BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[Thorn14]

I doubt such a mindset would fly with cars. People wanna know mileage, how it runs, safety measure ratings, etc. And not "Eh I don't drive much but it seems alright."

I'd never read a review of a game of someone who outright states they do not like a particular genre because hey maybe the game isn't FOR you. My reviews of a sports game should be ignored because I can't stand sports games. Fifa would bore me to tears but someone who likes those games would rather hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about.

Cars are not games. Try again.

Games are an entertainment medium where people who consume games tend to have different tastes and opinions. And if you have not read a review from a reviewer who doesn't like the particular genre how the fuck can you try and argue the merit of this review? How the fuck does "it's not for YOU" hold any merit as an argument?

I pointed out that there are scenarios where one can argue the merit of reviews from critics where people like you would yell out that he should never ever review this game because it is not for him...

Wait. How the hell does "it is not for you" hold any merit again?

People can't buy cars for entertainment? News to me.

And I say "its not for you" in the sense that there are certain games that try to appeal to a certain demographic or fanbase. There is nothing wrong with that. Its basic marketing. Market Segmentation and Demographics. People who consume games like Europa and Civilization may not be the same market group as people who enjoy call of duty. Of course they can buy them, but the point is they aren't the main target market.

If I'm a fan of mechanically complex fighting games, I'd like someone who understands what makes a game mechanically complex to tell me what said mechanics are.

Is that so controversial?

 

[Irick]

Ugh...

I don't know what I was expecting from Huffington Post, but that was painful.

I couldn't agree with... just about anything anyone said.

I want ethical journalism, and I want to hear how feminism influences the experience of a reviewer's experience. Why are these presented as if they are mutually exclusive? What is an Objective Criticism? Games are not objective. They are experiences, they literally change with each player's interaction in empirically measurable ways.

 

[shrekfan246]

Fighting games can be extremely complex and have a ton of mechanics that someone who dislikes fighting games would not miss. I am missing info in a review because of that. That is unfair to the reader.

And again, you don't need to read that review. If it provides nothing of use to you, why would you bother, right? But it will be useful to somebody. To use a more concrete example, Yahtzee is very vocal about how much he tends to dislike JRPGs. Therefore, when he reviewed The Worlds Ends With You and said that it was actually a little interesting, that comes across as a pretty ringing endorsement, because it made somebody who generally is predisposed to dislike a genre find something enjoyable within it.

There are a great many reviews out there that have absolutely no relevance to me. But I don't say that the reviewers need to change or suppress their opinions just so that they can suit my views. I go find other reviewers who will provide me with information that I care about.

Both are important, and I'll fight the fight against publishers exploiting reviews too. Asking reviewers to not please not include their personal beliefs and views is a much more realistic goal than "change the entire landscape of how publisher and review relationships work." At least for now.

Okay, I'm only going to say this once more, and I'm just going to be blunt: Reviews of games are personal beliefs. They always have been. You're about thirty years late on trying to get reviewers to stop with that. Do you know what happens when all reviews are written with a complete absence of personal opinion and experience? They all would read exactly the same. There would be no difference between reading a review on The Escapist and reading a review from IGN. There would be no difference between a review from GameSpot and Polygon. Everything, even down to word choice and order, written in a review is impacted by the writer's opinions. Taking that away means you basically just want to read PR packets.

Look, I "get" wanting to keep "political agendas" out of reviews, even if I don't agree with it. But that's not even in the same ballpark as "objective reviews".

 

[kyp275]

No one forced Reddit to do it, but because of the fact that the laws are changing, I can see why they would assume it would be a good idea to just kill it quickly and as efficiently as possible. Do I agree with how they did it? No. They did it in a stupid way. But because of how quickly things are moving, how they're being taken to the courts, they may not want to be dragged into that, and there was no telling whether Quinn was going to be suing people for what was happening at the time.

Again, I'm not saying they handled it properly, but sometimes we have to look at the reasoning behind it, not just assuming the conspiracy theories. There are more logical conclusions.

It sucks typing replies on phones, by the time I?m done with one there?s already a response to an older one!

I think we're talking about two different things. When used in a legal context, precedent specifically refers to previous rulings in similar cases. What you described is attempts to pass legislatures to catch up with technology. It is in no way setting legal precedents for anything, it?s not even part of the judicial process.

As for the actual cases, the only precedents they?re setting is that cases pursued under current laws WILL continue to be tossed out and dismissed, because you?re trying to convict people of something that frankly is not currently a crime in most jurisdictions.

To be honest, I find it highly unlikely that anything remotely like what you?re thinking of will ever be passed. (at least not by the anti-bullying groups) The implication is simply too far reaching and dangerous.

If site owners can be held legally responsible for user?s behaviors, what?s to stop companies from suing review sites because they deemed some of the user reviews to be libelous or untrue? Or Viacom and everyone else with their dog from suing Youtube because copyrighted materials were posted/used by the users without permission? Or better yet, once you set that particular precedent, how long before you think the MPAA/RIAA and the rest of the SOPA crowd decide to have another go at forcing ISPs to start monitoring all your web traffic, because they can now argue that ISPs should also be held to the same standard?

 

[EternallyBored]

I doubt such a mindset would fly with cars. People wanna know mileage, how it runs, safety measure ratings, etc. And not "Eh I don't drive much but it seems alright."

I'd never read a review of a game of someone who outright states they do not like a particular genre because hey maybe the game isn't FOR you. My reviews of a sports game should be ignored because I can't stand sports games. Fifa would bore me to tears but someone who likes those games would rather hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about.

Cars are not games. Try again.

Games are an entertainment medium where people who consume games tend to have different tastes and opinions. And if you have not read a review from a reviewer who doesn't like the particular genre how the fuck can you try and argue the merit of this review? How the fuck does "it's not for YOU" hold any merit as an argument?

I pointed out that there are scenarios where one can argue the merit of reviews from critics where people like you would yell out that he should never ever review this game because it is not for him...

Wait. How the hell does "it is not for you" hold any merit again?

Actually, despite what Thorn may think, car reviews do often involve subjective elements, and many magazines will rate vehicles on how the reviewer personally felt about the car's aesthetics and space as well as interior and exterior design, there's actually quite a few features that different critics will focus on, and even ratings for how "fun" a car is to drive. Much like sites like IGN, the ratings will be separated into categories with some being more objectively based than others, but car reviewing actually has some room for subjective criticism, especially amongst high class luxury vehicles where a lot of the aesthetic features are designed by artists and critiqued similarly to a piece of art.

As for criticism itself, yeah, I would prefer we don't break the concept of reviews just to appease the publishing companies that hinge bonuses on metacritic scores. Amongst movie critics there is a man named armond white, who is often lambasted as a contrarian for his movie reviews that tends to hate critically well reviewed movies whilst praising a number of movies despised by most critics. While I fiercely disagree with his views on most of his reviews, I do not want to see someone like him ousted from the industry out of some misguided sense of "objectivity".

In games, I like Angry Joe's subjective rants on flaws he sees in a game, I like yahtzee's cynicism and criticism based on his personal views as an Australian of the Call of Duty games, I like Jim's subjective views on game stories and story telling, and so on and so forth.
I don't want zero bias in my reviews, I just want critics to be honest about their biases, as long as there's honesty, I want as many agendas and viewpoints in my reviews as I can get, it's my job as a consumer to find the reviewers that match my tastes and desires, not to try and homogenize the entire industry into a single viewpoint with little variation.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

You could dilute it down to a correlation between "people" and "assholes" if you were motivated to protect the internet. I have no issue with someone pointing out that some people who self-identify as "Gamers" are colossal shitbags, because they clearly are, and we complain about them all the time. Hardly a minute goes by without someone commenting on how they had to quit X game because of the loathsome, howling community that inhabits it.

And if the articles and people in question had actually worded it as such, I'm guessing this probably wouldn't have happened. Not right now, anyways. The underlying ideological issues were obviously going to boil over at some point.

That wasn't my assertion. They aren't "turning away furious" because their point of view was challenged - that's actually more the calling card of third-wave feminists and identity politic'ers, in my experience.

Yes, it's often our experience that the people we disagree with behave abominably, and the people we're predisposed to be sympathetic towards do not.

My anecdotal side-swipe was something of a trap or demonstration. I injected my own ideological bias into my post, and you immediately called me on it. For some reason, doing the same to these journalists resulted in an enormous goddamn hissy fit complete with rampant, baseless accusations of misogyny, sexism, racism, and so forth. I didn't hide my motivations or my beliefs, so you are welcome to debate me or discuss with me from a point of understanding and relatively complete knowledge. I don't think many of these journalists were behaving the same way.

Gamers are turning away furious because journalists weren't being honest and open about their biases.

Some gamers. This kind of hazy generalization is what got everyone into this soup to begin with, no?

Fair enough, and quite true. Of course we sorta know who fired the first volley, don't we? And if you had to characterize one side as refusing to let go of or move past their grand fallacy of composition, would that be the ones shouting "misogyny" or the ones shouting "we aren't misogynists"?

They weren't being uniform or consistent with their lenses. "Problem games" were clearly singled out. "Correct games" were clearly elevated.

That was clear to you, was it? Can you give me some examples?

Bayonetta 2 for "problem games". Gone Home for "correct games". I think their respective reviews from Polygon clearly demonstrate my assertions here.

But if you tried to fool them or swindle them or misrepresent either yourselves or them before they can get to the door? Congratulations: you've created opponents with motivation.

Is this your assertion then? That there was a widespread collusion to swindle gamers of a certain political mindset or ideology out of valuable page-clicks by disguising a rampaging liberal bias under the guise of reporting on hobbyist entertainment? I'm paraphrasing, so if this strikes you as unfair I am happy to revise, I am not attempting to straw man.

I used the word "or" several times and very intentionally. I am not accusing every journalist of committing every offense I listed, and I should have clarified that there may be other perceived slights on the table as well. Gamergate can best be described as an overriding dissatisfaction with the behavior of several games journalists and outlets, and that dissatisfaction is taking many forms depending on the context of each person's words and behavior. I will be the first to admit that some of those forms are patently absurd. A very few are even hateful, as is unfortunately standard in any sizable movement - especially on the internet.

My own personal contention: I think there is compelling evidence, both written and circumstantial, that points to an ideological bent in mainstream "enlightened" games journalism, which is to say the outlets below the "IGN tier" but significantly above the more niche or hardest-core amateur and enthusiast blogs. I think this ideological bent is largely invisible or hidden when it suits these outlets and emerges periodically to promote or impale certain games in keeping with the underlying beliefs and principles of these websites and the bulk or entirety of their staff. I think they maintain their influence and reach by appearing mainstream and ostensibly unbiased or legitimate, and then they abuse that influence by pushing ideologies that simply aren't as prevalent or widely supported as they would like - while ignoring or demonizing alternative points of view. Finally, when called out for this behavior, they opted to lash out at their detractors through those very same platforms, more or less proving our point.

The end result of this will be a more fractured gaming community, and that's fine. It's just a shame it had to happen this way.

 

[Thorn14]

And again, you don't need to read that review. If it provides nothing of use to you, why would you bother, right? But it will be useful to somebody. To use a more concrete example, Yahtzee is very vocal about how much he tends to dislike JRPGs. Therefore, when he reviewed The Worlds Ends With You and said that it was actually a little interesting, that comes across as a pretty ringing endorsement, because it made somebody who generally is predisposed to dislike a genre find something enjoyable within it.

There are a great many reviews out there that have absolutely no relevance to me. But I don't say that the reviewers need to change or suppress their opinions just so that they can suit my views. I go find other reviewers who will provide me with information that I care about.

Yahtzee's reviews/critiques don't end up on metacritic, which affect paychecks. Also he makes it clear his videos are him stating his opinions, not full reviews.

Okay, I'm only going to say this once more, and I'm just going to be blunt: Reviews of games are personal beliefs. They always have been. You're about thirty years late on trying to get reviewers to stop with that. Do you know what happens when all reviews are written with a complete absence of personal opinion and experience? They all would read exactly the same. There would be no difference between reading a review on The Escapist and reading a review from IGN. There would be no difference between a review from GameSpot and Polygon. Everything, even down to word choice and order, written in a review is impacted by the writer's opinions. Taking that away means you basically just want to read PR packets.

Look, I "get" wanting to keep "political agendas" out of reviews, even if I don't agree with it. But that's not even in the same ballpark as "objective reviews".

Well I guess were just going to have to agree to disagree here. I believe objective does not mean "bland and lifeless."

So not only did you ignore the quote when you said "ME2's ending is way more complicated" (he's talking about all the different variables, which there are FAR more of in ME3) you also got it wrong even when you did that. There's 2 endings in ME2, and the failure one so that could be 3. Using the same logic for ME3 that would mean there's 9 different endings (Synthesis, Paragon and Renegade control, Paragon and Renegade Control Low EMS, High, Mid, Low EMS Destroy, Reject).

So in both scenerios, even the one where you ignored what he was talking about in the quote, it's still more than A, B, C.

That is the reason why people called fans entitled. You DEMANDED a different ending by using lies to make it look like Bioware said things they never did.

First, I didn't demand shit. I didn't even finish ME3 so don't think I was too invested into it. Also, you're right, ME2 has 2 endings but the suicide mission itself, the climax, had more variation. So you got a point there.

The problem was people's expectations were betrayed. Was it maybe too much hype? Perhaps. People were expecting completely wild endings depending on who you saved and supported. But ultimately those decisions resulted in just a blank score.

Notice how all your complaints are wrong, self-inflicted, lies or petty? Yet people like you DEMANDED a different ending? That is why you're called entitled.

Personal attacks get you no where. And again, I didn't demand shit.

 

[Nikolaz72]

snip

Editorials and labelled opinion pieces exist. Trying to pass off politics or ideology in a review as fact just services to piss the main consumer base off.

Like the women in that interview.

 

[Something Amyss]

What I get from this interview is that Gamergate is so desperate to prove it's not about sexism it will do a victory dance over anything with breasts on its side, no matter how awful the presentation.

I mean, are you guys still that desperate to prove that there are girls in Gamergate? This is a long way to go to stomp on what used to be a straw man.

"Objective review."

There is a conflict in the story. There are fighting mechanics. There are textures and pixels. You can get a game over.

10/10, this is indeed a video game.

I find your view to be polarising and will have none of it. How dare you say there is conflict! That's clearly subjective!

 

[Something Amyss]

When used in a legal context, precedent specifically refers to previous rulings in similar cases. What you described is attempts to pass legislatures to catch up with technology.

NTB is referencing court cases, not new laws that might be proposed. At least, to my understanding of her claims.

 

[shrekfan246]

And again, you don't need to read that review. If it provides nothing of use to you, why would you bother, right? But it will be useful to somebody. To use a more concrete example, Yahtzee is very vocal about how much he tends to dislike JRPGs. Therefore, when he reviewed The Worlds Ends With You and said that it was actually a little interesting, that comes across as a pretty ringing endorsement, because it made somebody who generally is predisposed to dislike a genre find something enjoyable within it.

There are a great many reviews out there that have absolutely no relevance to me. But I don't say that the reviewers need to change or suppress their opinions just so that they can suit my views. I go find other reviewers who will provide me with information that I care about.

Yahtzee's reviews/critiques don't end up on metacritic, which affect paychecks. Also he makes it clear his videos are him stating his opinions, not full reviews.

If you're going to focus on Metacritic so heavily, then once again I will suggest you change the target of your ire from reviewers to games publishers. That is not a problem with reviews, and asking reviewers to not post the opinions they believe in simply so that a developer will get a bonus is not ethical.

Also, I feel the need to point out that developers (at least ones like Bungie or Obsidian) do not work pro bono; they get paid regular salaries while they are working on a game. Losing out on a bonus because of a Metacritic score does not mean they do not get paid for their hard work.

Well I guess were just going to have to agree to disagree here. I believe objective does not mean "bland and lifeless."

My point is that if every single review were required to be "objective", what would happen is that websites like The Escapist, Destructoid, Eurogamer, Giant Bomb, etc. would likely eventually wither away and die, or they would need to far more heavily change the direction of their respective content creators away from writing reviews. When every review is "objective", you have no reason to read more than one person's review. Why would anybody come to The Escapist for a review of Shadow of Mordor if it read exactly the same as a review from IGN? And, no matter what you might think objective means, that is what would happen in a truly objective system. There would be no difference between the two reviews, because if there were one would inherently be "more" or "less" objective than the other.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

And if the articles and people in question had actually worded it as such, I'm guessing this probably wouldn't have happened. Not right now, anyways. The underlying ideological issues were obviously going to boil over at some point.

I think we have more of an issue with games media feeling empowered to hector their audience than an issue with any particular ideology run rampant, personally. And that issue is only problematic insomuch as it's annoying to read, and it is potentially unhealthy for the publications in question.

My anecdotal side-swipe was something of a trap or demonstration. I injected my own ideological bias into my post, and you immediately called me on it. For some reason, doing the same to these journalists resulted in an enormous goddamn hissy fit complete with rampant, baseless accusations of misogyny, sexism, racism, and so forth.

Well, to be fair, I simply rolled my eyes a bit and made a snarky comment. I didn't form a grassroots movement complete with blacklist and email campaign in an attempt to drum you off the internet. Sides were formed and battle lines were drawn, and to what should have come as a surprise to no one, a war ensued.

I don't think many of these journalists were behaving the same way.

They seemed to wear their colors on their sleeves to me, particularly the more notorious voices, like Alexander.

Fair enough, and quite true. Of course we sorta know who fired the first volley, don't we?

I'm not sure we do. Before "GamerGate" we had the Sarkeesian Event Horizon and before that the Fake Gamer Girl invasion. Generalizations were the order of the day then, too. Frankly, sweeping generalizations are quite common of humans, not just gaming journalists, particularly on emotionally charged issues where rationality tends to take a back seat to prejudice.

And if you had to characterize one side as refusing to let go of or move past their grand fallacy of composition, would that be the ones shouting "misogyny" or the ones shouting "we aren't misogynists"?

Ah, but the "other side" is shouting about "social justice warriors" and "feminazi's" and all the things they are "always" doing. There isn't a wellspring of dignity to be claimed by anyone who has entrenched enough to claim a "side".

Bayonetta 2 for "problem games". Gone Home for "correct games". I think their respective reviews from Polygon clearly demonstrate my assertions here.

Well...you've got two games there, I guess, and one publication. Bayonetta 2 is presently sitting at 90/91 on Metacritic between two platforms. Gone Home at 86. Gone Home was one of my favorite games from its year...not because of any ideological bent (not even sure what "ideology" it's meant to endorse, aside from the fact there are lesbians in it), but because of how unusual it was to play a "conflict free" game that subverted expectations. And I'm a long time gamer who cut my teeth on M.U.L.E. and Ultima, and rank strategy and hardcore RPGS as my favorite genres.

I used the word "or" several times and very intentionally. I am not accusing every journalist of committing every offense I listed, and I should have clarified that there may be other perceived slights on the table as well. Gamergate can best be described as an overriding dissatisfaction with the behavior of several games journalists and outlets, and that dissatisfaction is taking many forms depending on the context of each person's words and behavior. I will be the first to admit that some of those forms are patently absurd. A very few are even hateful, as is unfortunately standard in any sizable movement - especially on the internet.

My own personal contention: I think there is compelling evidence, both written and circumstantial, that points to an ideological bent in mainstream "enlightened" games journalism, which is to say the outlets below the "IGN tier" but significantly above the more niche or hardest-core amateur and enthusiast blogs. I think this ideological bent is largely invisible or hidden when it suits these outlets and emerges periodically to promote or impale certain games in keeping with the underlying beliefs and principles of these websites and the bulk or entirety of their staff. I think they maintain their influence and reach by appearing mainstream and ostensibly unbiased or legitimate, and then they abuse that influence by pushing ideologies that simply aren't as prevalent or widely supported as they would like - while ignoring or demonizing alternative points of view. Finally, when called out for this behavior, they opted to lash out at their detractors through those very same platforms, more or less proving our point.

The end result of this will be a more fractured gaming community, and that's fine. It's just a shame it had to happen this way.

Well, I guess as gaming becomes less of a niche hobby and more of a mainstream pursuit, the more the audience will fragment. Two people watching television don't necessarily share anything in common, it stands to reason the same could be said of two gamers. I personally have no issue with a talking head on a gaming website espousing a political belief or social ideology, even if it's one I find loathsome. I wanted to throw Christina Sommers in a bog two minutes after she started talking, but I don't want her removed from the internet or to stop commenting on my hobby. She is welcome to her opinion, and I am welcome to discard it as irrelevant to my interests.

 

[Savryc]

I doubt such a mindset would fly with cars. People wanna know mileage, how it runs, safety measure ratings, etc. And not "Eh I don't drive much but it seems alright."

I'd never read a review of a game of someone who outright states they do not like a particular genre because hey maybe the game isn't FOR you. My reviews of a sports game should be ignored because I can't stand sports games. Fifa would bore me to tears but someone who likes those games would rather hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about.

Cars are not games. Try again.

Games are an entertainment medium where people who consume games tend to have different tastes and opinions. And if you have not read a review from a reviewer who doesn't like the particular genre how the fuck can you try and argue the merit of this review? How the fuck does "it's not for YOU" hold any merit as an argument?

I pointed out that there are scenarios where one can argue the merit of reviews from critics where people like you would yell out that he should never ever review this game because it is not for him...

Wait. How the hell does "it is not for you" hold any merit again?

People can't buy cars for entertainment? News to me.

And I say "its not for you" in the sense that there are certain games that try to appeal to a certain demographic or fanbase. There is nothing wrong with that. Its basic marketing. Market Segmentation and Demographics. People who consume games like Europa and Civilization may not be the same market group as people who enjoy call of duty. Of course they can buy them, but the point is they aren't the main target market.

If I'm a fan of mechanically complex fighting games, I'd like someone who understands what makes a game mechanically complex to tell me what said mechanics are.

Is that so controversial?

So the things I'm getting from what you said is that you think a review should:

A) Contain no personal opinions or insights whatsoever.
B) Cater only and solely to the core demographic of the genre.
C) Be reviewed only and solely by fans of the genre (because that's totally unbiased)
D) Be reviewed by people who are probably gonna like it in case there's some bonus money attached to the metacritic score

Yeah, that sounds awful. What we have is far from perfect but I'll take it over some soulless automaton blandly reading a features list, in monotone of course, emotion in the voice might could be takes as an opinion. Wouldn't want bias now would we?

 

[PDugna]

Fighting games can be extremely complex and have a ton of mechanics that someone who dislikes fighting games would not miss. I am missing info in a review because of that. That is unfair to the reader.

And again, you don't need to read that review. If it provides nothing of use to you, why would you bother, right? But it will be useful to somebody. To use a more concrete example, Yahtzee is very vocal about how much he tends to dislike JRPGs. Therefore, when he reviewed The Worlds Ends With You and said that it was actually a little interesting, that comes across as a pretty ringing endorsement, because it made somebody who generally is predisposed to dislike a genre find something enjoyable within it.

There are a great many reviews out there that have absolutely no relevance to me. But I don't say that the reviewers need to change or suppress their opinions just so that they can suit my views. I go find other reviewers who will provide me with information that I care about.

Here's the main problem though, it this comes up with games like Dynasty Warriors. When basically every single outlet it seems gets their "outside guy" to review a game genre they don't like, they think that it helps the industry. But actually having 100s of of the same "GAME IS BORING BECAUSE YOU MASH SQUARE" is just as not helpful as somebody who loves the series only saying "IT'S THE BEST GAME EVER BECAUSE OF NO REASON".

What I think reviewers need to do is find a person knowledgeable in a certain genre that can explain the game in terms fans know and then also explain in terms others who know can understand. That isn't happening though, most of the time the reviewers just go full bias and full "feelings" on subjects without talking about anything relating to the game or its fans.

There needs to be a balance and it isn't currently present in reviews and it's pissing off many people. They can preach the line "Games are art so I get to say whatever I want" but that doesn't make their review any less shitty.

 

[Nimcha]

Well I think we've all learned a lesson from this.

Women can be wrong too. Who knew?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Well, I guess as gaming becomes less of a niche hobby and more of a mainstream pursuit, the more the audience will fragment. Two people watching television don't necessarily share anything in common, it stands to reason the same could be said of two gamers.

For sure. I think gaming was a little slow to the "party" because the "toy" stigma was a very real thing, and people who are serious about promoting an ideology want a "legitimate" platform so as to be taken seriously. As the toy stigma faded over time, we started to see the influx of more ideologues - predominantly, for whatever reason, from one group of interrelated disciplines.

These people were initially savvy, kind of laying low and trying not to lash out whenever the community took issue with politicization or similarly charged treatments of the medium. I understand why, in terms of game theory anyways. The industry is still very small on some levels, and they had secured a rather dominant foothold on the level of games journalism just below that of the corporate mouthpieces (IGN).

The ZQ scandal touched everything off because a lot of the journalists and devs involved were intimately tied together - personally, professionally, and ideologically. Understandably, they had a strong emotional (and essentially collective) reaction to the story. This overwhelmed their previously cautious approach, generating open disdain and a smear campaign that was barely managing to hide indicators of long-term disgust and resentment towards what had ostensibly been "their audience".

I think a lot of the frustration coming from the #gamergaters is largely based on their perceived realization that they were unknowingly patronizing and indirectly supporting a group of people who don't actually share their views. Now the seal is broken, so to speak, and all games journalism will be processed through the various critical lenses that permeate most other media.

In a nutshell: our dominant lens had been largely "gameplay focused", and some people were trying to shift it to something else. Now we get all the lenses. In some ways, this debacle is actually quite positive. It represents gaming's arrival as legitimate cultural signpost, ready to be torn apart by every unscrupulous asshole you already find in news media, television, film, and literature.

I personally have no issue with a talking head on a gaming website espousing a political belief or social ideology, even if it's one I find loathsome. I wanted to throw Christina Sommers in a bog two minutes after she started talking, but I don't want her removed from the internet or to stop commenting on my hobby. She is welcome to her opinion, and I am welcome to discard it as irrelevant to my interests.

All well and good. I feel exactly the same way about Anita Sarkeesian, Leigh Alexander, and pretty much anyone associated with them and theirs. I'd contend that games journalism for the last five or so years has been largely in the pocket of this one group, and that the arrival or revelation of other ideologically-charged points of view is both necessary and healthy. I would never advocate for Leigh or Sarkeesian to have no voice at all. They are welcome to blog, make videos, etc. When they come to dominate or dictate a larger discussion without the mind share to back it up? That's where the conflict arises.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Try "I don't like FPS games, so this game gets a 1" or "I don't like anime artstyle, so I'm docking 3 points" or "This game portrays homosexuals in a positive way, so I'm only giving it a 6."

Try actually reading what people are complaining about next time, please?

And?

Don't read the reviews then. If you don't like someone's outlook, then obviously their opinion on a title is not going to be relevant to you.

This isn't hard.

Kinda ironic that you used the same argument people annoyed at sexism in games threads do.
The sexist game clearly isn't aimed at you, so you should just ignore it.
Apart from that i generally agree with what you are saying.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Kinda ironic that you used the same argument people annoyed at sexism in games threads do.

The sexist game clearly isn't aimed at you, so you should just ignore it.

Apart from that i generally agree with what you are saying.

He's quite free to criticize critics. They get criticism all the time. Good lord, Armond White probably never hears the end of it.

However we're not hearing "I disagree with how this criticism was presented" or "I think this guy is letting his biases color his review too much", we're hearing "This criticism shouldn't exist".

By the same token, you can criticize a "sexist" game or campaign for changes until the cows come home. When you try to drum it out of existence because its existence offends you, THEN we've got a problem.

Gamers campaign for changes to their games all the time. Fuck it's like, 80% of the conversation on any given gaming forum. More of this, less of that, balance this, buff that, etc, etc.