Support NeoGAF

[Hashmal_Bringer_of_Order]

I barely follow any of that stuff but what i do feel strongly about is the idea that clinging to apolitical media is a farce. Any media or art of any substance is political in that it carries the creators politics and/or normative opinions on it, whether they want that to be the case or not.

 

[DryvBy]

The history of it is pure dishonest by game journalists as it exposed a lot of their unethical behavior behind the scenes. It created "heroes" like Zoe (I'm sorry, her game really is junk) and Anita Sarkeesian, both who are not allowed to be criticized because of their fan base. It's also caused problems between gamers and developers.

Do some gamers harass people online? Absolutely, and so do non-gamers. And so do anti-GG groups. There's always bad people in any group. But it's dishonest to claim an entire group is doing this. It's also hard to even tell when it's gamer gate doing this since anyone that does something bad (claims they want xx developer to die) is automatically GG.

1. Games are about fun, not political agenda
2. Facts over feelings
3. Censorship is always bad

1. Games should mostly be about fun. When it crosses the line where it's more political than it is fun, then I have a problem with it. GTA is an excellent example. It's political but only because real life is too. But it doesn't get in the way of the story or the gameplay. And honestly, most games were never political. The recent push for it is because no one wants to separate their politics from other avenues of life. We need everything to feel comfy and cozy and everything to align with our beliefs.

The problem I see with politics and gaming is that the non-GG side tries to push their politics into gaming. Take for example the Kingdom Come: Deliverance controversy. And not even just in the game itself, but if the person doesn't view the world the same way. Just off the top of my head, we have A Hat in Time being shunned because they left JonTron in. Or just last week, the Subnautica dev who was fired for their views.

I know a part of the problem some have with politics in gaming is how often the media or users put into a game what they want out of it politically. Just a couple of examples of this are the Donald Trump in Pokemon or Far Cry 5 is about fighting Trump supporters. (Of course, those two articles are also examples of journalism correcting people from believing such non-sense).

2. I'm not sure what you mean by this one. I'm only on my first cup of coffee and my loud mouth neighbors across the street decided to have an argument outside their house, like civilized people.

3. Most censorship is bad especially if "games are art". If you don't like something, don't buy it. As an example, I really enjoy brutally violent video games and I think that comes from me growing up in the 90s where politicians claimed violent games were "murder simulators".

--------------

Honestly, gamergate gets a lot of heat from gaming media as a go to "boogeyman" where they use an outlier as proof of anything they want to push. But I don't really hear how awful the other side is. I've read trash articles and seen people that are supposedly in this hobby claim gamers are "toxic", "racist", "alt-right", "sexist", "neo-Nazis" and a variety of other names. Even calling someone a "gamer" is an insult and implied guilt of all of the above. I've never seen an industry have devs and critics that purposely try to insult their customer base like I do in video games.

 

[TheGraykid]

I have no doubt that some harassment took place because every group has its fringe elements willing to go too far for a cause.
That goes both ways, on the GG side and on the anti-GG side some people were going crazy.
As a gamer myself I can't help but feel tired of all the articles describing games/gamers as terrible/racist/sexist for any little detail.

Gaming is a male dominated hobby at what I would called its 'core'.
Yes we are getting close to 50/50 split but that's only thanks to mobile/casual games.
See wikipediaarticle the only genre with female majority are:
Match-3 at 69% and Family or farming simulator at 69% followed directly with casual puzzle with women already down to 42%.
With the types of games selling the most being Sport (2% women), Racing (6% women) FPS (7% women).

Saying that though I have never met any gamer that was against women participating in the hobby, quite the opposite in fact. And no man has ever asked for match-3 games to be made more appealing to them.
But when people started wantings to change the hobby to fit their vision that's when the conflict started.
There is a difference between 'that game has half naked women so I'm not interested' and 'that game has half naked women so it's sexist and if you play you are sexist'.

The fact that then mainstream media went almost totally one sided on the issue made a lot of people lose trust in many outlets.

Shouldn't the hobby change if the people being interested in it change/have bigger voices?

Also, I've never read a review where someone indicated that if you liked a game that you were a sexist. Isn't it okay to criticise a game if you think it has sexist themes?

 

[NahaNago]

Honestly, gamergate gets a lot of heat from gaming media as a go to "boogeyman" where they use an outlier as proof of anything they want to push. But I don't really hear how awful the other side is. I've read trash articles and seen people that are supposedly in this hobby claim gamers are "toxic", "racist", "alt-right", "sexist", "neo-Nazis" and a variety of other names. Even calling someone a "gamer" is an insult and implied guilt of all of the above. I've never seen an industry have devs and critics that purposely try to insult their customer base like I do in video games.

Yep, it is so crazy how much the gaming industry attacks its customer base. It makes like no sense whatsoever. You'd think it be more like hey we share the same interest lets bond over it but nope its more like the gaming industry acts like were peasants who are blessed to read their articles and play their games while they turn up their nose up at gamers.

 

[Typhares]

Shouldn't the hobby change if the people being interested in it change/have bigger voices?

Also, I've never read a review where someone indicated that if you liked a game that you were a sexist. Isn't it okay to criticise a game if you think it has sexist themes?

That is one option of course if the people wanting the changes are really the person interested in the hobby.
That's difficult to prove but looking at the current comics industry fumbling I don't think that is the case for video games either.
I think a vast majority of people don't even think that hard about the entertainment they consume. You can criticise any game for anything but these critisisms could also be criticised etc... Not everyone agree what is sexist for example so I don't agree with asking for changes because some specific individuals want them.

 

[Dunki]

Yep, it is so crazy how much the gaming industry attacks its customer base. It makes like no sense whatsoever. You'd think it be more like hey we share the same interest lets bond over it but nope its more like the gaming industry acts like were peasants who are blessed to read their articles and play their games while they turn up their nose up at gamers.

It was not even the gaming industry it were its critics. Most and all big companies kept really quiet in the end. Only the so called clique around Zoe and co went also after gamer. Games journalism is dying and Iguess they tried to find a new audience with these articles. But it did not really work out for them. Gamergate was also a reason why Youtube and Twitch became so big because they flooded to these channel and people they felt could trust.

You can also now see these with movie and rotten tomatoes scores and how far part critic scores and people scroess have become with "controversial movies"

 

[Nightstick10]

If you don't like something, don't buy it. The end. But din't ruin it for others who like it. That's gamergate.

Stripping away all the fluff and fat, this is Gamergate in a nutshell.

 

[NahaNago]

With the way things are going, we have comicsgate, wouldn't be shocked there'll be an Animegate. Looking at what Funimation did to the dubs of Prison School, Dragon maid, etc...

What did Funimation do? I'm actually surprised at how many anime slips through into the U.S.

 

[Mobile Suit Gooch]

"Games Journalist are dead, they don't have to be your audience."

 

[Dunki]

What did Funimation do? I'm actually surprised at how many anime slips through into the U.S.

For Dragon Maid

This was recently brought to my attention.

In episode 12 of Miss Kobayashi's Maid Dragon, when Lucoa turns up at the door clad in a hoodie, the subtitles read:

Tohru: "what's with that outfit?"

Lucoa: "everyone was always saying something to me, so I tried toning down the exposure. How is it?"

Tohru: "you should try changing your body next."

There have been no complaints about these translations, and they fit the characters perfectly. Lucoa has become concerned about to attention she gets but we get nothing more specific than that. Tohru remains critical of her over-the-top figure and keeps up the 'not quite friends' vibe between them.

But what do we get in the dub? In parallel:

Tohru: "what are you wearing that for?"

Lucoa: "oh those pesky patriarchal societal demands were getting on my nerves, so I changed clothes"

Tohru: "give it a week, they'll be begging you to change back"

(check it for yourself if you think I'm kidding)

It's a COMPLETELY different scene. Not only do we get some political language injected into what Lucoa says (suddenly she's so connected to feminist language, even though her not being human or understanding human decency is emphasized at every turn?); we also get Tohru coming on her 'side' against this 'patriarchy' Lucoa now suddenly speaks of and not criticizing her body at all. Sure, Tohru's actual comment in the manga and Japanese script is a kind of body-shaming, but that's part of what makes Tohru's character. Rewriting it rewrites Tohru herself.

I don't think it's a coincidence that this sort of thing happened when the English VA for Lucoa is the scriptwriter for the dub overall, Jamie Marchi. Funimation's Kyle Phillips may also have a role as director, but this reeks of an English writer and VA using a character as their mouthpiece, scrubbing out the 'problematic' bits of the original and changing the story to suit a specific agenda.*

This isn't a dub. This is fanfiction written over the original, for the remarkably niche audience of feminists. Is this what the leading distributors of anime in the West should be doing?

As a feminist myself, this really pisses me off.

*please don't directly contact them over this, I don't condone harassment of any sort. If you want to talk to Funi about this, talk to them through the proper channels

 

[InterMusketeer]

Shouldn't the hobby change if the people being interested in it change/have bigger voices?

I don't think the demographics have changed all that much. The people calling for more diversity are, for the most part, not actually buying and playing games. Big budget AAA games, to be exact, because that's what's mostly being criticized. Most progressives see video games as a tool to spread their political views. There's already a few examples of developers who tried to appeal to these people, and those games utterly failed to sell, because gamers don't actually care for those experiences.

 

[Mobile Suit Gooch]

What did Funimation do? I'm actually surprised at how many anime slips through into the U.S.

 

[-Minsc-]

GamerGate, where a bunch of unified and not-unified people argued over what it was.

Were review sites and game devs getting chummy? I'd say there's truth here, this stuff happens.

Were minorities not being heard in the gaming scene? I'd say there's truth here, this stuff happens.

Were favorite niche games of societal misfits being used as weapons to push an agenda? I'd say there's truth here, this stuff happens.

Were minorities having an increased presence and voice in gaming before the whole GG thing went down? I'd say there's truth here, this stuff happens.

Were nerds completely oblivious to what would happen when their desire for their niche to become mainstream became a reality? I'd say there's truth here, this stuff happens.

Was someone screwing (here's a word with many layers of meaning) someone? I'd say there's truth here, this stuff happens.

Admittedly, this is not the kind of post which promotes deep discussion.

GG was introduced to me as basically ethics in video game journalism which was hijacked by other social causes. I'm gong to stick with this definition for two reasons. The first simply being this is how it was introduced to me. The saying that first impressions are important mean a lot. Second is these other social causes have no problem garnering attention elsewhere (which they do). Obviously I can't stop outsiders from using a specific hobby as a tool to further an agenda. I can't say I've never done the same, it's just something that kinda happens.

A general idea I've been having. There are those out there trying to be a specific inspiration to people (for example, I often hear the phrase "being an inspiration to women"). I feel this is a sword that is a blade without a guard or hilt. Sure, it may damage an opponent out there but it also damages the self. Take someone aiming to be first woman (or trans, or whatever) President. Wanting to be an inspiration to women can be a good starting point on that journey, relying on it too heavily can be a hindrance. After all there's more to a leader of a nation than their own tiny agenda.

Echo chambers are both good and bad. We all need, in a sense, a safe space. Of course we can't close out the world, that's impossible since our mind open until we are dead (though some would say our minds will be opened even more at that time). Just be narrow minded enough to not be pushed around too hard. New information will still enter.

Edit, the forgotten note:

The point of artists/creators wanting to be in control of their works. When I was younger I took what was in front of me and enjoyed what I was given. As I got older I got more selective and consumed what seemed interesting to me. Much (most?) of the time this decision was influenced by advertising and what seemed popular. I was content with this. It wasn't until my journey into internet land that the idea idea of telling the creator what to do really entered my mind. Now that I'm older I can see that I don't want to tell the creator what to do. Sure, I may voice my like or dislike of the creative work. To tell them to craft an experience tailored to me, that is just way too much work. The reason I consume their creative work is because I don't want to make my own. It's enough trouble figuring out my own life as it is.

 

[Blam]

Wow that's pretty fucked up to change it like that.

 

[Alx]

Stripping away all the fluff and fat, this is Gamergate in a nutshell.

So what you're saying is that gamergate is just a bunch of gamers shouting "leave our games alone" in a corner of the internet and that's it ? I find it hard to believe, or else it wouldn't be such a major talking point. For a start there is the obvious issue of people using gamergate as an excuse for harassment and other unacceptable behavior. So maybe those aren't "true gamergaters", but it doesn't look like there is a clear line between the "true" and the "false" ones.
Also everything considered, it doesn't look like many game creators got influenced by the vocal complainers on the internet, one way or another. I haven't followed all major IPs and please correct me if I'm wrong, but their plots didn't really turn more political or inclusive (for better or worse). So the concern about game content seems overrated.

 

[TheGraykid]

The history of it is pure dishonest by game journalists as it exposed a lot of their unethical behavior behind the scenes. It created "heroes" like Zoe (I'm sorry, her game really is junk) and Anita Sarkeesian, both who are not allowed to be criticized because of their fan base. It's also caused problems between gamers and developers.

Do some gamers harass people online? Absolutely, and so do non-gamers. And so do anti-GG groups. There's always bad people in any group. But it's dishonest to claim an entire group is doing this. It's also hard to even tell when it's gamer gate doing this since anyone that does something bad (claims they want xx developer to die) is automatically GG.



1. Games should mostly be about fun. When it crosses the line where it's more political than it is fun, then I have a problem with it. GTA is an excellent example. It's political but only because real life is too. But it doesn't get in the way of the story or the gameplay. And honestly, most games were never political. The recent push for it is because no one wants to separate their politics from other avenues of life. We need everything to feel comfy and cozy and everything to align with our beliefs.

The problem I see with politics and gaming is that the non-GG side tries to push their politics into gaming. Take for example the Kingdom Come: Deliverance controversy. And not even just in the game itself, but if the person doesn't view the world the same way. Just off the top of my head, we have A Hat in Time being shunned because they left JonTron in. Or just last week, the Subnautica dev who was fired for their views.

I know a part of the problem some have with politics in gaming is how often the media or users put into a game what they want out of it politically. Just a couple of examples of this are the Donald Trump in Pokemon or Far Cry 5 is about fighting Trump supporters. (Of course, those two articles are also examples of journalism correcting people from believing such non-sense).

2. I'm not sure what you mean by this one. I'm only on my first cup of coffee and my loud mouth neighbors across the street decided to have an argument outside their house, like civilized people.

3. Most censorship is bad especially if "games are art". If you don't like something, don't buy it. As an example, I really enjoy brutally violent video games and I think that comes from me growing up in the 90s where politicians claimed violent games were "murder simulators".

--------------

Honestly, gamergate gets a lot of heat from gaming media as a go to "boogeyman" where they use an outlier as proof of anything they want to push. But I don't really hear how awful the other side is. I've read trash articles and seen people that are supposedly in this hobby claim gamers are "toxic", "racist", "alt-right", "sexist", "neo-Nazis" and a variety of other names. Even calling someone a "gamer" is an insult and implied guilt of all of the above. I've never seen an industry have devs and critics that purposely try to insult their customer base like I do in video games.

I don't think you can clearly separate "Fun" from "Politics viewpoint". My old example Shadow of the Collosos, what makes that game a masterpiece and so enjoyable are its themes. And games have been political for a long long time, I wouldn't call that a recent push. I think you should be able to criticise those politics in games just like anything. There are a thousand reasons not to purchase something and you're entitled to not purchase something if you believe that benefits a cause you don't fuck with.

But, gaming is incredibly toxic, in a way that no other hobby I know is. I like playing football/soccer with people, that's a hobby where I can physically hurt people, and that's nothing like the awfulness of playing multiplayer games online, of steam forums when a popular franchise has black characters, of Twitch streams run by popular streamers. We do need to be better.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/851713200537993216?lang=en Check this out

It feels disingenuous to be like "these men said bad things about gamergate and it turns out they suck", especially when over the last couple of years we've realised that a lot of men suck.

That is one option of course if the people wanting the changes are really the person interested in the hobby.
That's difficult to prove but looking at the current comics industry fumbling I don't think that is the case for video games either.
I think a vast majority of people don't even think that hard about the entertainment they consume. You can criticise any game for anything but these critisisms could also be criticised etc... Not everyone agree what is sexist for example so I don't agree with asking for changes because some specific individuals want them.

The women I tend to see talk about these things, do appear to be people actually invested in the hobby.
I agree, a vast majority of people don't think that hard about the entertainment they consume, but some people do, and that's okay. From my perspective, it appears that GG people feel like people don't even have a right to discuss this, because the culture is "owned" by them.

 

[TheShadowLord]

I don't think the demographics have changed all that much. The people calling for more diversity are, for the most part, not actually buying and playing games. Big budget AAA games, to be exact, because that's what's mostly being criticized. Most progressives see video games as a tool to spread their political views. There's already a few examples of developers who tried to appeal to these people, and those games utterly failed to sell, because gamers don't actually care for those experiences.

Even before this whole gamergate, gamers online had complained about the lack of women/minorities in gaming as the majority of protagonists were white males. These were coming from male gamers. Well, we got what we wanted and don't you agree that's a good thing?

 

[CRON]

Gaming "journalism" was always a little sketchy from the start. Paid reviews, bribes/gifts, and general unprofessionalism.

With that said, GamerGate is a complete mess from both sides which ultimately stem from both sides being insecure about their hobby of choice not being taken seriously by the public.

 

[NahaNago]

Shortened to see my reply :
For Dragon Maid

Yeah that was a bit of cringy but I can't decide if it's completely agenda pushing or pop culture? since gamergate became mainstream media news.

shortened to see my reply as well:

I can totally see why funigate would become a thing.

Thanks you two for the info.

 

[KevinKeene]

To be honest it is highly frustrating to see many people in this thread just throw in a 'GG is about harassment and misogyny' and completely ignore everything else. If we define GG and resetera as the two sides, I'd always choose to align with GG. I do not harass women. I am far-left politically.
So why do you refuse to educate yourself, to look at people individually, and instead take cases of harassment and unconditionally attach them to GG? It is dishonest and leads nowhere. Here I am explaining in detail what GG is, what is not. Yet you ignore everything I swrote and simply throw in another 'GG is about harassment and misogyny'. It's as if you're afraid of having to re-evaluate your own knowledge. There's no shame in finding out you were wrong, had a false understanding of something, and update your information.

You read about GG only on websites like Kotaku and Polygon, from instigators like Zoe, Wu or Anita, who demand that they define what GG is. That is wrong. GG is what it decided itself. The aforementioned websw/people don't like what that is, so they keep attaching harassment and misogyny to it, knowing how easy it is to kill denounce a movement with such accusations.

Let's make it simple: I'm a GamerGater. I don't harass women. I'm politically very left. Do you still refuse to acknowledge that? (And just for the record: I don't call myself a 'GamerGater', labels are silly)

So, what is the difference between "pushing a political agenda." and "They carry certain messages, but those are very general or subtle."? You mention it being a "real world politics" thing, but the GTA games are all about real-world politics and yet they don't seem to be hated by GG. You also mention the word "agenda" quite a bit, tell me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you're indicating that certain games are made only to affect a kind of political change. This, I think isn't the sole reason for any art, however, I would say almost all art uses that as one of its reasons for existing.

I will try explaining it one more time, although I don't think it's that complicated. Every game, every piece of art, no, every decision you make in your everday life is in some way political - if you chose to interpret it. Games like Zelda, Mario, Dark Souls, Skyrim, Persona 4, etc. certainly can be interpreted in certain ways - but they never push any political agenda in the players face.

That's different in games with an obvious political agenda. Dragon Age: Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda both had characters that wouldn't shut up about 'hey, look, I'm transgender!' (and ironically were criticized by trans people for that). In Mass Effect 3, you couldn't carelessly talk to the new buff guy, because any dialogue with him using male Shepard would be pushed toward homosexual romance (which sucked,because it reduced the guy to being homosexual). The Tomb Raider-reboot developer gave a public statement about reducing Lara's breast size. And apparently Far Cry 5 comes down to killing Republicans.

These are examples of games pushing a political agenda. GG wouldn't complain about a game with transgender characters (I mean, any good game wouldn't even let you know about it, unless it thematically explores tbe topic of transgenderism), GG also wouldn't complain about homosexual characters. But when topics like these are used as big talking points by developers, it garners criticism. Which I share. When I play Mario, I never feel like Miyamoto pushes his personal political believes into me. I do, however, feel that way with many modern western games. These days, even Japanese games manage to portray more interesting female characters than western games. Unfortunately, Japanese games are continuously dismissed, otherwise Elma from Xenoblade Chronicles X would have won many awards for how great of a female character she was.

The BotW idea that people from different backgrounds can come together and do great things, is a pretty modern (almost pro-diversity) message, or do you believe that's a poor interpretation of the work?

That message of coming together to defeat evil is as old as men telling stories. I mean ... really?

I can argue about pretty much anything reasonably well, including Peterson, and I've seen lots of people arguing very coherently about why Peterson is completely wrong. I'm more than happy to PM you with links if that takes your fancy. I'm not in the resetera Peterson thread, so I won't comment on that.

I've never seen anyone successfully explain why Peterson is wrong/bad. If you can, I'd prefer you do it publically, as many others would probably like to hear it. I've watched so many videos of him. He stays with the facts, he's not alt-right in any way. I'd be honestly surprised to see an argument that can change that.

Doesn't that idea feel petty? The "Nintendo gave in to social justice activists." idea. We don't do that with anything else. If I complain about bad graphics, or a bad story, or a game not being open world, anything else within a game, would your response be to not like that solely because people asked for it to be changed? It's people feeling upset just because that change indicates that their perceived "side" is losing something when nothing has really been lost. It's partisanship at it's highest. It's ideology over events. Some might even call that "feelings over facts".

I love video games. It's probably my number one interest in life. When a group of crazy people suddenly gains influence on the development of games, I won't sit and watch quietly. I make my opinion heard. It's the least I can do. Good people doing nothing while bad people ruin things is how everything gets worse with time.

 

[Typhares]

The women I tend to see talk about these things, do appear to be people actually invested in the hobby.
I agree, a vast majority of people don't think that hard about the entertainment they consume, but some people do, and that's okay. From my perspective, it appears that GG people feel like people don't even have a right to discuss this, because the culture is "owned" by them.

I'm not saying there aren't things to improve although I would argue that most of the improvements that need to happen are from the perspective of society in general not gaming specific.
Are there sexist gamers? Yes. Are there racist gamers? Yes. Because gamers are people and people are like that.
Are the games turning people racist or sexist? Well this is where I would say no and therefore do not have any drive to change them.
It feels similar to the games are making people violent argument from the past.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Even before this whole gamergate, gamers online had complained about the lack of women/minorities in gaming as the majority of protagonists were white males. These were coming from male gamers. Well, we got what we wanted and don't you agree that's a good thing?

GG was a reaction to a movement that already existed, so of course this pro-diversity pushing existed before GG was a thing. How do you even know it's men who complained back then? What does it even matter? I honestly don't know where you're going with this.

 

[TheShadowLord]

GG was a reaction to a movement that already existed, so of course this pro-diversity pushing existed before GG was a thing. How do you even know it's men who complained back then? What does it even matter? I honestly don't know where you're going with this.

I am trying to say the increase of women protagonists in western games lately was because of gamergate.

 

[yet_another_alt]

Let developers do what they want and let the market decide if they're worth supporting. Do I like how much social media pressure devs? No, but they should be allowed to do so. It's up to the company to decide whether they want to cater to one group or another and they have to live with that decision. If it turns into a financial success, good for them, they'd likely keep going that way then. If they're not, then they reinvent themselves or die off (or influence the public that their shit don't stink, perfectly legit strategy). Maybe they do succeed but don't find it fulfilling that they have to bend over, well, that's life. Speaking for myself as a consumer, nothing really changed much, new games popped up to cater to my interests as other changed to match someone else's. It certainly disappointed me that some changed in directions I didn't want them to but on the upside I can get a warm fuzzy feeling if they fail.

To be more specific about GamerGate, I do believe it started as ethics in games journalism. And yes I do believe journos are way too chummy with devs. Nevermind allegations of who's sleeping with who, just look at all the freebies they hand out and giant ads plastered all over a site while they review the game for a high score. Shady as fuck. I did say it's a perfectly legit strategy earlier and I stand by that statement but it doesn't mean I have to like it or support those who do it. They should be called out on it and they were, maybe it got drowned out by louder voices wanting different things but ultimately I believe that their will always be games that cater to those like me and that's all I care about.

 

[KevinKeene]

I am trying to say the increase of female protagonists in western games lately was because of gamergate.

Fixed. Nouns aren't adjectives. Have noticed many making that mistake recently.

 

[prag16]

I am trying to say the increase of women protagonists in western games lately was because of gamergate.

I very highly doubt that. And it's probably actually impossible. Gamergate blew up in 2014. That's not enough time to devise develop and release an AAA game from the ground up in many cases, assuming they even "reacted" to GG immediately. Unless you have evidence that games like Horizon originally had male protagonists and were retooled later in the process as a response to GG.

 

[Alx]

Let's make it simple: I'm a GamerGater. I don't harass women. I'm politically very left. Do you still refuse to acknowledge that? (And just for the record: I don't call myself a 'GamerGater', labels are silly)

Well for someone like me who still has difficulties grasping the concept of Gamergate, it would indeed be useful to focus on real examples of what a "true" gamergater wants and does. So maybe you could give me some specific examples of stuff you're rooting for/against :
- could you name specific games that changed "the wrong way" due to social pressure ?
- same question for journalism, if that's also part of your concern : what specific behavior are you disapproving ?
- most importantly, what are you actively doing to defend those values ?

Sometimes it just seems this whole gamergate stuff is a bunch of people going at each other's throat on the internet, while for the industry it's business as usual.

 

[InterMusketeer]

I am trying to say the increase of women protagonists in western games lately was because of gamergate.

Do you mean that the people who would later form gamergate, were the ones who originally advocated for more women and minorities?

 

[DryvBy]

But, gaming is incredibly toxic, in a way that no other hobby I know is. I like playing football/soccer with people, that's a hobby where I can physically hurt people, and that's nothing like the awfulness of playing multiplayer games online, of steam forums when a popular franchise has black characters, of Twitch streams run by popular streamers. We do need to be better.

Gaming has millions of people in it globally and unlike other hobbies, part of the fun in gaming is connecting with this world. You're not globally connecting with someone who likes Team X in a sport like you are in Game X. But let's not pretend sports (for just this example) doesn't have horrible people that are fans. I'd say they're even worse as riots don't break out in the streets if your Counter-Strike team loses/wins.

Just to paint an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_violent_spectator_incidents_in_sports

I'd consider that significantly worse than being told "huh-huh your mom's coming over tonight". It's not gamers; it's just people. In every hobby of field, you have morons.

 

[Omegatron]

As a former member of the GamerGate movement even before it had the name GamerGate, let me tell you from my perspective.

This started with a guy called Matt, an ex-boyfriend of Zoe who was mad that she had cheated on him. To vent his frustration, he release this news on YouTube and Twitter, which quickly garnered attention from guys who had a thing against women in one way or the other.

Turns out that she had been having sex with not just one person, but five people, which led into a small movement called "Five Guys" using the burger chain with the same name as their logo.

When this movement happened, two new things regarding Zoe started to surface: She had a game called Depression Quest and one of the guys she had slept with was a reviewer at Kotaku, who only days before having had sex with her, made a small and positive shout out on Kotaku about the game she had made.

This fact about how kotaku had a person at their website who might have given her game a positive shout out for sexual favors, didn't sit well with gamers who previously didn't really care about the Five Guys movement but suddenly found another reason to hate Kotaku, because hating Kotaku is something that has been going on among gamers years before Gamer Gate happened.

Several people, including Total Biscuit, started to message Jason Schreier for answers. The statements he gave regarding this whole situation were less than satisfactory.

Since we didn't get the answers we wanted, we kept forcing messages upon messages at him (kinda like what happened with evil lore right before NeoGaf had the split). But rather than actually giving a good answer, he decided to get out of this whole situation by making hit pieces on the people who were "attacking" journalism and Zoe by teaming up with several websites using NeoGaf as the bridge to link them together (this is why NeoGaf was always so angry about GG, because this site helped in the hit pieces against the people who came to create GG, so the bias was always there since they automatically took Jason's side without asking questions).

"Gamers as we know them are dying and thank God for that"
"Meet the movement that aims to ruin a woman's life just because she dared to make a game"
"The toxic environment in gaming has reach an all new high, blames their misogyny on gaming journalism"

And the headlines goes on. This point in time was the straw that broke the camel's back and so the two different groups (the people who attacked Zoe for being a "slut" and the people (me included) who were angry at Kotaku for allowing this kind of journalism to go unpunished) were forced together as one movement, even though both sides had their own agendas going on.

This unwanted fusion of the two groups, due to how the hit pieces made it sound like they were one and the same from the start is what became GamerGate.

Half of early GamerGate made an even bigger move to make women in gaming feel worse, because they didn't like how Zoe was protected instead of questioned. This hatred for women in gaming led to the rise of Anita.

The other half was the people angry at the "journalists" for their behavior in the face of criticism. This was the half I belonged to.

I left GG a few months after the movement had been formed against its own will, due to how I could see that the original reason why I joined in the first place would no longer be acknowledged by anyone within the gaming sphere.

Now that people like Jason are no longer around, talking about GG is possible again and I feel that this is a good thing.

Discussion by itself can never be good or evil, it's what you take away from it that makes the people involved seem pleasant or rude.

I haven't cared about GG for some time now, but it was nice to finally get something said about it. Leaves one more annoyance off my chest.

 

[TheShadowLord]

Do you mean that the people who would later form gamergate, were the ones who originally advocated for more women and minorities?

Well yes. I mean it got so big and more people started talking about it so then devs started to add female protagonists and minorities. I always felt there was a connection between this gamergate thing and the reason why there are more female protagonists in the west. Not a lot, but more then what we got two gens ago as I said earlier.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Well yes. I mean it got so big and more people started talking about it so then devs started to add female protagonists and minorities. I always felt there was a connection between this gamergate thing and the reason why there are more female protagonists in the west. Not a lot, but more then what we got two gens ago as I said earlier.

I don't think you can really claim that that's what happened. Undoubtedly there were people who were in favor of more diversity, who later joined GG, but it's not a opinion held by many prominent GGers. Rather, it was their opponents who wanted to push diversity from a social justice angle.

 

[Northeastmonk]

I had a hard time finding people who cared about the issue in the first place. I am all for more females playing games, but the females I have met in real life think I care about games way more than I should. And if I ask them if they play then I'm putting them down for not playing games.

I think the people that got involved at the height of GG won't exactly be popular in the years to come. I think gaming changes every gen and the ESA or even the GDC will be like GameStop. Morphing themselves to look good and sell a product. Does GameStop care about GG? Hell no they don't. They market moms and whoever walks in that door with money.

What really matters anymore? Some of the best game designers of the last two decades are too outspoken about issues and their games aren't exactly a repeat of their former glory. On top of that you have internet sjw going off on things that really only matter to those following the rabbit hole.

I think there's going to be problems and the way they've been handled is because games have used more technology, especially social aspects where it puts everyone in the same game together.

I think the gaming industry will maintain a lot of what made it great, but I think it will also have an indentity crisis. It doesn't know how to deal with itself because the critics will always be there to put it in its "place".

 

[nowhat]

Dragon Age: Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda both had characters that wouldn't shut up about 'hey, look, I'm transgender!'

I cannot comment on ME:A - I vaguely remember the character, but the game made such a non-impact on me that I barely recall the main plot points. But when it comes to DA:I and Krem, he doesn't mention it, at all, unless the player specifically asks about it. Whether it was hamfisted or not is debatable, but your characterization of "wouldn't shut up about it" really isn't true.

 

[TheShadowLord]

I don't think you can really claim that that's what happened. Undoubtedly there were people who were in favor of more diversity, who later joined GG, but it's not a opinion held by many prominent GGers. Rather, it was their opponents who wanted to push diversity from a social justice angle.

If my reason is wrong, then do you have any explanation why we have seen more female protagonists lately then before?

 

[KevinKeene]

I cannot comment on ME:A - I vaguely remember the character, but the game made such a non-impact on me that I barely recall the main plot points. But when it comes to DA:I and Krem, he doesn't mention it, at all, unless the player specifically asks about it. Whether it was hamfisted or not is debatable, but your characterization of "wouldn't shut up about it" really isn't true.

Everytime I went to Bull to further his quest, he'd talk about his friend. Maybe it's more obvious to a completionist like myself.

 

[TheGraykid]

t

I don't think the demographics have changed all that much. The people calling for more diversity are, for the most part, not actually buying and playing games. Big budget AAA games, to be exact, because that's what's mostly being criticized. Most progressives see video games as a tool to spread their political views. There's already a few examples of developers who tried to appeal to these people, and those games utterly failed to sell, because gamers don't actually care for those experiences.

Please do provide any evidence that the vast majority of people working at gaming outlets who write/ podcast about games in a progressive way, are actually are in fact lying about liking games.

To be honest it is highly frustrating to see many people in this thread just throw in a 'GG is about harassment and misogyny' and completely ignore everything else. If we define GG and resetera as the two sides, I'd always choose to align with GG. I do not harass women. I am far-left politically.
So why do you refuse to educate yourself, to look at people individually, and instead take cases of harassment and unconditionally attach them to GG? It is dishonest and leads nowhere. Here I am explaining in detail what GG is, what is not. Yet you ignore everything I swrote and simply throw in another 'GG is about harassment and misogyny'. It's as if you're afraid of having to re-evaluate your own knowledge. There's no shame in finding out you were wrong, had a false understanding of something, and update your information.

You read about GG only on websites like Kotaku and Polygon, from instigators like Zoe, Wu or Anita, who demand that they define what GG is. That is wrong. GG is what it decided itself. The aforementioned websw/people don't like what that is, so they keep attaching harassment and misogyny to it, knowing how easy it is to kill denounce a movement with such accusations.

Let's make it simple: I'm a GamerGater. I don't harass women. I'm politically very left. Do you still refuse to acknowledge that? (And just for the record: I don't call myself a 'GamerGater', labels are silly)



I will try explaining it one more time, although I don't think it's that complicated. Every game, every piece of art, no, every decision you make in your everday life is in some way political - if you chose to interpret it. Games like Zelda, Mario, Dark Souls, Skyrim, Persona 4, etc. certainly can be interpreted in certain ways - but they never push any political agenda in the players face.

That's different in games with an obvious political agenda. Dragon Age: Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda both had characters that wouldn't shut up about 'hey, look, I'm transgender!' (and ironically were criticized by trans people for that). In Mass Effect 3, you couldn't carelessly talk to the new buff guy, because any dialogue with him using male Shepard would be pushed toward homosexual romance (which sucked,because it reduced the guy to being homosexual). The Tomb Raider-reboot developer gave a public statement about reducing Lara's breast size. And apparently Far Cry 5 comes down to killing Republicans.

These are examples of games pushing a political agenda. GG wouldn't complain about a game with transgender characters (I mean, any good game wouldn't even let you know about it, unless it thematically explores tbe topic of transgenderism), GG also wouldn't complain about homosexual characters. But when topics like these are used as big talking points by developers, it garners criticism. Which I share. When I play Mario, I never feel like Miyamoto pushes his personal political believes into me. I do, however, feel that way with many modern western games. These days, even Japanese games manage to portray more interesting female characters than western games. Unfortunately, Japanese games are continuously dismissed, otherwise Elma from Xenoblade Chronicles X would have won many awards for how great of a female character she was.



That message of coming together to defeat evil is as old as men telling stories. I mean ... really?



I've never seen anyone successfully explain why Peterson is wrong/bad. If you can, I'd prefer you do it publically, as many others would probably like to hear it. I've watched so many videos of him. He stays with the facts, he's not alt-right in any way. I'd be honestly surprised to see an argument that can change that.



I love video games. It's probably my number one interest in life. When a group of crazy people suddenly gains influence on the development of games, I won't sit and watch quietly. I make my opinion heard. It's the least I can do. Good people doing nothing while bad people ruin things is how everything gets worse with time.

My grand point is that this is all just arbitrary. "That message of coming together to defeat evil is as old as men telling stories", yes, that's the point! Games which push ideas that you're used to/comfortable don't feel like they have an agenda being pushed. Even in the games where you say "There's an agenda being pushed" most of what you're talking about is optional incidental content. I've finished Dragon Age: Inquisition, and I have no idea that there is even a Trans character. I just googled it to check, and it seems like they aren't even a main character, they're a side character that it looks like you don't even have to talk to. You can play the entire game without running into it, how is that pushing an agenda? Especially compared to something like GTA where a main plot mission has you going into the offices of a popular social networking site called "Lifeinvader", where everyone who works there is a hippie dick, and then you blow up their CEO. Or the part in GTA where you torture someone then drive them to the airport and for around five minutes a main character lectures you on why torture is bad. Come on man.

I honestly don't see the difference between something that may happen in a Persona game and a Dragon Age game. In any Mass Effect game, you couldn't carelessly talk to any character, because any dialogue with them pushes toward romance. That's what Mass Effect is! Far Cry 5 hasn't even come out yet, so I don't know how we can tell how it handles its themes.

These things become huge talking points because people want to talk about them, not because developers were shoving it down our throats. People on this very website were talking about Lara's bust size, well before anyone from the company released a statement about it.

"A group of crazy people" are just people with differing opinions to you. Shitting on them or anything they do, just because, even if it doesn't make your experience worse, that's how you ruin things.

 

[Alx]

As a former member of the GamerGate movement even before it had the name GamerGate, let me tell you from my perspective.

This started with a guy called Matt (...) and so the two different groups (the people who attacked Zoe for being a "slut" and the people (me included) who were angry at Kotaku for allowing this kind of journalism to go unpunished) were forced together as one movement, even though both sides had their own agendas going on.

So all of it is about a journalist who made a small "scratch your back" positive preview for a game made by someone he knew personally ? The vitriol seems disproportionate.

 

[Moneal]

So all of it is about a journalist who made a small "scratch your back" positive preview for a game made by someone he knew personally ? The vitriol seems disproportionate.

Pretty sure most the vitriol came after this part.

"Gamers as we know them are dying and thank God for that"
"Meet the movement that aims to ruin a woman's life just because she dared to make a game"
"The toxic environment in gaming has reach an all new high, blames their misogyny on gaming journalism"

And the headlines goes on. This point in time was the straw that broke the camel's back and so the two different groups (the people who attacked Zoe for being a "slut" and the people (me included) who were angry at Kotaku for allowing this kind of journalism to go unpunished) were forced together as one movement, even though both sides had their own agendas going on.

 

[Deleted member 738645]

Games have had and will always have politics in it.



"We can't remove politics from games. They express our perspectives and understanding of the world, just like movies, books, or any other art form. We can agree or disagree with the stances they express, but all media is political."

 

[TheGraykid]

Gaming has millions of people in it globally and unlike other hobbies, part of the fun in gaming is connecting with this world. You're not globally connecting with someone who likes Team X in a sport like you are in Game X. But let's not pretend sports (for just this example) doesn't have horrible people that are fans. I'd say they're even worse as riots don't break out in the streets if your Counter-Strike team loses/wins.

Just to paint an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_violent_spectator_incidents_in_sports

I'd consider that significantly worse than being told "huh-huh your mom's coming over tonight". It's not gamers; it's just people. In every hobby of field, you have morons.

I don't think these two things are even on the same level. There are awful people at stadiums, but over here in the UK, I've never heard a racial or homophobic slur. Let me put it this way, if I spend one-night playing video games online, I will hear more racist, homophobic, generally negative things, than I would hear over a year engaging in literally any other hobby. That's a major problem.

 

[TheWatcher]

No it isn't. Just log off and turn off your console. Major problem solved.

 

[nowhat]

Everytime I went to Bull to further his quest, he'd talk about his friend. Maybe it's more obvious to a completionist like myself.

Sure, but I've spent far more time than is healthy with DA:I across multiple characters, and as far as I can remember (admittedly it's been a couple of years) the fact that Krem is trans doesn't come up unless the player specifically talks to him. Krem, that is, not Bull.

 

[Dunki]

So all of it is about a journalist who made a small "scratch your back" positive preview for a game made by someone he knew personally ? The vitriol seems disproportionate.

No that was the last straw in a conflict people already had for a long time with "Games journalism. No one in gamergate really did no want diversity quite the opposite but diversity also means to create something new and not to change the existing that is already there IMO. How Anita and co went on was the totally wrong way. Instead of celebrating thes stuff they liked and ecourange for more they went on the stuff they hate.

And in the end it was Gamergate who went to the SPJ(The Society of Professional Journalists is the nation’s most broad-based journalism organization, dedicated to encouraging the free practice of journalism and stimulating high standards of ethical behavior) and they archieved to get a pannel which then was disrupted by a bomb threat. They changed the ethic policies of sites like Escapist, Destructoid etc.

In the end Gamergate was like BLM at the begining. A movement for change but while BLM was allowed to form to set leaders etc Gamergate got villivied because of a few people of thi HUGE # and movement and never had this chance because games journlaists feard for their existence.

 

[Alx]

Pretty sure most the vitriol came after this part.

Well considering that one of the two groups was openly misogynistic, the headlines don't seem entirely wrong. But that's where I don't know how clearly "the other group" separates itself from the first one, or felt itself included in that criticism.

No one in gamergate really did no want diversity quite the opposite but diversity also means to create something new and not to change the existing that is already there IMO.

I'm still having a hard time seeing an example of a game that was changed and shouldn't have, to be honest. Care to provide a specific name ? For now it just sounds like debating on hypothetical cases.

 

[Moneal]

Well considering that one of the two groups was openly misogynistic, the headlines don't seem entirely wrong. But that's where I don't know how clearly "the other group" separates itself from the first one, or felt itself included in that criticism.

I wasn't in either group and I felt that i was being included in the criticism at the time. Those articles were an attack on male gamers. They were a way of discrediting a group of people criticizing gaming journalism by lumping in with another group. If the msogynistic group and the critical group weren't the same, why would they need to separate themselves? one was asking questions and the other was being hateful. It should be pretty easy for a journalist to tell the difference. But its was easier for them to put the two together to dismiss the questions.

 

[InterMusketeer]

If my reason is wrong, then do you have any explanation why we have seen more female protagonists lately then before?

I don't think your reasoning is wrong, just that you can't say it's people from that particular group who were advocating for these changes. All kinds of people were pushing diversity, and companies gave in.

Please do provide any evidence that the vast majority of people working at gaming outlets who write/ podcast about games in a progressive way, are actually are in fact lying about liking games.

I'm sure those journalists like games, it's just that their ideology to promote social justice through games is not supported by the vast majority of gamers. For one, most gamers just don't care enough to even follow the news or anything like that, and then a lot of the ones who do, simply don't agree with this agenda. A group of journalists calling for changes in games is not a changing of demographics, and their 'bigger voice' doesn't necessarily carry any real weight. We've seen that games that promote social justice don't do very well most of the time.

I don't think these two things are even on the same level. There are awful people at stadiums, but over here in the UK, I've never heard a racial or homophobic slur. Let me put it this way, if I spend one-night playing video games online, I will hear more racist, homophobic, generally negative things, than I would hear over a year engaging in literally any other hobby. That's a major problem.

In the Netherlands, a popular phrase aimed at a specific football club (Ajax) goes: "Hamas, hamas, all jews gonna be gassed" and this is shouted while in the stadium and outside, to supporters and to players. I think that's on a whole 'nother level compared to some idiot shouting nigger in Overwatch, where you can just mute and report them. But hey, maybe that's just me.

 

[Dunki]

Well considering that one of the two groups was openly misogynistic, the headlines don't seem entirely wrong. But that's where I don't know how clearly "the other group" separates itself from the first one, or felt itself included in that criticism.



I'm still having a hard time seeing an example of a game that was changed and shouldn't have, to be honest. Care to provide a specific name ? For now it just sounds like debating on hypothetical cases.

I think 2 more popular examples were these people demanded to change games were Hotline Miami 2 (Which articles which was hidden as preview for the game and only had one message (Change the game) has been removed but the full story can be read here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...m-over-controversial-rape-scene/#74f50724b314

Another one would be Castlevania 2.

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/yes-castlevania-lords-of-shadow-2-did-make-me-feel-uncomfortable-

But in the end it was about changing the whole industry in this regard not certain games

 

[KevinKeene]

Games have had and will always have politics in it.



"We can't remove politics from games. They express our perspectives and understanding of the world, just like movies, books, or any other art form. We can agree or disagree with the stances they express, but all media is political."

What for am I writing explanations when you're ignoring what I wrote. "All games are political" is an immensely reductive statement.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

Gamergate is a far-right hate movement organized in 8chan and in various secret IRC channels where they conspire and choose targets to concentrate death threats and other hate messages. These targets were originally somewhat gaming related like Zoe, but it later became a general anti-left movement. From EviLore's experience, it appears he was chosen as a target after posting something negative about the five guys story.

Lots of right-wing propagandists who shill for Trump endlessly, for example Mike Cernovich (he does not care about video games at all) and Milo Yiannopoulos (actually MOCKED gamers before GG), were Gamergaters when it was big. GG is very political and always has been. It's not about getting politics out of games - it's about getting "wrong think" (left wing politics) out of everything.