TheGraykid
Member
I think it's important to look at one of the most impactful gaming related ideologies of the last few years and evaluate their effect on the overall scene.
Personally I am not a fan. Someone in another thread described their ideology as the following:
1. Games are about fun, not political agenda
2. Facts over feelings
3. Censorship is always bad
So, I set out to critique them based on that.
I think GamerGate as an intellectual movement is so irritating because its core values are vague and don't make sense, almost to the point where I have to consider if this is done on purpose to enable guilt free attacks on other fringe movements within gaming.
1. Games are about fun, not political agenda
For example, the above makes no sense because all pieces of art that depict people are inherently political, and have a political agenda. Games like call of duty, Battlefield, Horizon, Uncharted, Halo, Grand Theft Auto all have huge political text and subtext. However, when I see people within the GamerGate sphere attacking games for having "political agendas" these games are not brought up. These attacks tend to be solely made on games that have a non-white or non-straight or non-male protagonist/protagonists. Games that depict what those other people's lives are like. This is why the movement appears to be motivated by themes deeper than a simple "political agenda in games is bad" viewpoint.
2. Facts over feelings
I don't have much to say for this point, it's just standard dismissive framing. "The things I disagree with are feelings, the things I agree with are facts."
3. Censorship is always bad
Which again brings us back to the issue of dismissive framing. "When I talk about the negative things in a game or think a game should be different, that's a critique, when others do the same, that's censorship."
"When a female gaming journalist praises an otherwise bad game for its diversity... people will call that out, because it's bs." The political purview of a game matters, what makes a story good is often what that story has to say. Shadow of the Colossus, for example, has huge things to say about our relationship to our environment and animals, that's one of the reasons I love that game. Games that depict minorities and women within them, and have interesting things to say about them, are games seeking to enhance their story, if you do that well then why shouldn't that be praised in the same way Shadow of the Colossus' story is praised. It's the same thing.
It feels like GamerGate as a movement is attempting to basically say "Games that don't fit my political viewpoint shouldn't exist.". That's why so many people don't like it. I am open to being convinced that this isn't the case, but given the things that they complain about this is my personal conclusion.
What do you guys think?
Personally I am not a fan. Someone in another thread described their ideology as the following:
1. Games are about fun, not political agenda
2. Facts over feelings
3. Censorship is always bad
So, I set out to critique them based on that.
I think GamerGate as an intellectual movement is so irritating because its core values are vague and don't make sense, almost to the point where I have to consider if this is done on purpose to enable guilt free attacks on other fringe movements within gaming.
1. Games are about fun, not political agenda
For example, the above makes no sense because all pieces of art that depict people are inherently political, and have a political agenda. Games like call of duty, Battlefield, Horizon, Uncharted, Halo, Grand Theft Auto all have huge political text and subtext. However, when I see people within the GamerGate sphere attacking games for having "political agendas" these games are not brought up. These attacks tend to be solely made on games that have a non-white or non-straight or non-male protagonist/protagonists. Games that depict what those other people's lives are like. This is why the movement appears to be motivated by themes deeper than a simple "political agenda in games is bad" viewpoint.
2. Facts over feelings
I don't have much to say for this point, it's just standard dismissive framing. "The things I disagree with are feelings, the things I agree with are facts."
3. Censorship is always bad
Which again brings us back to the issue of dismissive framing. "When I talk about the negative things in a game or think a game should be different, that's a critique, when others do the same, that's censorship."
"When a female gaming journalist praises an otherwise bad game for its diversity... people will call that out, because it's bs." The political purview of a game matters, what makes a story good is often what that story has to say. Shadow of the Colossus, for example, has huge things to say about our relationship to our environment and animals, that's one of the reasons I love that game. Games that depict minorities and women within them, and have interesting things to say about them, are games seeking to enhance their story, if you do that well then why shouldn't that be praised in the same way Shadow of the Colossus' story is praised. It's the same thing.
It feels like GamerGate as a movement is attempting to basically say "Games that don't fit my political viewpoint shouldn't exist.". That's why so many people don't like it. I am open to being convinced that this isn't the case, but given the things that they complain about this is my personal conclusion.
What do you guys think?