[Scotty]

The first person who tells me that "That's not what GamerGate says" is getting a warning, because I'm not talking about ****ing Gamergate.  I'm trying to rescue this ****fest of a topic and God help whoever gets in the way.

I seriously want to know what part of the idea "Stop bringing up GamerGate" is so ****ing hard.

[Mr. Vega]

I thought it was news worth posting. Wasn't trying to start an argument specifically about gg.

[Luis Dias]

The first person who tells me that "That's not what GamerGate says" is getting a warning, because I'm not talking about ****ing Gamergate.  I'm trying to rescue this ****fest of a topic and God help whoever gets in the way.

I seriously want to know what part of the idea "Stop bringing up GamerGate" is so ****ing hard.

You were not that clear about your intentions regarding this thread, Scotty. I am a bit confused now. Is GamerGate now out of the discussion? Because your previous wording merely stated that you specifically weren't speaking about GamerGate, not that the thread was now forbidden to talk about it. When I tried to bring back the discussion towards the initial purpose of it and brought Bayonetta as an example where ambiguities regarding objectification was probably worth discussing, Karajorma told me not to do so, that if I was that interested in doing so that I should start a new thread (at least that's what I understood). So could you enlighten what are we supposed to do from now on?

Because Joshua made a response to my comment that I would like to respond back, since there was some interesting content in them that are worth discussing.

As an aside, speaking of "doxxing" someone who is widely publicly known is ridiculous. That's not what "doxxing" means FYI. (Not saying that whatever it was done was ethical or with good intentions, it most surely wasn't but let's not rape the language we use while we are at this).

[The E]

As an aside, speaking of "doxxing" someone who is widely publicly known is ridiculous. That's not what "doxxing" means FYI. (Not saying that whatever it was done was ethical or with good intentions, it most surely wasn't but let's not rape the language we use while we are at this).

If your home address, private phone number etc are widely known, then yes, spreading them would not be doxxing. If, on the other hand, you made an effort to keep this information private and it is spread regardless of your wishes, then that is doxxing. Even famous people have a right to and expectation of privacy.

[Luis Dias]

I stand corrected.

[karajorma]

I suspect that Scotty is basically getting sick of the "Person X in Gamergate said X therefore I can ignore every single thing that comes from that person or Gamergate itself" bull****. I'm also sick of it. It has very little to do with the subject matter of this discussion and it's basically no longer being allowed.

Basically the way I see it is that if someone quotes an opinion post you can't simply say "He's a wanker, so his opinion can be ignored"  Even people who are absolute scum can have an opinion that actually makes sense. If the opinion doesn't make sense then you can discuss why you feel that is so. But you can't simply discount the opinion based on who said it. There's been way too much of that on this thread and it's the main reason why it's such a ****fest.

Please note that this is not the same as "He's a proven liar, therefore I refuse to accept what he says is a fact." That one is still perfectly reasonable. It's not like we're asking you to accept The Daily Mail as proof of anything other than that you can print on toilet paper.

When I tried to bring back the discussion towards the initial purpose of it and brought Bayonetta as an example where ambiguities regarding objectification was probably worth discussing, Karajorma told me not to do so, that if I was that interested in doing so that I should start a new thread (at least that's what I understood). So could you enlighten what are we supposed to do from now on?

Actually I said that people could discuss both issues on this thread and I would later split them if both topics proved popular. But no one really replied much to your post so I didn't split them out.

[Luis Dias]

Ah so now I understand what you meant by "lax on double posting rule", thanks .

I will get back to what Scotty said then, because his comment touches on key points and advances the discussion to interesting (to me at least) places.

[666maslo666]

I implore you, maslo, to be honest with yourself. You are not fighting against censorship, you are fighting for it. There are voices in the games industry you wish to see silenced, for no other reason than you disagreeing with them. There is a grand battle for journalistic freedom here, and you are on the side that wants to reduce it.

Battle for journalistic freedom? Where? Its not about journalistic freedom. It is about journalistic ethics, quality of journalism, politisation of journalism, bias in journalism. I dont see governments censoring any gaming articles anywhere.

I do think that while every journalist should have a right to write whatever they want, gaming community also has a right to shame those who write ****ty reviews or push politics everywhere. And make no mistake, half of review being about gender stuff, from a very one sided perspective, especially for a game like Bayonetta where a child could tell you that social commentary is not its main aim (hint: shooting stuff up is), is obvious radfem propaganda, and it should be marginalized by the gaming community. You call that censorship, I call it feedback from your audience and keeping quality standards high. And it does not matter if its a game, movie, book or any other medium, a review like this is unacceptable in all of art.

Gaming reviews should be politically neutral, so either dont mention this stuff, or mention it in small amounts and try to represent both viewpoints. Or at least try to keep some pretense of a game review not being your personal political blog. Not when you are writing it for general audience instead of your political comrades.

[The E]

Battle for journalistic freedom? Where? Its not about journalistic freedom. It is about journalistic ethics, quality of journalism, politisation of journalism, bias in journalism. I dont see governments censoring any gaming articles anywhere.

It's about journalists being free to write what they want to write (and what they believe their audience wants to read) without being shackled by some weird notion of objectivity or "unbiased reporting".

I do think that while every journalist should have a right to write whatever they want

No. You don't.

, gaming community also has a right to shame those who write ****ty reviews or push politics everywhere.

Why? If you dislike an article, or the editorial direction of a given news outlet, why is it imperative to shame them? Why can't you just say "You know, that site doesn't post anything I find useful, I'll just ignore it"? I ask you: If a reviewer reviews a game, and comes to the verdict that because of some reason that you have deemed to be "political" the game isn't as enjoyable as it could be, why should he or she play down that factor in his or her review? You may be uncomfortable with the intrusion of politics into the gaming industry. I am not. Many others aren't, either. Stop pretending that your view is the only correct one, or even a majority one, and find your own places that you trust. Noone forces you to read or agree with Kotaku, Polygon, RPS et al. Stop trying to remove voices and perspectives from the gaming journalism scene. There's enough room for everyone here.

I don't know about you, but I read game (and movie, and book) reviews to get the perspective of the reviewer. Not to get an "objective" assessment of the thing, but a personalized, subjective view from a person whose judgement I trust. I can only trust reviewers if they are up front with their biases; If I wanted to read a non-political, positive blurb about a game, I'd have stuck with the publisher's PR material.

And make no mistake, half of review being about gender stuff, from a very one sided perspective, especially for a game like Bayonetta where a child could tell you that social commentary is not its main aim (hint: shooting stuff up is), is obvious radfem propaganda, and it should be marginalized by the gaming community. You call that censorship, I call it feedback from your audience and keeping quality standards high. And it does not matter if its a game, movie, book or any other medium, a review like this is unacceptable in all of art.

Look, I know this is hard to accept, but games do not exist in a vacuum. Whether they are intended to or not, every game exists in the context of an ongoing dialogue between game developers and the audience, and one of games journalism's tasks is to document that dialogue. Bayonetta, by her very nature as a character, is a reaction to and commentary on female characters in videogames, whether or not that was the stated intent of the developer is irrelevant.
Now, if a reviewer finds that depiction problematic (and I will note that in the Polygon review, the tone is more "Yeah, I get it, she's a free sexy woman, can I get back to the cool parts of the game now please?" rather than "OMG they totally make her a pin up for gamers to jerk off to"), why shouldn't he be free to say so in the review? If what you call the "radfem propaganda" part of the review had been shortened, but the verdict and score had been the same, I can guarantee you that we'd still be having the same discussion, simply because you cannot stand the fact that people may have a different opinion from you regarding what a game review can cover and what it can't.

Basically, you have your quality standards. I have mine. Why are your quality standards so much more relevant than mine that you are part of a movement whose stated core goal is to bring the entirety of games journalism in line with what you want? What makes it so difficult for you to just ignore reviews you find disagreeable?

[666maslo666]

I am not going to ignore them because gaming world would not ignore them. They are major sites. Its unrealistic to expect it. They have influence.

Tell me, what positives can come from this politization for gaming? How will it improve gaming? I think it wont, the opposite will be true.

This very thread is a microcosm of what will happen in gaming if certain outlets continue to bring politics in. People disagree about politics a lot, and often very passionately. This fosters disagreements, which lead to arguments and conflicts. And this is inevitable as long as you let the political cat out of the bag - people are NOT going to shut up if someone is pushing a political ideology they disagree with in a previously apolitical environment.

More than a year ago, this hit the tech industry in full, resulting in the infamous Adriagate, which damaged both sides and poisoned the atmosphere in tech for months. I dont think you can expect different result in gaming, and indeed, Gamergate is a proof of that.

If leftist politics enters gaming, we can certainly expect conservative backslash and a lot of infighting. Perhaps we will see a split in gaming media along political lines, similarly like we have in news media. Perhaps the whole gaming culture will split along political lines, neither side wanting to back down. It certainly wont be pretty, and it certainly wont be good for gaming. Any energy and time spent on political bull**** wont be spent developing games. Any partnership killed by political disagreements which would otherwise happen will be a negative. One example out of many to come.

Perhaps this politization is inevitable sooner or later, but I am not going to stand by not speaking up against the media which seems eager to accelerate it.

[The E]

I am not going to ignore them because gaming world would not ignore them. They are major sites. Its unrealistic to expect it. They have influence.

Tell me, what positives can come from this politization for gaming? How will it improve gaming? I think it wont, the opposite will be true.[/quote]

Yeah, I cannot for the life of me see anything at all in gaming that can be made better by making it more inclusive, or by examining it in terms beyond "is this fun". I mean, we all saw that film criticism and scholarly discussions about film didn't improve it at all; if anything, classics like "Train coming at the audience" have already shown the peak of what the medium is capable of.

In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. Yes, there is a lot to be gained by examining games under feminist (or other "politicized") views. Examinations of games as part of a metacultural dialogue are vital to making sure that games continue to be relevant in the future. Nothing can be gained by forcibly silencing a subset of the culture just because you happen to disagree with them.
Games can only become better if we are allowed to discuss them under a variety of viewpoints. That includes those you find distasteful. Learn to live with it.

This politization of games you so despise? It was directly responsible for some of the best games of the past couple years. Without it, games like the new Tomb Raider, The Last Of Us, Spec Ops: The Line, Saints Row 3 and 4, even Bayonetta would not exist. Now, it's perfectly allright if none of those appeal to you. That's fine. But don't assume that that opinion is universally shared.

This very thread is a microcosm of what will happen in gaming if certain outlets continue to bring politics in. People disagree about politics a lot, and often very passionately. This fosters disagreements, which lead to arguments and conflicts. And this is inevitable as long as you let the political cat out of the bag - people are NOT going to shut up if someone is pushing a political ideology they disagree with in a previously apolitical environment.

People also disagree about games a lot, even without any politics involved. Remember how Mass Effect 3's ending was the greatest scandal in gaming or just a bit disappointing or quite alright depending on who you asked? Remember all the heated arguments, threats of class action lawsuits and other silliness happened?

Also, yeah, you're right, games weren't that big a deal before. Guess what, they are now. Games are a big ****ing deal, given how many gamers there are these days. With that audience comes a certain diversification of viewpoints and interests, and all those viewpoints and interests have an equal right to be heard. Having been a gamer when it was still underground does not give you permission to impose your viewpoint on others.

If leftist politics enters gaming, we can certainly expect conservative backslash and a lot of infighting. Perhaps we will see a split in gaming media along political lines, similarly like we have in news media. Perhaps the whole gaming culture will split along political lines, neither side wanting to back down. It certainly wont be pretty, and it certainly wont be good for gaming. Any energy and time spent on political bull**** wont be spent developing games. Any partnership killed by political disagreements which would otherwise happen will be a negative.

We all want to see better games. That means that we have to be able to express things we find problematic in games. That means that if someone feels that a game is being really tone-deaf, or plain offensive in some regard, that someone has to be able to express that concern without fear of disproportionate retribution by the internet masses. Right now, you are fighting hard for that freedom of expression to be curtailed. You said, and I quote again:

I do think that while every journalist should have a right to write whatever they want

Why are you disproving that statement? Why do you act as if the direct opposite is true? How do you reconcile that statement with your desire to punish and shame journalists and publications for not catering to your preferences?

Perhaps this politization is inevitable sooner or later, but I am not going to stand by not speaking up against the media which seems eager to accelerate it.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Games are the biggest entertainment industry on the planet by now, and this politization of games has been going on for a few years. It was only when it was pointed out, in the calm and measured tones of academic critique, that certain aspects may be worthy of improvement, that people like you started screaming about it.

[Grizzly]

I am not going to ignore them because gaming world would not ignore them. They are major sites. Its unrealistic to expect it. They have influence.

Tell me, what positives can come from this politization for gaming? How will it improve gaming? I think it wont, the opposite will be true.

I think that what recent events have shown us is that the gaming world already is enormously polarized. When people start a petition to have someone fired from gamespot because she dared mention GTAV's troubling presentation of minorities in a review - that's quite polarized!

This very thread is a microcosm of what will happen in gaming if certain outlets continue to bring politics in. People disagree about politics a lot, and often very passionately. This fosters disagreements, which lead to arguments and conflicts. And this is inevitable as long as you let the political cat out of the bag - people are NOT going to shut up if someone is pushing a political ideology they disagree with in a previously apolitical environment.

To remain with that previous GTAV example: Politics are not being brought into games.
Politics have always been part of games. GTAV comments on politics and society almost constantly, south-park style. Saint's Row later installments constantly question the MTV-gangster mentality which their earlier games had. DEFCON's anti nuclear war stance is very, very obvious when you play it. Call of Duty 4's marines die in the thousands without actually having achieved anything of value.  Bioshock comments on objectivism, collectivism, and american exceptionalism.
And even if a game does not specifically try to be political, it always still makes points, like any other form of art does. Even though it can be very simple (Need for Speed's message is basically "Car (chases) are cool"), and in a game, the developer's intents often shine trough. Consider Faith's portrayal in Mirror's Edge. Consider the statements Deus Ex makes about society. Consider Freespace 2's statements on war. Consider Escape from Monkey Island's feminism. Consider Civilization's aim at turning your civ into 'Murica.

Games always have been political.

More than a year ago, this hit the tech industry in full, resulting in the infamous Adriagate, which damaged both sides and poisoned the atmosphere in tech for months. I dont think you can expect different result in gaming, and indeed, Gamergate is a proof of that.

You are going to have to explain to me what Adriagate is. When I google it I hit travel agent's websites.

If leftist politics enters gaming, we can certainly expect conservative backslash and a lot of infighting. Perhaps we will see a split in gaming media along political lines, similarly like we have in news media. Perhaps the whole gaming culture will split along political lines, neither side wanting to back down. It certainly wont be pretty, and it certainly wont be good for gaming. Any energy and time spent on political bull**** wont be spent developing games. Any partnership killed by political disagreements which would otherwise happen will be a negative. One example out of many to come.

Perhaps this politization is inevitable sooner or later, but I am not going to stand by not speaking up against the media which seems eager to accelerate it.

I think you are making a mistake by assuming a binary representation of politics. Although this binary divide between left and right may work in, say, the States, games have a global audience. There are many, many, many more things going on then just this "leftist vs conservative" thing you want to portray here.

And if there is a conservative backlash, it is because the games industry actually has been rather conservative at this point. And... it is! Just look at the prevailing business policies, preferring sequels and already tried things over radically different things. Personally, I welcome new political views in gaming, as this will make games more varied and interesting. People are interesting!

[Luis Dias]

I'm guessing Adriagate is about the Donglegate affair.

[SypheDMar]

Hey Luis, regarding Errant's video: I can't watch the whole thing not because I don't want to but because I don't have two hour blocks of good internet. Is there a particular chunk of the video that I should pay attention to?

[Grizzly]

Hey Luis, regarding Errant's video: I can't watch the whole thing not because I don't want to but because I don't have two hour blocks of good internet. Is there a particular chunk of the video that I should pay attention to?

If you mean the TFYC video, I'd like to know this as well.

If you actually mean Errant Signal's video (the keep your politics out of my games one) it's only 10 minutes - if you absolutely have no time to spare, start halfway down.

[SypheDMar]

Sorry, I meant TFYC. I don't need to hear Errant's video.

[Turambar]

Demands have been issued.

[Mr. Vega]

FINALLY. The rules are we can't prep the airstrike till the demands come in.

[MP-Ryan]

I remain convinced that this GamerGate fiasco and the group attacking it in turn has alienated by far the majority of people who play games who are tuning out the whole affair except for periodic shouts about the new lows in online harassment being set by people on both 'sides' of the debate on a regular basis.

If any group thinks they'll win this thing, they're deluded.

[Luis Dias]

Hey Luis, regarding Errant's video: I can't watch the whole thing not because I don't want to but because I don't have two hour blocks of good internet. Is there a particular chunk of the video that I should pay attention to?

I usually listen to these while I work, and I don't particularly pay attention to the time stamps of the bits that are more interesting. The problem I have in answering these questions from you and Joshua is because I would have to listen to it again with that "editing" in mind. Regarding the tone of the video, it's 95% about what TYFC is doing and where they came from, the ideas that originated it, the wider feminist discussion regarding videogames and the role of women in making them and what exactly was TYFC's answer to that problem in comparison to many of their critics' own ideas. Perhaps 5% is about Zoe Quinn and it never comes about how she doxxed them and so on. More in the tone of explaining the kinds of conversations that were happening and the twitterstorm that she created against them. They almost dropped the project at that moment. Fortunately those mysoginists at 4chan decided to push it and that helped them go with the project, which already has a winner and a game concept. They are going to build the game now, and "she" (the winner) will have the rights to the game and royalties, etc.

AFAIR, the whole conversation gains full steam right at the first few minutes, the interviewee is a fast talker, and so you can decide if you like what you are hearing to continue to do so.