism.
Makariel
Member
For me the GG movement resulted in the collapse of a number of forums and online communities I was participating in or lurking about. For example over at Rock, Paper, Shotgun, where things got to the point that any questioning the party line resulted in an immediate ban. Then there were game journalists like Matt Lees*, who spent more and more time pontificating with a level of self-importance that hasn't been seen in the last few catholic popes. Discussions turned sour really fast, and namecalling on both extremes was getting out of hand. "If you're not with us, you're against us." - G.W. Bush Jr. would have been proud.
What is GG about for me? It's about game journalists going to war with their own readers, forcing people to pick their side or be banned. I have a distrust of authority, and this just rubbed me the wrong way. But speaking up put me in the camp of "the enemy". It was bizarre times, where it would happen that people from both sides of the argument would label me alternating as "SJW" and "GG", within the same page of a forum thread, sometimes for the very same forum post. I didn't feel like participating in such online quarrels after some time. As a result the number of gaming sites I frequented dropped considerably. It still is very limited. Now I get most of my gaming news from friends and a select few forums, which actually had a positive impact on me in terms of having more time for other hobbies, less games bought, smaller pile of shame etc.
I find this thread so far very interesting to read and am happy to see an open discussion, bravo!
* I mention him specifically because his name stuck somehow, I'm not particularly good with names and have forgotten most of the others.
What is GG about for me? It's about game journalists going to war with their own readers, forcing people to pick their side or be banned. I have a distrust of authority, and this just rubbed me the wrong way. But speaking up put me in the camp of "the enemy". It was bizarre times, where it would happen that people from both sides of the argument would label me alternating as "SJW" and "GG", within the same page of a forum thread, sometimes for the very same forum post. I didn't feel like participating in such online quarrels after some time. As a result the number of gaming sites I frequented dropped considerably. It still is very limited. Now I get most of my gaming news from friends and a select few forums, which actually had a positive impact on me in terms of having more time for other hobbies, less games bought, smaller pile of shame etc.
I find this thread so far very interesting to read and am happy to see an open discussion, bravo!
* I mention him specifically because his name stuck somehow, I'm not particularly good with names and have forgotten most of the others.
Sorry Op, but everything is political, our lives, everyone's are rules by politics want it or not, so everything gets a little political in the end. You are probably thinking about propaganda. But I really don't see many, if any, game pushing that.
Why are people defending what Gamergate is?
It was a movement to harass women because male gamers felt that their hobby was being destroyed, which never happened. Any women called out a company and they were harassed and sent death threats.
Last edited:
KevinKeene
Banned
Criticism is fair. I think you misunderstand 'attack' here. Social justice activists don't simply criticize, they attack, meaning that they produce public outrage, demand change, call for firings.
That Kingdom Come-developer isn't an asshole who was mean to people. People were assholes towards him and he didn't take that. More developers should react like that.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
You can have all the politics you want in a game. It has to make sense in the context of the game though. People get mad when it ruins a series they love because it gets pigeonholed in. Forcing an agenda and telling a story are two different things. I don't go watch Transformers for nuanced political commentary, nor would I go watch Lady Bird for it's gripping action scenes.
KevinKeene
Banned
As I explained, that's the problem. The mainstream media blindly follows the hateful self-interpretation of GamerGate that people like Anita created. Meanwhile you'd have to go to GG-communities to see what it's really like, but you don't want to because what the former told you makes these communities look so bad that you do your best to stay away. And thus, nobody ever gets any wiser - and anti-GG activists reached their goal. It's awful.
InterMusketeer
Gold Member
For the last three years, Ms. Sarkeesian (Perhaps you've heard of her) has published surveys on the prevalence of violent games at E3. Every year, she repeats that she wants video games to be more than what they are now, and if I'm understanding her right, combat mechanics in games block that progress:
The above is pushing an agenda. If she had just said: I wish there were more games that didn't focus on combat, that'd be fine, but then she claims that developers who don't listen to her and keep developing violent games are limiting the medium.
Sexualization in games is another example. Many people dislike it. Xenoblade 2 is a recent example, with people criticizing its female character designs. As always, the argument ends up being: "We don't want to take away your anime boobs, but they are reinforcing harmful stereotypes, and the people who enjoy them are creepy virgin pedophiles anyway, so they really should go."
Either you listen to them, or you're a bad person. I object to that. I'm totally fine with the devs adding alternate costumes, or even a toggle option in the menu to remove fanservice in its entirety, but you can't stop others from enjoying these kinds of elements, and yet you'll often find people advocating just that.
A lot of what you just said applies to this, actually:
And my answer to that final question is quite simple: Games should be whatever gamers (IE the people paying and playing) want it to be. And if that includes games aimed at minorities and progressives, that's fine. As long as the stuff that made the medium great in the first place isn't forced out.
Last edited:
Makariel
Member
How about you read the rest of the thread, and not just the first few lines of the OP?
Petrae
Member
When the gaming press started to berate its readership, and when a notable member of said press uttered that “gamers are over” line, the camel’s back was broken. Gaming press ultimately chose to defend the industry it covers, and chastised those who criticized it.
I still recall the Mass Effect 3 debacle, when I read op-ed pieces shouting down video game players and those who were angry about the ending. Members of the gaming press took to Twitter to dogpile on game players.
It created an “us vs. them” war— and fueled the rise of GG. Then things just careened out of control. Harassment, doxxing, threats, alternating patterns of offensive and defensive behavior. It was, frankly, embarrassing to watch happen as someone who has played video games across five different decades. I’ve never seen anything like this.
There’s plenty of blame to go around, but I always have to come back to the occurrences of gaming press treating game players like total shit, as if players are leagues beneath them. Then things exploded, and, well— the war rages on, years later.
I still recall the Mass Effect 3 debacle, when I read op-ed pieces shouting down video game players and those who were angry about the ending. Members of the gaming press took to Twitter to dogpile on game players.
It created an “us vs. them” war— and fueled the rise of GG. Then things just careened out of control. Harassment, doxxing, threats, alternating patterns of offensive and defensive behavior. It was, frankly, embarrassing to watch happen as someone who has played video games across five different decades. I’ve never seen anything like this.
There’s plenty of blame to go around, but I always have to come back to the occurrences of gaming press treating game players like total shit, as if players are leagues beneath them. Then things exploded, and, well— the war rages on, years later.
TheGraykid
Member
I think often in this conversation we get wrapped round talking about semantics instead of what actually happens. I've used the term earlier, but it feels like framing. They Attack vs we criticize is an example of that.
"they attack, meaning that they produce public outrage, demand change, call for firings." First off there are members of every group within gaming who do the above.
Produce public outrage- if enough people talk about anything it produces public outrage. I don't see how that's a specifically bad act.
demand change- I don't see anything wrong with asking for things to be different. A part of critique is offering ways for the art to be different.
call for firings- this is the only truly awful thing, and for me personally, I rarely see people actually do that.
If the Kingdom Come dude had a lick of empathy and professionalism, then this would have never blown up because he would have calmly commented on it once and then went on with his life.
Red Crayon Aristocrat
Member
Well, the first thing I'll say is this whole situation and political and culture war infighting that's been happening in gaming culture for years now is very unfortunate, it's made gaming culture a lot less fun than it used to be.
Now as for Gamergate, that was when things really came to a head and the whole thing honestly made my head spin and after a while I simply tried to tune it out, but correct me if I'm wrong, the whole thing was over a female game developer, Zoe Quinn, sleeping with certain game journalists in exchange for favorable coverage of her game, right? Is that not something worth getting upset over? That game journalists would do something so sleazy and dishonest and why is this Zoe Quinn person supposed to be a hero to admire when she would use her body in order to get ahead in the industry? That's also sleazy and dishonest behavior.
The fact that so many gaming journalist websites were so quick to yell sexism and misogyny at the drop of a hat definitely makes it seem like they were trying to cover their ass after being caught doing something bad.
So I was always very skeptical of the labeling GG a "hate group" and so on, remember that terrible Law and Order episode about it? It wasn't enough to make an episode where maybe someone takes online harassment too far and someone gets hurt, no, they had to depict gamers as a literal ISIS like group, just hysterical, ridiculous nonsense.
Now with all that said though, the problem we have in the present day is thanks to things like Twitter and the general interconnected world we live in, it's impossible to have level headed discussions about these things because trolls will always seize an opportunity to troll and harass people, whether they really care about what it's over or just want to do it "for the lulz" or people who do care but can't control their temper and let the harassment fly, I'm sure Zoe Quinn got hit with online harassment and that's unfortunate.
It's the same thing with Anita Sarkeesian, I don't like her nor do I like or agree with what's she said with her Tropes vs Women video series, but because people harassed her suddenly she was taken a lot more seriously, imagine if during the days of heated debate over Jack Thompson Twitter existed and people used it as a platform to send death threats to him, suddenly his message of "gamers are violent" would have been taken a lot more seriously with people literally threatening to kill him.
I think simply people can't differentiate between trolls and people who have legit opinions and grievances, trolls are an unfortunate constant of the internet and people need to learn to ignore them.
One thing's for sure, gaming journalism is more or less dead, when they decided to throw gamers under the bus rather than tackle the issue in a even handed way that was certainly not right and I've stopped visiting almost all of these websites and I almost never read reviews anymore, just follow the general online buzz about a game.
Now as for Gamergate, that was when things really came to a head and the whole thing honestly made my head spin and after a while I simply tried to tune it out, but correct me if I'm wrong, the whole thing was over a female game developer, Zoe Quinn, sleeping with certain game journalists in exchange for favorable coverage of her game, right? Is that not something worth getting upset over? That game journalists would do something so sleazy and dishonest and why is this Zoe Quinn person supposed to be a hero to admire when she would use her body in order to get ahead in the industry? That's also sleazy and dishonest behavior.
The fact that so many gaming journalist websites were so quick to yell sexism and misogyny at the drop of a hat definitely makes it seem like they were trying to cover their ass after being caught doing something bad.
So I was always very skeptical of the labeling GG a "hate group" and so on, remember that terrible Law and Order episode about it? It wasn't enough to make an episode where maybe someone takes online harassment too far and someone gets hurt, no, they had to depict gamers as a literal ISIS like group, just hysterical, ridiculous nonsense.
Now with all that said though, the problem we have in the present day is thanks to things like Twitter and the general interconnected world we live in, it's impossible to have level headed discussions about these things because trolls will always seize an opportunity to troll and harass people, whether they really care about what it's over or just want to do it "for the lulz" or people who do care but can't control their temper and let the harassment fly, I'm sure Zoe Quinn got hit with online harassment and that's unfortunate.
It's the same thing with Anita Sarkeesian, I don't like her nor do I like or agree with what's she said with her Tropes vs Women video series, but because people harassed her suddenly she was taken a lot more seriously, imagine if during the days of heated debate over Jack Thompson Twitter existed and people used it as a platform to send death threats to him, suddenly his message of "gamers are violent" would have been taken a lot more seriously with people literally threatening to kill him.
I think simply people can't differentiate between trolls and people who have legit opinions and grievances, trolls are an unfortunate constant of the internet and people need to learn to ignore them.
One thing's for sure, gaming journalism is more or less dead, when they decided to throw gamers under the bus rather than tackle the issue in a even handed way that was certainly not right and I've stopped visiting almost all of these websites and I almost never read reviews anymore, just follow the general online buzz about a game.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked