GaymerX2 Promises Bigger, Longer Show For 2014

[Frozengale]

But wouldn't the presence of people who want to see more of this sort of thing be enough to spark some attention? Obviously one convention isn't going to change the entire way the industry thinks, but just the presence of such an event demonstrates that there is some interest. Maybe not quite as noble as becoming a game developer to chase your dreams and make it a reality, but it's a video game developer's job to meet a need isn't it?

Yes, and that would be a niche market. And we know there is that niche market for LGBT. We don't need an entire convention to tell us about that niche market though. And obviously the niche market is not being filled since we still have all these discussions. And if a niche isn't being filled it is NOT the job of game developers who already serve their own niche or own audience to then fill another niche. They have their audience, they don't need to try to please another. And like that video said, people who don't have that point of view have a harder time creating a game with that point of view in mind. So asking developers who are mostly straight males to develop for people that aren't any of those is a hard thing to ask. And that's why I don't like this con. I don't hate the LBGT community, I want them to toughen up and do it themselves instead of whining that someone else doesn't fill their niche.

I mean what do you have at this con that you wouldn't have at any other? If you look at the schedule and events for the first GaymerX it's pretty much a normal con, but they have a few more talks about LGBT stuff in games. Which would serve a better purpose at a bigger con where you can get people who aren't already gun-ho about the issue interested in it. Holding a con for people only interested in your subject and then thinking that will make developers listen is kind of hilarious. Making games about LGBT issues that sale, and sale well, would be much more convincing.

It's plain and simple. If you want to have your view represented then go represent it! Don't get a whole bunch of people together to just say, "HEY WE SHOULD HAVE OUR VIEW REPRESENTED!" and expect the people, who already have audiences mind you, to listen.

 

[Abomination]

If there was a debate (while I'll concede there probably won't be, unless the con is hosting panels specifically for that kind of discussion)

And that's the problem. It's not an avenue for what they have said in the article is for.

Sounds great on paper but come on... it's just a con for non-straight and non-cis people to go to so they can feel "safe"(?) at a con without the fear(?) of someone making fun of them for their gender and sexuality.

But I guess saying that doesn't sell as many tickets.

 

[wulf3n]

Damed if you do, Damned if you don't.

The common response when a group wants to change "x" more into something they want is "If you want x to be different make it yourself". When said group goes out and actually does this they still get attacked. Something about segregation and pointlessness?

 

[GeneralFungi]

If there was a debate (while I'll concede there probably won't be, unless the con is hosting panels specifically for that kind of discussion)

And that's the problem. It's not an avenue for what they have said in the article is for.

Sounds great on paper but come on... it's just a con for non-straight and non-cis people to go to so they can feel "safe"(?) at a con without the fear(?) of someone making fun of them for their gender and sexuality.

But I guess saying that doesn't sell as many tickets.

I don't think that debating the value of a con is valid when the evidence for it's value to people is there. Over 2,000 people attended the convention. If there wasn't a need for such a convention then it wouldn't have been as much of a success as it has been. There are cons about stranger and more niche things that aren't openly scrutinized like this convention in particular. What sort of industry changing objectives does the 'National Redhead Day' convention held in the Netherlands need to have in order to be a legitimate con?

Snip

For the record I am in agreement with you for the most part. I just think that if there was enough demand for it some developer somewhere may decide to tap into the niche market. This convention would be a valid piece of evidence for interest in games featuring LGBT themes. But of course a single convention wouldn't be enough to sway a major developer.

Damed if you do, Damned if you don't.

The common response when a group wants to change "x" more into something they want is "If you want x to be different make it yourself". When said group goes out and actually does this they still get attacked. Something about segregation and pointlessness?

I am in full agreement with you. Similar to how some people are criticizing the idea of having a con for gay gamers, people would be very quick to critique the idea of having a game for gay gamers. "Do they really need their own video game?" etc etc etc.

 

[Abomination]

Damed if you do, Damned if you don't.

The common response when a group wants to change "x" more into something they want is "If you want x to be different make it yourself". When said group goes out and actually does this they still get attacked. Something about segregation and pointlessness?

Er, but that's not them going about and doing something about it. It's having a con.

If the medium lacks games of a certain nature and you wish there to be more games of a certain nature holding a con about that fact there are no games of a certain nature isn't going to magically result in there suddenly being more games of a certain nature.

Now, if they were actually funding the niche directly and people were "attacking" (that's very disingenuous by the way) them for that you would have a point.

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

they can't live in a culture that is afraid to tackle and discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

Bingo. While I do believe games are most definitely art, I almost don't want video games to be held to the same standard, because these days every movie or book, even comics, has to be "about something" or tackle this or that issue. While I'm all for video games exploring ideas and doing new things, I'm just worried that we'll stop getting games that are just meant to be fun, despite being weird or kinky (Bayonetta comes to mind), because they're not "inclusive" enough or some crap.

so, how many games can you count that have been legitimately improved by the inclusion of questionable material as opposed to being present for the sole purpose of selling more games based on the perception of popular demand?

like, if the characters were slightly less "sexy" or didn't feature large boobs, and wore moderately conservative clothing as opposed to skintight bodysuits or strips of chainmail or clothing with low cut tops and tiny to zero pants, would that have made you have less fun or put the game down?

I'm not saying that having sexy characters is automatically some benefit or I demand every game to be a T&A fest. Having cited Bayonetta, you could have stripped out all the sex appeal and still have an awesome game. The over the top sexuality just added a thick layer of irony and silliness to the proceedings. Conversely, X Blades tried to sell itself on its main character's ass and was an absolute snore-fest. What I was trying to say was if a game creator wanted to make a cheesy, over the top game like Bayonetta or Lollipop Chainsaw but decided to wind the game back, or Resident Evil Code Veronica nixed having a villain be a cross-dresser because that might be "offensive" to some group, then we're getting dangerously close to self-censorship.

If someone wants to make a pervy game, let them make the perviest game they can. And if it doesn't have the gameplay to back it up, then it rightfully won't make a dime. Likewise, if some game wants to be gay as could be, by all means let that die on the vine if the gameplay's shoddy, but let's not automatically think it's artistically superior to something that's just fun and silly for its own sake. Or that it should be immune to criticism because of it's message, see the bait and switch of Gone Home, and the reaction for some of its defenders.

 

[wulf3n]

Er, but that's not them going about and doing something about it. It's having a con.

Exactly, a con they want to go to. Rather than try to get other gaming conventions to cater for them they simply made their own. Where's the problem there? How is this proactive approach to creating something new rather than change something existing anything but respectable?

If the medium lacks games of a certain nature and you wish there to be more games of a certain nature holding a con about that fact there are no games of a certain nature isn't going to magically result in there suddenly being more games of a certain nature.

Because it couldn't possibly be a way for like minded people with individual skills to network and form groups with the goal of making games.

Now, if they were actually funding the niche directly and people were "attacking" (that's very disingenuous by the way) them for that you would have a point.

What does it matter what they're reason or goal is?

For whatever reason other gaming conventions aren't what they're looking for so they made their own. It in no way negatively affects anyone so why is there contention?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Straight male gamer here. I see no harm in what this does, like it or not, there are a lot of people who make it hard for others to enjoy this hobby. So when that happens, people seek out those who are alike and form groups to enjoy the activity and be comfortable with what they are doing, and they have every right. The more awareness of this sort of thing, and the better the situation hopefully gets, one day we can all be comfortable in gaming together.

I cannot wait for the day when majority of gamers are those that have fun, enjoy the hobby and don't hassle anyone due to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else that some people consider "different" and don't understand.

But I can understand the want and need for a con like this. Heck, I was bullied a lot at school etc and video games became something for me to escape that, plus I made a lot of friends to do with the hobby and it made me feel like I was part of something. In that way, I know what it is like to a degree, I'm sure there would be very few people who couldn't relate to that in some way shape or form.

I hope one day we can all get along and have fun with our games, because that is what the hobby should be about!

 

[Abomination]

Er, but that's not them going about and doing something about it. It's having a con.

Exactly, a con they want to go to. Rather than try to get other gaming conventions to cater for them they simply made their own. Where's the problem there? How is this proactive approach to creating something new rather than change something existing anything but respectable?

Because it's not how they're advertising it. So people are questioning the point of the thing.

If the medium lacks games of a certain nature and you wish there to be more games of a certain nature holding a con about that fact there are no games of a certain nature isn't going to magically result in there suddenly being more games of a certain nature.

Because it couldn't possibly be a way for like minded people with individual skills to network and form groups with the goal of making games.

But they're not advertising it as such... that's why people like me are questioning what their goals are and, at times, suggesting ways they could have more effect.

Now, if they were actually funding the niche directly and people were "attacking" (that's very disingenuous by the way) them for that you would have a point.

What does it matter what they're reason or goal is?

For whatever reason other gaming conventions aren't what they're looking for so they made their own. It in no way negatively affects anyone so why is there contention?

Because I want to see them satisfied and I do not believe their current methods are the most effective methods of doing so.

It's possible to ask questions or have an opinion over something without "attacking" it or the community attached to it.

 

[wulf3n]

Because it's not how they're advertising it. So people are questioning the point of the thing.

Exactly. It's existence is being questioned by those who have no investment in it, and are not impacted whatsoever by it's existance.

But they're not advertising it as such... that's why people like me are questioning what their goals are and, at times, suggesting ways they could have more effect.

Assuming they are oblivious to what you've suggested. Unless you go to the convention you really have no idea what the discussion/debate on the issues is going to involve.

Effectively you're questioning the effect of the convention without knowing the actions it's taking.

Because I want to see them satisfied and I do not believe their current methods are the most effective methods of doing so.

What are their current methods?

It's possible to ask questions or have an opinion over something without "attacking" it or the community attached to it.

When they get accused of "segregation" because they're holding a convention with a specific theme it's pretty easy to conclude they're being attacked.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

The problem with expressing yourself in a secluded echo chamber is that the very people you're looking to express yourself to are likely not even be there.

What about developers that might be interested in discussing whether they should be tackling issues of gender and sexuality in gaming? Because they'll be there.

To think what? "Okay, this con sure is much smaller than the other cons. Prices are less. Less merchandise is moving..."

The developers who go there don't go there for the Gaymers, they go their for the PR of waving the Gaymer flag.

Which means they'll be more than happy to participate in any debates they have. Their opinions will then be reported by the media, and they'll make their way to the ears of people outside the conference.

As for the scientist comparison... I didn't know being a homosexual was a profession.

Point being what? My argument was that it's not just an 'echo chamber' simply because everyone there is gay or pro equal rights. There are multiple nuances of opinion one can take on the subject. The science comparison was intended simply to indicate how people with radically hostile views to the subject matter are chosen to take part in debates at the expense of people with moderately differing views who are eminently more qualified to engage in discussion, because media outlets are more interested in making them bicker and point-score than they are in having a real debate.

 

[Weaver]

Says the person segregating gamers. Why can't we all go to one place and have fun at the same time? Instead of investing time and effort into events that says "hey look! I'm different!".

I'm sure the people attending this would love to attend your idealized, fantasy con where everything's fun and no one harasses another. Shame douchebags attending most cons harass other people so much that they're no longer having fun and have to go out and make their own con to enjoy themselves.

Y'all should try going to cons in Canada.

 

[Abomination]

Because it's not how they're advertising it. So people are questioning the point of the thing.

Exactly. It's existence is being questioned by those who have no investment in it, and are not impacted whatsoever by it's existance.

I don't get what you're saying here. People are questioning what they're doing because it's not fully explained. Just because people are not "impacted" or whatever is not reason for their questions to be suddenly invalid.

But they're not advertising it as such... that's why people like me are questioning what their goals are and, at times, suggesting ways they could have more effect.

Assuming they are oblivious to what you've suggested. Unless you go to the convention you really have no idea what the discussion/debate on the issues is going to involve.

Effectively you're questioning the effect of the convention without knowing the actions it's taking.

Because from how it appears it's not being explained very well. At face value the whole thing doesn't seem very effective in carrying out its goals.

Because I want to see them satisfied and I do not believe their current methods are the most effective methods of doing so.

What are their current methods?

That's a great question. That's what people are asking.

It's possible to ask questions or have an opinion over something without "attacking" it or the community attached to it.

When they get accused of "segregation" because they're holding a convention with a specific theme it's pretty easy to conclude they're being attacked.

Yeah, funny that. I suppose I should be more considerate given the type of comments that have been directed at me for daring to question how they believe this would be effective while being accused of homophobia in the past.

Then again it's more self-segregation than actual segregation. Point still stands though. How do you convince the wider gaming audience of something when you remove yourself from the wider gaming audience?

 

[wulf3n]

I don't get what you're saying here. People are questioning what they're doing because it's not fully explained. Just because people are not "impacted" or whatever is not reason for their questions to be suddenly invalid.

No people are questioning its reason for existence, not what they're doing. What they're doing is clear, Discussing/debating issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity.

Because from how it appears it's not being explained very well. At face value the whole thing doesn't seem very effective in carrying out its goals.

Their goal is to create a space to discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity in games without fear by creating a space where people can discuss issues like gender, sexuality, race, and identity without fear. How is that not achieving their goals?

That's a great question. That's what people are asking.

No people are asking why the convention needs to exist, not what is going to be discussed at the convention.

Point still stands though. How do you convince the wider gaming audience of something when you remove yourself from the wider gaming audience?

Where does it say they want to convince the wider gaming audience of anything?

 

[Abomination]

Where does it say they want to convince the wider gaming audience of anything?

And now we've come full circle. If they don't want to convince the wider gaming audience to be more accepting of LGBT issues then what's the point of the discussions in the first place?

If their goal is to just talk of course people are going to sit back and ask... "Why do you need a con for that?"

 

[wulf3n]

Where does it say they want to convince the wider gaming audience of anything?

And now we've come full circle. If they don't want to convince the wider gaming audience to be more accepting of LGBT issues then what's the point of the discussions in the first place?

If their goal is to just talk of course people are going to sit back and ask... "Why do you need a con for that?"

Why do you need a con for anything?

Cons are just places for like minded people to get together and discuss and experience what they like.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I didn't notice anyone bring it up so just to be sure we're all on the same page here, it's not a "gay only" con. (I'm not even sure how they'd enforce that. Do you guys get membership cards or something?) Straights are welcome too. They're just going to be the "other" at this particular con.

Personally, I think it's great that the first GaymerX was a success, and I hope it grows into big, annual thing that's widely accepted as just another gamer con - but one in which calling somebody a ****** will probably result in bruises.

 

[Draconalis]

My buddy is part of this con's team. I feel like I have an in side source. Wooo.