And I'll give you a rhetorical answer (/Goku). The reason is, there kinda isn't one. For one, how do you get a million views on a thread that's about nothing but shaming a relatively obscure indie dev? I mean that seriously by the way. How do you get a million unique views on a thread when it's all about shaming someone. Surely you can't think 4chan is this lurking Lovecraftian horror with tentacles that reach so far into the internet that it can enslave the masses into doing its bidding. You can't be stupid enough to actually believe that, so it's gotta be something else. How on Earth could a public shaming be enough to create the single biggest thread in the history of the Escapist's forums?
I should have just left off the 'million views' part. That was misleading, and I didn't check myself there. Fact is though that plenty is to be gained by publicly shaming her if the original objective was to harass her.
Kinda? I said "Because she's a public figure who is both easy to harass and readily responds loudly and noisily to it. Welcome to the Internet. Anonymity leads to people being complete twats to others, especially when the target visibly reacts to it.", you responded with "It's impossible to prove either way". I cited evidence supporting my claim. It's not okay that anyone gets harassed ever, but Quinn isn't being harassed because she's a woman. She's being harassed because she's a public figure on the internet. As evidence, I give you every public figure who's ever been on the internet. Every single goddamn one gets harassed, regardless of if they're from gaming, politics, religion, sociology, etc. Whenever there's a large enough audience who can be anonymous, there's going to be some twats within that audience who get their jollies by harassing the public figures. It happens everywhere. It's the unfortunate cost of being on the internet.
I'm not saying it's good or acceptable that she's being harassed. I'm saying that she's not special because of it.
Saying 'she was harassed because she's a public figure' is simply misleading. She was harassed because she allegedly cheated on her boyfriend (how many guys get that level of online harassment for cheating?). There is a disproportional amount of harassment being leveled at women in the gaming industry, and one can't simply handwave it away as 'it's because she's a public figure'. This didn't start because 'of her views', it started based on something she allegedly did in her private life.
If you're looking for reputable sources, you can check out the Slate [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html] and Forbes [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/] articles about this whole kerfluffle for a pretty concise summary of what's going on with the whole affair. Both of them are pretty good, balanced looks into the whole affair.
That article you link sounds an awful lot like gamers getting together and telling Christian activist groups to fuck off and let them be inclusive. Really not seeing how that's gamers up in arms that there's gay characters in there.
You asked for an example of a game getting yelled at for including minorities. I provided evidence of that, despite the fact that not once did I claim that games were getting yelled at for including minorities, only that gamers pushing for inculsivity were being told to stfu 'because creative freedom'. (edit: this doesn't exactly constitute 'mass hate', but there have been plenty of posts I've seen on the Escapist saying that female soldiers shouldn't be included because people find it immersion breaking[footnote]http://steamcommunity.com/app/223830/discussions/0/35219681442390507/?insideModal=1[/footnote][footnote]http://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/1cg8mx/should_military_games_have_women_soldiers/[/footnote][footnote]http://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/1cg8mx/should_military_games_have_women_soldiers/[/footnote]Footnotes are results of a 2 minute google search.) If that doesn't meet your standard, I'm sorry, but you're asking me to provide evidence for something I never claimed in the first place, so I don't really know what you're expecting of me.
Also, this totally reminds me of a game that had a core mechanic cut out for the sake of inclusivity: Dragon Age II. They literally went through and completely threw out any sense of good writing and strong characterization specifically so that any Hawke could be any sexual orientation under the sun. It's impossible to prove they worsened the game for it, but it certainly made the characters and world seem substantially less real when literally everyone Hawke interacted with was bi-sexual and interested in him/her.
Kind of a red herring here, as your sense of 'good writing and characterization' does not qualify as a game mechanic.
http://badgeville.com/wiki/Game_Mechanics
Nah, I'm expecting to have heard about the internet hate machine targeting Activision or whatever for including female soldiers. I haven't heard a negative whisper about it.
Off the top of my head I can point you to some of the comments mentioned by the author of this article: http://www.sentralgamer.com/female-soldiers-spark-sexist-controversy-in-cod-ghosts/
One I mentioned in the last post. Seriously though, I'm not going to dig up every vitriolic or sexist comment made about this.
Two questions: 1) Why would you want to play a rape simulator?
2) That's kinda my point. A rape simulator sounds both disgusting and having probably incredibly shitty gameplay, because it's a game made to hammer home a point first and be a game second. There's certainly a market for that, but it's not the primary one. Most people plays games as entertainment, just as most people watch movies for entertainment. There's room to have artsy or agenda-driven games, but it's never going to dominate the market, and trying to force them to is just going to cause a repeat of the 1983 crash.
I'm pointing out that 'fun' is a hugely subjective standard. What many people consider fun I might find boring or abhorent, so when people say 'but they're making games less fun!' all I can do is scratch my head, because to me, they're making them more fun.
I think it's safe to say that sweeping generalizations and labels create a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. If you believe I was generalizing the movement in my post, I am truly sorry. That was not my intention.
I should have just left off the 'million views' part. That was misleading, and I didn't check myself there. Fact is though that plenty is to be gained by publicly shaming her if the original objective was to harass her.
Ok, let me rephrase then. Why would people continue to visit the thread if it was about nothing but shaming Quinn? What on Earth could possess more people than any other topic in Escapist history to post in and visit a thread about shaming a single indie developer?
You're saying it's all about Quinn, which suggests you think there's enough of an audience to create the largest thread ever on the Escapist purely to harass her. Is that the case? And if so, I've gotta ask: What the hell are you on and where can I get some?
Saying 'she was harassed because she's a public figure' is simply misleading. She was harassed because she allegedly cheated on her boyfriend (how many guys get that level of online harassment for cheating?). There is a disproportional amount of harassment being leveled at women in the gaming industry, and one can't simply handwave it away as 'it's because she's a public figure'. This didn't start because 'of her views', it started based on something she allegedly did in her private life.
"There is a disproportional amount of harassment being leveled at women in the gaming industry" [Citation Needed]
The only women I ever hear about getting harassed are Sarkeesian and Quinn, both of which are public figures who seemingly subsist on being harassed. I've never heard of Roberta Williams or Jennifer Dawe, for example, being harassed. In fact, by all reports, they get treated fairly well.
You asked for an example of a game getting yelled at for including minorities. I provided evidence of that, despite the fact that not once did I claim that games were getting yelled at for including minorities, only that gamers pushing for inculsivity were being told to stfu 'because creative freedom'. If that doesn't meet your standard, I'm sorry, but you're asking me to provide evidence for something I never claimed in the first place, so I don't really know what you're expecting of me.
I had assumed "What games have been yelled at for including a minority character?" implicitly included a "by gamers" tag, since that was, y'know, the topic of conversation.
Kind of a red herring here, as your sense of 'good writing and characterization' does not qualify as a game mechanic.
Writing and characterization is still a powerful part of any game though, especially in games from Bioware, who built their reputation on delivering excellently written and interesting characters. Which they then proceeded to shit the bed with in the name of inclusivity.
Off the top of my head I can point you to some of the comments mentioned by the author of this article: http://www.sentralgamer.com/female-soldiers-spark-sexist-controversy-in-cod-ghosts/
One I mentioned in the last post. Seriously though, I'm not going to dig up every vitriolic or sexist comment made about this.
Like I said, I must have missed the hate-train for Ghosts. I accept that I was wrong about that and people did apparently kick up a fuss about it. Go figure.
I'm pointing out that 'fun' is a hugely subjective standard. What many people consider fun I might find boring or abhorent, so when people say 'but they're making games less fun!' all I can do is scratch my head, because to me, they're making them more fun.
Well yeah. Remember that car analogy I made a while back? That's the issue here. The big publishers establish a brand, reputation, and target audience, then in the name of ever-greater profit, they then start making the brand less fun for that target audience in order to make it more fun for you (meant in the broader sense here). This then makes the original target audience upset, because the game they enjoyed has now been rendered less fun for them.
What needs to happen is that you and the target audience are actually two separate markets who want two separate things, and instead of releasing one product that is kinda bland and forgettable to serve both markets, the publishers need to make games in their established brands for their target audience, and completely new games for the new markets (you). By insisting that every game must be made as fun as possible for all people, you actually diminish the amount of fun anyone gets out of it, and it leads to the bland, same-y "wider appeal" shit AAA games have become over the last few years.
Instead of pushing for make existing brands "more inclusive", you should be pushing for new, more inclusive games, that way both markets are satisfied, and the original market has no cause to be upset with the second.
Honestly, Dragon Age 2 was full of bad writing. What parts were bad simply because of dem bisexuals? Maybe Hawke was actually bisexual and by censoring the word bisexual so they dont scare away straight people they lost a significant characterization of Hawke. Or maybe DA2 was a bad game.
but then again you're talking about optional romances as a "core game mechanic". I know that bioware loves its romances but shit I've seen a picture of the romance dialog scripts for DA:I and its like 4 pages and a paper clip, thats no core gameplay mechanic.
Dragon Age 2 was written horribly, I agree. My point was less about the actual romance however, and more in that literally everyone Hawke regularly interacted with but Vaeric and the married chick was both bisexual, sexually aggressive, and interested in Hawke, solely and explicitly because Bioware wanted players to be able to romance anyone no matter their Hawke. Tell me, what are the odds of all of Hawke's companions being both interested and bisexual? Purely statistically, the chances are miniscule, to the point where it's basically impossible. It greatly cheapened the immersion of the game world, and made the game worse than it otherwise would have been (which still isn't good by any stretch of the imagination).
its a world with elves, dragons, demons and mages who bend blood, if your immersion is cheapened by characters who fall in love with people regardless of their pants mechanics then....well..thats kind of on you there.
I liken it to Skyrim's 'romance' of "I can bed anyone as long as they're wearing a necklace" justification; "The world's shit, we could all die tomorrow, who cares." Maybe the Dragon Age world didn't have centuries of strict religious interference telling people its bad to love people with matching pipe ends, mainly because they were too afraid a mage was going to get possessed by a demon and rain hell fire upon the land to control peoples love lives. Seems like a reasonable in-story justification for everyone being bisexual regardless of real life statistics.
I mean, the chance that I will be killed by a mage in real life is 0%, I'm willing to bet the chance is slightly higher in Kirkwall. Which totes kills my immersion.
Yeah, there's plenty of justifiable reasons for it, but it's still there. It's not that the characters are bi or not, it's the fact that it's a constant reminder to the player that they're in a game that's trying way too hard to cater to them. Just like how it's disconcerting and immersion-breaking when party members get killed in battle then stand up completely fine the second the last enemy topples over, or when you get giant alert messages popping up in the middle of the screen in Skyrim, or when you miss a stealth shot in Far Cry 3 and suddenly every enemy within 10 miles knows exactly what bush you're hiding in, or when cutscenes take over in Devil May Cry 3 and Dante does all this random impressive shit he can't ever do in gameplay, or when giant glowing buttons appear on screen for quick-time events, etc, etc, etc. I could go on all day about this.
The point isn't whether or not they're gay or bi or whatever. The point is that every single companion NPC actively propositions Hawke, and it's a blatant and glaring reminder to the player that yes, they are playing a game. It makes the world feel fake in a way that the blatantly impossible shit doesn't. Suspension of disbelief works wonders for allowing an audience to accept impossibilities. It's much harder to make them accept things that are supposed to reflect reality (ie: characters and characterization).
I should have just left off the 'million views' part. That was misleading, and I didn't check myself there. Fact is though that plenty is to be gained by publicly shaming her if the original objective was to harass her.
Ok, let me rephrase then. Why would people continue to visit the thread if it was about nothing but shaming Quinn? What on Earth could possess more people than any other topic in Escapist history to post a visit a thread about shaming a single indie developer?
You're saying it's all about Quinn, which suggests you think there's enough of an audience to create the largest thread ever on the Escapist purely to harass her. Is that the case? And if so, I've gotta ask: What the hell are you on and where can I get some?
I would say the fact that the Escapist is pretty much the only place allowing the discussion to take place is reason enough for the huge influx of people talking about it. That being said, I agree conceded earlier that there are likely people swept up in this that are primarily interested in the ethics aspect of this whole debacle, but this thing started as harassment, and you'd can't just whitewash that history.
"There is a disproportional amount of harassment being leveled at women in the gaming industry" [Citation Needed]
Women were four times more likely than men to have experienced taunting or harassment, with 63.3% of all female participants responding that they had. The stories that these women told me regarding their experiences are similar to what one might think of regarding this topic. ?****,? ?*****,? ?slut,? and ?whore? were common slurs. The threats were largely of sexual assault. Much of the harassment was based around asking for or demanding sexual favors or comments that revolved around the traditional gender role and stereotyped behavior for women in Western society. Many of the insults were based on the subject's weight or physical appearance.
15.7% of men also reported that they had experienced sex-based taunting, harassment, or threats while playing video games. While this is in the minority, it is still of concern as sexism. The comments directed at these gamers, however, are different from those directed at women in some very telling ways. Most of the men who provided additional information on their ?yes? response to this question experienced comments that revolved around them not fitting a masculine gender role. These men were often called ?fags? and compared to or told that they were women and labeled with stereotypically feminine words.
HESS: Sure. Well, there hasn't been a huge body of research on this issue, but there have been a few organizations and legal scholars who are beginning to dig into it who have been able to sort of isolate some statistics that show that women are disproportionately affected by online threats and harassment. The Pew Research Center is...
MARTIN: Well, you cite some of that in your piece, for example, in 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then sent them into chat rooms. And you said that accounts with female usernames or feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day and the masculine names received 3.7. And that you said that there was another study by the Pew Research Center, which has been tracking the online lives of Americans for more than a decade, that women and men have been logging on in equal numbers since the year 2000, but that the kinds of communications we're talking about are disproportionally lobbed at women. Any idea why?
HESS: Well, I think when you have any group that is traditionally marginalized in life, you're going to see a similar marginalization online because the Internet is really intimately connected to our real lives. So when we talk about women being oversensitive, that's also a complaint that's been applied to women who pursue sexual harassment litigation against their employers.
The only women I ever hear about getting harassed are Sarkeesian and Quinn, both of which are public figures who seemingly subsist on being harassed. I've never heard of Roberta Williams or Jennifer Dawe, for example, being harassed. In fact, by all reports, they get treated fairly well.
Jenn Frank? Mattie Brice? This? http://www.businessinsider.com/women-programmers-stories-of-harassment-2013-3 Or this? http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/22/5926193/women-gaming-harassment Or this? http://kotaku.com/she-was-harassed-by-a-games-reporter-now-shes-speakin-1510714971 How many more do I need to find?
I had assumed "What games have been yelled at for including a minority character?" implicitly included a "by gamers" tag, since that was, y'know, the topic of conversation.
Again, going to point out not once did I claim that games were getting yelled at for including minorities, only that gamers pushing for inculsivity were being told to stfu 'because creative freedom'.
Let's say what we mean then. If you say 'game mechanics' I am going to think 'game mechanics' not 'writing'.
Writing and characterization is still a powerful part of any game though, especially in games from Bioware, who built their reputation on delivering excellently written and interesting characters. Which they then proceeded to shit the bed with in the name of inclusivity.
As it was already pointed out, the writing was terrible all around. Let me ask you this though. Could the writing have been better without sacrificing inclusivity?
I would say the fact that the Escapist is pretty much the only place allowing the discussion to take place is reason enough for the huge influx of people talking about it. That being said, I agree conceded earlier that there are likely people swept up in this that are primarily interested in the ethics aspect of this whole debacle, but this thing started as harassment, and you'd can't just whitewash that history.
Sure, the whole debacle started because Quinn's ex aired her dirty laundry. That doesn't invalidate anything that was uncovered afterwards or the press' general reaction to it however, and that's what's still on-going.
Women were four times more likely than men to have experienced taunting or harassment, with 63.3% of all female participants responding that they had. The stories that these women told me regarding their experiences are similar to what one might think of regarding this topic. ?****,? ?*****,? ?slut,? and ?whore? were common slurs. The threats were largely of sexual assault. Much of the harassment was based around asking for or demanding sexual favors or comments that revolved around the traditional gender role and stereotyped behavior for women in Western society. Many of the insults were based on the subject's weight or physical appearance.
15.7% of men also reported that they had experienced sex-based taunting, harassment, or threats while playing video games. While this is in the minority, it is still of concern as sexism. The comments directed at these gamers, however, are different from those directed at women in some very telling ways. Most of the men who provided additional information on their ?yes? response to this question experienced comments that revolved around them not fitting a masculine gender role. These men were often called ?fags? and compared to or told that they were women and labeled with stereotypically feminine words.
HESS: Sure. Well, there hasn't been a huge body of research on this issue, but there have been a few organizations and legal scholars who are beginning to dig into it who have been able to sort of isolate some statistics that show that women are disproportionately affected by online threats and harassment. The Pew Research Center is...
MARTIN: Well, you cite some of that in your piece, for example, in 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then sent them into chat rooms. And you said that accounts with female usernames or feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day and the masculine names received 3.7. And that you said that there was another study by the Pew Research Center, which has been tracking the online lives of Americans for more than a decade, that women and men have been logging on in equal numbers since the year 2000, but that the kinds of communications we're talking about are disproportionally lobbed at women. Any idea why?
HESS: Well, I think when you have any group that is traditionally marginalized in life, you're going to see a similar marginalization online because the Internet is really intimately connected to our real lives. So when we talk about women being oversensitive, that's also a complaint that's been applied to women who pursue sexual harassment litigation against their employers.
Jenn Frank? Mattie Brice? This? http://www.businessinsider.com/women-programmers-stories-of-harassment-2013-3 Or this? http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/22/5926193/women-gaming-harassment Or this? http://kotaku.com/she-was-harassed-by-a-games-reporter-now-shes-speakin-1510714971 How many more do I need to find?
None really, you can't argue against sources. The only thing I'd contest there are the polygon and kotaku articles and Jenn Frank. Frank was harassed for the same reason Devin Faraci is getting shit on Twitter, she hopped on the 'gamers are dead' bandwagon, and Kotaku and Polygon's trustworthiness has been rather severely undermined by recent events.
The rest I can't disagree with however, and I tip my hat to you. Women do appear to receive more anonymous abuse over the internet.
Again, going to point out not once did I claim that games were getting yelled at for including minorities, only that gamers pushing for inculsivity were being told to stfu 'because creative freedom'.
The writing is a core mechanic of any narrative-driven game. Like I said, if you really want to be pedantic, then sure, the writing isn't a game mechanic, but it is a central and important aspect of narrative-focused games, and that was my point.
As it was already pointed out, the writing was terrible all around. Let me ask you this though. Could the writing have been better without sacrificing inclusivity?
Yes. The characters and the game world would have been stronger and better had each companion character had a more solid characterization and the game wasn't incessantly shouting "DO YOU WANT TO FUCK THEM?! ARE YOU SURE?! HOW ABOUT NOW?!" at the player.
#GamerGate needs about as much damage control as the other side then. Cause they have done the same shit.
Anti-Gamer Gate people have the same extremists, they've harassed men, women, and children.
Extremists are bad all around, but I don't find myself sympathizing with the side that advocates a mass blocklist and then SUDDENLY realizes that a blocklist might not be a good idea after seeing the flack Polygon got for it.
I would say the fact that the Escapist is pretty much the only place allowing the discussion to take place is reason enough for the huge influx of people talking about it. That being said, I agree conceded earlier that there are likely people swept up in this that are primarily interested in the ethics aspect of this whole debacle, but this thing started as harassment, and you'd can't just whitewash that history.
Sure, the whole debacle started because Quinn's ex aired her dirty laundry. That doesn't invalidate anything that was uncovered afterwards or the press' general reaction to it however, and that's what's still on-going.
This is a pretty good articulation of how I feel about the whole gamergate thing. It seems I'm doing a poor job of making my points clear, as this has gone on now for longer than I feel is really necessary.
Yes. The characters and the game world would have been stronger and better had each companion character had a more solid characterization and the game wasn't incessantly shouting "DO YOU WANT TO FUCK THEM?! ARE YOU SURE?! HOW ABOUT NOW?!" at the player.
I snipped a good bit because I feel I'm getting off track here. If you feel I'm ignoring points you want me to answer for, let me know and I'll go back and address it.
For this last bit though, if you agree that the writing could have been better without reducing inclusivity, then how does it stand that inclusivity was the cause of the problems with DA2 re:
Also, this totally reminds me of a game that had a core mechanic cut out for the sake of inclusivity: Dragon Age II. They literally went through and completely threw out any sense of good writing and strong characterization specifically so that any Hawke could be any sexual orientation under the sun. It's impossible to prove they worsened the game for it, but it certainly made the characters and world seem substantially less real when literally everyone Hawke interacted with was bi-sexual and interested in him/her.
It seems to me, like you said, the writers got caught up with trying to push everyone romantically on Hawke. Were the writing better, they could have allowed for all the same romance options, but not been so heavy handed about it.
This is a pretty good articulation of how I feel about the whole gamergate thing. It seems I'm doing a poor job of making my points clear, as this has gone on now for longer than I feel is really necessary.
That article starts off with several factual inaccuracies that make it hard to take seriously. In the second paragraph, it says Sarkeesian fled her home days before Quinn was doxxed or her porn pics spread around, when it was the other way around, and it also claims that Gjoni ever claimed Quinn slept with Grayson for coverage, when his initial blog post about it explicitly says "If there was a conflict of interest with Grayson's work, I don't believe it was sexual in nature". That makes it really, really hard to take that article seriously.
Then it kinda goes into a segue about 4chan masterminding the whole thing because reasons, despite the fact that 4chan is all entirely public and has never been terribly shy about claiming responsibility for anything they've done. Hell, they try to claim shit they haven't done. There's no proof or evidence of any kind of conspiracy to harass Quinn, just snippets of a public IRC chat that's always caustic and vulgar to everything. I'm really not seeing it.
This really reads like someone who heard it about from a friend, who was probably against #GamerGate from the beginning, and hasn't the slightest idea how 4chan works or what the board culture is actually like. It's understandable, but grossly misrepresentational and one-sided.
And yeah, this has gone on for a while, but I like to debate these topics. I love people disagreeing with me because it means I get exposed to new ideas and can use it to further refine my own. If you're sick of talking about it though, just say the word /shrug
I snipped a good bit because I feel I'm getting off track here. If you feel I'm ignoring points you want me to answer for, let me know and I'll go back and address it.
For this last bit though, if you agree that the writing could have been better without reducing inclusivity, then how does it stand that inclusivity was the cause of the problems with DA2 re:
It seems to me, like you said, the writers got caught up with trying to push everyone romantically on Hawke. Were the writing better, they could have allowed for all the same romance options, but not been so heavy handed about it.
Oh absolutely. They absolutely could have taken more time and done it right and it would have been just fine, same with roughly 85% of the rest of the game (no amount of time would have fixed the encounter design /shudder). They didn't though, which is my point. They forced the inclusivity in there for no reason but to be inclusive, and it was to the games detriment.
I've got no issue with games being more inclusive on the whole. I'd happily play as a black gay jewish female quadruple amputee or whatever, all that matters is the game being interesting and fun. More diversity means more differing experiences, which means more interesting games, which is always good.
What I'm against is forcing games to be inclusive for the sake of being inclusive. It is always harmful to force one's views and opinions on others, regardless of intention or context. Individual liberty is the highest ethical, moral, societal, and cultural value, and forcing an artist, art collective, or even for-profit company to adhere to an arbitrary standard they chose not to adhere to is not acceptable. If you want to present an argument why they should, by all means, go ahead, but no one or thing should ever be browbeaten or threatened into compliance. If, as a result, you don't like the game because it's not inclusive enough, you should push for games that are up to your standards. The free market will take care of the rest.
This is a pretty good articulation of how I feel about the whole gamergate thing. It seems I'm doing a poor job of making my points clear, as this has gone on now for longer than I feel is really necessary.
That article starts off with several factual inaccuracies that make it hard to take seriously. In the second paragraph, it says Sarkeesian fled her home days before Quinn was doxxed or her porn pics spread around, when it was the other way around, and it also claims that Gjoni ever claimed Quinn slept with Grayson for coverage, when his initial blog post about it explicitly says "If there was a conflict of interest with Grayson's work, I don't believe it was sexual in nature". That makes it really, really hard to take that article seriously.
Then it kinda goes into a segue about 4chan masterminding the whole thing because reasons, despite the fact that 4chan is all entirely public and has never been terribly shy about claiming responsibility for anything they've done. Hell, they try to claim shit they haven't done. There's no proof or evidence of any kind of conspiracy to harass Quinn, just snippets of a public IRC chat that's always caustic and vulgar to everything. I'm really not seeing it.
So because there is a minor timeline inaccuracy, which impacts nothing, and a misquote to Gjoni makes the entire piece not worth considering? As far as 4chan goes, it's already established all this started there. We can quibble about whether to call them 'masterminds', but you can't really dispute it all started there, it's plain to see in the IRC log. And there is plenty of proof, again, right there in the log, that they planned to harass Quinn.
Aug 21 23.20.35 there should be a massive campaign to tweet zoe her own nudes
Aug 21 17.48.06 I'm debating whether or not we should just attack zoe
...
Aug 21 17.48.29 push her... push her further..... further, until eventually she an heroes
Aug 21 17.49.48 ./v should be in charge of the gaming journalism aspect of it. /pol should be in charge of the feminism aspect, and /b should be in charge of harassing her into killing herself
This really reads like someone who heard it about from a friend, who was probably against #GamerGate from the beginning, and hasn't the slightest idea how 4chan works or what the board culture is actually like. It's understandable, but grossly misrepresentational and one-sided.
And this sounds like unfounded speculation. It looks like you're nitpicking on the minor inconsistencies and semantics ('mastermind') while ignoring the overall point the article is driving home.
Oh absolutely. They absolutely could have taken more time and done it right and it would have been just fine, same with roughly 85% of the rest of the game (no amount of time would have fixed the encounter design /shudder). They didn't though, which is my point. They forced the inclusivity in there for no reason but to be inclusive, and it was to the games detriment.
Here's where I think you are wrong. It wasn't inclusivity that was to the games detriment. It was the poor writing. The two are not one in the same. And you've already agreed with me on that point.
What I'm against is forcing games to be inclusive for the sake of being inclusive. It is always harmful to force one's views and opinions on others, regardless of intention or context. Individual liberty is the highest ethical, moral, societal, and cultural value, and forcing an artist, art collective, or even for-profit company to adhere to an arbitrary standard they chose not to adhere to is not acceptable. If you want to present an argument why they should, by all means, go ahead, but no one or thing should ever be browbeaten or threatened into compliance. If, as a result, you don't like the game because it's not inclusive enough, you should push for games that are up to your standards. The free market will take care of the rest.
Who is forcing games to be inclusive? How are they forcing it? By threatening to not buy the game? Sorry to tell ya bud, but that's just free market at work. If a potential consumer doesn't like the product, they have every right to say why they don't like it, and why they won't be buying it. That isn't forcing anything on anyone, anymore than the gamergate goons are 'forcing' sponsors to drop the websites they have taken issue with (that is, sponsors aren't being forced to do anything).
Further, it isn't always harmful to force ones views or opinions on others. That's basically what parenting amounts to. Hell, you could even argue that the social contract amounts to it.
Sure, the whole debacle started because Quinn's ex aired her dirty laundry. That doesn't invalidate anything that was uncovered afterwards or the press' general reaction to it however, and that's what's still on-going.
It does though, it wrecks credibility. I have repeatedly asked what the problem with Silverstring media is and the replies I get are free from proof, so I ask for proof and I get something that's open to interpretation. When I am being asked to believe somebodies interpretation of something I have to be able to trust them.
So because there is a minor timeline inaccuracy, which impacts nothing, and a misquote oto Gjoni makes the entire piece not worth considering? As far as 4chan goes, it's already established all this started there. We can quibble about whether to call them 'masterminds', but you can't really dispute it all started there, it's plain to see in the IRC log. And there is plenty of proof, again, right there in the log, that they planned to harass Quinn.
Aug 21 23.20.35 there should be a massive campaign to tweet zoe her own nudes
Aug 21 17.48.06 I'm debating whether or not we should just attack zoe
...
Aug 21 17.48.29 push her... push her further..... further, until eventually she an heroes
Aug 21 17.49.48 ./v should be in charge of the gaming journalism aspect of it. /pol should be in charge of the feminism aspect, and /b should be in charge of harassing her into killing herself
Not at all. I'm not discounting it because of minor factual inaccuracies. I'm only saying that it's indicative of a lack of research into the topic, and that makes it harder to take it seriously when they go tin foil hat claiming 4chan runs the internet. I read it, and it largely says "people in a public IRC said to harass Quinn ergo everything else is invalid, regardless of the rampant abuse and doxxing from anti-gamergate folks [http://gamergateharrassment.tumblr.com/], the shutdown of The Fine Young Capitalists' charity drive/contest thing, its subsequent media black out, and its resurrection [http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/09/6977/truth-gaming-interview-fine-young-capitalists], the very real conflicts of interest in the games media (see: Hernandez, Patricia), the massive campaign of censorship, websites demeaning their audience, and the IGF/Indiecade/Indie Fund racketeering allegations (which have gone on to the FBI) that the press is refusing to report on."
That's why I discounted it. It's a monologue about how gamers hate women because that big meany 4chan told them to, and it's frankly insulting in how grossly it's ignored inconvenient facts.
Kain failed to understand the core of it as well in the Forbes article I linked you earlier, but at least he put in the effort to know what actually happened, so I can respect his stance on it.
Also, just to make this perfectly clear: that is a public IRC where literally anyone can post anything and claim to be anyone. This means there's a preponderance of trolls, and/or people who legitimately want to harass Quinn, which those quotes came from. Some of it is possibly even Quinn herself saying it (though I highly doubt it, if only because I doubt she'd need to). Saying that that's proof of a conspiracy to harass Quinn is kinda like saying bathroom stall graffiti about wanting to kill Obama means everyone who ever used that toilet is going to try to assassinate the President. That's a completely fucking ludicrous notion, which is why I'm so baffled by the insistence that 4chan is manipulating the internet.
And this sounds like unfounded speculation. It looks like you're nitpicking on the minor inconsistencies and semantics ('mastermind') while ignoring the overall point the article is driving home.
The article's point is that big meany 4chan came running out and manufactured piles of evidence, some of which is going to federal fucking court, and that anyone who looks at it and thinks there might be something there is too stupid to tell when they're being duped.
Which is kinda pathetic given that, with all the minor factual inaccuracies, the author apparently doesn't even know what the evidence says in the first place.
Can you at least provide a factually accurate source for denying there's more to #GamerGate than harassing Quinn?
Here's where I think you are wrong. It wasn't inclusivity that was to the games detriment. It was the poor writing. The two are not one in the same. And you've already agreed with me on that point.
Except forcing in the inclusivity when it didn't need to be there was explicitly what led to the shoddy writing in the first place. For whatever reason, Bioware decided that Hawke could romance anyone and everyone, no matter what, and so they got out the shoehorn and mutilated previously established characters to force it to happen, and then started going "look at us. We're inclusive. We don't discriminate. WE'RE DIVERSE. FUCK THESE PEOPLE ALREADY!". They shoehorned in inclusivity and diversity for the sake of having it, and it was greatly to the game's detriment.
If they'd gone in from the beginning and incorporated those concepts from the beginning, instead of shoehorning it in at the last minute for the sake of PR, it could have been done quite well and I probably would have enjoyed it. They didn't though, and the game was noticeably worse as a direct result of said shoehorning.
Who is forcing games to be inclusive? How are they forcing it? By threatening to not buy the game? Sorry to tell ya bud, but that's just free market at work. If a potential consumer doesn't like the product, they have every right to say why they don't like it, and why they won't be buying it. That isn't forcing anything on anyone, anymore than the gamergate goons are 'forcing' sponsors to drop the websites they have taken issue with (that is, sponsors aren't being forced to do anything).
I hate to break it to you, but that's really not the case [http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149]. Games are actively being censored and browbeaten into compliance, against the involved artists' express wishes, by people pushing for 'progressiveness' and 'inclusivity'. That's the shit that really rustles my jimmies. There are artists with specific visions for their work self-censoring, if not outright being censored, by mobs of activists rallying against anything they see as against their ideology, and it's several flavors of disgusting.
Further, it isn't always harmful to force ones views or opinions on others. That's basically what parenting amounts to. Hell, you could even argue that the social contract amounts to it.
No. Parenting, good parenting anyway, gives children examples, both good and bad, and teaches them to make up their own mind, on everything. It is always, always, always harmful to force one's views on another. It is never right to take choice away from another, just as it is never right for them to take choice away from you. People must always be allowed to make their own decisions, even if we believe they have chosen wrong. We can try to persuade them not to, but we lose all moral and ethical standing should we try to choose for them.
In other words, the only choice that is truly unacceptable is a choice that removes choice from another. Period.
It does though, it wrecks credibility. I have repeatedly asked what the problem with Silverstring media is and the replies I get are free from proof, so I ask for proof and I get something that's open to interpretation. When I am being asked to believe somebodies interpretation of something I have to be able to trust them.
The problem with Silverstring is, basicaly, that they have connections to a lot of the people in the industry who have come up as shady recently, and given the manifesto of the organization and how the industry has changed over the last few years, some people have given them the crown of mastermind behind the whole anti-gamer push, which wasn't helped any when somebody unearthed that article by Samantha Allen (an employee or consultant of theirs, I can't remember off hand which) cataloging basically everything that's going on in the game industry right now and naming the sites that are the worst offenders.
Personally, I think Silverstring is probably involved, but I've no idea on how deeply. The best look at Silverstring that I've seen is the video camera lady put together, which ties it to a lot of things via Patreon financial links and a few key players on their pay roll. She unfortunately set both of her videos (one of which is about the alleged racketeering on the part of the Indie Fund and Kellee Santiago in particular) on the recent kerfluffle to private earlier today or last night for some reason I never found out. You can find a download of the video talking about Silverstring here [http://hdming.wapka.me/site_download_video.xhtml?get-q=Indiefensible+The+Maya+Legobutts+Kramer+Story+v2&get-id=TgW5NRUfs44] if you want to get the basic gist of where the Silverstring stuff comes from.
It does though, it wrecks credibility. I have repeatedly asked what the problem with Silverstring media is and the replies I get are free from proof, so I ask for proof and I get something that's open to interpretation. When I am being asked to believe somebodies interpretation of something I have to be able to trust them.
The problem with Silverstring thing is, basicaly, that they have connections to a lot of the people in the industry who have come up as shady recently, and given the manifesto of the organization and how the industry has changed over the last few years, some people have given them the crown of mastermind behind the whole anti-gamer push, which wasn't helped any when somebody unearthed that article by Samantha Allen (an employee or consultant of theirs, I can't remember off hand which) cataloging basically everything that's going on in the game industry right now and naming the sites that are the worst offenders.
Personally, I think Silverstring is probably involved, but I've no idea on how deeply. The best look at Silverstring that I've seen is the video camera lady put together, which ties it to a lot of things via Patreon financial links and a few key players on their pay roll. She unfortunately set both of her videos (one of which is about the alleged racketeering on the part of the Indie Fund and Kellee Santiago in particular) on the recent kerfluffle to private earlier today or last night for some reason I never found out. You can find a download of the video talking about Silverstring here [http://hdming.wapka.me/site_download_video.xhtml?get-q=Indiefensible+The+Maya+Legobutts+Kramer+Story+v2&get-id=TgW5NRUfs44] if you want to get the basic gist of where the Silverstring stuff comes from.
Yeah but again you are asking me to believe the interpretation of people I am not inclined to believe.
Put aside the gamergate and Silverstring context. If the people that shared those naked pictures of Jenifer Lawrence then started uncovering corruption in the Hunger Games franchise I wouldn't be inclined to listen to them. Credibility is important especially for a movement that does have it's fair share of very vocal assholes.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
