How did The Escapist's culture change so much?

[MonsterCrit]

I always think back to Gerstmanngate because if there was ever any event that called for a movement for ethics in video games journalism, it was when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot for giving Kane & Lynch an inadequately-positive review after Eidos spent to plaster Gamespot with ads for the game.

Why couldn't Gamergate have started there, where everyone agreed that Gamespot and Eidos were making a mockery of objective coverage, instead of starting with something that may or may not have happened in the indie scene?

Even that was never really a breach of ethics. I mean the irony is. I don't think they every claimed objectivity in the first place. Jeff well likely didn't get the memo so he reviewed it. Eidos unfortunately was rather clumsy in their handling of it.

 

[Lightknight]

Oh no, men are talking about how they face a very real risk of sexism in an overzealous attempt to compensate for real and imagined disparities in society!? [/sarcasm]

Seriously, since when is just the discussion of prejudices and oppression any group faces considered anything other than forward thinking? We regularly see this in most social movements where a pendulum's initial aim is for equality but, being a pendulum, swings past it to the other side.

Whoever has decided that any advocacy for an evaluation of equality for men too is somehow magically wrong are themselves sexist for having decided that.

The argument that men have had it good does not men that all men are responsible for it or are deserving of being trivialized and passed over due to what they were born as.

Such a sad and trivial state that humanity rushes to inequality in the name of equality. It's fun to see people trivialize and dismiss it. But as with so many other causes this too will have it's moment of clarity when you look back and realize you were wrong and should have supported equality everywhere you saw inequality without deciding to only support it in some areas.

My guess is that in general we saw a consumer revolt where these sentiments boiled to the top. That's all. When sites publish articles about how all men are rapists at heart you should eventually expect this kind of culture change.

 

[Tilly]

It's a bit of a loaded question.

Who knows exactly why the escapist has become a certain camp and other sites like Polygon and Kotaku have become the opposite. Well in Polygon and Kotaku's cases it's because the people in charge intended them to be.

But as for why this whole phenomena has escalated, I think you're really asking the questions in the wrong places. This "side", as far as I can tell, only really formed in reaction to the overreach of the other side (or the realisation that there was another "side" that had formed and was coordinating in pushing a certain agenda). The censoring of disagreement and of various opinions has overwhelmingly happened in 1 direction. I don't think the far left folk who are doing this sort of thing are evil and need to be shut down. But they tend to think I am simply for disagreeing.

 

[BrokenTinker]

I just assuming the site change according with the times (internet news and social etc) since a few years ago there was no such thing as "gamergate", Mass Effect 3 wasn't made and Anita Sarkeesian was setting up her kickstarter.

In saying so I do know alot of people left during the Extra Credits controversial.

Pretty much this.


The landscape of the internet has changed. there were fewer polarizing politics in gaming 5 years ago. The most heated debate was.. XBox vs Ps3

Now.. yeah.. politics done got worked up in here and one politics get involved things turn very nasty very quickly. To this day I still can't figure out what GamerGate is because dear god it seems to be an umbrella term these days.

Ha, yeah, if you'd asked me in 2013 what gamers would be fighting about in the next few years, I'd have said PS4 vs. Xbone. The spirits of those who fought in the SNES-Genesis and PS3-360 console wars are looking down on us in shame.

See, how it works? To be fair, gaming media consumers have goten a lot stupider as well. I mean from what I can tell one of the big issues of gamer gate was that people were surprised by the idea that some games journalists may be 'on the take'.

Which really kind of shocked me , because in my era,that was sort of the standard assumption. Even now I assume Yahtzee is getting some lovely kick backs from his reviews, though I still listen to him. He's funny and since I assume he's biased financially in favour or disfavour of some games I give his statements proper weight.

I always think back to Gerstmanngate because if there was ever any event that called for a movement for ethics in video games journalism, it was when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot for giving Kane & Lynch an inadequately-positive review after Eidos spent to plaster Gamespot with ads for the game.

Why couldn't Gamergate have started there, where everyone agreed that Gamespot and Eidos were making a mockery of objective coverage, instead of starting with something that may or may not have happened in the indie scene?

It took ~5 years for the truth to come out about Gerstman, there was also a mailing campaign again Eidos and you will find plenty of older gamers to remember and have personally boycotted them to this day. The number of people that knew and care were significantly smaller. You'd have to be very ignorant about the differences to compare those with the whole gamergate situation though.

1) Those events (amongst others) contributed to the then current distrust of the medias. Gerstmann had Giantbomb up at that point which was thought to provide an alternative before GG and there were plenty of discussion about wtf practice elsewhere without being banned/deleted/removed.

2) The Streisand Effect was only present for gamergate as opposed to the other events (ask GGers and most will tell you that they learned about it via the massive graveyard on reddit via a post on totalbiscuit's very neutral position at the time). This is further amplified by the banning of all discussion of the topic in various site, supported by a certain member of GJP.

3) Only in the case of gamergate did the media and its detractors actively added fuel to the fire, using identity politic rhetoric as well as lies and slander. There's yet to be a single case of any harassment linked to GG proper, it was ppl in GG that identified the trolls and even a brazilian journalist that was actively harassing whathername and provided the information, yet the one who claimed to be harassed took no action. Claims of harassment by GG while using a database that's used to document harassment by trolls and aGG on people that identified with GG (the irony was saddening). The constant claim that gg is "right wing" when vast majority is "left wing" (and for the internationals, most were more left wing than the people who claimed that GG is right wing).

4) Multiple failures, willful negligence were observed and couldn't be justified. Former EiC of the escapist admitted that he approved the report on a false story on Wizardchan based on a sole source without fact checking since "signal boosting" is more important. The case of Brad Wardell's being falsely accused for someone playing a victim (the damage is still apparent to this day), there was even a court record to prove his innocence. Then the Rolling "UVA" Stone story happened, showing this same "signalling" behaviour. Behaviour that's endorsed by certain personalities and media that lied already, the famous "at least it shed light on the issue" and "stop being rape apologists and ableist". Some even tried to tied it to GG (which was mostly laughed out of discussions).

5) The constant attempt at trying to divide the people within the movement itself. Ie. Telling people to not use the gamergate tag. Yet... the ones asking about the ethics migrated away from the more wtf Burgers&Fries or whatever it was already, it didn't work, it's obvious a second name change wouldn't matter. The more aGGs tried to divide, the more GG became united.

6) Bigoted SJWs actively fanning the flames to push their agenda. The day I learned that upper-middle class white men and women know more about my struggles than myself! That I'm a race traitor (okay, that one isn't new since I already get called that by well off white university students that knows it all already). That I am a "sockpuppet" for "daring" to question their behaviour. I think this bit was what drew the non-westerners to GG as well, quite a number of C/J/K/P asians in fact.

There's a lot more, but these are the major differences I can recall off the top of my head.

 

[Zontar]

My first thought is that gaming these days is just dumb, but that's not exactly fair. It's just, kind of the times we live in. Society, overall (in the US at least, since that is my only real frame of reference) is generally leaning center to center-left on social issues. Gays are more accepted than they've ever been, women are going to college (and universities, for you euro folk. In the US we use both basically interchangeably) more than ever before and are working their way into more and more traditionally male fields (like gaming, to keep on topic), science is more accepted and popular than it's ever been, and overall (once again, in the US) religious numbers are dropping. Any time there's a big shift in a society, there's always going to be a huge, loud, reactionary protest from the side that is afraid of change, or has a vested interest in keeping things they way they were. This is especially true when that side knows they are losing. That's why, in the US, we've seen religious fundamentalists and hardcore social conservatives get so much louder, and just... nastier. They know they're losing and they're scratching and clawing to accomplish whatever they can before they become completely irrelevant or have to substantially change their positions in order to avoid becoming so.

I'd like to point out that the current controversy that is dominating this site (and gaming's corner of the internet as a whole) is not a traditional left vs right issue, but an authoritarian vs libertarian one, with one side being almost exclusively the authoritarian left, while the other is mostly, but not limited to, the libertarian left. And given how internet culture is, how desperate the authoritarian side is (ranging between "attack" and "you win" of the "they ignore you, they laugh at you, they attack you, you win" train of progress) and how industry has for the most part taken the side of the libertarian left, the fight in gaming is pretty much over at this point, just like how in the atheist community the largest battles are long past. (this whole online and over media cultural infighting in the left is referred to some as the Liberal/Progressive split, though I don't really understand the whole thing since in my country Liberals and Progressives have never been united in the first place).

One thing to note, however, is that the US is by no stretch of the imagination left-leaning, and is by all metric firmly right leaning. This mistake seems to stem from three problems (though I could be wrong): First is that Americans don't seem to use the same scale for what is left wing and what is right wing that most of the developed world uses, due to the system as a whole being more right leaning. In most countries Obama and the democrats would be firmly and unambiguously running as members of the Conservative party.
Second is that there is a very widespread notion that Progressive Conservatives (who typically vote Democrat) are Liberal when they are in fact Conservative.
Third is the mistaken idea that support of equality is an inherently and exclusively Liberal trait, this despite polls in recent years showing the majority of both sides of American politics (both ideologically and along party lines) support equality for women and minorities, both ethic and orientation.

All of these factors (and probably others) on top of local superiority of numbers has caused a divide between the perception a lot of people have of the US and the reality.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Which really kind of shocked me , because in my era,that was sort of the standard assumption. Even now I assume Yahtzee is getting some lovely kick backs from his reviews, though I still listen to him. He's funny and since I assume he's biased financially in favour or disfavour of some games I give his statements proper weight.

Yahtzee being on the take is something I doubt. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but his job is to take apart games, even when he likes them. His trade is in comedy and nothing is funnier than taking a big steaming dump on a game for the tiniest flaw. Everything I've seen Yahtzee ever post matches up with the philosophies he's shared, even since before he joined the escapist. He might blow things out of proportion for a laugh, but I've never seen him break rank on his own opinions to give something he'd hate a positive review.

More to the topic at hand. The arrivals of Yahtzee, Jim Sterling, and Movie Bob to name a few have brought in quite a few new people who weren't aware of The Escapist before them. When Bob and Jim departed they took a lot of their fan base with them. But the visibility of the site remains. So a lot of people still come here out of habit, or to indulge in light trolling.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Uh oh. Oh dear. The disheartening irony, dear OP, is that your thread is somehow conjuring the very arguments you were hoping to avoid.
If it's any consolation, I never consider myself part of a community and it helps maintain a distance from any preconceptions that can be automatically placed upon you by being so. I would recommend the same. The wild, rugged traveller merely observes as the self appointed tribes tear at each other's throats

 

[Bizzaro Stormy]

Things that are topical change, people's interests and points of view change, and some folks actively seek changes of one form or another if out of boredom if nothing else. From what I've seen the main change in these forums is an increase in different points of view. R&P has gone from having its nose in the air to being a battleground, a new subforum was created to alleviate some of the pressure in R&P, and the other forums continue to focus on fun or weirdness. If it's a problem, fear not! The internet is a big place and has many gaming forums. If this one makes you sad either work to change it, seek out another, or create your own. For now I would recommend fully exploring the forums to see if it really has changed all that much, or if it's just the more controversial sections that have changed.

 

[SweetShark]

Topics came up, people formed opinions about them, people are very passionate about their opinions and most people view admitting any flaw in what they think or what people like them think is admitting defeat, so they attack the other people saying how wrong they are, and those people view admitting any flaw in what they think or what people like them think is admitting defeat so they attack back even harder and then the first side attacks again.

It's a vicious cycle.

Well, I am fine with that. It is essential part of any forums.

What I do detest is how it all got political.

And they only talk about 3 topics all the time. It's boring.

Nah, I prefer.........wait for it........BUTT WRESTLING!!!!

I for one do not find it interesting. Especially after music videos got their hands on it.

......it is not the same. Reason:

There is also a Ass-Hurricane move, but I don't have a scan.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Which really kind of shocked me , because in my era,that was sort of the standard assumption. Even now I assume Yahtzee is getting some lovely kick backs from his reviews, though I still listen to him. He's funny and since I assume he's biased financially in favour or disfavour of some games I give his statements proper weight.

Yahtzee being on the take is something I doubt. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but his job is to take apart games, even when he likes them. His trade is in comedy and nothing is funnier than taking a big steaming dump on a game for the tiniest flaw. Everything I've seen Yahtzee ever post matches up with the philosophies he's shared, even since before he joined the escapist. He might blow things out of proportion for a laugh, but I've never seen him break rank on his own opinions to give something he'd hate a positive review.

Ahh.. now , justa s someone can be bribed or influenced to say nice things about your product they can be likewise influenced to say naaaasty things about your competitor's products. See how that works. But I honestly don't believ Yahtzee is on the take buut I don't put enough trust in what he says for that to matter. I am from the old school internet where paranoia was the rule of thumb... and pinkie finger. and middle finger.

 

[rcs619]

My first thought is that gaming these days is just dumb, but that's not exactly fair. It's just, kind of the times we live in. Society, overall (in the US at least, since that is my only real frame of reference) is generally leaning center to center-left on social issues. Gays are more accepted than they've ever been, women are going to college (and universities, for you euro folk. In the US we use both basically interchangeably) more than ever before and are working their way into more and more traditionally male fields (like gaming, to keep on topic), science is more accepted and popular than it's ever been, and overall (once again, in the US) religious numbers are dropping. Any time there's a big shift in a society, there's always going to be a huge, loud, reactionary protest from the side that is afraid of change, or has a vested interest in keeping things they way they were. This is especially true when that side knows they are losing. That's why, in the US, we've seen religious fundamentalists and hardcore social conservatives get so much louder, and just... nastier. They know they're losing and they're scratching and clawing to accomplish whatever they can before they become completely irrelevant or have to substantially change their positions in order to avoid becoming so.

One thing to note, however, is that the US is by no stretch of the imagination left-leaning, and is by all metric firmly right leaning. This mistake seems to stem from three problems (though I could be wrong): First is that Americans don't seem to use the same scale for what is left wing and what is right wing that most of the developed world uses, due to the system as a whole being more right leaning. In most countries Obama and the democrats would be firmly and unambiguously running as members of the Conservative party.
Second is that there is a very widespread notion that Progressive Conservatives (who typically vote Democrat) are Liberal when they are in fact Conservative.
Third is the mistaken idea that support of equality is an inherently and exclusively Liberal trait, this despite polls in recent years showing the majority of both sides of American politics (both ideologically and along party lines) support equality for women and minorities, both ethic and orientation.

All of these factors (and probably others) on top of local superiority of numbers has caused a divide between the perception a lot of people have of the US and the reality.

Those are all valid points, yes. Obama is by no means a liberal, despite the repeated attempts by the far-right media to portray him as one. The best thing, arguably, that he's done is his healthcare reform, and even that is a neutered half-measure. It's given more people insurance yes, but it hasn't fixed the core issues that are bogging down healthcare in the US, or given us a public option that *all* citizens are entitled to, like just about any other developed country (personally, I favor a hybrid system, where you can choose between government or private healthcare. I feel like that is the best way to keep both sides honest). That's also why I am supremely disappointed that Hilary Clinton is probably going t be the democratic candidate. She's even more mainstream, don't rock the boat, conservative democrat than Obama was.

The problem in the US is that there isn't room for nuance in politics. It's all hyper-polarized, and rigged in such a way that you either have to vote one way or the other. It's especially bad for actual conservatives because their party have been hijacked by maniacs who would rather pander to big business, people who think the government is one step away from sending them concentration camps, or the furthest religious right than normal people with normal issues. The religious part is what bothers me the most, really. There's nothing scarier than religion in politics, and having *senators* talking on the floor of the *senate* about how climate change can't be real because the bible says only God can bring about the end of the world, so humans could never do it themselves, is terrifying to me.

And yes, I meant that the US is slowly moving center to center-left on social issues by its own standards. By Canadian or European standards we're still very, very conservative and prudish in comparison. The US general population, I mean. Congress is a different matter altogether, and does not actually represent what the people, and the polls, show. They basically do whatever they (or their donors) want, with zero accountability because their home districts are gerrymandered in such a way that no one from the opposing party can *ever* be elected. You can see some of that effect in the past few House races. Democratic candidates earned more total votes nationwide, but republicans picked up more seats overall, because of the way the congressional districts have been twisted and changed.

 

[megs1120]

Uh oh. Oh dear. The disheartening irony, dear OP, is that your thread is somehow conjuring the very arguments you were hoping to avoid.
If it's any consolation, I never consider myself part of a community and it helps maintain a distance from any preconceptions that can be automatically placed upon you by being so. I would recommend the same. The wild, rugged traveller merely observes as the self appointed tribes tear at each other's throats

I'm not against arguments, if anything, I wanted some of that old-fashioned Escapist debate.

I'm glad we're all being civil, even though a lot of us might disagree, and it makes me feel a lot better about the site than I had felt after the reaction I got from my friend on facebook.

Personally, I come down on the SJW side of things, but I don't have any problem with Gamergaters or conservatives who are civil and sincere in their beliefs. Being disagreed with isn't an attack, only attacks are attacks, and that hasn't happened, at least not in this thread, so I'm happy.

 

[Signa]

And that is what I appreciate about you, you don't turn these conversations into an inquisition because I made a statement about a feeling.

Really? Not my rapier wit?

Let's try this again. I'll say "What do you appreciate about me" and you say "Your rapier wit". On three.

1, 2, 3, YOUR RAPIER WI.. oh shit, I was late.

Yeah, my parents were never supportive of my hobbies.

Well, that could certainly leave an impression. We carry more of our parents and their values and outlooks with us than we sometimes realize. My Dad was very PC/Gaming friendly. He didn't really play himself, but he brought our first computer home when I was like, 6. If he didn't directly encourage the hobby, he was happy enough to get me the latest game for a birthday or Christmas or because I did something that came off like a good kid. My Mom could care less about games and is STILL afraid of computers in general, but she's never really given me grief for my hobby.

My dad bought a Commodore 64 and a SNES, mostly for himself. He even taught me how to use the Commodore when I was 3, because I was a fucking genius kid back then. I think both my parents didn't like how much I took to the games though. They preferred to see me running around like a maniac for some reason, even though they couldn't deal with my ADHD bullshit. They were young, new parents though. My mom was still 19 when she became pregnant with me. They were married that young too.

I can't think of a single girl between 8th and 12th grade that I dealt with that thought my game playing was cool, interesting, or not a total waste of time.

I knew one. Her name was Kara, and her Dad ran the local computer/software store, so she came by it honestly. I actually still remember having a very temporary crush on her, and (for some reason) thought that asking her if I could borrow her copy of King's Quest represented a good romantic overture. She looked annoyed and confused at my question and that was the end of that. GRADE A ROMEO.

That's great! I remember I went to Kindergarten for a half year, and met a girl there that I became friends with. I wanted to marry her when we grew up because she had a NES.

Mental illness covers a million different things like Schizophrenia (holy shit, I spelled that correctly without spellcheck?!). I know there is a stigma on those, but depression?

Clinical depression is a mental illness, boyo.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/expert-answers/clinical-depression/faq-20057770

It's also a pretty big deal. It gets hand-waved a lot because "being depressed" is almost synonymous with "being whiny" in our culture. Or as you've said here, "playing the victim". This can lead to a self-loathing spiral that worsens the depression, potentially leading to serious self-harm or suicide.

Oh believe me, I know. I've been there, lying in bed, just trying to justify my own existence. For me, it's my own burden, and I try not to bring others into it unless I just need someone to lean on for support. At that point, it's not about talking out my dark feelings, but just finding the light in my life. My family is pretty good to me in general, even if they don't like games much. Eventually, with enough introspection and self loathing, I just... get over it and push forward.

I've heard statistics that a gross portion of America is on anti-depressants (I'm not going to go find the number right now.

You may be correct. Over-medication and/or mis-medication is one of the major issues in the mental health system. While anti-depressants can be very valuable in helping people recover, they are not a cure-all, and one size does not fit all. A lot of mental health "professionals" will just throw drugs at a problem (often drugs they are well compensated to promote) without first seeing if talk or cognitive therapy would be a better alternative, if the depression is clinical/chronic or episodic/acute, or even if something as simple as dietary/exercise changes might make a difference. It's also worth noting that a lot of anti-depressants are used to treat diffuse conditions such as generalized anxiety disorder. None of this is an indicator that depression isn't a real/serious problem for a lot of people.

That's why I don't see that there's a stigma against depression specifically. Are people just ignoring the fact that they are also on anti-depressants when they judge others? I don't get it. Maybe the stats are just wrong. I was on anti-depressants years ago, so maybe I'm still being counted in the stats? I stopped taking them because I was getting too old to be on my parent's medical insurance, and I didn't want to be dependent on insurance or medication if I could help it. Lexapro also causes MASSIVE vertigo if you're not getting your normal dosage, so I didn't want to get caught without access to meds. I could be better if I had meds to smooth out my deficiencies, but working on them myself is a lot more satisfying when I manage to conquer an issue without help.

Maybe I'm not really depressed if that's what it's like for everyone else, but if someone asked if I could just get over it, I'd take it for what it was: a friend hoping I could just cheer up or look at the bright side.

Okay, how would you feel if you had cancer, and your friend said your constant moaning about your cancer was really getting them down, and couldn't you just get over the cancer already? Just snap out of the cancer?

Maaaan, that's a really bad analogy. Cancer never just improves, it just gets worse. Much of the time it can't be treated professionally either. Depression from brain chemistry can be adjusted with meds, diet, and behavior (more exercise or something).

I'm not sure using those people as examples is fair.

You know they didn't limit their gaming to a single title, yes? A lot of people game, awkward, cool, weird, affable, etc, etc. People tend to judge you/interact with you based on your personality, not a list of your hobbies.

That's good to hear. When someone keeps the diversity of their gaming hobby limited to just one game, I have a hard time differentiating between them and the soccer mom that stays at home playing Farmville to pass time. It would be like having saying you have a rock climbing hobby, and only ever go to REI to play on their climbing wall.

I don't see why awkward people can't be fair game, within reason of course.

Hey, don't get me wrong. The comic you posted was amusing, and I'm not above telling "awkward" people that THEY are the reason they're having so many social difficulties. I've dealt with awkward people. I've been an awkward person. I know how annoying it is to deal with. It's awkward, right? I worked with a fellow who was a perfectly nice dude but we all kind of defaulted to being dicks to him because, well, he was super awkward, and it just rubbed everyone the wrong way. I feel bad about it, and yet I imagine were the same kind of individual to drift through again we'd probably all be pricks again.

It's not a question of conformity, I think it's just a question of self awareness. There are a lot of people on this forum and elsewhere who go through life thinking they have a lot of unpleasant social interactions for a variety of reasons...their race, their gender, their sexuality, their appearance, etc, etc. And sometimes that may be true. And sometimes the reason is that they're just impossible to be around. Most people figure it out as they get older, but not everyone.

I remember a few people like that. I tried defending one for a while, to the point where I shoved a guy around a bit for being too obnoxious to him. The guy was too damn awkward though. I ended up being a prick to him once and he never talked to me again. I still feel bad about it when I think about it.

 

[Pandalisk]

Pahaha, every year It's like this. The large-count posters come and go, things change and suddenly the culture has changed. Nah it's the same as it's ever been, down to a T. The controversies change the names change, users change, but I haven't noticed a difference, prolific lurker of the posts that I am.

 

[EvilRoy]

I think you might be suffering from "old person" a little, OP. No shame in it, I suffer from it almost constantly. Basically you looked up and everything changed, but the period you describe is roughly three years? Somewhere in there. That's a long time in real life, and in internet time it may as well be centuries.

New posters have come and gone just like they always do - some of the "old guard" (which weren't really all that old compared to the "old guard" that left around when the current batch started to post a lot) have left. But they're in the midst of being replaced, just like always. There may be a hundred threads about the poor men now, but less than a year ago every other thread was about how everything was sexist, and a year or so before that there was anita and shockwaves of ME3.

Some of it is cyclical at least. Every time a contributor leaves or is let go, there is a wave of people talking about how this website is dead, and then less than a month later when someone knew is hired all the sudden those people don't post as much. The last few times were in fast succession so you could even see the same few users posting this stuff, then going suddenly quiet, then immediately doomsaying, then going right back to quiet. It got so bad that one of them posted about Yahtzee leaving with barely contained glee, despite not having taken the three seconds necessary to check if it was an obvious hoax, which it was.

I know it sucks that this website isn't specifically what you want anymore, but it will probably cycle back around.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

SNIP

You know, I envy you. Your experience is so refreshing and rare. I honestly think you're the first gamer I've talked to who wasn't picked on fairly viciously as a kid for liking dorky things.

And I think that's kinda' the problem. You're an anomaly. I think if the idea of nerds/geeks/dorks being picked on is so culturally accepted even SNL and Adam Sandler make jokes about it, its fair to say its common knowledge and practice. I honestly think you were just lucky in this aspect. Even the well known gamers; Lisa Foiles, Jim Sterling, Yahtzee, Boogie, they've all said they were made fun of as kids for being geeky.

The damn near universal consensus is that growing up liking video games pretty much sucked. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you weren't picked on but your experience is highly irregular and not really representational. And seeings how the thread topic is when did things turn to shit, I think its great you shared that things were pretty good back in the old days.
But you have to understand for the overwhelming majority of gamers, its always been this way. Its always kinda' sucked.

 

[Zontar]

from people who aren't planning to play the games

Can people stop making this claim until they can prove it? Because as I've noticed from the MKX situation there's a whole pile of people complaining about Kung Jin's inclusion that clearly haven't played a MK game in over a decade since they don't seem to realise some form of hours long story mode has been included in MK since at least Deception, every character has backgrounds, stories and relationships. So if there are a bunch of people complaining about games they're never going to play they exist on both sides.

Never said it was only on one side, only that a lot of calls for boycotts or censorship where by people who had no intention of buying the games, such as with Assassin's Creed, Pillars of Eternity and GTA 5 for things which happened in the past year off the top of my head.