Gamergate

Searched the forums, and could only find one thread that was four months old. If it's been discussed already I'm sorry.

To start, I'm very interested to get some opinions from my fellow gamers here. My own leanings will quickly be revealed.



If you're wondering what I'm talking about...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

That's probably the best place for those who aren't up to speed. I wouldn't call the current state of that article "objective", but it's a start. I have many other resources on the subject, but I'll reserve those for now. I don't want my biases to affect the thread.

I think anyone Doxing, and threating people are always in the wrong. However admitily I said something to someone online when I was 12/13, I still wish I hadn't done. Though it wasn't until I was like 15 I realised why what I said was actually incredibly horrible. So I am sure a lack of education, and experiences accounts for some of the horrible stuff that is done. That said the attacks on people are so well orchestrated, there are mostly likely people incharge who should know that what they're doing is pure dickish, and evil.

As far as the gamer identity is concerned, I imagine that most of the social gamers wouldn't identify them self as a gamers. I guess I still identify my self as a gamer, but I am trying to break that, much in the same way I don't classify my self as a movier, tv watcher, or biker. But to me a gamer is still someone who plays core games, and that's where my mind would go.

Game Political Corectness, I think Anita Sarkeesian makes some good points, but at the same time, she also over exaggerates her points to make a good show, I think there was a violence against women episode or something that was full of misleading information.

I think the game developers should have the freedom express their vision however they want, they are the ones who are taking the risk to try and fill a niche market to make money, or the express their vision. I think the most successful games are definitly going to be the ones made by people who are making something they know and enjoy them self. So while I enjoy Anita's videos, and that they make me think about some issues, I am not going to avoid a game because it uses the Damsel in Distress trope, and I will just play games I enjoy. In much the same way I can accept if a game is made where I am not intended target. It's the developers who know their target audeience and should push in which ever direction they choose. Even if their target audience is just themself and they just want to tell their story.

"Game Political Correctness, I think Anita Sarkeesian makes some good points, but at the same time, she also over exaggerates her points to make a good show, I think there was a violence against women episode or something that was full of misleading information."

In almost every single circumstance where she has been fact checked, the things she says are revealed for the lies that they are. If they're not blatant lies then they're usually unsupported nonsense. Anita Sarkeesian is the modern day equivalent of Jack Thompson. She claims to have mountains of evidence to support her conjecture, but refuses to provide any. When you search for these mountains you might find one study, but mostly you come up empty handed.

Are some games sexist? Sure you could make that argument. Is the gaming industry as a whole sexist? Not even remotely close. There are hundreds of examples of strong female protagonists in video games that Anita fails to mention. On top of that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that being a gamer is exclusive to the kind of person Anita is suggesting it is. There are very prominent members of Gamergate that are female, LGBTQ, etc. The idea that all gamers are cis white males is in and of itself discriminatory.

On the topic of doxxing/harassment, I will provide one of my many resources on the subject.

http://youtu.be/W3M0HmSjJ68

I happen to think that there are plenty of examples of people being dicks to anti-gamergaters, but what you may not see is the side being displayed in that video. What's worse is that most, if not all, of the attacks, slurs, and dox attempts on Anita and friends are from anonymous sources. Not a single piece of evidence has yet been able to link Gamergate with these atrocious human beings who are doing these things. Furthermore the threats against multiple people, Anita and Leigh Alexander to start, have been proven time and time again to be spurious in nature. Leigh Alexander has done multiple interviews stating that she was chased out of her home by Gamergate supporters FROM HER OWN LIVING ROOM. I'll repeat that. The interviews were done IN HER HOME THAT SHE CLAIMS SHE WAS SCARED OUT OF.

The following link is to get an even better idea of where I stand on this issue.

http://youtu.be/rzhJo2Hg2Vw

For the spectrum featured in that video, I am very much bottom left quadrant. The red dot is approximately my position, so I agree with nearly all of the things DarkViper states in the above video.

[image: www.politicalcompass.org]
If you'd like to take the test yourself, you can find it at http://www.politicalcompass.org/.

http://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=40&t=15918521&b=0&a=0

>.>

tldr;
If GamerGate people are so pro diversity in games why do they attack women in the gaming industry? And if GamerGate people are so liberal why do they care how game journalists act when there are many alternatives?

Yeah, I am bottom left also. Although a lot more left xD [image: www.politicalcompass.org]

However watching the video has confused me slightly, in my mind the pro gamergate people wanted games to be a set thing that "Gamers" would want to play, and that developers shouldn't waste their time on time on non Brotastic games, and instead make games for them only. And yeah, that there should be more accountability for journalists.

However that video seems to suggest that the gamer gate people want games to be allowed to be more diverse, but at the same time don't want them to change at all? If so then what is Gamer gates issues with women in the games industry?

Around journalism sure that should be less bias but I don't think the gaming industry is where it should start. Those guys are out there to make money, and sell issues, they will write what ever gets them their dollars. But there is a reason most of the game magazines are dying. People caught on to it long ago, and there is now an alternative. There are so many other sources of information that relying on a single magazine wouldn't make sense. You can easily get more accurate reviews on metacritc, or find a you tube channel where the person running it has the same taste in games as you. Game reviews are always going to be subjective as they're always going to reflect the experience that the person reviewing had. Unless of course they were paid off, or threatened to no longer give pre-release review versions if the author writes something negative. But that is the writers choice and surely as libertarian's Gamer Gaters should be fine with companies doing that, and instead look for their reviews elsewhere.

Also didn't get through you're video on doxxing as there is only so much Microsoft Sam I can take. But from a friend of a friend being forced out of her house, I guess I can only see that as negative. Sure anyone can add a #GamerGate on what ever they want, and their is no way to stop it. But surely the Gamergate people would denounce the attacks?

All in all, I am definitely not pro gamer gate, but also no the videos definition of anti gamer gate either.

the summery of gamer gate is simply that it was originally about game reporting ethics which turned into why everyone hates you because you're born with a vagina (by those more commonly known as SJWs)

Sonofabitch

Yeah I missed that one. I suppose I made the mistake of searching "gamergate" and not the various spellings of the separate terms.

I've not bothered to get anywhere near the subject. It looks like another pretentious attempt at making the "gamer culture" seem like it's more important than it is, instigated by people who want to come across as more important than they are. I've paid zero attention to it, but there's a few annoying pieces of shit to come out of the whole thing:

Firstly, there's Anita. She's been around for years now, but "GamerGate" brought her back into the spotlight she so craves. Someone who tries to turn a non-issue into something controversial, Anita Sarkeesian is the definition of a YouTube whore, eager to do anything in exchange for a handful of shekels in her pocket.

What's absolutely amazing is that her shitty videos have managed to ferment anti-feminist views in an absolute f**kload of people. She quite literally takes some inane shit that's related to "gaming", then spins it into being offensive to women.
z0mg guyz, princess peach is a damsel in distress!!!1 how offensive!!1 send me money and i can make videos about this!!
Meanwhile in other parts of the world, women are being stoned to death for trying to get an education. But f**k that, right guyz? This is WAY more important!

Then there's Zoey Quinn. Zoey takes the concept of whoring oneself out to a whole new level. Look guyz, i put a chip in my hand lol GAMER GURL!!!
Just like Anita, she takes internet abuse (which f**king everyone gets), and turns it into propaganda for a cause she neither cares about nor understands. Pretty sure even adamant feminists f**king hate her. From what i remember, her boyfriend accused her of spreading her legs for some shitty "games journalist" in exchange for positive reviews for her "game" (spoiler: it's shit). Apparently that's an example of how girls are being treated badly in the "gaming industry". Never mind the circumstances suggesting otherwise.

As for the "backlash" she got after that got spread around: tough. If you whore yourself out online and take yourself as seriously as she (and Anita) does, then you should be prepared for when the tides turn against you. It has nothing to do with gender. PewDiePie's another YouTube whore, and he gets plenty of shit, including death threats. Is that down to his gender, or is that down to him being a talentless, money-grubbing e-whore?

And lastly, there's the anti-feminist (or just overall "girls is bitches uhhh my life is so hard why am i friendzoned") bullshit that's come out of it all. Anyone who disagrees with the anti-feminist agenda, or who thinks that "the industry" is in any way sexist is suddenly an "sjw" -- a term coined and constantly regurgitated by autismaloids across the internet. If there wasn't a problem with sexism in gaming before this shit happened, there is now.

Both "sides" want to pretend gaming is some kind of serious and adult "culture", but both sides are comprised exclusively of twats.

Now forgive me if any of my "facts" are wrong, but that's everything i've gathered over the past year of NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN-ing my way out of damaging my brain with this crap.
And forgive me if i seem like an "anti-feminist". I'm not. The problem with sexism in gaming is down to two things: society, which has established the idea of gaming being predominantly for guys, and publishers, which know that having armour suddenly transform into a knickers and bra when a girl-hero wears it will rake in the average gamer: ~13 year old boys.
It has absolutely no effect on anything in real-life, though. There's plenty of women who work as games developers, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest they're treated in any way different to guys.
The whole "controversy" can be traced back to people who either want attention, money, or both from stirring up shit.

Side note: i can count more "strong" girls in games than i can "strong" non-white people. Does that make "the industry" racist now? Or is it again down to social interpretations and assumptions of what a "gamer" is, and publishers' desires to pander to that audience?


EDIT: what the f**k have i done. That is a lot of words about nothing. If you manage to read more than a paragraph, you're stronger than i...and i f**king wrote it.
EDIT 2: holy shit, someone actually reported the thread. Amazing...

"If GamerGate people are so pro diversity in games why do they attack women in the gaming industry? And if GamerGate people are so liberal why do they care how game journalists act when there are many alternatives?"

I'm sorry, but you'll have to provide more evidence that they have "attacked" women in the industry. The idea that these attacks are being perpetrated by people within the gamergate movement has yet to be substantiated in my opinion. What I do see is a lot of female game devs who get harassed on the internet. What I also see is that there are tens of thousands of public personas on the internet that get similar harassment for completely mundane reasons. Literally anybody who is mildly famous on YouTube gets hate comments. The distinction between this kind of indiscriminate hate and specifically targeted hate coming from gamergaters has to be made. I think the majority of the hate that's being paraded around as evidence of misogyny is the indiscriminate form mistakenly being labeled as from supporters of gamergate.

"However watching the video has confused me slightly, in my mind the pro gamergate people wanted games to be a set thing that "Gamers" would want to play, and that developers shouldn't waste their time on time on non Brotastic games, and instead make games for them only. And yeah, that there should be more accountability for journalists."

Nope, gamergate supporters don't want games to be anything that they are not currently. Gamergate has nothing to do with the content of the games themselves. For all I care, and I can say with a bit of confidence that this opinion is widely held, they can continue to make games about literally anything. The good ones will stand on their own merits. There are literally thousands of examples of "non-brotastic" games that are highly successful, and no gamer worth his salt would want those games to go away.

Journey, Minecraft, Terraria, Plague Inc., Flappy Bird, Angry Birds, Thomas was Alone, any and all trivia games/board games, and the vast majority of the Nintendo library are games that I would consider to be both successful and "non-brotastic". These things have absolutely nothing to do with the issue being presented by the use of the gamergate hashtag though. It is, and has always been, about journalistic integrity.

Dozens of publications that are literally sleeping with developers. Awards shows that are giving out best in show awards to friends instead of the actual best game. "Journalists" that think objectivity is a silly thing to strive for. These are all real examples that I can provide citation for if you like. That is what this has always been about, and the idea that misogyny or "brotastic" games is what it's about is a distractionary tactic by the very media that we're attempting to change.

"Around journalism sure that should be less bias but I don't think the gaming industry is where it should start. Those guys are out there to make money, and sell issues, they will write what ever gets them their dollars. But there is a reason most of the game magazines are dying. People caught on to it long ago, and there is now an alternative. There are so many other sources of information that relying on a single magazine wouldn't make sense. You can easily get more accurate reviews on metacritc, or find a you tube channel where the person running it has the same taste in games as you. Game reviews are always going to be subjective as they're always going to reflect the experience that the person reviewing had. Unless of course they were paid off, or threatened to no longer give pre-release review versions if the author writes something negative. But that is the writers choice and surely as libertarian's Gamer Gaters should be fine with companies doing that, and instead look for their reviews elsewhere."

You must not know what subjectivity and objectivity are. That is pretty much the definition of objectivity. Someone who plays a game and forms an opinion on it without any bias of agenda, monetary gain, or nepotism involved. That is exactly what we gamers are asking for. What we're getting is a group of social justice loons who think that their friend's games have a right to be put on a pedestal over other games simply because they were made by their friends. That's not consumer advice. That is what is called advertising. Advertising should never EVER be the focus of an article that is purporting to suggest games for people to try out. Game reviews should always be unbiased, and if there is a bias it should damn well be disclosed ahead of the review so that the consumer can make the conscious decision to disregard said article.

We are getting our reviews elsewhere now, and I'm sure it's being felt by the publications that have taken part in the outright slander of gamers on the whole.

I agree completely that the actions of doxxing and harassing people is absolutely deplorable, and anybody taking part is worthy of every bit of scorn. The issue I take with these things being used the way they are is that the anti-gamergaters are painting the entire gamergate movement with this broad brush. Most of the harassment that Anita, Zoe, and the rest are receiving don't even use the hashtag #GamerGate for crying out loud. It's just indiscriminate hate aimed at a public face. Everywhere you go on the internet you're going to get some of that. The ones that are using the hashtag are equally as revolting, and I hope that they cease said actions post haste. However those people don't even represent one percent of the vast movement that is gamergate.

Also, I don't know if I would be so quick to describe myself as "anarcho-communist" if I were you. ;)

[image: i.imgur.com]

@LSD

[image: venturebeat.files.wordpress.com]

Nah it's totally not serious business at all.

Also, thanks for calling me an "autismaloid". I laughed quite hard at that one. xD

On a side note, I'm curious why the thread has been reported. The two threads now that have surfaced about this topic are both four months old. Did someone say or do something inflammatory? Odd

Edit: Just so we're clear, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Even the autismaloid bit. I may or may not be autistic, but I certainly do use the phrase "social justice warrior" in the negative connotation.

And I think that the perception that anybody hates vaginas, especially gamers, is a distraction from the increasingly apparent media bias in the gaming industry.

me too, those who make the point in a serious fashion normally know so little about gaming or the area it's like a poor attempt to gain gamers attention like "look at me or i'll say bad things about you"

I'm curious. The video linked in your previous thread has been removed from YouTube. Did that happen to be a video from "InternetAristocrat"?

Edit: Furthermore, is there a mirror to whatever it was that you can link here?

Now before the blame comes my way, i want to make it clear that i'm over-using the term "whore" ironically, and not in an inflammatory manner.
Anita wants to be taken seriously as some kind of soldier in the fight against a non-existent form of oppression against women taking place in the "gaming industry", but she does so while laying on her back and taking fistfuls of coin (she even made a ridiculously successful "kickstarter" to line her pockets even more).

If there are any real prostitutes who feel offended by way of association with the likes of Anita Sarkeesian, feel free to get in contact with me. I'll pay half beforehand.

Plus the thread was reported the moment i hit submit so you can't blame my naughty language.

The SJW thing is aimed specifically at the people who spit it out as soon as you make any sign of thinking rationally about how other people should be treated. I've never got involved with anything related to "GamerGate" (besides this), yet i've seen the word thrown around so much in the past 2-3 months that i can completely understand the stereotypes associated with it.

I cannot, i believe it was from some guy called the "amazingatheist " but then again it may have also been a women talking on the subject, i can't remember if i picked a biased video or not :p

I promise "The Amazing Atheist" has not removed his account from YouTube. I'm a long time subscriber of his.

I'm guessing you see it a lot on Twitter. I don't actually use Twitter or Facebook, so I mainly hear and see it being used on YouTube. I think it's a fair description for a certain set of people, but to broadly label people as such would be excessive.

I must say, as someone who has had very little, or no, involvement you have quite a good grasp of the inner workings of this debate. I suppose it makes me glad to know that the slander and shouting down of gamers isn't working on all fronts.

Same here: it's mostly YouTube, though i've seen it just about anywhere "gaming" related...which is kind of scary, when you think about it. It's like an infestation or a virus, and it'll only go away when the next non-issue gets stirred up by money-grubbers who have little, if any, involvement in gaming to begin with.
Maybe i should have kept the whole "no blacks" thing under wraps. Next month it might be Carl Johnson being "analysed" as an example of oppression in games by sociology graduates looking to line their pockets.

Side note: it was literally like 2 weeks ago i made the connection of "SJW" to GamerGate. Some shitty anime porn game got released on Steam and 90% of the reviews were pretentious twats claiming the game "breaks social boundaries", with "SJW" showing up in every review.
Googled it, and low and behold: http://www.huniepop.com/post/108464572403/sjw-reviews-hp-spoiler-he-doesnt-like-it
The whole thing stinks of self-importance, and that's exactly the kind of thought process i've assigned to anyone who spouts it.

Each side's got people making it impossible to be taken seriously: on the anti-GamerGate side, you've got Anita and the other twats pretending sexism in gaming is some kind of serious world issue and making the concept of feminism look full-on retarded -- SJW being the internet's term to describe them.
On the other side you've got pretentious twats who think "friendzone" is a serious issue, pretending political correctness has gone mad and spouting SJW every chance they get, making the pro-GamerGate side look full on retarded.

Valid points, and I guess if it does just come back down to my lack of understanding of what the gamer gates want. If it's just about journalism ethics, then I see no real reason to interfere in an open world, people are free choose what they want. I wouldn't buy a game just because Kotaku gave it game of the year.

Sure I know the difference between objective and subjective, and any journalism is always going to be subjective. Objective would need to be based of something measurable, so that someone else could come to the same conclusion, and I couldn't imagine how that'd work. I guess you try to break them down into smaller components, like graphics for example. How do you objectively give a rating, and review? One reviewer might love some hand painted scenes, and think it complements the whole feel of the game. Where as someone might look at it and think, it's horrible and something that should have stayed back in the 90s.

As free as people are to make their own games they should be just as free to write reviews how they see fit. If people want to be paid off or announce hidden messages about the games they are reviewing it's their choice, and they will suffer or succeed based on their choices.

Also you don't know what goes on pasted the edge of the box, there might be something even cooler over there haha.

I agree that people are free to make their own choices in who they listen to in games media, and what kind of games they make or buy, but I don't agree that journalists should be able to withhold information from the consumers that they are supposedly representing. If there is a conflict of interests then it should be announced.

As for the subjectivity/objectivity debate, I think we're just using a different level of scrutiny on the terms. You're looking at it more as the content of the game, when I'm looking at the content of the article. You're right in that I certainly don't expect the reviewer to objectively opine on the graphics or even the gameplay. That would be a bit much to ask for. Each player is going to form their own opinions on these things. What I do think is a reasonable ask is that they give a description of the game, the graphics, and how well all elements fit together without including their own political ideology or hidden incestuous developer relationship into the mix. These things don't mean squat to the contents of the game, and shouldn't affect the review at all. If they do, then it is up to the journalist to disclose such a bias. Any publications that don't disclose said biases, and further say that they're not going to disclose them, are not worth the paper that they're written on. At that point you may as well paste the word "propaganda" on the front page.

You must be having some pretty sweet "out of box" parties over there. :P