[AtomicClucker]

Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.

I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.

So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.

No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.

The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.

You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.

And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.

Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.

[The E]

"So what you're saying is game reviews shouldn't be like this?

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986"

False analogy, that review is very different.

Look, an art review, including games, should criticise art, not politics. What that means is that it is OK to say "sexual parts of the movie clash with other parts". But it is not OK to say "hurr durr the game has boobs, therefore mysogyny durr and that is baad mkay", because now you are no longer criticising a game, you are criticising a genre, a type of expression itself, not how good/bad it is done. Boobs and asses have its place in media, particularly in games like Bayonetta it is not against the spirit of the game to include them, quite the contrary. Stop trying to censor games, but give the game to review to someone who can appreciate the style. So yeah, the polygon review is a blatant moralisation and pushing of political ideology where it doesnt belong (and what is worse, it is chock full of it, almost doesnt leave place for anything else), and if you want such BS then I wont stop you but I will voice my opinion on it and stick to gaming media that can inform me about the actual pluses and minuses of the game instead of pushing my daily dose of feminazi propaganda on me.

So you only want reviews that are completely positive about a game and do not mention things that the reviewer finds problematic and uncomfortable because they fall in some category you deem to be "political"? Some "objectiveness" that is.

For all the cries of censorship you put out, you sure are in favour of it.

[Mr. Vega]

feminazi

You just lost the argument. Good day sir.

[Bobboau]

a big part about what is meant by being objective is that it should be based on the game and not the fact that the developer is a friend of yours.

[The E]

That's not what maslo is on about though. And if you think that that sort of relationship is a big factor, I do implore you to find reviews that excibit that particular failure. Not in just one publication or site, but across a significant number of pulications; after all, it's not like we have just one place where reviews are posted.

[Mr. Vega]

Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.

I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.

So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.

No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.

The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.

You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.

And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.

Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.

I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.

[666maslo666]

"So you only want reviews that are completely positive about a game and do not mention things that the reviewer finds problematic and uncomfortable because they fall in some category you deem to be "political"?"

No, I want reviewers to stop blatantly pushing a political propaganda on me. Here is a review of that game done right:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/12462-Bayonetta-2-Review.2

First, it dedicates around two paragraphs out of two page review to feminazi issues, not the entire review. It also doesnt fail to mention the entirely obvious fact that while some may not like it, it does fit with the style of the game so it is there intentionally and some people do like that kind of thing. Thats how you do it. And if you cannot see the night and day difference between these approaches then I dont know what to say. If you like obvious propaganda having pushed on you then read on but dont label those who have issues with it as mysigynist assholes who are dead.

[Mr. Vega]

feminazi issues

E, there's no point. We're feminazis.

[AtomicClucker]

Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.

I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.

So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.

No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.

The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.

You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.

And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.

Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.

I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.

Except the apology for failing to meet the audience falls on the Journalists. They only helped to stir the ****storm, and neither are they free to walk away from its effects. Deny that as hard as you can, but I think it stands out as glaring reminder to the breach of trust. You can continually say "La La La La!" But when you see that rampaging mob on Twitter? Don't blame me for reminding you.

[The E]

"So you only want reviews that are completely positive about a game and do not mention things that the reviewer finds problematic and uncomfortable because they fall in some category you deem to be "political"?"

No, I want reviewers to stop blatantly pushing a political propaganda on me. Here is a review of that game done right:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/12462-Bayonetta-2-Review.2

First, it dedicates around two paragraphs out of two page review to feminazi issues, not the entire review. It also doesnt fail to mention the entirely obvious fact that while some may not like it, it does fit with the style of the game so it is there intentionally and some people do like that kind of thing. Thats how you do it. And if you cannot see the night and day difference between these approaches then I dont know what to say. If you like obvious propaganda having pushed on you then read on but dont label those who have issues with it as mysigynist assholes who are dead.

You are still failing to provide a good, rational reason why one style of review is OK and the other isn't beyond "I don't agree with this viewpoint". It's fine, you're allowed to do that, but what you do not get to do is to declare the style you do not like to be unethical, or call for it to be removed from the discussion.

Disagree with a reviewer all you want, but don't think that that disagreement means that that reviewer is doing it wrong and needs to shut up.

[Mr. Vega]

Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.

I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.

So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.

No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.

The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.

You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.

And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.

Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.

I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.

Except the apology for failing to meet the audience falls on the Journalists. They only helped to stir the ****storm, and neither are they free to walk away from its effects. Deny that as hard as you can, but I think it stands out as glaring reminder to the breach of trust. You can continually say "La La La La!" But when you see that rampaging mob on Twitter? Don't blame me for reminding you.

Your accusation is that they didn't respond well to a movement that was founded to harass a single woman. Maybe they just had morals and called it like they saw it. Shocking, I know.

The "moderates" had all the chances in the world to disown the name and use a new one free of the connotations GG had deservedly built up. They didn't. That's their loss.

[666maslo666]

"E, there's no point. We're feminazis."


nah, I just use the word in a tongue in cheek manner to annoy them SJWs, I wont actually think you are feminazis, are you

but when an almost entire review rambles on about how the game is mysogynystyc, then we are kind of approaching feminazi territory.. thats what irks me

of course feminist issues have their place in gaming discussion and reviews, its just that often those bringing them up dont know when to stop, to put it lightly

[Mr. Vega]

"E, there's no point. We're feminazis."


nah, I just use the word in a tongue in cheek manner to annoy them SJWs, I wont actually think you are feminazis, are you

but when an almost entire review rambles on about how the game is mysogynystyc, then we are kind of approaching feminazi territory.. thats what irks me

K, just don't expect anyone to ever take you seriously.

[AtomicClucker]

Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.

I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.

So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.

No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.

The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.

You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.

And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.

Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.

I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.

Except the apology for failing to meet the audience falls on the Journalists. They only helped to stir the ****storm, and neither are they free to walk away from its effects. Deny that as hard as you can, but I think it stands out as glaring reminder to the breach of trust. You can continually say "La La La La!" But when you see that rampaging mob on Twitter? Don't blame me for reminding you.

Your accusation is that they didn't respond well to a movement that was founded to harass a single woman. Maybe they just had morals and called it like they saw it. Shocking, I know.

Morals? Ha. They handled it with absolutely terrible audacity and it exploded in their faces. And it wasn't just one woman. The pressure was building up for a time, and it finally came together as one ugly crockpot. Zoe is a minor footnote by now. The damage done by the Journalists? We're still going to be counting for a while about it.

As for Zoe? Surprisingly I have little to say about her. My beef lies firmly with the Journalists and Editors.

[666maslo666]

"I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again."

Take it up with hardcore online trolls, then, not gamergate. Death threats are even less characteristic of pro-gamergate people as "lets bully the nerds" tweets are for anti-gg people. And are you all just a bunch of bullies? I dont think so.

[Mr. Vega]

Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.

I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.

So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.

No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.

The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.

You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.

And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.

Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.

I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.

Except the apology for failing to meet the audience falls on the Journalists. They only helped to stir the ****storm, and neither are they free to walk away from its effects. Deny that as hard as you can, but I think it stands out as glaring reminder to the breach of trust. You can continually say "La La La La!" But when you see that rampaging mob on Twitter? Don't blame me for reminding you.

Your accusation is that they didn't respond well to a movement that was founded to harass a single woman. Maybe they just had morals and called it like they saw it. Shocking, I know.

And it wasn't just one woman. Zoe is a minor footnote by now.

"I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again."

Take it up with hardcore online trolls, then, not gamergate. Death threats are even less characteristic of pro-gamergate people as "lets bully the nerds" tweets are for anti-gg people. And are you all just a bunch of bullies? I dont think so.

Then those who claim to care about corruption shouldn't use a name of a movement created to attack her. It kinda gives away what they're really about when they won't.

[AtomicClucker]

Well, for the Bayonetta2 review on Polygon?

The reviewer is entitled to his opinions about it, though Bayonetta is a series liberally built on weaponizing sex and sex appeal, for the lack of better way of putting it. I could spend hours trying to dissect it, but I'll let MovieBob: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkoLGiF1K8 do it for me (technically a SJW according to GG, but screw'em).

@Vega: Well, you proved my point about anti-GG. It's so prideful and stubborn that they can't address Joe and Jane Gamer in an earnest conversation. As you said, there can be no more dialogue between us. At least I can count on GamerGate to give me funny looks and conspiracy theories on how SJW's are out to ruin games and I can stare back at the them with the knowledge, crazies still exist on Twitter.

Correction: Looks like I was wrong about the initial claim, turns out the video was edited and revised after being pan fried first time around, so my bad there.

[Mr. Vega]

Keep in mind, even Anita Sarkesian's initial videos about Bayonetta were actually derided to the point she had to remove it because even Feminists were criticizing her.

Yes I'm sure that's exactly what happened

[666maslo666]

"Then those who claim to care about corruption shouldn't use a name of a movement created to attack her. It kinda gives away what they're really about when they won't."

So is it only semantics that bothers you? I agree that Zoey is a minor footnote now and it is not what GG is about anymore.

[666maslo666]

And for the record, gamergate name is used merely because it exploded in popularity and I would not mind if it was replaced by something else with less controversial past. Its not the name but the ideas that are important.