Support NeoGAF

[Corpekata]

https://twitter.com/zpxlng/status/525643616304107521

This one was great, but SPOILER WARNING for Breaking Bad if you haven't finished it, so I'll just link the tweet rather than posting the image.

 

[bootski]

I interviewed a supporter of GamerGate for IBTimes UK. His name is Barry Smith, a 35-year-old supermarket shelf-stacker from Dundee, Scotland.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gamergate-...l-movement-its-goals-threats-violence-1471560

great interview skippy. surprisingly moderate and the guy you interviewed didn't seem like one of the usual crazies you see come out in support of gamergate. it makes me wonder what the breakdown of the group of gamergaters would look like. in terms of the doxxers/harassers:moderates.

 

[Anton Sugar]

This shit's brightening my mood.

These are all amazing, but I especially like this one.

 

[FlyinJ]

great interview skippy. surprisingly moderate and the guy you interviewed didn't seem like one of the usual crazies you see come out in support of gamergate. it makes me wonder what the breakdown of the group of gamergaters would look like. in terms of the doxxers/harassers:moderates.

The GamerGate name is tainted, so why don't supporters of it who denounce threats of violence, branch off and band together under a new name?

I don't believe that GG is tainted in any way except the perception of it in the media.


Huh. Ok.

 

[Corto]

 

[Marsyas]

Some of the "arguments" against gamergate are becoming as bonkers and vicious as the arguments gamergaters use.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Some of the "arguments" against gamergate are becoming as bonkers and vicious as the arguments gamergaters use.

Examples please?

 

[partyphone]

Some of the "arguments" against gamergate are becoming as bonkers and vicious as the arguments gamergaters use.

for example?

 

[Nekofrog]

 

[kick51]

Some of the "arguments" against gamergate are becoming as bonkers and vicious as the arguments gamergaters use.

3rd'ing the request for examples

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Some of the "arguments" against gamergate are becoming as bonkers and vicious as the arguments gamergaters use.

citations needed

also, there shouldn't have had to be any arguments against harassing women to shut them up because you disagree, but here we are

 

[WarMacheen]

This shit's brightening my mood.

Seriously, I started choking on my coffee.

 

[Hemi-PoweredDrone]

Separation of criticism and review? Not allowing the content of a video game to affect its score? What the fuck am I reading.

I really would love to hear what #GG actually thinks a review is, and how you can review a game without addressing it's content. Should I just review games by looking at the box art? Or is that too much, I'll just review the name. Or do they want me to simply assign a random rating, since I'm not viewing the content at all?

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Some of the "arguments" against gamergate are becoming as bonkers and vicious as the arguments gamergaters use.

I also, like many before me, request examples.

 

[Raggie]

There's also a petition to sign stemming from the Swedish condemnation:

http://diversi.nu/petition/

I hope this doesn't come down to GG's signing this to show how "I'm not misogynist, see? Those tweets I sent earlier don't count because those cunts were asking for it!"

 

[Hemi-PoweredDrone]

Some of the "arguments" against gamergate are becoming as bonkers and vicious as the arguments gamergaters use.

I'd love to see an example of this.

 

[More_Badass]

Separation of criticism and review? Not allowing the content of a video game to affect its score? What the fuck am I reading.

It's ridiculous. Without criticism, all you're left with is details. That's a press release, not a review. A review by definition is an assessment; critique is unavoidable

The GamerGate name is tainted, so why don't supporters of it who denounce threats of violence, branch off and band together under a new name?

I don't believe that GG is tainted in any way except the perception of it in the media.


Huh. Ok.

And that right there is the mentality that keeps this thing going. They don't believe GG is bad because it's not what they're doing, it's all the media's fault for twisting things. As long as people believe that, I don't see how this is going to end any time soon

 

[danm999]

Some of the "arguments" against gamergate are becoming as bonkers and vicious as the arguments gamergaters use.

I'm guessing no one has asked this question yet but; do you have any examples?

 

[Wensih]

This shit's brightening my mood.

This has made my terrible day amazing.

 

[Tregard]

Don't know if it's been posted already, but Mike Rugnetta (The Idea Channel guy) talked a little about his stance on GamerGate at the end of his last video

It's an opinion piece, essentially, but I feel like it sums up the situation, at least as I know it, rather nicely.

 

[Hemi-PoweredDrone]

I interviewed a supporter of GamerGate for IBTimes UK. His name is Barry Smith, a 35-year-old supermarket shelf-stacker from Dundee, Scotland.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gamergate-...l-movement-its-goals-threats-violence-1471560

I think if you're representing the game, and boiling the entire thing down to a number, then yes. I don't think objectionable content should be a justification for marking a game down, because it begs the question of 'who is doing the judging?'

But objectionable content is why you mark something down. And the answer to that question is that it's the friggen reviewer doing the judging! That's what a critic does!

Jesus Christ, I don't know how you got through this, Skippy.

 

[Anton Sugar]

 

[Xscapist]

I think this one wins:

https://twitter.com/dylanw/status/525506242945372160

And the talent agent asks, "What do you call your act?"

And the family replied, "It's about ethics in gaming journalism."

 

[hobblygobbly]

But objectionable content is why this mark something down. And the answer to that question is that it's the friggen reviewer doing the judging! That's what a critic does!

Jesus Christ, I don't know how you got through this, Skippy.

Review/criticism and reviewer/critic are not interchangeable, although they are used that way every day. If we look at film or book industry, critics analyse and judge, this goes from what effect it can have on its viewers, a demographic, political and social political issues, etc. Reviews are targeted for the consumer consumption as recommendations, it is about the consumer and the protection and/or recommendation to the consumer. It is almost never about analysis.

One can be both a reviewer and a critic, but a review is not a critical/analytical piece by default, a review in all industries are consumer orientated. You can be a reviewer but not a critic and vice versa. It's however, not the same thing, and the people are not the same, unless they do both.

A critic does a critical analysis of something and judges it, this is appropriate for political and social issues for example. This is not what reviews are for, they are consumer products. This is NOT stopping something to incorporate both, it can have both aspects, but most of the time one side is lacking. Videogames should follow this same approach that the film and book industry follow identically, the separation of reviewer/review and critic/critical analysis.

This sort of thing is heavily emphasised in writing/art classes, they are not interchangeable by default. This is why some people often state they are not reviewers if someone or whatever claims they are, when they may be the opposite and vice versa. People misuse it every day.

Here is also an entry by the University of Vermont: http://researchguides.uvm.edu/content.php?pid=9385&sid=61657

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I think this one wins:

https://twitter.com/dylanw/status/525506242945372160

This one is amazing.

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

I think this one wins:

https://twitter.com/dylanw/status/525506242945372160

Damn.

 

[The Blackrose]

Even though there's already an FF1 version floating out there, I thought this part would be more appropriate:

 

[Hemi-PoweredDrone]

Review/criticism and reviewer/critic are not interchangeable, although they are used that way every day. If we look at film or book industry, critics analyse and judge, this goes from what effect it can have on its viewers, a demographic, political and social political issues, etc. Reviews are targeted for the consumer consumption as recommendations, it is about the consumer and the protection and/or recommendation to the consumer. It is almost never about analysis.

One can be both a reviewer and a critic, but a review is not a critical/analytical piece by default, a review in all industries are consumer orientated. You can be a reviewer but not a critic and vice versa. It's however, not the same thing, and the people are not the same, unless they do both.

A critic does a critical analysis of something and judges it, this is appropriate for political and social issues for example. This is not what reviews are for, they are consumer products. This is NOT stopping something to incorporate both, it can have both aspects, but most of the time one side is lacking. Videogames should follow this same approach that the film and book industry follow identically, the separation of reviewer/review and critic/critical analysis.

This sort of thing is heavily emphasised in writing/art classes, they are not interchangeable by default.

I used both terms because in this sense the distinction isn't relevant. A reviewer can object to the same things a critic does, either way, it's still content. When someone says that neither of them can say something bad about a game, that's what making something down for objectionable content is, it doesn't matter which one we're talking about, as the person in question understands neither of them.

 

[Jobbs]

I can't stomach paying attention to this thing for more than a few minutes once every couple of weeks, but every time I get updated the more this thing looks like the tea party. The entire thing is based on nothing that actually exists-- but persists anyway. and I'm sure I'm stating the obvious by this point, but it's not about anything in particular other than raw emotion.

The GamerGate name is tainted, so why don't supporters of it who denounce threats of violence, branch off and band together under a new name?

I don't know what they're supporters of if not the other stuff. there's so little there other than the emotion. "Maybe a game reviewer is too friendly with game companies" isn't exactly movement material. Honestly who even gives a fuck? You should be taking reviews with a grain of salt anyway. One of my all time favorite games, Dragon's Dogma, got middle-ish scores when it came out. Reviews just aren't very useful to me. When you come to realize this you'll enjoy everything much more.

 

[partyphone]

how can you review something like without being critical of it and forming an opinion based upon the content? trying to draw a distinction between reviewer and critic is ridiculous and does nothing.

 

[FF Seraphim]

how can you review something like without being critical of it and forming an opinion based upon the content? trying to draw a distinction between reviewer and critic is ridiculous and does nothing.

I guess be more German with the reviews? I honestly have no idea.

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

I think this one wins:

https://twitter.com/dylanw/status/525506242945372160

That's perfect.

 

[jstripes]

I think we can go full Kubrick with this one.

 

[frequency]

We are all for ethical journalism. Who isn't? Is there seriously anyone anywhere that would say "I really love my journalism with corruption"?

No!

The problem is that #GGers think opinions they don't agree with are unethical. Bayonetta's portrayal bothers you? YOU'RE CORRUPT! You won't call Zoe Quinn a terrible human being and denounce her as a person? CORRUPTION IN THE MEDIA! You like Gone Home? UNETHICAL!

This is why #GGers won't drop the name and rally under a different banner that is actually about ethics. Because their understanding of ethics is so severely twisted that it aligns with the likes of Milo et al. Like that crazy man who called in to the NPR program to go on a rant about Polygon's review and how Bayonetta is designed by a woman therefore she is exempt from criticism. His example of unethical journalism was, "LOOK AT THIS DIFFERENT OPINION!"

I'm loving these meme images (though I typically despise memes). They do a good job at showing how ridiculous it is to say something that is totally not about ethics is "actually about ethics in games journalism".

 

[KHarvey16]

Review/criticism and reviewer/critic are not interchangeable, although they are used that way every day. If we look at film or book industry, critics analyse and judge, this goes from what effect it can have on its viewers, a demographic, political and social political issues, etc. Reviews are targeted for the consumer consumption as recommendations, it is about the consumer and the protection and/or recommendation to the consumer. It is almost never about analysis.

One can be both a reviewer and a critic, but a review is not a critical/analytical piece by default, a review in all industries are consumer orientated. You can be a reviewer but not a critic and vice versa. It's however, not the same thing, and the people are not the same, unless they do both.

A critic does a critical analysis of something and judges it, this is appropriate for political and social issues for example. This is not what reviews are for, they are consumer products. This is NOT stopping something to incorporate both, it can have both aspects, but most of the time one side is lacking. Videogames should follow this same approach that the film and book industry follow identically, the separation of reviewer/review and critic/critical analysis.

This sort of thing is heavily emphasised in writing/art classes, they are not interchangeable by default. This is why some people often state they are not reviewers if someone or whatever claims they are, when they may be the opposite and vice versa. People misuse it every day.

Here is also an entry by the University of Vermont: http://researchguides.uvm.edu/content.php?pid=9385&sid=61657

Reviews of things like books and movies and games invariably contain critiques. I don't know how they couldn't.

 

[The Blackrose]

Ok, enough having fun with this. Back to trying to get something productive done today.

 

[NickFire]

I also, like many before me, request examples.

I'll bite. On the current page (when I began typing this) alone there are 4 distinct memes ridiculing the notion that GG has anything to do with ethics in gaming. I will and always have conceded there are numerous trolls using the movement to do deplorable things. But instead of focusing criticism solely at the trolls, many people firmly opposed to GG ridicule anyone at all who claims they support it because they are tired with the ethical issues. And if you look back in these 400 pages of posts, I have no doubt that many people who tried to generate consensus that there is a middle ground of people who support GG but detest the trolls, will be attacked by my more than 1 person who believes their view that GG is pure evil is the only permissible view, despite the widespread consensus that there are indeed issues with games journalism that raise suspicion on occasion.

My guess, and this is only a guess, but my guess is that the same people who will ridicule anyone at all for believing there is more to GG than trolling female developers, would also object to condemning every member of a religion or political group due to the horrible actions of a few. In any event, the people who aren't trolls and really want to see reform in the games media are not going to be convinced that there suspicions are wrong just because a few websites (who they already don't trust) and commenters post memes ridiculing the notion that the media has not always been on the up and up. Instead, they are going to naturally associate with the trolls, because the trolls are the lesser of two evils to them. No matter how pious we think of ourselves, its human nature to side with the people saying, "Yep, you're right", as opposed to "You are lying", or "There's no real issues here and you really just want to harass women." or something else to that effect.

So yeah, constantly criticizing anyone who says GG involves corruption in the press is absurd. It accomplishes nothing and is doing nothing more than giving the trollish part of the movement self-perceived legitimacy it never would have had otherwise.

 

[SwissLion]

Deep down somewhere inside the soul of every GamerGate "Moderate" who refuses to do away with the tag is the knowledge that most of their qualms are dumb unsubstantiated bullshit that have never been and hopefully won't ever after this whole mess, be taken seriously by anyone.

Without the mob to prop them up, most moderates 'reasonable criticism' can be debunked in a minute or two, or is just so nonsensical that they almost could not possibly hold it as a genuine belief but somehow they manage.

The real power of GG has been to amass all the dumbest arguments into one ball big enough such that it's almost entirely impossible to address every dumb thing encompassed within at once. Debunk a claim, and by the time you're one or two debunkings in, the first dent you made in the ignorance ball has been stubbornly filled in as people willingly forget that time that dude totally dunked them and their dumb bullshit because "Well they didn't say anything about this OTHER dumb thing and also they called my things DUMB!"

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I'll bite.

I'm literally running out the door as you replied, but I assume you just picked me out of the large set by random. I'm gonna wager someone else will be able to reply to your concerns well enough.

If not, I'll reply when I get home in a few hours.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

https://twitter.com/zpxlng/status/525643616304107521

This one was great, but SPOILER WARNING for Breaking Bad if you haven't finished it, so I'll just link the tweet rather than posting the image.

HAHAHAHAHAHA holy shit. We have a winner. And the choice of character is just perfect too.

Review/criticism and reviewer/critic are not interchangeable, although they are used that way every day. If we look at film or book industry, critics analyse and judge, this goes from what effect it can have on its viewers, a demographic, political and social political issues, etc. Reviews are targeted for the consumer consumption as recommendations, it is about the consumer and the protection and/or recommendation to the consumer. It is almost never about analysis.

One can be both a reviewer and a critic, but a review is not a critical/analytical piece by default, a review in all industries are consumer orientated. You can be a reviewer but not a critic and vice versa. It's however, not the same thing, and the people are not the same, unless they do both.

You know what's funny about this poppycock?

The French word for "review" and "reviewer" is... "critique". And obviously, there isn't a different word for "critic".

The distinction is strictly in your mind, I'm afraid.

A critic does a critical analysis of something and judges it, this is appropriate for political and social issues for example. This is not what reviews are for, they are consumer products.

Why shouldn't consumer products be "critiqued" in a review anyway? You yourself admit reviews can include that. So why even bother with a useless distinction?

 

[Jobbs]

I'll bite. On the current page (when I began typing this) alone there are 4 distinct memes ridiculing the notion that GG has anything to do with ethics in gaming. I will and always have conceded there are numerous trolls using the movement to do deplorable things. But instead of focusing criticism solely at the trolls, many people firmly opposed to GG ridicule anyone at all who claims they support it because they are tired with the ethical issues. And if you look back in these 400 pages of posts, I have no doubt that many people who tried to generate consensus that there is a middle ground of people who support GG but detest the trolls, will be attacked by my more than 1 person who believes their view that GG is pure evil is the only permissible view, despite the widespread consensus that there are indeed issues with games journalism that raise suspicion on occasion.

My guess, and this is only a guess, but my guess is that the same people who will ridicule anyone at all for believing there is more to GG than trolling female developers, would also object to condemning every member of a religion or political group due to the horrible actions of a few. In any event, the people who aren't trolls and really want to see reform in the games media are not going to be convinced that there suspicions are wrong just because a few websites (who they already don't trust) and commenters post memes ridiculing the notion that the media has not always been on the up and up. Instead, they are going to naturally associate with the trolls, because the trolls are the lesser of two evils to them. No matter how pious we think of ourselves, its human nature to side with the people saying, "Yep, you're right", as opposed to "You are lying", or "There's no real issues here and you really just want to harass women." or something else to that effect.

So yeah, constantly criticizing anyone who says GG involves corruption in the press is absurd. It accomplishes nothing and is doing nothing more than giving the trollish part of the movement self-perceived legitimacy it never would have had otherwise.

So ridiculing a ridiculous movement is "as bonkers as" believing and perpetuating a bunch of ridiculous, debunked shit and harassing the fuck out of people?

That's equivalent?

 

[partyphone]

gamergate isn't actually doing anything to fight for ethics or against corruption. in fact they're actively championing corruption by going after advertisers because of a site's editorial content. you can't claim that you want a wall between editoral and sales but then get ads pulled because of writing you don't and then pretend you're this bulwark to corruption and ethics.

even at its most moderate gamergate is ridiculous.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I'll bite. On the current page (when I began typing this) alone there are 4 distinct memes ridiculing the notion that GG has anything to do with ethics in gaming. I will and always have conceded there are numerous trolls using the movement to do deplorable things. But instead of focusing criticism solely at the trolls, many people firmly opposed to GG ridicule anyone at all who claims they support it because they are tired with the ethical issues. And if you look back in these 400 pages of posts, I have no doubt that many people who tried to generate consensus that there is a middle ground of people who support GG but detest the trolls, will be attacked by my more than 1 person who believes their view that GG is pure evil is the only permissible view, despite the widespread consensus that there are indeed issues with games journalism that raise suspicion on occasion.

Here's the problem: whenever the idea of this nebulous "people who support GG but detest the trolls" comes up, no examples of a GG campaign/"operation" exist that don't center around a feminist/"SJW"/critic of misogyny/sexism in games.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Claiming opponents to gamergate are "against ethics" or something like that is completely ridiculous.

 

[dead souls]

HAHAHAHAHAHA holy shit. We have a winner. And the choice of character is just perfect too.

Yeah, the Breaking Bad one, the Sephiroth one, and the aristocrats tweet are all laugh out loud hilarious. I'm nearly choking on my breakfast here.

 

[mo60]

I'll bite. On the current page (when I began typing this) alone there are 4 distinct memes ridiculing the notion that GG has anything to do with ethics in gaming. I will and always have conceded there are numerous trolls using the movement to do deplorable things. But instead of focusing criticism solely at the trolls, many people firmly opposed to GG ridicule anyone at all who claims they support it because they are tired with the ethical issues. And if you look back in these 400 pages of posts, I have no doubt that many people who tried to generate consensus that there is a middle ground of people who support GG but detest the trolls, will be attacked by my more than 1 person who believes their view that GG is pure evil is the only permissible view, despite the widespread consensus that there are indeed issues with games journalism that raise suspicion on occasion.

My guess, and this is only a guess, but my guess is that the same people who will ridicule anyone at all for believing there is more to GG than trolling female developers, would also object to condemning every member of a religion or political group due to the horrible actions of a few. In any event, the people who aren't trolls and really want to see reform in the games media are not going to be convinced that there suspicions are wrong just because a few websites (who they already don't trust) and commenters post memes ridiculing the notion that the media has not always been on the up and up. Instead, they are going to naturally associate with the trolls, because the trolls are the lesser of two evils to them. No matter how pious we think of ourselves, its human nature to side with the people saying, "Yep, you're right", as opposed to "You are lying", or "There's no real issues here and you really just want to harass women." or something else to that effect.

So yeah, constantly criticizing anyone who says GG involves corruption in the press is absurd. It accomplishes nothing and is doing nothing more than giving the trollish part of the movement self-perceived legitimacy it never would have had otherwise.

When the gamergate movement continues to be used as a megaphone for trolls and people like that unemployed lawyer(who is really terrible) and other terrible people it's kinda hard to have a discussion about ethics and other problems in the gaming industry without these trolls and other people dictating the discussion in the movement. There are most likely people in the gamergate that want to discuss the problems they have with the gaming industry but they are being shut down by the people with the loudest voices in the movement. Two other problems with the gamergate movement is that most of there issues with the gaming industry aren't really issues and they are usually not true if I recall from that list created by someone in this thread and they like to participate in to much censorship at times when someone posts something that disagrees with them .I would love to talk about the problems I have with the gaming industry, but not with the gamergate movement.The movement also claims to have no goals or strategies because they don't want there opponents to destroy them and to make it easier to go after there opponents(mostly women) and they use the women that support them as shields also.

 

[Anton Sugar]

https://twitter.com/zpxlng/status/525643616304107521

This one was great, but SPOILER WARNING for Breaking Bad if you haven't finished it, so I'll just link the tweet rather than posting the image.

Wow. WOW. This is too perfect.

 

[Orayn]

Claiming opponents to gamergate are "against ethics" or something like that is completely ridiculous.

"If you oppose my pro-life stance that makes you anti-life. I want no part in your infanticidal liberal Nazi death cult."

 

[Hasney]

"If you oppose my pro-life stance that makes you anti-life. I want no part in your infanticidal liberal Nazi death cult."

Aw, but I made the recruitment flyers and everything

 

[riotous]