A Boston Globe journalist explains to /r/KotakuInAction why he wrote #GamerGate is angry toward women. But is he a "fucking hack"? Low-hanging kernels are popping in a drama-barrel. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
44 ups - 0 downs = 44 votes
129 comments submitted at 23:37:26 on Oct 19, 2014 by SubjectAndObject
> Or when Anita Sarkeesian was hired by EA. Does EA actually care about SJW issues? I very much doubt it.
Honestly, when it comes to EA, I'd say it's probably less about pandering to 'SJWs' and more that their execs can't get off unless they're bathing in the fresh tears of gamers.
Anita wasn't even hired by EA. She gave a talk to DICE at one point and that's it.
Well according to /v/ etc. EA let Hepler lieterally turned Dragon Age into a SJW dream with Strongish Female Characters and Homosexuals!
Oh right, and then she quit after being harassed nonstop. Huh.
Conveniently ignoring that Hepler was one of three primary writers on the DA2 team, and not even the head.
And Gaider is very vocal about his opinions re: women and gaming. But he has a penis so I guess its OK.
The guys behind Dark Souls and/or Dwarf Fortress should hire her.
seriously if you were in charge of ea, why wouldn't you fuck with people? they're going to buy your games no matter what and they're going to hate you no matter what, might as well have a little fun
On a more serious take, I think it's pretty clear that most people caught up in the Gamers Gate crap are largely the same people who will complain about a game and then end up buying it anyway. EA, and any business, is looking for potential expansion and they would want to be the first to draw in a potentially new demographic or expand an existing one, especially if it doesn't require significant increase in cost. Of course publishers are putting in the research given how much attention these issues bring.
Damn. That was one fine and well written slapdown.
Has that guy thought about writing stuff down for a living? I'm not sure if such a job exists but if it does, he should seriously consider doing that. He's good at it.
He'd need to learn the art of advertising Ten Ways to Make Catchy Phrases That Will Cause Your Death If You Don't Learn!
And there's not even a hint of a decent response. Because you can't really argue with any of it.
There's plenty of saltiness in the responses, and that's what we're here for:
>Furthermore, do you think that objecting to a hobbyist journalism being overrun by a small cabal of hipsters trying desperately to inject their own ideology (one that I probably agree 95% with on the issues, fwiw) into a niche market is equivalent to misogyny?
No I confess that I can't begin to wade through all the participles to decipher that sentence's meaning. But the unslaked rage of a slighted gamer oozes out of it.
An annotated attempt at a translation:
> Furthermore, do you think that objecting to ~~a hobbyist journalism~~ gaming journalism being overrun by ~~a small cabal of hipsters~~ feminists trying desperately to inject their own ideology* (one that I probably agree 95% with on the issues, fwiw) into a niche market** is equivalent to misogyny?***
*feminism, and 'social justice' issues as a whole
**I assume he means indie gaming
*** here he attempts to claim that feminists reviewing video games from a feminist perspective is morally equivalent to misogyny. It is not a comparison with a whole lot of underlying logic.
edit: wait, I think I misread it. I blame the terrible sentence construction. He seems to be saying that GamerGators are being wrongly accused of misogyny, when they are actually just attacking feminist journalists for writing about games from a feminist perspective. I won't comment on that, except to say that he's confused and wrong.
He's claiming that you can hate feminism and feminists but not be misogynist, which is quite the tightrope to walk.
I could see someone saying "I hate third-wave feminists (but second-wave are cool)", and that doesn't necessarily strike me as misogynist.
Depends on the context, I guess.
Basically he's asking if disliking gaming journalism being "invaded" by SJW journalists is the same as misogyny. I don't know what he's referring to by a "niche market" though (since I haven't been following this whole Zoe Quinn shabloozle).
>And there's not even a hint of a decent response. Because you can't really argue with any of it.
Of course this is bullshit.
What he wrote:
>Unfortunately, that sauce is incredibly weak. There was no Kotaku review of “Depression Quest,” and fair-minded journalists will see through that line of attack right away since ZQ was receiving hate for DQ long before her boyfriend posted that thing. Journalists donating to crowdfunding campaigns? I bet if you asked 100 journalists you'd get 100 different opinions on whether this should be inherently off-limits (personal take is that it isn't, but that journalists should certainly disclose any projects to which they donate). Collusion to strike at the heart of the gamer identity? Conservatives have been arguing that liberal journalists unfairly collude forever—I was on the “Journolist” that people wrongly claimed was coordinating pro-Obama coverage when really what we were doing, like any other listserv of ideologically like-minded people, was arguing with ourselves over everything. What happened was Gamasutra ran a column, that column went viral, and a lot of people responded to it. That sort of cross-site collusion doesn’t happen the way you think it does. When everyone’s writing about the same thing, that’s because the thing in question is getting a lot of discussion, which LA’s column did.
Greg Lisby, a professor who specializes in journalism ethics SPECIFICALLY said donating to people you cover is a BIG no no:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-7RLxrsJ04
Also, Kotaku writer Patrica Hernandez was caught sleeping with a developer (Christina Love) who she reviewed several times. Kotaku editor Stephen Totillo made her put disclosures in her prior articles as a result. Are you SURE there's no corruption?
http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1409/04/1409042144152.png
Edit: See? Downvotes with no replies as to why i'm wrong. When facts smack you in the face, you retreat into the darkness and use censorship as your weapon.
It's because the thread is 3 weeks old and the post is from 8 hours ago. The only people seeing it are those linked to it and those who for some reason are looking at posts from over 3 weeks ago on their own.
One of the comments went off on an amazing tangent:
>Honestly, does anyone think Bayonetta is trying to make a political statement? No. Does anyone disagree that Bayonetta is a strong, female protagonist regardless of what she's wearing? So then why score the game lower simply based on what she's wearing? To make a political statement. That right there is the problem.
Which is really odd, because I could have sworn Bayonetta 2 recently made headlines for getting some perfect score reviews....
I guess we're going to ignore that the thread not only has less than fifty comments in it, but is almost a month old?
Don't be disingenuous, please.
>Don't be disingenuous, please.
Fuck you, I'll do as I please.
/r/firstworldanarchists
That'd be fuck you I won't do what you tell me. I'm more like do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. It's classier.
Actually no, please keep it civil in here.
IF BY CIVIL YOU MEAN FEMINIST
SRD HAS BEEN COMPROMISED SJWS IN THE MODERATORS WE MUST REVOLT WE MUST RIOT
#BUTTERGATE
[deleted]
You can always use the report button if you think there is something wrong with a post. Nobody has reviewed this yet but there looks to be a fair amount of drama. I will investigate further.
DO NOT VOTE OR COMMENT IN LINKED THREADS.
Is it all right if I read your all-caps text as if you are the Discworld character, Death?
Either that or this:
http://i.imgur.com/vpwIOvG.jpg
You have a thing for fleshless skeletons, eh?
There's probably a subreddit for that :/
More Comments - Click Here
> DO NOT VOTE OR COMMENT IN LINKED THREADS.
Too late for that.
A KIAer calling for (gasp!) "censorship" in a subreddit? I thought that the unbearable oppression of mods deleting threads is what gave rise to the righteous anger of the glorious GG cause? I'd have thought you guys would be against that sort of thing.
Hm. This is too fresh to be us brigading. Who is it then?
Edit: Ah, perhaps it's r/GamerGhazi.
27 day old post gets brought back from the dead and linked to SRD. Admins are gonna be busy tonight.
And /r/gamerghazi, /r/bestof, and /r/quityourbullshit. Bans will fly.
Stop, stop. My penis can only get so erect.
Bestof already removed it but here's the link for those who want to see
And gamerghazi linked to both the bestof and quityourbullshit posts... Not that they are doing well.
I suspect more than a few gamerghazi people will be shadowbanned by tomorrow.
Holy shit this is going to be beautiful.
Not /r/Bestof. Another mod got it. But I agree with the removal 1000000000.9%.
bestof also had a post about it.
Then it was deleted there - wonder why? It seems pretty much on par with a lot of other bestof threads.
I believe one of their mods is a Gamergater
Wow, that's a real triumph of ethics right there
I've messaged the admins about it. Probably nothing will come from it but at least they know.
Those voting patterns are extremely suspicious.
Voting patterns? It's a 27 day old post that did poorly, everything about the amount of activity in there is extremely suspicious.
It was posted to bestof
The +36 on that one post sticks out like a sore thumb.
Especially because it was +17 when I made my comment above.
Bloody hell people...
DO NOT VOTE!
I'm pretty sure it's more GamerGhazi than us. Good advice nonetheless, though.
/r/bestof - [KotakuInAction]Boston Global article is accused of bias and cherry picking. Journalist shows up to clear some doubts.
Submitted an hour ago. And the linked post just picked up another gold while I was typing this.
It's at 217 right now o.o
Well it was already at +17 when I wrote my comment, and at that point only a few people had voted on this thread, so I'm still thinking GamerGhazi caused the initial brigade. With the five places it's been linked now, we may be looking at a nexus GGz/SRD/QYBS/YGT/BestOf brigade.
To be honest, the fact that it's been linked FIVE PLACES in three hours, starting only six hours after the comment was made on a month-old thread, makes me think there's some sort of coordinated meta-brigade going on here. Not to sound too conspiracy-theory-ish.
Once a thread like this reaches the meta-sphere it'll be xposted to every somewhat relevant subreddits tbh
Metareddit's pretty incestuous
Sir, that's just crazy talk.
Of course its not an elaborate conspiracy that involves invasion of reddit users' homes.
So silly - do you think that a fem-SJW radical is holding a uterine-shaped ninja star to my throat as I type this?
More Comments - Click Here
Makes sense, there's a ton of activity in that gamerGhazi post. I'm pretty unfamiliar with that sub.
The bestof one was probably motivated by that sweet sweet karma.
/r/GamerGhazi started it but we're only 1.4k over there, by now most of the voting is probably coming from SRD
Evidently it's being spread around twitter now. So all bets are off.
Agreed it is most likely them. Their main mod has been shadowbanned at least 3 times now.
I think you might be right! I don't have one of those fancy reddit add-on doo-dads, but the comment vote totals were fluctuating back and forth while I was writing the title.
One thing I'll never understand about this crowd is why they hate games being involved with politics. I guarantee that these are the same people who would defend gaming as an artform without hesitation if it were to be challenged. Take a look at the reaction to Roger Ebert's article, for example.
You don't get to pick and choose. Either games are treated like every other artistic medium, meaning they're subjected to the same type of social scrutiny as every other artistic medium, or they're not. This is a really upsetting example of people trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Nobody says "get your politics out of our books!" or "get your politics out of our movies!" If you want games to be accepted as an artform, then you need to accept the fact that they are also open to scrutiny, particularly towards industry trends and demographics. And I think that's sort of the key problem: the demographic.
This will very likely sound elitist as fuck, but I think we're witnessing a clash of two very different words right now. Thanks to the internet, these two worlds are starting to intersect in ways that I don't think any other medium, in its infancy, has really experienced before.
This may be an extreme example, but imagine the backlash if something like Dada was exposed to early 20th century midwest America; I imagine there would be a similar angry revolt against this, perceived, attack on mainstream sensibilities and taste. Just so, it seems the GG community sees gaming under academic scrutiny as an attack on their entire worldview and identity (a lot of hardcore gamers, in my experience, really do define themselves by the games they play).
> One thing I'll never understand about this crowd is why they hate games being involved with politics
Feminist politics.
"Feminist" is tantamount to a curse word in certain gaming communities.
This handy comic helps illustrate.
Jesus, these idiots have their own versions of Chick tracts.
how could they do that to nedroid
The comic edit predates GamerGate. I've seen it posted on /v/ fairly often. It's done with a certain amount of self awareness. If there is one thing /v/ loves to do, it's avoiding playing video games and shit talking their own community.
all nerds love to do that
There was a fantastic Errant Signal episode about this topic about a year ago that I think covers the problem with "keep your politics out of videogames" argument very well if you are interested.
Interestingly, you can see the vitriol in the comments on his videos increase over time as the reaction to perceived SJWs in gaming increased until he eventually had to ban comments on his videos.
Wow. I must have watched that at some point or something, because I feel like I plagiarized the entire video unintentionally.
They don't want gaming stigmatized but they don't want the criticism that comes with being an art form.
Hell, Blue Velvet is one of my favorite films and Ebert called it "misogynistic". Once Upon a Time in America isn't that most progressive movie out there and its considered by some to be one of the best films of all time. Gamers seem to think that people adapting to the changing times means that all games are going to be clean and sanitized, but we live in a world where American Psycho got made despite massive protests and a game like Hatred is getting made and released and getting free advertising due to the controversy.
Seriously. The bottom line is as long as people keep voting with their wallets, the stuff they enjoy is going to keep being made. Jiggle physics and bloodbath shoot-em-ups are not in any danger, the playing field is just getting larger as more diverse interests and talents are making their own games. There are parallels in film (slasher films are still box office gold, but people also have the option of more psychological/less buckets-o-blood horror) and all other art forms. The gaming market isn't shrinking, it's opening up radically.
You'd think that people who are so ostensibly into free speech and the free market would welcome an influx of content, but the truth is that this isn't about ethics, it's about wanting to censor and silence voices that contradict a certain comfortable, "traditional" mindset in the gaming community.
Jiggle physics are a vital part of gaming heritage. You wouldn't remove having a set from movies would you?
Just dropping by to comment, because I feel like someone needs to represent gamer interest:
In my personal opinion, the artistry of a game isn't in its narrative. There's been a big push for narrative gaming the past few years, but a lot of gamers have come down pretty hard on them. They rely on spectacle and use the same format as film to actually tell the story. They use gameplay as filler to pad out a story, most of them poorly written. A lot of gamers are perfectly happy with a game like Papers, Please, which tells a story through game mechanics and by putting pressure on the player to make certain choices. Choices that bear actual weight instead of just giving you some points on a moral slider.
But on the other hand, I think a game like Tetris is art. In fact, I think it's some of the finest art gaming has to offer. The beauty lies in the mechanics of it. The simplicity combined with its engagement. It tickles your brain. It's something you can't reproduce in any other medium, because all the elements only work elsewhere by themselves. You can't give people a puzzle and a timer to do brainscratcher puzzles in the weekly paper. You can't restrict their movement that way.
At the end of the day, gaming has more in common with board games and music as mediums than film or novels. The games that are railed against are the "Oscar Bait" of the gaming world. Heavily marketed to be "touching" or "thought-provoking" but otherwise fairly shallow. And when they're criticized for being bad games, it provokes a political response against critics of those games. People judging them for their mechanics. Mechanics that make Tetris, for all its simplicity, seem complex. It's about the fact that most gamers would rather discuss the art form of mechanics and how they play off each other than some last-minute narrative or series of cutscenes. Even fans of games like Metal Gear Solid are quick to call them movies, but they make up for it with clever gameplay sections and some spontaneous exposition or character development via codec.
It doesn't matter how good the story of MGS is if the gameplay wasn't engaging and thought-provoking. It wouldn't matter how important the message of Fortunate Son was if Creedence wasn't a great band that made catchy songs. Gamers would rather hold a game up for its great mechanics and judge those as art. A lot of musicians would probably rather celebrate songs for their composition than for whatever message they're trying to push. And real art doesn't usually carry heavy-handed messages anyways, even in film or novels. Beating your audience to death trying to be edgy is generally considered bad writing.
Games can be narrative vessels, but in a lot of ways, it's better left to the player to build their own story. That's harder to do than to just give them cutscenes, but you know what? It's rewarding in its own way. And it's rewarding in a way no other medium can match. But you can't use crutches. The indie scene right now is all crutches, no real substance. And the "media critique" is amateur and mostly spent connecting dots that aren't there and using games as a jumping off point for personal agendas instead of actually discussing the themes of narrative games, let alone discussing how the mechanics work with each other. In any other industry, this type of criticism would be laughed off, but it's propped up like it's the only form of media when people try to defend it.
TL;DR: Games' art isn't really in the narrative, and people should stop treating gaming like a narrative medium just because every other visual medium is.
You're actually arguing a position called Ludology, and it is only one possible mode of analysis regarding games.
>I feel like someone needs to represent gamer interest
Define gamer interest. Not everyone looks at games the same way. If I prefer to analyze games as a unique story-telling medium, am I in any way less of a gamer than you? If I were to, say, take a Marxist analysis on Eve Online's lore (that might actually be fun...), does that mean I'm not a gamer because I'm attempting to analyze it from a different set of standards than you are?
I understand, and agree to a point, where you're coming from. But saying that that is "gamer interest" is dismissive of the fact that games are an incredibly varied medium, and gamers are an incredibly varied demographic, and you are basically narrowing it down to what appeals to you, not gamers as a whole.
> You're actually arguing a position called Ludology, and it is only one possible mode of analysis regarding games.
It's not that narratology is wrong for media in general. It's great for analyzing plot. But it fails to provide a good structure for analyzing something that has a dynamic structure. Games have been form of human entertainment for thousands of years, and video games are fundamentally no different. But a film or a book is akin to a show or a performance. These have always been separate forms of entertainment, and as such, I feel they deserve their own methods of criticism and analysis. Narratology really is not meant to be applied outside of performances.
> Define gamer interest. Not everyone looks at games the same way.
I can only speak to my experiences. I identify with the gamer identity. I enjoy video games of a broad variety, and spend the majority of my time playing them. I also have spent over a decade online engaging in other forums where others identify themselves as "gamers" and have similar behavior patterns. I am speaking from my own personal feelings as well as the general consensus I see on the forums I frequent. I don't really want to get into a debate of "what is a gamer", because this has been an unsolved question for quite some time. I don't think "gamer" is quite anybody, but the exact criteria is certainly somewhat nebulous.
> If I prefer to analyze games as a unique story-telling medium, am I in any way less of a gamer than you?
All all factors accounted for, preferred method of analysis probably isn't the criteria for defining a "gamer". I've met a lot of people who love games, but they absolutely cannot judge them beyond the shallowest of criteria. It doesn't mean they're not gamers, but they might still be wrong about something (Saying Wind Waker and TF2 are similar games because of their art styles, for example). At the end of the day, if you want to talk about the game portion of something, you need to talk about the game portion. And that's mostly mechanical, with a story layered on top. A lot of games are like ~~onions~~ cakes, with varying levels of substance versus frosting, and some might have nuts or other fun things inside. They're an amalgam. But I think it's important to be aware that, as your cake becomes less cake and more frosting & ice cream, at some point there'll be a segment of bakers and chefs that look at it and say, "That's not really a cake, is it?".
> If I were to, say, take a Marxist analysis on Eve Online's lore (that might actually be fun...), does that mean I'm not a gamer because I'm attempting to analyze it from a different set of standards than you are?
No, but you're not really analyzing the game, are you? You're analyzing a related set of work that is heavily tied to a game. The lore itself isn't really all that relevant to EVE, is it? In fact, having played some of EVE, I can't say I know the lore all that well. If you want a narrative analysis of World of Warcraft and its lore, that's all well and good, but if that lore never ties into the game mechanics beyond the aesthetics of the game and the nameplates of a character, does it really matter? The script is not any different from the script of a screenplay, or novel, or play, and you're not really judging the game.
I'd love to read an article about Marxist interpretations of EVE lore. But I don't want a review of EVE, the video game, to be lowered because the reviewer is Marxist and the capitalistic elements bother them. "The game is too economically driven, to the detriment of the game's enjoyment" is a criticism of the gameplay. "The lore is steeped in Laissez-faire propaganda and supports the bourgeois" feels next-to-irrelevant to me as a gamer. And when you have articles like "Kissing and takedowns on the same button. Sexism!" being published, it feels an awful lot like the latter. I mean, Polygon's Tropico 5 review just said that the game was good, but he felt bad because it pokes fun at dictatorships and you have to run one. The way these are presented (qualifying some statements would help) and their influence on review scores is troubling.
Ultimately, the concern is that you have people who believe a very specific set of things are okay or not okay. They control the gaming media. They collaborate on mailing lists to agree to kill stories (something that happened among broader media a few years ago with JournoList) and they have the power to blacklist developers or to give them a bad review score, which can hinder studios relying on a Metacritic average to receive bonuses. A relatively small group of people controls the message, and can punish developers they disagree with. Now, I feel I am a gamer and that they do not speak for me. I disagree with their politics and their assertions. Whether they are "gamers" or not is somewhat irrelevant, because I am a gamer and I feel I am not being represented by them. But they are the prevailing voice and hold a lot of power. Personally, I feel if you love games for the medium they are/were, then gameplay is king. You're welcome to disagree with that, but I can make a game with no story, but I can't make a game with no game.
So, I guess I should preface this with two things:
1) I'm not a strict narratologist, which you seem to have characterized me as, and I even said I agreed with you to an extent.
2) Sorry if this is rushed and messy, or at least not as detailed as it could be, I'm hammering these replies out between breaks on a term paper. Expect typos, basically.
>It's not that narratology is wrong for media in general. It's great for analyzing plot. But it fails to provide a good structure for analyzing something that has a dynamic structure.
You're correct, but that doesn't mean a strict ludonarrative is the best course of action either. This is obviously a point of contention, but it doesn't have to be a dichotomy. And I hate when it's treated as such.
>Games have been form of human entertainment for thousands of years, and video games are fundamentally no different. But a film or a book is akin to a show or a performance. These have always been separate forms of entertainment, and as such, I feel they deserve their own methods of criticism and analysis. Narratology really is not meant to be applied outside of performances.
Again, you're right, but that doesn't mean games are also free from traditional analysis. Non-traditional narrative form doesn't mean immune to academic-style criticism; it just means that we have to adopt a slightly different paradigm when looking at games. Again, you can't have it both ways.
>All all factors accounted for, preferred method of analysis probably isn't the criteria for defining a "gamer". I've met a lot of people who love games, but they absolutely cannot judge them beyond the shallowest of criteria. It doesn't mean they're not gamers, but they might still be wrong about something (Saying Wind Waker and TF2 are similar games because of their art styles, for example).
No, it isn't the criteria, but that's how you made it sound: the gamer perspective is the perspective that cares about gameplay. Whether that's what you meant or not, that's how it seems written down. It unintentionally creates the ludology v. narratology dichotomy.
>At the end of the day, if you want to talk about the game portion of something, you need to talk about the game portion. And that's mostly mechanical, with a story layered on top. A lot of games are like onions cakes, with varying levels of substance versus frosting, and some might have nuts or other fun things inside. They're an amalgam. But I think it's important to be aware that, as your cake becomes less cake and more frosting & ice cream, at some point there'll be a segment of bakers and chefs that look at it and say, "That's not really a cake, is it?".
This ultimately gets into the question of what is a game and what it is an interactive experience. I'm sure you already know that there is no conclusive answer here, since people are still fighting over fucking Gone Home.
>[the whole Eve online part]
I think you took my example too literally. My point is that games can still be analyzed by their story alone, even if it is a weak analysis, as you point out. This is why I don't like to split the two. You could even do a purely ludonarratological (Pretentiousness +1) analysis of Eve through a Marxist lens by looking at how its game mechanics interact at an economic level.
>They collaborate on mailing lists to agree to kill stories (something that happened among broader media a few years ago with JournoList) and they have the power to blacklist developers or to give them a bad review score, which can hinder studios relying on a Metacritic average to receive bonuses. A relatively small group of people controls the message, and can punish developers they disagree with.
This is a problem that is somewhat agnostic from social politics. It can have an effect, but it's more of an internal industry problem as a whole. Gamespot actually addressed the Metacritic thing recently, and basically said that it's not their fault if game devs implement that policy, since it's out of their hands.
> Now, I feel I am a gamer and that they do not speak for me. I disagree with their politics and their assertions. Whether they are "gamers" or not is somewhat irrelevant, because I am a gamer and I feel I am not being represented by them. But they are the prevailing voice and hold a lot of power.
I'm not going to make a political argument here, but is it too far of a stretch to say that these people represent an overall progressive shift in media in general? They may not speak for you, but you're only one person, no? I'm not going to comment on whether these politics are a good or bad thing, since you clearly have your opinions there, but I would like to say that painting gamers as a whole with a wide brush isn't the best way of solving this problem either.
>Personally, I feel if you love games for the medium they are/were, then gameplay is king.
You're discounting entire genres of games by doing so. Entire RPGs are strung together by their plot, and I would say compelling gameplay, especially in classic turnbased RPGs, is put on the back seat to story telling (which makes sense, since they came from earlier DnD editions, which put emphasis on RP rather than gameplay).
>You're welcome to disagree with that, but I can make a game with no story, but I can't make a game with no game.
I don't disagree, but I think it's entirely relative to certain contexts and can't be applied to gaming as a whole.
That's an interesting point and I kind of agree in that the 'art' of a game is often best showcased by its mechanics, only if it's because almost all gaming narratives are terrible. That being said, games still have narratives, some even expansive, so you can't really only judge a game by a single aspect. For example, compare literature and film. Two different mediums, but you absolutely can critique a films narrative along with its techniques.
What if you think the idea of gaming as an artform is absolutely ludicrous?
I actually don't have a problem with social and political issues being brought up in games, though I do think . I have a problem with the incredibly one sided way that the games press always approaches things. Journalism has an obligations to approach events with all sorts of perspectives. At least try to form some of truth judgement rather than say...let their per-conceived ideologies or friendships decide their coverage.
So what happens when the Eron Gjoni accuses Zoe Quinn, a darling among the games press, of abuse and lying to the community?. Nothing. No coverage at all until game forums started to go ballistic about it. And then it was all "look at this psychotic jilted ex bringing up private issues just to hurt this poor game dev!!" articles.
Now compare that media response to the one where Brad Wardell was accused of harassment.
I disagree. Many people I speak to and read the dialogues of explicitly do not believe gaming is a art form and they do not want it to be. By and large, this is the prevailing opinion of those that I associate with and one that I personally agree with.
Except there's a huge push in the gaming community for games to be taken seriously as art. Were you around for, or do you just not remember, the whole Ebert fiasco? He was the internet's public enemy number one for a very long time for his article stating that games weren't art; he had to issue a fucking apology just to get people off his back.
I'm curious what gaming circles you hang around, because in the ones that I'm in people will in the same breath call games a form of art and then shit on anyone who tries to critique them as such.
Yes, I was. I've been playing games since the NES era. I hang out in /v/, who despise the whole "games=art" movement.
/v/ just doesn't understand that they can still play ut4 if they really want to.
>GamerGate is a consumer revolt triggered by overt politicization, ethical misconduct...
From KiA's FAQ. The hypocritical self-unawareness is too much.
I fucking love it.
I'm not sure if this counts as me brigading but the thread in question was linked from neogaf although listed with an np link sometime tonight.
I really loved reading his explanation. You can tell he is an intelligent professional. I also love how much he hates the awful and abused terminology (such as SJWs).
>You're very confrontational. Do you feel personally attacked?
I hate this line and anti-progressive dickheads love to trot it out. Maybe he feels "personally attacked" because he was called a fucking hack by some random turd! It's the very definition of a personal attack!
It's a super basic way to gaslight someone.
it's amazing how few of those responses are real responses
[deleted]
what? no. that is not a response to the thing i said
Oh :( That'll teach me not to reread.
Wow, /u/jsingal that was amazing. Have you recieved any abuse yet?
Just the usual Twitter shit. I genuinely don't know and am scared to ask how much of the lack of real abuse is due to the fact that I'm a dude and dudes, in general, don't receive the same sorts of abuse (though there are of course plenty o' exceptions). I'm also 0.01% as well known as their main enemies, so that's obviously part of it too.
Either way, obviously glad to see the post is resonating for some folks.
You should see if you can get an editor to let you publish an article about gamergate under a female name, and see what gets thrown at the email address associated with it.
> genuinely don't know and am scared to ask how much of the lack of real abuse is due to the fact that I'm a dude
Yup, that's it. It's not a coincidence that all 7 Literally Whose are women.
Anyway, that post was fucking amazing. I needed a fucking cigarette after that shit.
Ha, thanks!
Hey there! Now, I might be a bit wacky-tobacky for asking; but was one of your arguments about GG that its leaderless status make it an ineffective and diffuse movement?
On a side note, I was surprised to see you defend new journalism so well, isn't your outlet one of the more old school institutions?
Day job is actually with New York Magazine, where I edit a social-science blog called Science of Us (check us out!). My weekly Globe column on video games is a (beloved) side-gig. And thanks!
Interested to hear you do social sciences reporting. I've done ethnographic work in the social sciences and coming from that perspective, I can see how something like gamergate is very hard to report on within the framework of relaying 'the story.' As is often the case in real life, 'the story' here is basically the story of Rashomon.
My concern is a little different from the usual accuracy complaints. It seems to me that the way mainstream media outlets have reported gamergate seems to reinforce the conflict narrative that 'both sides' have already built up. In other words, mainstream media itself is influencing how the story has developed, maybe not for the better. This is an intrisic hazard with political stuff that happens on reddit (much the same has happened with reporting on MRA's, for example). I think it would be nice to see more depth reporting and critical analysis and less narrative recap, but what do you think?
Say your a woman and get a report back here in a week
This popcorn tastes like its been pissed on.
Edit. /r/bestof is again brigading
It got booted from bestof, so it should settle down soon.
SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 ^[?]
^^Anyone ^^know ^^an ^^alternative ^^to ^^Readability? ^^Send ^^me ^^a ^^PM!
Jesus Christ, that comment is at 137 points now. When I first saw this submission I thought "It's a pretty good smackdown of GamerGate, but there isn't a lot of drama there." I couldn't have been more wrong. It's like minority report or something. The OP of this submission predicted the drama that would ensue. Admins are going to have their hands full.
The journalists' comment was at ~+15 when I found it, with mostly antagonistic responses. I though I'd found some nice niche drama for a Sunday evening, but now the thread is full of more brigades than the Western Front :(
Don't be afraid of your new found drama prescience. You are the shortening of the way. The one who can be many places at once.
Ah dammit, beat me to it D=
Sorry!
Submitted it a few minutes after you and was wondering why I was receiving downvotes for such sweet drama
Little did I know it was all your fault
I also think folks are a bit fatigued from all the GamerGate popcorn, but it isn't stale yet for me! I can't stop myself from feasting.
Well there's so much cheese on it, you know. Extra flavor.
That is one thorough tantrum. He's seriously complaining about it being difficult to criticise them!
Sure, I guess if you can't read, then that's what that series of squiggles could look like.
> He's seriously complaining about it being difficult to criticise them!
Could you quote the bits he wrote that gave you that impression?
> If I'm arguing with someone from the NRA or the NAACP or some other established group, I can point to actual quotes from the group's leadership. With you guys, any bad thing that happens is, by definition, not the work of A True GamerGater. It's one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book.
He doesn't want to talk about the issue, he wants to demonise people who do want it noticed! Why can't they say something official and misogynist so he can write about that instead?
What you appear to have missed there is that that was a lead-in to his next paragraph, where he makes a very important point about the nature of these leaderless groups:
> So what is GamerGate “really” about? I think this is the kinda question a philosopher of language would tear apart and scatter the remnants of to the wind, because it lacks any real referent. You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do. I’d argue that there isn’t really any such thing as GamerGate, because any given manifestation of it can be torn down as, again, No True GamerGate by anyone who disagrees with it. And who gets to decide what is and isn’t True GamerGate? You can’t say you want a decentralized, anonymous movement and then disown the ugly parts that inevitably pop up. Either everything is in, or everything is out.
That is to say, you can't use the amorphous nature of the group to say that is is or isn't anything. Without an official position, you can't dismiss people that give you a bad name as "not really with us" because there is no notion of what "with us" entails. As he so succinctly puts it, "everything is in, or everything is out."
Exactly. He's trying to avoid talking about an issue by attacking the messengers, and is frustrated that it doesn't work.
Nor should it. If his only arguments are ad hominem, he's not worth listening to in the first place.
what did you read?
I'm sure the response he wrote was "biased", right? Anyone who sees GG for what it is must be biased. We all should know that "The issue of gamergate is fundamentally about gaming journalism ethics, and corruption in the gaming industry/gaming media." (Obviously brought about by feminists and 'SJWs', not mainstream media).
> As a journalist trying to be fair-minded about this, you can't fucking win. If I'm arguing with someone from the NRA or the NAACP or some other established group, I can point to actual quotes from the group's leadership. With you guys, any bad thing that happens is, by definition, not the work of A True GamerGater. It's one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book.
Hey, you know against whom this argument often shows up?
> You can’t say you want a decentralized, anonymous movement and then disown the ugly parts that inevitably pop up. Either everything is in, or everything is out.
Boy, I think that was written more than once by the anti-feminism redditors out there!
> I think this is the kinda question a philosopher of language would tear apart and scatter the remnants of to the wind, because it lacks any real referent. You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do.
This reeks of liberal arts major with only a tangential understanding of political science. If he thinks that you need a "leader" to have a movement (I honestly didn't know #GamerGate was a movement trying to do anything), I'd like to point to the Paris Commune, the anarchist Catalonia during the 1936 Spanish Civil War, or even Occupy Wall Street (which, if I remember correctly, his kind wasn't particularly against, even though the platform kept varying through time and place since the original group installed themselves on Wall St.).
BTW:
> Acknowledge that you do not want SJWs in gaming, that you want games to just be about games. Again: I disagree, but at least then I (and other journalists! you do want coverage, don’t you?)
This is what an outsider looks like. This is what not knowing anything about a subject and yet talking about it looks like. Hold on, there was a word for that...
Whatever things you can say about the #GamerGate guys, the circlejerk around it only comes to show the low level the people on the other side has.
ah yes, the paris commune, spanish anarchists, and occupy wall street, three fine examples of enduring and energetic organizations