BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[Tsun Tzu]

When talking about this chart [http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/3025/suisidemissionfinal8.jpg]

Q: With the ending in Mass Effect 2, there were so many different variables and possibilities for the outcome and what could happen. As players reached the end, they started comparing notes and trying to figure out how it worked. A few months after it came out, we ran a chart in the magazine that showed the layout of how to get the different endings and how things happened. Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?

A: Yeah, and I?d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don?t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we?re taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.

It?s more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2?s...

The reason why you never see the full quote, especially the second paragraph, is because entitled fans deliberately excluded it because they wanted anger to be fueled by misquotes.

And how did your "choices not matter"? Because it was a game or because..?

I've seen the full quote, in complaint threads and blogs, actually.

I'm not sure why it is you think said quote in its entirety, in any way, refutes the points made by the people dissatisfied with Casey's attempts at PR. If anything, the full quote makes it worse. The original endings, pre-dlc, were quite literally A (Control), B (Synthesis), and C (Destroy). Each was differentiated by a color along with incredibly slight differences and did not take into account anything about the character's world-state, aside from cameos of characters (in some cases this didn't seem to matter either) and their "score."

One could make the argument that the "ending" to the series is the ENTIRE game, but this was a terrible way of phrasing it, especially when comparing it to typical "a, b, or c" endings, which refers to, you know, the actual ending, not the third/final act.

Captcha: idk my bff jill ...wasn't that commercial actually airing about the time ME3 was relevant?

Also: derailderailderailderail.

 

[chadachada123]

These interviews gave me one whole hell of a lot of a good morning, I'll tell you typical naysayers that much. And the fact that I know exactly who's going to show up to these threads (including me) every time is getting a bit wearisome.

snip

The "objective review" part was the one bit of this that soured me.

Reviews, by their very nature, are subjective to some degree. I believe a better case could have been made for "more objective reviews" as opposed to an absolute, but, whatever.

And they were doing their collective best to stay on 'message,' which, unfortunately, had to sort of counteract the previous 'message' put forth by Literally Wu. *secondary shrug*

So. Fuck it. I'm still happy about it.

Edit: The fact that NeoGaf was already discussing putting forth articles about these women being victims of "internalized misogyny" not 10 minutes after the stream ended was hilariously and depressingly expected.

Emphasis added. I was going to go off on "objective reviews...soured me," and was going to reply with "dude, just because reviews can't be objective doesn't mean we shouldn't push for being as objective as possible," and was going to go on with examples. But then re-read and saw you covered that. Phew. Nearly jumped the gun.

Anyway. Yeah, the review went pretty well, all things considered. Covered the main points. No real disagreements at all, just one focusing more on corruption, the other focusing more on the "WE. ARE. NOT. SEXIST." clarification.

Otherwise: Oh Neogaf, they never cease to amaze me.

 

[Nirallus]

You say you feel it might happen, but that doesn't explain why you're supporting it. Why read the things they write? What is it you're gaining from supporting them like that which outweighs not supporting them? By reading what they write you're actively going out of your way to give them revenue.

I use AdBlock to prevent sites I don't like from getting ad revenue (The Escapist is greenlit). To avoid giving them views I have to rely on archived links (very handy when stories get taken down or altered). I can hardly take up a position against them without reading the articles.

That still doesn't explain what you're gaining from reading what they write, it just means you're reading what they write but doing so in a way that stops you from engaging them. It's actually worse than ignoring them because you're listening to everything they say but doing so in a way that means you don't have a chance to have a voice.

By doing that, what do you expect your endgoal to be? What's the perfect scenario?

I "gain" nothing by reading the articles, but on principle, I have to read at least some of them myself (there sure are a lot). Otherwise it would be like saying DC movies suck without having watched any myself. Simply posting a pro-GG opinion on their forums gets you banned instantly, which makes me believe that directly emailing them would be futile. The only way to have a voice at all is to do so from other platforms, and to do so en masse, hence #GamerGate.

My understanding is that by creating an online movement of a large enough scale, we can prove against the "Gamers Are Dead" articles that we're alive and well. We can show that our attention spans are far, far longer than the GameJournoPros were willing to give us credit for. Currently we're just trying to get the message out that we're not misogynists, contrary to what much of the media has been saying. Now that GG has national attention, we cannot roll over or falter now. If we do, gaming will be loaded with that stigma for a generation. And it will be all gamers: If the public can't be convinced that the people sending death threats do not represent GamerGate, how will you or I convince them that not all gamers are the stereotype that the gaming press itself has painted? It's an uphill battle but I am confident that as long as we remain civil and persistent, and continue to consistently condemn harassment, that message will get through.

As for the "perfect scenario"? I haven't given it as much thought. But it would include the gaming news sites adopting a reasonable standard of ethics and sticking to it. And applying it retroactively since there should have been one in place all along. If they want an example they can look to the Escapist. As long as we're envisioning a perfect scenario, the gaming press would be so chastened (by loss of viewership and revenue) as to not pull such a cheap and slimy and self-destructive trick as the misogyny narrative again.

As an aside, it's telling that in their attempt to smear the people who called them out, the gaming press was willing to severely damage the image of gamers: The customer base of their industry, and people who were not held in high regard by society at large. Worst of all, the media sensationalizing the trumped-up accusations of sexism might actually scare off some young women who are considering entering the tech sector.

 

[Obama's Dad 420]

I think people on both sides need to talk more in metaphors. That's the thing the discussion needs. Both sides are angry and dismissive enough. We just need more metaphors. Because. There. Simply. Aren't. Enough.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

But he's talking about the end state of the game. And he's right, there's FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR more than A, B, C. The Geth can be dead. The Quarians can be dead. Jack can be dead. Miranda can be dead. The Krogan can be lead by Wreav. The Salarian councilor can be dead. All of that already is more than A, B and C, and that's not even scratching the surface.

This is made even clearer by the fact that he straight up spells out what he's talking about:

It's more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy.

It's not "making the argument", it's literally just reading what he said. He's not even comparing it to "typical a, b, c endings" like you said, he's comparing it to the ME2 graph that he was asked about in the question he's responding to.

If we're going to be pedantic, sure. All of those things can happen and, superficially, be counted as a part of the "end state." It's just that there was no, worthwhile or otherwise, expression of any of them in the ending itself.

Most of those were decided prior to the ending proper. Said ending, proper, has none of those things and is a terrible case of telling (via the Star Brat) and failing to show/reflect (via the actual ending cinematics) them.

Not to trot out a two-year-old dead horse in video form, but:


There is, loosely, A, B, and C. With minor variation between the 7 cinematics that are affected by a player's score and not their decisions.

Note the last part, which is the question, "Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?"

His entire answer is an acknowledgment of and comparison to the ME2 ending while describing the ME3 ending and its apparent superiority, in terms of choice and impact of decisions on the ending/end state, as compared to its predecessor.

 

[Kameburger]

You know what, good for Huff post for letting them talk. Did I agree with everything they said? No. But I did think they made a point. If you try to have these discussion in a lot of places you get immediately shut down as some sort of violent misogynist, or what ever terrible word we come up with while in the mean time I'm not sure that one would be treated with the same hostility.

It does end up reminding me of what the south park creators said when they were talking about why they don't like liberals, and they said that despite the fact that there is an image of conservative groups that would get up in arms about insulting their beliefs, it was the liberals who, when insulted, would write the most vial and vitriolic hate mail.

It's slightly different, but I think that it's easy for people to associate gamergate with what ever Anita Sarkeesian, because it's been so agressively associated with the threats that come her way. But I think while their are sociopaths and crazy people that dislike her and my associate themselves with the movement, its really not about that and I think deep down we understand that.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I really like that this interview happened. And I hope they'll do more of the same.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

You're talking about the very end of the game and disregarding everything about the end state of the game.

He's talking about the end state of the game, and spells this out in his response.

It's not being pedantic, it's literally just reading what he said.

If you're going to disregard the end state of the game, then you can't use that quote to pretend he's talking about the very end of the game, because he explicitly points out he isn't. You're trying to say he is, which is called lying.

I'm not disregarding anything. I acknowledged it in the very first sentence.

"All of those things can happen and, superficially, be counted as a part of the 'end state.' It's just that there was no, worthwhile or otherwise, expression of any of them in the ending itself.

Most of those were decided prior to the ending proper. Said ending, proper, has none of those things and is a terrible case of telling (via the Star Brat) and failing to show/reflect (via the actual ending cinematics) them."

I'm saying that the ending proper does not do a good job, if it did at all, of conveying said state and that, as it was presented, it amounted to an A, B, and C outcome. Further, the original was rife with plot holes, the most glaring of which (in all instances where a relay exploded) would have seen the galaxy utterly destroyed, thus rendering all previous choices moot.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a liar either. Just makes you look like an asshole. An asshole who enjoys abusing the text system as much as I do, which endears you to me for obvious reasons.

And just to be amazingly hypocritically pedantic; nowhere in that reply does he specifically say "end state."

He says, specifically, "the state of where you left your galaxy" which, as mentioned with the original endings, would have been a ruinous hellzone.

Now, shut up, watch this:


And get feels with me.

 

[Nirallus]

I "gain" nothing by reading the articles, but on principle, I have to read at least some of them myself (there sure are a lot). Otherwise it would be like saying DC movies suck without having watched any myself. Simply posting a pro-GG opinion on their forums gets you banned instantly, which makes me believe that directly emailing them would be futile. The only way to have a voice at all is to do so from other platforms, and to do so en masse, hence #GamerGate.

My understanding is that by creating an online movement of a large enough scale, we can prove against the "Gamers Are Dead" articles that we're alive and well. We can show that our attention spans are far, far longer than the GameJournoPros were willing to give us credit for. Currently we're just trying to get the message out that we're not misogynists, contrary to what much of the media has been saying. Now that GG has national attention, we cannot roll over or falter now. If we do, gaming will be loaded with that stigma for a generation. And it will be all gamers: If the public can't be convinced that the people sending death threats do not represent GamerGate, how will you or I convince them that not all gamers are the stereotype that the gaming press itself has painted? It's an uphill battle but I am confident that as long as we remain civil and persistent, and continue to unequivocally condemn harassment, that message will get through.

As for the "perfect scenario"? I haven't given it as much thought. But it would include the gaming news sites adopting a reasonable standard of ethics and sticking to it. And applying it retroactively since there should have been one in place all along. If they want an example they can look to the Escapist. As long as we're envisioning a perfect scenario, the gaming press would be so chastened (by loss of viewership and revenue) as to not to pull such a cheap and slimy and self-destructive trick as the misogyny narrative again.

As an aside, it's telling that in their attempt to smear the people who called them out, the gaming press was willing to severely damage the image of gamers: The customer base of their industry, and people who were not held in high regard by society at large. Worst of all, the media sensationalizing the trumped-up accusations of misogyny might actually scare off some young women who are considering entering the tech sector.

As long as Gamergate is tied to Zoe Quinn, which it always will be, it's never going to shake the massive amount of misoginy that surrounds it. And, looking at the sheer apathy its members have surrounding all of its misogyny ("every organisation has its bad apples" "this is just our enemies using this as a tactic to distract from what we want to talk about" etc) Gamergate doesn't seem like it has any clue, or even cares, about being associated with a hatred of woman and/or minorities.

People in GamerGate care very much about those negative associations, because they are not true. The people sending death threats aren't part of the "organization" because there is no organization. We can repeat with sincerity, until we're blue in the face, "harassment is wrong". We are doing that, constantly. It won't purge the internet of trolls. Focusing on Zoe Quinn is missing the point profoundly, and that goes for those who harassed her, those who dug up dirt about her, and those who want to keep putting her in the spotlight. If your mind is made up that the movement is totally misogynistic, what else could I possibly tell you?

 

[Baresark]

That was interesting. Though they did manage to dance around a couple of topics. Not the best interviews I have ever seen. It's clear they had things they wanted to get out and that kind of overrode answering the questions in a proficient manner. They definitely could have used a bit more prepping.

That said, it's good this interview happened. I don't really care that much about GG, I'm neutral on the whole thing, but GG gets demonized so much, it's ridiculous. Saying all GG's are misogynist and sexist and racist based on the actions of a few is the same as saying that all feminists are man hating lesbians because a small number of them are.

 

[Nirallus]

As long as Gamergate is tied to Zoe Quinn, which it always will be, it's never going to shake the massive amount of misoginy that surrounds it. And, looking at the sheer apathy its members have surrounding all of its misogyny ("every organisation has its bad apples" "this is just our enemies using this as a tactic to distract from what we want to talk about" etc) Gamergate doesn't seem like it has any clue, or even cares, about being associated with a hatred of woman and/or minorities.

People in GamerGate care very much about those negative associations, because they are not true. The people sending death threats aren't part of the "organization" because there is no organization. We can repeat with sincerity, until we're blue in the face, "harassment is wrong". We are doing that, constantly. It won't purge the internet of trolls. Focusing on Zoe Quinn is missing the point profoundly, and that goes for those who harassed her, those who dug up dirt about her, and those who want to keep putting her in the spotlight. If your mind is made up that the movement is totally misogynistic, what else could I possibly tell you?

I never mentioned people sending death threats.

But no, you're not doing that. I am literally yet to see someone from Gamergate going "Guys we need to do something about all the misogyny". Even you, right there, are apathetic towards it. You don't want to address the complaints about misogyny, instead trying to fog it off as "not (being) true".

I had assumed that sending death threats to women constituted misogyny. What are the specific complaints about misogyny that you're talking about here?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'm not disregarding anything. I acknowledged it in the very first sentence
"All of those things can happen and, superficially, be counted as a part of the 'end state.' It's just that there was no, worthwhile or otherwise, expression of any of them in the ending itself.

Most of those were decided prior to the ending proper. Said ending, proper, has none of those things and is a terrible case of telling (via the Star Brat) and failing to show/reflect (via the actual ending cinematics) them."

Which in no way contridicts his statement. You say it never showed it, but the arcs all end beforehand. You see the end of the Krogan arc. You see the end of the Geth/Quarian arc.

I'm saying that the ending proper does not do a good job, if it did at all, of conveying said state and that, as it was presented, it amounted to an A, B, and C outcome.

Because they had their conclusions earlier. You already know the end state of the game, why go over something that has already happened?

Further, the original was rife with plot holes, the most glaring of which (in all instances where a relay exploded) would have seen the galaxy utterly destroyed, thus rendering all previous choices moot.

Well no, it's not. For example you are trying to pretend that the two most advanced pieces of technology in the entire galaxy do the same thing to the relays as a big rock. MAAAAANY fans didn't assume that, and lo behold the extended cut (note, "extended", not "changed") clarified that.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a liar either. Just makes you look like an asshole. An asshole who enjoys abusing the text system as much as I do, which endears you to me for obvious reasons.

And just to be hypocritically pedantic; nowhere in that reply does he specifically say "end state."

He says, specifically, "the state of where you left your galaxy" which, as mentioned with the original endings, would have been a ruinous hellzone.

You tell me not to call you a liar, then chose to pretend he's talking about something he isn't.

Oh, you smarmy thing you.

1. You're misunderstanding, apparently. I said they weren't shown/reflected in the ending proper via the ending cinematic. And while the arcs themselves certainly "end," what actually happens, at the end, to those races is not touched upon by the original ending. The original ending effectively stranded the entire armada at Earth with only FTL to, eventually, get them home, which I suppose counts as an end state by omission?

2. See 1

3. I'm trying to pretend? Jesus, be just a bit more condescending. Ok, this was explained or touched upon, in the original ending...where? All we had to go on at the time was the Arrival DLC, in which, a relay exploding caused its solar system to be vaporized. There was no "qualifier" presented as to what type of/cause for the explosion would or would not cause such an event. "Pretending" that it isn't a reasonable assumption, given the information at the time, is just disingenuous.

4. Except I'm not. And I've made that readily apparent multiple times now. But, by all means, keep up the jerk attitude when I was trying to go all 'olive branch' on you.

Edit: I'm realizing I'm only engaging in this because it's something to be annoyed about that isn't GamerGate...it's been so long, man.

 

[JohnFei]

Really enjoyed the interview.

You know their narrative is breaking down when even Huffpo is covering our voices. CNN also gave a neutral and well-researched article. All this following Brianna making a fool of herself screaming at a disabled person and BBC giving us a fair assessment.

The story of Gamergate is coming out, and the blowback is gonna be glorious.