It's surprising to see that the true corrupted system on video games journalism, that is, gatekeeping access to video games by publishers, is completely unaddressed in these last weeks events. That's where the power is, on multi billion dollars companies that want to control their product's message to the last minutiae, having the true leverage to influence industry press and enthusiasts. It's almost hilarious, if it weren't so sad, that big publishers were able to divert any splatter from the shit rain that is happening.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
Yes, it has truly been an outcome *very* favorable to the big publishers. "Look, a wild feminist, she slept with a Kotaku journalist! Look hard, do not look away!"
And there are five naked PR guys in that bed already, with early builds of the next AAA games on the table.
Gsak
Member
Most of the Youtubers aren't calling or see themselves as journalists I think. Entertainers more likely. So we should see them that way. And we also should be skeptical. Boogie said it best, imo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqm877JG_0A
We need a catchy hashtag and a celebrity to join our cause. #followthemoney hehe
Dictator93
Member
Chû Totoro;128560745 said:
While this is true, it is not true of every form of capitalism. Cultural varieties differ leading to more/less profit sharing or different expectations of what profit means. But in general your point is 100% on the money (not intended pun).
What if rather than calling themselves "journalists", they call themselves "enthusiasts"? Then we just won't have to force all these ethics upon them, and they can be free to write anything they want and enjoy supporting any ideological stance they want.
Damn, someone already beat me to it.
edit:
Damn, someone already beat me to it.
edit:
if it's not clear enough, I meant this post as tongue-in-cheek
Chû Totoro;128560745 said:
The thing is just below that level, the folks with passion are still there.
All those things you are decrying, you can escape them easily with the tiniest amount of effort.
That isn't the problem at all.
Tom Chick has been a big victim of this due to his harsh review scale- even Paradox now refuses to give him games upfront, and Firaxis openly shunned him.
TheGraykid
Member
I always thought that the gaming audience at large was a far more imposing figure than publishers when it comes reviews and whatnot. I mean look at the harassment people get if they review a game below the consensus of the gaming audience at large, it was as if two differing opinions could not exist within this world.
Oh and gaming journalism does need to change, I think offering largely the same coverage that people can get on YouTube (I.e. opinions on games) isn't really enough anymore. One thing that you've seen happen is the rise of more video content and personality driven coverage, but I'd love to see straight up better writing and writers. At least more variety in the type of writing that gets produced. I don't think scores on reviews should be a thing anynore, but that's another issue. For example if IGN came out tomorrow and said that Tom Bissell would be writing a portion of their reviews that would be my shit, but then again I am a writing nerd.
Oh and gaming journalism does need to change, I think offering largely the same coverage that people can get on YouTube (I.e. opinions on games) isn't really enough anymore. One thing that you've seen happen is the rise of more video content and personality driven coverage, but I'd love to see straight up better writing and writers. At least more variety in the type of writing that gets produced. I don't think scores on reviews should be a thing anynore, but that's another issue. For example if IGN came out tomorrow and said that Tom Bissell would be writing a portion of their reviews that would be my shit, but then again I am a writing nerd.
How many of us would seriously put our money where our mouth is for such a publication?
and I'm talking $4.99/month type money
If 10000 people put up $5/month, you could probably hire 5 freelancers and come up with a magazine.
Well, I bet a lot of those Game Informers are comps from gamestop cards that get thrown straight into the trash.
What I meant was a magazine with no need for ads from gaming companies so you could get completely unbiased reviews.
I'd allow non-game company advertising or for accessories. I'd allow say, Mad Catz or Alienware to advertize if they wished, but not EA/Ubi/Acti, or even indies like Lab Zero.
Thing is, that would be expensive. (Cue Stanley vid on cost of a Skullgirls character)
What I meant was a magazine with no need for ads from gaming companies so you could get completely unbiased reviews.
I'd allow non-game company advertising or for accessories. I'd allow say, Mad Catz or Alienware to advertize if they wished, but not EA/Ubi/Acti, or even indies like Lab Zero.
Thing is, that would be expensive. (Cue Stanley vid on cost of a Skullgirls character)
GeordieMark
Member
I don't see that as corrupted. I see it as good business sense. What motivation is there for publishers to give unrestricted access to their new games to journalists?
Sure it suits gamers to know if a game is looking any good or not before release, but how is that of any benefit to the publisher? Why would they let journalists come and torpedo their multi-million dollar product?
Publishing games is a risk and publishers will do anything they can to ensure that the risk is mitigated. Gaming is no different to most other industries.
Metal Gear?!
Member
It took Morrissey 16 minutes to mention the dreaded POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!
That's better than I expected.
I think it's fair to see them as entertainers, but when I was responding to someone using them as a substitute for the traditional journalistic review on account of being more honest, which they aren't inherently. Even as an entertainment piece there are clear laws that any paid promotion must be made fully clear that simply aren't being followed, which I find a worrysome trend.
The page I linked to had a lot more than GI - but I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, ads are a necessary evil. Even when you have a subscription based model, you need more money to cover maintenance costs if you want to keep the sub fee affordable. I mean, even GAF uses ads.
The only thing is, when you can't put things up right at the last second, it becomes much, much harder for companies like EA/Ubisoft/Activision to have much influence in what articles are being put up. It's up to the sites to decide how much they will stick to ethics, but even then they can't really control what their staff is putting up as much as they would with a printed magazine.
When they have a shitty or controversial article and the editor or owner or what have you actively does their best to defend it is when you start to question things.
The harrassment aspect of this is sickening. It screams of socially underdeveloped idiots having a temper tantrum on the internet equivalent to that of a 5 year old with advanced IT skills. There simply is no jusification for it, and quite frankly there is no room for debate on this issue. Regardless of how you feel about games journalism in general, the gaming community should be making it clear that they stand by the people who are being harrassed, because it's not on.
As for the issue of games journalism itself, there is a simple solution. Don't visit a site you don't feel offers the level of service or professionalism you expect. I seldom visit IGN, Gamespot, Giantbomb, Kotaku, Eurogamer, etc anymore because I'm able to find most of the news and information I require elsewhere. Neogaf itself is a great aggregator of current information within the industry, and there is more than enough feeback on games on youtube for you to make an informed decision on a purchase, rather than rely on a text review (although again, it's up to each person to decide which youtube channels provide coverage at a level they find trustworthy).
If it comes to pass that traffic to sites fall, then there is a strong chance that a dialogue will be opened up between journalists and their audience to realign the two groups. Until that day though, I expect very little will happen, as realisitically, from a journalistic point of view, they are providing enough of what their consumers want that it would be pointless to change tact. A bit like Sony with the PS3 and MS with XB1.
As for the issue of games journalism itself, there is a simple solution. Don't visit a site you don't feel offers the level of service or professionalism you expect. I seldom visit IGN, Gamespot, Giantbomb, Kotaku, Eurogamer, etc anymore because I'm able to find most of the news and information I require elsewhere. Neogaf itself is a great aggregator of current information within the industry, and there is more than enough feeback on games on youtube for you to make an informed decision on a purchase, rather than rely on a text review (although again, it's up to each person to decide which youtube channels provide coverage at a level they find trustworthy).
If it comes to pass that traffic to sites fall, then there is a strong chance that a dialogue will be opened up between journalists and their audience to realign the two groups. Until that day though, I expect very little will happen, as realisitically, from a journalistic point of view, they are providing enough of what their consumers want that it would be pointless to change tact. A bit like Sony with the PS3 and MS with XB1.
Gsak
Member
Agreed, which is why they were called out and we need to ask for transparency there also.
Even without ads you will still be working directly with gaming companies. I write about electronic music - since starting that I have built up relationships with people at PR companies and artists themselves. It just happens, it is the circle you work in. How you conduct yourself is a reflection on your ability on a writer.
I'm generally a nice guy but I had one person repeatedly trying to send me vinyl. At best it was fit for purpose tech house. Did I accept it? No. I could have taken it to pad out my collection but I felt I would be accepting something I wasn't particularly into in return for doing some coverage.
I do accept some stuff promo wise though. In those instances I have already made up my mind about whatever it is I am covering and it ends up being a lovely little thank you for putting some of my time and energy into a piece. However, it could easily be spun as some sort of #technogate I suppose. At the end of it all, I know I am true to what I write about, it is all I know how to do. I only write about stuff I believe in.
EDIT:
and I'm not as well connected as some of the major players in the electronic music scene. I'm only small fry recently. I do remember when the Special Request album got promo'd at fabric, all the London based journos caught up there, plus caught up with a lot of people in the scene too. No industry corruption there, it is just what happens.
call_kotaku
Member
They're actually very similar, they have the same motivations but different justifications. That's what's dangerous about denying certain undercurrents to current events, because the subset of people within any of these "misogynistic" movements who would declare themselves to hate women is miniscule, and a large proportion of them don't think that they're affecting women in any way. Whether it be "family values" or "men's rights" it boils down to the degree that men can dictate women's roles in culture, even if the advocates for each cause don't believe their goals to be that. Similarly, racism in the US has had many faces over the years, from slavery to eugenics to segregation to police brutality, and while all these things were created with different justifications they've worked on the same premise.
Making these sorts of underlying issues visible to the people who unwittingly participate in systems that harm people is the goal of a lot of civil rights movements, because that's usually far more effective and productive than directly battling the vocal minority of extremists.
I guess what I don't understand is why, given that they are doing things games journalism has traditionally done (reviews) and people are using their output as they would that of a traditional games journalist, they should be able to absolve themselves of any need for disclosure and high standards by just saying "I don't consider myself a journalist". It'd be like saying "I don't think I should be able to be pursued for libel because I consider myself a blogger rather than a journalist". It's not what you label yourself as that matters, it's the service you provide to people who consume your product and the actions you take while providing it that are of import.
A great many people are holding them up as "the truth". The only skepticism is reserved for what is perceived as "the industry".
The more I read about some of the corruption claims, which as far as I can tell, nothing has actually been discovered yet, the more I think that people use corruption when they mean, so and so publication gave a too high/low review to a game and I disagree (nevermind that most this discussion about review is before the public even gets to play) or they wrote an article defending this practice that I disagree with, now how any of that justifies the vitriol and hated of women that has been on display the last few weeks I don't know. The tag started right after the Quinn thing so it's quite tied to the attack on women, anyone thinking otherwise is lying to themselves imo.
So from I understand a lot of this comes down to the basic rules of arguments on the Internet and how eventually things will hit a tipping point. Less about "gamers" and more human nature as a whole.
There may have been a cause behind all this to begin with, but at the moment I just think it's the nature of the Internet once again spiralling out of control.
Though the gaming outlets should learn to stop thinking themselves as better than other people because they really arn't.
- I've mostly been camping in the Smash thread for past few weeks so all this has happened while I haven't been looking. Having read the Slate article in the OP it is interesting how he notes that while gaming outlets have declared gamers are dying that the true reality is that gaming outlets are dying, because as I said I've been in the Smash thread following Smash news and haven't had the need to follow one gaming outlet to get Smash news. I've had other sources like GAF, Miiverse, YouTube, Nintendo Direct etc to provide me with what I need to know.
- Also funny how its been pointed out that the gaming outlets lashing out at readers may be a defence mechanism for the readers moving on. because it's rather similar how they were negative against Nintendo the moment Nintendo moved on and started doing the Directs. So a good lesson here is, stop biting the hand that feeds you.
- Arguments can stem from many things and in this case it seems to be a result of:
- One side (gaming outlets) seeing themselves as better than the rest.
- One side seeing their argument has the only correct opinion and dismissing any alternative. Which can lead to infuriation from the rejected side.
- The need to stand out from the crowd. To easily get noticed one often needs to say something extreme to make everyone stop in their tracks and take notice of you. This leads to arguments escalating until eventually death threats occurs and things get really ugly.
- You'll likely find the mean old 4channers are 95% trolling rather than being serious with their crusade. Despite the anonymous nature of the board, there is a culture there and breeds a need of acceptance. This is where the whole hivemind and legion concepts stemmed from. Much like how memes spread as a result of more and more wanting to be seen as being in on the joke by reposting it in a wink wink nudge nudge fashion, when a campaign starts on 4chan, that hivemind nature encourages people to join in. This is why their raids over the years are successful, because it is very easy to get everyone on board once the ball start rolling. This is why I said 95% trolling, there has to be an element of "what in it for me" to originally get the ball rolling (why you can see rejections of raid attempts with "4chan is not your personal army") which is that 5%. So there may be dark motive for them to be staunch anti feminists, but if that was there at the beginning that's likely long disappeared amongst people just jumping in to join the party.
- People always love bring people don't to their level. The more the gaming outlets insist that gamers are the scum of the earth, the bigger the motive to bring them down to that same level. It's why people love mocking celebs on Twitter 1. it's a head above the parapet. 2. The web is a classless system thus they are now here on the same terms as everyone else and sometimes need to be reminded of that.
There may have been a cause behind all this to begin with, but at the moment I just think it's the nature of the Internet once again spiralling out of control.
Though the gaming outlets should learn to stop thinking themselves as better than other people because they really arn't.
More Fun To Compute
Member
I think that it's true that many people who write about games adopt the level of self importance and pomposity that they think is required to counter balance the low regard that people have for games. This can help nicely plaster over how much they are just front men for a bland corporate machine and also give them freedom to talk about whatever interests they have that do not involve games.
When your boring job is trying to fake interest in pabulum like assasin's creed for the 10th blog post in a week you start to feel that games are not interesting in any way. Especially since you can't write 10 blog posts in a week about the gameplay in a game that has no interesting gameplay at all. It's an occupational hazard.
It could be that writing about games, in an interesting way that is also relevant to people who play them, is dead.
When your boring job is trying to fake interest in pabulum like assasin's creed for the 10th blog post in a week you start to feel that games are not interesting in any way. Especially since you can't write 10 blog posts in a week about the gameplay in a game that has no interesting gameplay at all. It's an occupational hazard.
It could be that writing about games, in an interesting way that is also relevant to people who play them, is dead.
Giving so much attention to the twitter harassment has been baffling to me, yeah it sucks but have you ever looked at the @ mentions of any big time sports or political pundit?
When he still worked at ESPN John Hollinger was frequently threatened/spammed with gross slurs just because his formula put one team over another. Look at Anderson Cooper's timeline anytime anything remotely controversial happens, it's essentially a list of middle aged dicks calling him Gay slurs and hoping he dies. Hell look at big time car reviews, you have grown ass men threatening/throwing slurs because someone likes a model of a car over another. One of the sherdog MMA radio shows I used to listen to would have people calling in just to slur someone for their fight predictions. Michael Sam gets this shit on a daily basis http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unf...orst_reactions_to_dallas_michael_sam_news.php
I don't want to put the onus on the harassed but I can't help but think that as the game's press ages, people will learn that these psycos don't matter, have never mattered, and will never matter. I mean look at some of the older members of the industry, would they even blink at this shit if it was directed at them when it's come in spurts for over a decade?
It really sucks that people are being threatened/harassed, and I don't blame anyone for throwing in the towel because they are sick of it. I personally would bail too because I wouldn't be able to handle it professionally, I'd end up spending hours on twitter essentially telling fuckers to put up or shut up wasting time and looking like an insane idiot.
The people who are going to make these threats are either doing it for attention, are not mentally stable, or are children/man children who are so socially inept they barely understand the words they are mashing out, trying to reason with or scold people for it is going to do nothing. Yes it sucks people are getting harassed but lashing out at those who have asked honest questions and putting shit into a us vs. them bullshit helps nothing besides their own ego.
When he still worked at ESPN John Hollinger was frequently threatened/spammed with gross slurs just because his formula put one team over another. Look at Anderson Cooper's timeline anytime anything remotely controversial happens, it's essentially a list of middle aged dicks calling him Gay slurs and hoping he dies. Hell look at big time car reviews, you have grown ass men threatening/throwing slurs because someone likes a model of a car over another. One of the sherdog MMA radio shows I used to listen to would have people calling in just to slur someone for their fight predictions. Michael Sam gets this shit on a daily basis http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unf...orst_reactions_to_dallas_michael_sam_news.php
I don't want to put the onus on the harassed but I can't help but think that as the game's press ages, people will learn that these psycos don't matter, have never mattered, and will never matter. I mean look at some of the older members of the industry, would they even blink at this shit if it was directed at them when it's come in spurts for over a decade?
It really sucks that people are being threatened/harassed, and I don't blame anyone for throwing in the towel because they are sick of it. I personally would bail too because I wouldn't be able to handle it professionally, I'd end up spending hours on twitter essentially telling fuckers to put up or shut up wasting time and looking like an insane idiot.
The people who are going to make these threats are either doing it for attention, are not mentally stable, or are children/man children who are so socially inept they barely understand the words they are mashing out, trying to reason with or scold people for it is going to do nothing. Yes it sucks people are getting harassed but lashing out at those who have asked honest questions and putting shit into a us vs. them bullshit helps nothing besides their own ego.
People probably should bookmark this in case someone wonders what this movement is.
Camp Freddie
Member
Just posting to say that L. Rhodes' article in the OP is by far and away the best article I've read on this whole debacle.
I was going to add some thoughts of my own, but I've just deleted my draft because I'm basically writing a crappier version of Rhodes' article!
I was going to add some thoughts of my own, but I've just deleted my draft because I'm basically writing a crappier version of Rhodes' article!
Sparrowhawk
Member
I wish we could just go back to the days of Nintendo Power, or Tips & Tricks.
Oh well. It was fun while it lasted, I suppose.
Oh well. It was fun while it lasted, I suppose.
What I find most fascinating about the "...Gamers Are Over" and "Game Of Moans" articles is the idea that the videogames media (and publishers) deliberately set out to create the very audience that many of them are now trying to move away from.
Especially if they're right in saying that the trend started in the 80s and then they tried to further divide the audience around of the turn of the millennium.
The anti-consumer stance in Leigh's article is particularly interesting in that light as in many ways she's talking about the industry returning to the bedroom coders and cheap hardware and software of 80s home computers (certain C64 games were regularly sold at newsagents for £2), a culture that by their logic the games media set out to change.
If they're right in what they're saying it makes me wonder how that situation started, for example was it a result of shady backroom deals with big publishers, an understandable way of selling more adverts in their magazines that happened to coincide with publishers goals or more simply a natural consequence of the enthusiast press in a young industry?
Edit: While double-checking the price of C64 games by Mastertronic I saw this on wikipedia which seems to fit in with current discussion quite well.
Especially if they're right in saying that the trend started in the 80s and then they tried to further divide the audience around of the turn of the millennium.
The anti-consumer stance in Leigh's article is particularly interesting in that light as in many ways she's talking about the industry returning to the bedroom coders and cheap hardware and software of 80s home computers (certain C64 games were regularly sold at newsagents for £2), a culture that by their logic the games media set out to change.
If they're right in what they're saying it makes me wonder how that situation started, for example was it a result of shady backroom deals with big publishers, an understandable way of selling more adverts in their magazines that happened to coincide with publishers goals or more simply a natural consequence of the enthusiast press in a young industry?
Edit: While double-checking the price of C64 games by Mastertronic I saw this on wikipedia which seems to fit in with current discussion quite well.
chrominance
Member
You're totally right, when they made M a woman I was like "fuck that shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit."
No, seriously, what? Media evolves all the damned time. Especially something as long-running as James Bond, which has, in fact, gotten better over time with its representations of female characters. The franchise has changed over time in a lot of way that don't have anything to do with feminism as well. Dr. No is a very different movie and speaks to different issues than Skyfall. Dr. No doesn't really have anything to say about the role of counter-terrorism in modern society, and it doesn't even dare to imply that MI6 might be an outdated concept like Skyfall does at times.
And yet there's no real hand-wringing over how we've "lost" James Bond to inclusiveness. People do write articles occasionally about how the franchise has lost its way--late-era Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, late-era Roger Moore--but very rarely do people complain that its lost its way because "goddamn these strong women fucking up my playboy spy fantasy," and even when they do, it's often in the context of film criticism, not as a fusillade against an imagined pro-inclusiveness conspiracy where the film media and MGM/Eon Productions are denying true James Bond fans the movies they want.
It's a good business strategy to completely control your product message, going in so far as to blur the boundaries of the relationship your company has with enthusiast press, maintaining a state of things where there's an implicit or even subconsciously quid pro quo in terms of early or privileged access for a better review of your product. It makes business sense. You're protecting your investment and trying to show it to your target audience at the best possible light. It's corrupted though. I don't have solutions to this though, and I'm almost convinced they really don't exist. I just moved on from the point of worrying too much about this. I tend now to prefer direct contact with creators (that this abhorrent fabricated shitstorm is damaging) and have a selected source pool of info about this industry that I trust and I ultimately don't care what's going on outside of that pool.
This reminds me of the London Riots.
Starts for one reason, a flashpoint deeply imbedded with long-standing social conflict, uneasiness, a lack of parity when it comes to trust, misunderstanding and emotion, and quickly escalates and snowballs. The key with those events is that the original Tottenham riots were somewhat unrelated to the violent hotspots that popped up across the UK. The result was the same, to varying degrees of "success", but the origins of the events differ. This is a far deeper and complicated problem, and deserves far more analysis, but to do so would seriously derail this thread. Fundamentally it highlighted a lost generation, segregated from the rest of society, all stemming from a lack of understanding and a willingness to respect one another.
I'd also say that a lot of the backlash from this, and the events that have transpired, step far beyond the realms of the gaming industry, and it's very much a testament to modern society and the ever-evolving social networking that is changing how a generation thinks, reacts, protests and how they fundamentally interact with one another. I've seen examples of some of this behaviour for over a decade; I have been very active on various forums, both within this industry and outside of it. This existed before Twitter, before gaming-centric outlets reached the levels of popularity they have now, before we were as connected as we are now. I think I take exception to this sweeping generalisation with the term gamer and what "gamers" are doing, because as far as I can see, their behaviour and actions are not mutually exclusive to the fact they enjoy playing video-games. I think it's reasonably naive to think this is a gaming problem, because it reaches far beyond that IMO.
For as long as I can remember, what the definition of being a "gamer" and what that meant, has always sparked debate. There has always been an aspect of gaming that hasn't been entirely comfortable with its identity, or even able to accurately articulate what exactly it is, or what we are. At times I've often wondered whether or not that's even a question worth asking; surely to be a gamer to be defined as playing video-games. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a political or social statement, it's not indicative of your religion, your beliefs, your ideologies, the clothes you wear or the music you listen to. I've never quite grasped the social creeds we place ourselves in when growing up through school, so to do so beyond that is slightly confusing. I've never seen it as a niche.
So for questions to be raised about whether or not the gamer is dead, I find entirely perplexing. Gaming is our common interest, but it's not our defining characteristic. I do think though, that those who plays games has widened on a social scale, and it seems in the UK that the community here is vastly different to that across the Atlantic. I sometimes see example where people find themselves uncomfortable with that, that there's a sense of elitism. I've been there, as a young teenager, looking down my nose at people in a game shop, thinking they're not worthy, or they're not as good a gamer as me. Utterly immature, but as an outcast I found refuge in a medium that spoke to me entirely as an individual and welcomed isolation. It was uncomfortable, but as I have grown up in the 15 years since then, the industry has evolved too, so I think I've followed that curve.
Maybe I'm entirely off point, maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. This kind of transcends fact finding, and more speaks to the romantic philosopher in me that will always include gaming as a personal interest and never backdown from whatever social distinction is currently in vogue. I just find a lot of the distinctions made during all this utterly flawed. I won't touch the gaming press debate, because that's an equally lengthy post filled with dreamy musings. Fundamentally, I think I've seen a lot of naievity and a lack of understanding of how things work behind the scenes in most industries. Doesn't make it right, but a lot of what I see on gaming outlets makes sense to me from a business sense. As a practice and for what we actually deserve, it's far off the mark, but at the same time I think it shows a lack of individual thinking in some cases. Too often, in too many walks of life, people are uncomfortable with forming their own opinions and have to find a reference point for what they later adopt as their stance on a subject. There's an over-reliance, in some corners, to that sense of belonging that results from aligning themselves to a particular tribe. It's entirely ironic a lot of the time. I think you have to get behind and underneath the society we've help create to understand all of this.
It gives me a headache to be honest; whatever happened to playing games you want to play, and not playing the games you don't? I don't seem to remember consumerism being so strong when it came to gaming as it is now, though I struggle to see if that's entirely appropriate for gaming alone. It seems a double-edged sword.I think ultimately it's the uncertainty in the industry in defining what IT is, rather than what WE are, that needs addressing. I still stand by my opinion that the term "gamer" is flawed and is in reality such an eclective community that you can't say X are doing Y because of Z.
As a footnote to this post; I don't feel certain, or sure, or entirely correct in what I've written. In as much that, I see this as a debate and not a definitive response. If I am wrong, or misguided, or even delusional, then please, genuinely, enlighten me. I lurked around this site for a long time before registering, and at its best I would hope GAF would help fuel healthy debate. I would say please don't resort to insults, but to show a fear of being wrong would be entirely hypocritical considering what I've written above. Ultimately, educate me GAF.
Starts for one reason, a flashpoint deeply imbedded with long-standing social conflict, uneasiness, a lack of parity when it comes to trust, misunderstanding and emotion, and quickly escalates and snowballs. The key with those events is that the original Tottenham riots were somewhat unrelated to the violent hotspots that popped up across the UK. The result was the same, to varying degrees of "success", but the origins of the events differ. This is a far deeper and complicated problem, and deserves far more analysis, but to do so would seriously derail this thread. Fundamentally it highlighted a lost generation, segregated from the rest of society, all stemming from a lack of understanding and a willingness to respect one another.
I'd also say that a lot of the backlash from this, and the events that have transpired, step far beyond the realms of the gaming industry, and it's very much a testament to modern society and the ever-evolving social networking that is changing how a generation thinks, reacts, protests and how they fundamentally interact with one another. I've seen examples of some of this behaviour for over a decade; I have been very active on various forums, both within this industry and outside of it. This existed before Twitter, before gaming-centric outlets reached the levels of popularity they have now, before we were as connected as we are now. I think I take exception to this sweeping generalisation with the term gamer and what "gamers" are doing, because as far as I can see, their behaviour and actions are not mutually exclusive to the fact they enjoy playing video-games. I think it's reasonably naive to think this is a gaming problem, because it reaches far beyond that IMO.
For as long as I can remember, what the definition of being a "gamer" and what that meant, has always sparked debate. There has always been an aspect of gaming that hasn't been entirely comfortable with its identity, or even able to accurately articulate what exactly it is, or what we are. At times I've often wondered whether or not that's even a question worth asking; surely to be a gamer to be defined as playing video-games. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a political or social statement, it's not indicative of your religion, your beliefs, your ideologies, the clothes you wear or the music you listen to. I've never quite grasped the social creeds we place ourselves in when growing up through school, so to do so beyond that is slightly confusing. I've never seen it as a niche.
So for questions to be raised about whether or not the gamer is dead, I find entirely perplexing. Gaming is our common interest, but it's not our defining characteristic. I do think though, that those who plays games has widened on a social scale, and it seems in the UK that the community here is vastly different to that across the Atlantic. I sometimes see example where people find themselves uncomfortable with that, that there's a sense of elitism. I've been there, as a young teenager, looking down my nose at people in a game shop, thinking they're not worthy, or they're not as good a gamer as me. Utterly immature, but as an outcast I found refuge in a medium that spoke to me entirely as an individual and welcomed isolation. It was uncomfortable, but as I have grown up in the 15 years since then, the industry has evolved too, so I think I've followed that curve.
Maybe I'm entirely off point, maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. This kind of transcends fact finding, and more speaks to the romantic philosopher in me that will always include gaming as a personal interest and never backdown from whatever social distinction is currently in vogue. I just find a lot of the distinctions made during all this utterly flawed. I won't touch the gaming press debate, because that's an equally lengthy post filled with dreamy musings. Fundamentally, I think I've seen a lot of naievity and a lack of understanding of how things work behind the scenes in most industries. Doesn't make it right, but a lot of what I see on gaming outlets makes sense to me from a business sense. As a practice and for what we actually deserve, it's far off the mark, but at the same time I think it shows a lack of individual thinking in some cases. Too often, in too many walks of life, people are uncomfortable with forming their own opinions and have to find a reference point for what they later adopt as their stance on a subject. There's an over-reliance, in some corners, to that sense of belonging that results from aligning themselves to a particular tribe. It's entirely ironic a lot of the time. I think you have to get behind and underneath the society we've help create to understand all of this.
It gives me a headache to be honest; whatever happened to playing games you want to play, and not playing the games you don't? I don't seem to remember consumerism being so strong when it came to gaming as it is now, though I struggle to see if that's entirely appropriate for gaming alone. It seems a double-edged sword.I think ultimately it's the uncertainty in the industry in defining what IT is, rather than what WE are, that needs addressing. I still stand by my opinion that the term "gamer" is flawed and is in reality such an eclective community that you can't say X are doing Y because of Z.
As a footnote to this post; I don't feel certain, or sure, or entirely correct in what I've written. In as much that, I see this as a debate and not a definitive response. If I am wrong, or misguided, or even delusional, then please, genuinely, enlighten me. I lurked around this site for a long time before registering, and at its best I would hope GAF would help fuel healthy debate. I would say please don't resort to insults, but to show a fear of being wrong would be entirely hypocritical considering what I've written above. Ultimately, educate me GAF.
Honestly, I'm sick of the shoehorning of "people who think games journalism is messed up" with "misogynist trolls who are threatened because their hobby is attacked". This false equivalence has been used to completely shut down all arguments against games journalism in this thread over and over. I know it's easy to ignore people who disagree with you on some things by painting them as extremist trolls, but I'd like to think that this issue is more than just that now - and the question of corruption in games journalism has been going on for years.
Can we please not do this?
This has been going on longer than Zoe Quinn. I'm sure many of you remember Adam Sessler's "gamers are worse than chemical weapons dealers" comment.
Of course, one couldn't be labeled a misogynist for disagreeing with Sessler, so this issue didn't blow up to the proportions it has now.
robovanburen
Member
Maybe get a new hashtag that hasn't been mucked up by misogynist trolls, then?
#gamergate is a microphone though. It has the attention of the gaming community in part BECAUSE it's been spearheaded by assholes like Internet Aristocrat and Adam Baldwin. So the people with legitimate (if misguided) concerns can only turn to the people who they feel will validate and agree with them.
There's no other avenue for them, unfortunately.
I'm not advocating for the hashtag. I didn't even know this hashtag existed until today. I'm talking about the general voicing of concern in this matter, and how many responses in this thread or elsewhere on the internet, with no mention of the hashtag, are basically painting people who care (or has cared for a while) about ethics in game journalism as people who are concern trolling with a secret agenda of misogyny.
I think the harassment stuff is horrible. Inexcusable. But I do think we should be calling into question what games journalists are offering to us as consumers, how they view us, and how they interact with publishers.
SerTapTap
Member
I've never included a hashtag when stating my thoughts, far too easy to get co-opted by bullshit. Any sort of "movement" not born out of pure positivity always gets a lot of passive-aggressive bullshit in the hashtag. Basically hashtags are #awful.
It was always ridiculous to start up "concerns" about gaming journalism based on a single event by an indie dev (especially one that's now proven to be at least partially made up). But it's a shame that now any discussion about big publishers doing suspicious things is likely going to be shitposted by a bunch of "OMG you questioned GAME JOURNALISM are you a GAMER GATE MISOGYNIST".
Honestly this whole situation is a huge show of how few actual trolls it takes to completely destroy any actual discussion. A few dozen complete assholes and everyone saying anything remotely similar to them is assumed to be one and the same.
We've always had concerns with that. Giant Bomb was forged and tempered in the fires of collusion and corruption at the largest gaming news and reviews site on the web. This isn't some novel fight that's happened to colaless around Indie games and the social justice movement.
I certainly care about ethics in enthusiast journalism... but there's not really much to go on right now besides the usual simmering suspicion. We haven't uncovered a conspiracy that would allow us to get to the bottom of anything. So all we can do is continue to be vigilant and not let a few people with specific targets try to co-opt our ethical intentions into something more sinister.
We can ask the questions all we want, but no one on the other side has to listen unless there is a drop in revenue and/or site hits.
The sensible approach for the movement should have been to encourage people to be aware of what sites they visit, and to push people towards journalists and outlets that look out for the best interest of the consumer (you only have to go back just over 12 months ago to see a great example of who does and doesn't fall into this category). This forces the opening of a dialogue with outlets where there may be issues or a bad reputation so matters can be addressed or resolved.
Unfortunately, the most vocal did not have the patience or the willingness to do this, and just tried to do it through intimidation instead.
It can sometimes be wildly difficult to redirect twitter with a new hashtag when one is already going so strong.
When you have a largely popular hashtag like that, it's basically like fighting a powerful current. You're going to get a lot of bad with the good- because the hashtag is becoming more visible and accessible the more it is used. I saw a thing yesterday that the #gamergate hashtag has a daily usage of about 50,000 as of yesterday, and it's going up each day. (It was about 35k or so two days ago).
I have a few things I want to say on this, but the primary thing is that I've had some issues regarding gaming journalism for awhile- a long time before #gamergate started, and I finally feel like I've been able to actually have a voice on those concerns regarding them, as I've always been drowned out by people being all 'oh, you're too damn critical' or 'you're too much of a perfectionist' etc etc.
And the first time when I actually have that voice, I'm also being hit by sweeping generalizations that I'm a 'white cis male basement dweller' (lolwut - I'm female, have my own home, etc), that I'm a "misogynerd" (...what?), and various other things. I almost threw my hat in last night because I'm so sick of these generalizations (moreso than I am of the trolls that I inevitably get when I use the #gamergate hashtag).
Generalizations hurt more than just the people you're trying to target, they hurt the innocents who don't feel the same way about the situation. That's pretty much it.
robovanburen
Member
I agree completely. And I understand that some gamers with legitimate concerns feel that (as marrec says) this hashtag is a microphone that lets them have their opinion heard. However, at the end of the day, you're going to be judged by the worst elements in your group, no matter how nebulous and large that grouping is. People see teams or sides, not individuals.
In a way, #GamerGate has been awful for people with legit ethics issues because it's pulling them together with the pricks into this unappetizing mix and makes their arguments seem less valid by association. I think we can still have a conversation about problems with gaming journalism but it's probably not going to happen at the same time that female journalists are being driven from the industry.
Chû Totoro;128560745 said:
There's no "used to". Capitalism just means you're trying to make money at the end of the day. Some people try to do it by offering the most compelling product, some try to do it by shitting on the competition, some try to do it by being sneaky and underhanded. This is absolutely nothing new. The "good old days" generally are always a myth. Public companies are always going to be beholden to shareholders, so they're always going to prioritize shorter-term gains and maximum margins.
As far as I been able to tell the #gamersgate started right after the Quinn thing, so yes the hashtag and the abuse actually seem to go together.
I am not saying there shouldn''t be concerns about journalistic integrity, but #gamersgate seems to concentrate on women, and articles that ask for more inclusiveness and discuss that games can be quite sexist to some. Shouldn't healthy journalism incluse those with dissenting views express their opinion and be able to discuss it without driving them out of their homes?
davewiththeid
Neo Member
Excellent point, and one I don't see raised often enough in this muck.
A truly "uncorrupted" game publication would all but demand a paywall. Or, at the very least, a roster of advertisers diversified enough to make upsetting the game publishers little to no concern.
But there's more to it. Ridding yourself of ties to publishers would also mean a significant shift away from preview coverage. You could only work with whatever media/information is already out in the wild, while your competition gets the cozy exclusives that you know people lap up in droves.
Thus you'd have to shift more toward reviews and criticism. Which circles back around to the money issue: You're gonna need to pay well enough to attract the kind of writing talent that, in turn, will make your fee worth paying to your readership. This is already supposing there's such an appetite for that kind of non-consumerist criticism. Even if it's stellar, Pulitzer-quality stuff, how many people will actually pay for it?
In short, I don't think #GamerGate has the kind of interests or reading habits to support "uncorrupted" game journalism. The current model of barely veiled PR subsidizing the occasional feature or critical essay is probably the best we're gonna get.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Where are these threats/harrassment?
The only harassment I see when I do a hashtag search for #gamergate is coming from the "sjw"-aligned. Mostly "fuck offs", namecalling and retweeting thereof.
Actually I see very little harassment in general.
Am I using twitter wrong?
The only harassment I see when I do a hashtag search for #gamergate is coming from the "sjw"-aligned. Mostly "fuck offs", namecalling and retweeting thereof.
Actually I see very little harassment in general.
Am I using twitter wrong?
While Leigh's article does deserve some ripping for terrible hasty generalization, I think the overall point made by the gaming press on the death of "gamer identity" wasn't bad. The gaming audience has changed. It is not a niche thing anymore, it is mainstream. It is not "ours" anymore, so to speak. And that realization has sent many who take "gamer" as their identity to overreact. Many people, instead of reflecting on these points, I feel like instead responded defensively. Perhaps if Leigh's article didn't do such a terrible job at it, it wouldn't have been as bad. Regardless, I feel like those points are worth reflecting.
- Status