What negative assumptions or misconceptions about gaming and gamers really grind your gears?

[Something Amyss]

Well not yet they aren't. The real tragedy of Gamergate is how they fail to see the bigger picture and fall prey to the real conspiracy.
When they and the feminists have a shared enemy.

Zombies.

"Gamers are dead!" the SJWs cried in warning. "You will all fall prey to the zombie-epidemic!"

And their warnings were laughed off by the brainwashed masses who have been conditioned to accept the zombie-apocalypse for some time now via mass-media and most importantly, video-games.

Zombies? That's stupid. I can't believe you bought into that.

The real threat is space pirate ninjas. And while you're focusing on your "zombie" threats, they're going to take over. And then where will you be? Huh?

 

[Something Amyss]

Sorry but I got to disagree with you. Gaming is under attack by people who have been playing for twenty years and refuse to accept that their hobby is more widespread now. They have created terms like hardcore, casual, gamer, etc to try and exclude and alienate others while making themselves feel better. They also harass developers and publishers for trying to appeal to anybody who is not them.

Gaming isn't really under attack. A bunch of people got offended and are flinging poo. Saying gaming is under attack is as hyperbolic as the people who got offended.

Under attack, AKA a group of people share an opinion I think is ridiculous anyway and has no effect on my Destiny raids or hungover Sundays spent playing Drakengard 3.

It's one thing to disagree. It's another thing to declare "war" on people who disagree with you or try and drive people out of jobs for disagreeing with you (under the guise of addressing corruption, no less...the irony is staggering). I mean, it probably won't affect any game you have now, but this sort of tantrum could impact gaming in the future, because it seeks financial ruin for those in the industry who disagree (not necessarily who are corrupt, as they make up claims to justify their lists, not vice versa).

Of course, if you don't want to care, don't care. That's perfectly fine. But in LG's defense, they've taken action against the game press and games industry. And that's more than disagreeing with someone.

 

[Nomanslander]

None. I don't see myself as a social outcast because of my hobby, and for anyone that would actually feel that way? I don't care.

 

[Aesir23]

One that has the tendency to get to me is the notion that I'm too old for video games, that video games are for kids, etc. That one is generally because the person in question doesn't really have any knowledge about games and so just talking with them or even introducing those closer to me to a game or two allows them to better understand that it's not just for children.

The one that bugs me the most, however? The idea that girls only play games to get the attention of guys. I'll admit that this is one I probably take way too seriously because those are the kinds of people that can't really be reasoned with or they have the "boys club" mentality. It certainly doesn't help that I can't seem to help but take it as an almost personal attack since I've been playing games long before I developed any sort of interest in guys.

 

[Adam Lester]

Sorry but I got to disagree with you. Gaming is under attack by people who have been playing for twenty years and refuse to accept that their hobby is more widespread now. They have created terms like hardcore, casual, gamer, etc to try and exclude and alienate others while making themselves feel better. They also harass developers and publishers for trying to appeal to anybody who is not them.

Gaming isn't really under attack. A bunch of people got offended and are flinging poo. Saying gaming is under attack is as hyperbolic as the people who got offended.

Under attack, AKA a group of people share an opinion I think is ridiculous anyway and has no effect on my Destiny raids or hungover Sundays spent playing Drakengard 3.

It's one thing to disagree. It's another thing to declare "war" on people who disagree with you or try and drive people out of jobs for disagreeing with you (under the guise of addressing corruption, no less...the irony is staggering). I mean, it probably won't affect any game you have now, but this sort of tantrum could impact gaming in the future, because it seeks financial ruin for those in the industry who disagree (not necessarily who are corrupt, as they make up claims to justify their lists, not vice versa).

Of course, if you don't want to care, don't care. That's perfectly fine. But in LG's defense, they've taken action against the game press and games industry. And that's more than disagreeing with someone.

Hey man/woman/whatever, I'm completely on Gamergate's side. By the same respect, if Sarkeesian and Quinn have proven anything, they draw their power from people giving a shit about them.

Look at the former, she released a tweet blaming school shootings on the patriarchy. Not because she's crazy (or even gives a shit about women any more than she does video games) but because she knows the outrage will earn her hate mail which she'll use to weasel more money out of people. Antis' and SJWs' draw their strength from attention and people make the mistake of taking them seriously.

We've been through this before with asshats like Thompson and other nutjobs. All they can do is run their mouths and get people that didn't like gaming anyways to agree with them. Keep the good fight going, but don't take the enemy, or as I like to call them, The Special Snowflake Brigade too seriously.

They can't do anything in regards to game development because none of them know about or even care for games (with the exception of Moviebob). Anti-Gamergaters are a 50/50 crap shoot.

You drop some info and links, if they're open minded they might go "hey, I had no idea these people were sending death threats to gay people and straight up telling black gamers and female developers they didn't exist". If they're not, best to save that excess breath for a rainy day and close the laptop unless you want to witness some serious mental gymnastics along with the gut-wrenching trivialization of words such as "rape", "misogyny", etc.

I look at them like white supremacists in the punk scene. We all started out kidding ourselves about how they were a big deal, constantly barking about how their presence was ruining everything. Then you finally get near one and they're so far up their own asses you can't even be angry...just kind of pity them in between pointing and laughing uncontrollably while this guy tries to explain about how the Holocaust was all a hologram and non-whites are Martians.

As for the news, chumming the waters is their bread and butter. They'll take whatever spin makes the story fear as well as rage inducing and ride it into the sunset. The number of sane people that follow mainstream news sources without a grain of salt ready is rapidly decreasing.

 

[Randoman01]

Another one that I am annoyed by is that all video games are "Mario" or "Nintendo". This one is also another big peeve.

 

[Bruce]

That games are hermetically sealed from the rest of culture, are artistically impotent, and cannot make important arguments one way or another.

This is to my mind the most insulting thing you can say about anybody's artistic endeavour, that it ultimately doesn't matter if, for example, it relies on sexist tropes that maintain a particular status quo, that it may have a race problem, that it inspires negative attitudes.

All that means is that it is essentially worthless, because if it cannot inspire the negative it cannot inspire the positive. While for the most part I think games inspire positives, I think games are an art form, they reflect the culture that produces them and can actually be used to promote certain ideas, some of them good, some of them bad.

They are inherently political, because like any other art form they exist as a means of exploring ideas, and can actually surpass other art forms in doing so, as they incorporate elements of all of them.

It is thus that I support social critiques of gaming - whether it be from a civil rights angle, a feminist angle or whatever.

It also annoys me for another reason - gamers aren't hermetically sealed from the rest of culture either. It is possible to like a sexist thing, without actually being sexist, or like a racist thing without being racist.

Heck LOTR is extremely racist, the villains in it are all either black or Asian, yet it rose in popularity at roughly the same time that civil rights were being advanced all through the Western world.

People like stories about King Arthur, heck they even refer to a certain time period as the "Age of Camelot" with utmost fondness - but that doesn't seem to translate into a yearning for a return to feudalism.

A lot of atheists are quite fond of fantasy - that doesn't mean they yearn from gods.

That is because nobody exists with just those stories, just those ideas, just that one thing going. Everybody has a variety of fandoms, and everybody is part of multiple arguments.

As much as one cannot pretend gaming doesn't have an impact on those ideas, it has to be noted that gaming isn't all people are exposed to.

 

[Suhi89]

I actually dislike the label gamer. I think it has very little descriptive value. Gamers are a diverse bunch, and all you can really get from the term gamer is that someone, at least occasionally, play games. So, the misconception is that we can easily be lumped into a single group.

 

[rdaleric]

I have been lucky in my life up until now to never personally have any negative statements etc from family/friends. As a family (parents and two sisters) we spent a few evenings a week sat watching my dad, then in later years me playing Zelda, Mario, resident evil and more. To this day whenever a Zelda game comes out we buy it for my mum and carry on the tradition.

 

[Nazulu]

Eh, for something different, I heard "there is nothing important/amazing to see in any games". Of course it's sounds stupid coming from people who've hardly played any games, but I just don't know. How do you categories something as important/amazing?

If you don't understand, these people are basically saying something like the memorable casablanca and other classic film scenes that have changed and progressed movies. What do you think?

 

[Something Amyss]

Look at the former, she released a tweet blaming school shootings on the patriarchy. Not because she's crazy (or even gives a shit about women any more than she does video games) but because she knows the outrage will earn her hate mail which she'll use to weasel more money out of people. Antis' and SJWs' draw their strength from attention and people make the mistake of taking them seriously.

I have a question. Are you okay with the people who say that Gamergate, who you side with, are angry white misogynistic boys?

Because you're inferring motives, something gamergate has done repeatedly but gets so amazingly offended at when done to them.

They can't do anything in regards to game development because none of them know about or even care for games (with the exception of Moviebob). Anti-Gamergaters are a 50/50 crap shoot.

And again. Which is funny, because GG has had its own non-game or anti-game proponents.

I look at them like white supremacists in the punk scene.

Funny, I look at Gamergate like that. The hate and violence is one of the reasons that people started to divorce themselves from Punk, much like people are now trying to divorce themselves from the term "gamer." Because nobody wants to be seen as one of "them." Unfortunately for you, "them" is not "social justice warriors," it's gamergate. Or the perception of gamers as angry white males. And honestly, it's hard to tell them apart.

I'll leave the rest alone, because it involves repeating my points about DUO (Do unto others) or is utterly conspiratorial in nature.

 

[EHKOS]

That we all chug Mt. Dew, wear our hats backwards, and the only games that exist are Halo and CoD. I never quite noticed it until I was in the snack isle and saw Advanced Warfare plastered across every Mt. Dew and Doritos product.

 

[thanatos388]

That not being able to swim makes Dragon Age boring. That trophies/achievements mean anything. That bad localization means those in Japan just can't write, that 720p is somehow "lackluster". That Valve is the greatest thing to happen to gaming since Space War. That Big Boss is somehow not our lord and savior. That GTA V had well written characters. And lastly, that Half-Life was better than Deus Ex because that is simply a lie.

One of those were in jest, I'll let you guess which one.

 

[Adam Lester]

Look at the former, she released a tweet blaming school shootings on the patriarchy. Not because she's crazy (or even gives a shit about women any more than she does video games) but because she knows the outrage will earn her hate mail which she'll use to weasel more money out of people. Antis' and SJWs' draw their strength from attention and people make the mistake of taking them seriously.

I have a question. Are you okay with the people who say that Gamergate, who you side with, are angry white misogynistic boys?

Because you're inferring motives, something gamergate has done repeatedly but gets so amazingly offended at when done to them.

They can't do anything in regards to game development because none of them know about or even care for games (with the exception of Moviebob). Anti-Gamergaters are a 50/50 crap shoot.

And again. Which is funny, because GG has had its own non-game or anti-game proponents.

I look at them like white supremacists in the punk scene.

Funny, I look at Gamergate like that. The hate and violence is one of the reasons that people started to divorce themselves from Punk, much like people are now trying to divorce themselves from the term "gamer." Because nobody wants to be seen as one of "them." Unfortunately for you, "them" is not "social justice warriors," it's gamergate. Or the perception of gamers as angry white males. And honestly, it's hard to tell them apart.

I'll leave the rest alone, because it involves repeating my points about DUO (Do unto others) or is utterly conspiratorial in nature.

I'm sorry, all I heard was ad-homenim-ad-homenim-ad-homenim-shame-shame-shame-attemptstoguiltmeintosidingwithyou-generalize.

 

[Bruce]

Look at the former, she released a tweet blaming school shootings on the patriarchy. Not because she's crazy (or even gives a shit about women any more than she does video games) but because she knows the outrage will earn her hate mail which she'll use to weasel more money out of people. Antis' and SJWs' draw their strength from attention and people make the mistake of taking them seriously.

I have a question. Are you okay with the people who say that Gamergate, who you side with, are angry white misogynistic boys?

Because you're inferring motives, something gamergate has done repeatedly but gets so amazingly offended at when done to them.

They can't do anything in regards to game development because none of them know about or even care for games (with the exception of Moviebob). Anti-Gamergaters are a 50/50 crap shoot.

And again. Which is funny, because GG has had its own non-game or anti-game proponents.

I look at them like white supremacists in the punk scene.

Funny, I look at Gamergate like that. The hate and violence is one of the reasons that people started to divorce themselves from Punk, much like people are now trying to divorce themselves from the term "gamer." Because nobody wants to be seen as one of "them." Unfortunately for you, "them" is not "social justice warriors," it's gamergate. Or the perception of gamers as angry white males. And honestly, it's hard to tell them apart.

I'll leave the rest alone, because it involves repeating my points about DUO (Do unto others) or is utterly conspiratorial in nature.

I'm sorry, all I heard was ad-homenim-ad-homenim-ad-homenim-shame-shame-shame-attemptstoguiltmeintosidingwithyou-generalize.

Or alternatively a pretty accurate summation.

Sarkeesian blaming patriarchy for school shootings is pretty much fair enough, when you consider how someone threatened to shoot up a school she was scheduled to give a speech at because they didn't like feminism.

That is not even a month ago.

You want to be treated like you deserve some sort of respect, but the truth is you have done nothing but earn disrespect by being hypocritical assholes. You want to claim that because people aren't all gamers, or are anti-game, that means they don't get a say right?

And then I see half your leading voices, including Thunderf00t, Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos or Adam Baldwin are either not particularly known for being gamers, or have made outright anti-game statements.

Milo even went so far as to call you the yellow underpants brigade and criticise the hobby for being blood soaked. In fact all of these voices only appear to have come on board because they are noted misogynists in general, rather than any past association with gaming.

Thunderf00t before his series criticising Anita Sarkeesian? When the fuck did he even talk about games before? His channel started off by being all about science, went on to attack Islam, then went straight off the rails due to his hatred of feminism. Aside from his criticism of Sarkeesian, there is nothing about gaming on there.

You talk about how you're into ethics, and then you attempt to force a violation of those ethics by making advertisers pull their ads from websites. The line between editorial and marketing exists for a reason.

In fact in real terms - when has Gamergate ever been about ethics? Even the Zoe Quinn story, had gaming websites run it, would have been unethical given the nature of the sources and accusations. Particularly given how those accusations turned out to be a load of bullshit.

Gamergate demanded the media violate ethical standards by publicising the words of a jilted ex-boyfriend as gospel, for the sake of catering to lurid curiosity. For once games journalism was actually ethical, and that was precisely what you objected to.

 

[Adam Lester]

I'm sorry, all I heard was ad-homenim-ad-homenim-ad-homenim-shame-shame-shame-attemptstoguiltmeintosidingwithyou-generalize.

The great way of debate by many #GG supporters here. How do you expect anyone to take you serious here?

On Topic:

Nothing really. I get more tired by people telling me that my way of viewing and criticising games is wrong or is somehow agenda-driven than anything else.

I'm sorry, all I heard was ad-homenim-ad-homenim-ad-homenim-shame-shame-shame-attemptstoguiltmeintosidingwithyou-generalize.

The great way of debate by many #GG supporters here. How do you expect anyone to take you serious here?

On Topic:

Nothing really. I get more tired by people telling me that my way of viewing and criticising games is wrong or is somehow agenda-driven than anything else.

How am I supposed to take anti-gamergaters as well as SJWs' seriously when there's this nasty habit of cherry-pick my arguments, and the first words that come flying out the mouth in response are attacks/assumptions on people's skin color and gender followed up by a misogyny accusation? I've come to the point where first thing I hear that bullshit, I'm done taking the argument seriously.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Well,
"Gamers are fat anti-social neckbeard losers who obsess over children's pasttimes like comics, anime/manga, and video games for cheap and instant gratification. They're also obsessed over violence and are possibly psychotic. They have no control over their own behaviour, as games are a narcotic."

Currently,
"Gamers are misogynist beta perverts who take out their sexual frustrations by hating on women"

Spoiler: Elabo-o-o-r-a-a-a-tion

The first one is a bit more personal, as my parents repeatedly ask me 'when I will grow out of video games'. Fair enough, no retort can tackle that statement ('you don't get it/it's not for kids' always falls on deaf ears and is a faux pas instead of an ironclad response). In terms of being anti-social...well, my own upbringing has led me to rely only on myself, so I'm very introverted. I need my alone time, and when people interrupt this, I can get aggressive(though it isn't limited to games, I just want to shut the outside world every now and again, as it helps me think and relax). In terms of social situations, others have told me that I'm relatively easy to talk to, and I enjoy outings with friends. I can operate as an introvert or an extrovert and still have fun, it's just that if I want to relax and recuperate, I go into introvert mode. But all people need is a few examples of introversion and they see that as chronic behaviour. Also apparently, 'online interactions with online friends' doesn't count. Even though they've proved to be as good friends to me as my real life buddies, if not better in some regards, because I can talk to people online about anything without worrying about how it may reflect on me as a person.

Games aren't there for cheap thrills at their core. They can certainly be about pure fun, but instant gratification isn't a universal law applied to all games. Spec Ops The Line is not even in the same universe as the word 'fun', and The Witcher 2 serves as an anthropological journey into eastern european feudalism and political scepticism. Neither of those games are outright fun, and they do require considerable thought to enjoy/immerse.

As for being a loser...well that's your own definition. More often than not, that word is applied pejoratively against people that the person in question is angry at for not enjoying life the way they expect everyone to enjoy it. It also often reflects a level of arrogance, in assuming that everyone is like them.

Being a 'fat neckbeard' isn't exclusive to games; gaming includes a vast swathe of people of all different shapes and sizes. There is no one stereotype. This is again, applied to insult and diminish gaming and the culture surrounding it. I don't see myself as particularly unfit. I am reasonably physically capable, and I just need more work to reach an optimal health standard, though by no means anything excessive. I also wash often, so I'm not really sure if that assumption holds any water as of late.

'Children's past-time' reflects an echo chamber mentality. I'd dare you to show me one child who can play Shogun 2 or even Civilization V. Those games are complex as all hell, and the ratio of 'universally simple' to 'ungodly complex' games is evening out due to the resurgence of 4X and space sims that the PC side of things is getting.

'Violence and psychopathy' is just false. It reflects a greater problem of disassociation and refusal to accept in society. Games/violent media are often blamed because the accusers in question cannot believe that someone could act in such a dangerous manner. It feeds into the earlier idea of 'everyone is like me'(which is probably some evolutionary trait, but the point of modern society is to transcend evolutionary mentalities). Accusers often assume that everyone is normal, and that some outside influence must have manipulated a person into committing a violent crime. Games are an easy target, as the community tends to keep to itself and doesn't hold as much direct sway as movies do(saying that a violent movie caused a murder is more difficult). Games do not cause violent behaviour. Also violence is everywhere. Violence is a method through which to explore the human condition, and if a game is rated 18+ then it means that it's not for kids. It means that its allowed to explore taboo or explicit subject matter, as it has a specific, legally-enforced barrier to entry. Violence is usually used in relation to kids playing material beyond their age, but this is more often due to lazy/negligent parenting than anything else, but again, 'relinquishing responsibility' and 'everyone is like me' is at work.

I have been aggressive, and I still have occasional outbursts, but I've never harmed a single person in doing so. I shout, yes, but I see that as a more acceptable substitute over fighting or property damage. I've gotten angry over games or when someone says that 'games are controlling me', but these people usually see my outrage as confirmation of their own behaviour, because of again, the mentality that 'everybody is like me'. I mean, why should someone calling me 'a junkie' or 'a child' or 'mentally ill' ever make me upset(?). As for gaming addiction, more often than not, it's used in labelling terms by outsiders. People who genuinely give up their real life for the sake of a virtual one are far more rare than people who might turn down a social opportunity for the sake of playing a game. Games are not inherently addictive. You can cry to me about how they stimulate the release of adrenaline, but many other activities do the same thing without being branded as addictive. Simply put, the act of gaming itself does not directly create or condition the brain towards a biological need to game. This is again, often used to disassociate gamers as being 'not normal', and that the hobby is 'undesirable', by outsiders. I always have control over whether or not I want to play or not. If there is work that needs to be done, I'll get onto it. If it's a school night, I'll go to sleep at a reasonable time. But if I just got a game, or if I have an abundance of free time in which to play a game, I don't understand why it's seen as 'bad' if I want to game for a few hours. I don't relinquish control any more than people who go on movie marathons.

For the current stuff, there's no way to prove that you're not sexist without sounding superficial. "Why yes, I do have female friends! Here's one! Look! Look! See? I'm not sexist!". Personally, I identify myself as not sexist. I believe in equality for all, and I never use a social label against a person(be it, gender/sexuality/etc.) if I am angry at them. I believe I serve as enough of an example to prove an exception to the rule. I can carry a conversation with a girl that I may find attractive without being weirdly inappropriate or 'to get sex'. I interact with a person because I want to interact with them, not because I want something out of them.

Fuckin' hell, that was a doozy