Why are we afraid of criticism?

[Something Amyss]

Well in this scenario both groups are unwilling to sacrifice their fun for the sake of other people's fun so that would mean that by your standards they would both lack empathy.

Well, except DA EVUl FEMINISTS on this site are actually still playing those games and most of the requests don't actually take away from the "other side" so that's false.

Come on, man, you want a mature discussion, but you're trying to knock down strawmen at the same time? Are you serious?

 

[Don Incognito]

PLEASE stop using the word "censorship".

There are absolutely legitimate concerns to have about game journalism and their ties to developers and publishers.

However, when you incorrectly use the word "censorship" it damages your argument.

The Escapist, RPS, Polygon, etc. are under ZERO obligation to allow us to post what we want. This is not the public square. This is their website, they have moderating standards and terms of service.

 

[Battenberg]

It boggles my mind that anyone could think that serious artistic criticism could be anything but good.

I love serious artistic criticism of video games, can't get enough of it in fact.

What I can't stand is when endless debates on politics get in the way of serious artistic criticism. The thing is if it was just an argument I have no interest in then I would simply ignore it but the only 2 issues I have ever said "enough is enough" to (Sarkeesian and #GG) are issues where the argument has started having very unpleasant consequences for everyone involved and unfortunately this includes the entire gaming community, which I consider myself to be a part of. In both cases the 'criticism' isn't limited to just being a calm and interesting debate. It isn't just a heated argument. It isn't even JUST petty name calling and insults. In both cases people talking about it has led to some of those involved taking it upon themselves to interfere in people's personal lives which, aside from being extremely unpleasant for the individuals on the receiving end, reflects badly on the group the aggressors identify with, in this example that's gamers.

When I say shut up about gamergate or give it a rest about how much you all apparently hate Anita Sarkeesian it's not out of some urge to shame people into keeping their views to themselves or to quell a discussion simply because it's not what I want to talk about, it's because that argument has unfortunately encouraged some appalling behavior. Behavior I want to see come to an end, partly for the benefit of the victims but ultimately because I'm seeing something I care deeply about being dragged through the mud. When the BEST case scenario for a 'debate' is that it doesn't do any more damage to all involved I think it's perfectly fair to suggest that people move onto something else instead or pointlessly prolonging that debate for the sake of having the last word.

It may be totally selfish but I'm tired of calling myself a gamer only to get the response of rolled eyes and condescension from everyone else and ridiculous squabbles like this becoming so severe that media from around the world start covering them is only making things worse. Maybe some people don't care what the world in general thinks about them or about gaming and that's up to them but I do care and, in some situations, saying "please don't talk about x" is the only way to express that.


Tl;dr - Some criticisms/ arguments are only ever going to have a negative effect, both on the people directly involved and those indirectly involved. If a political debate involving gamers gets nasty it makes the whole gaming community look bad and in those situations I'll happily tell people that having that they should just drop it to stop things getting worse.

 

[QuietlyListening]

True. There are games that buck this trend. That is great. I hope there are more of them. However, these games are more of the exception than the rule.

As to the effects of media on psyche:

Thin Ideal and eating disorders: http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jscp.1994.13.3.288

Violent Media and Aggression: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/BH06.pdf

Gender Stereotypes in Videogames: http://www.nouspace.net/dene/475/videogames.pdf

Contrary to your assertion, there's a good deal of evidence that suggests our consumption of media shapes our world-view. This argument is also supported by logic; the brain adapts to exposure, and if a particular message is repeated, the brain learns to accept that message.

The argument here isn't that videogames "make you do bad things." The argument is that stereotyping in media leads to one accepting those stereotypes as being true. And that is negative because often those stereotypes serve to undermine the determination of minority groups and reinforce existing power structures.

The links you gave me are not peer reviewed by scientific journals that I can see. Also, your aggression link has had a peer reviewed research article posted, that showed that the 24 or so studies during the Jack Thompson "era" was found to be not showing any actual link in aggression from specifically video games. Psychiatric Quarterly actually released the study.

Huh? All three are published in peer reviewed journals.

I think you're using an argument of ignorance at this point. Just because you haven't done research on the subject doesn't mean that none exists. There is an entire body of literature that focuses on the links between media and its psychological effects. The general conclusion is that yes, media matters. Which makes sense, otherwise we wouldn't actually care about it so much.

To continue the point of how stereotyping can affect one's sense of identity, look at the power of Jane Elliot's Blue Eyes/Brown eyes experiment. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lesson-of-a-lifetime-72754306/?no-ist

The very fact of being told that they were inferior actually caused children to perform more poorly. This experiment has been repeated with both school children and even adults with similar results.

Consider how much media we are exposed to in our daily lives. Do you really find it so improbable that these tropes, when repeated over and over and over again might seep into becoming a common understanding of how things are? Art may imitate life, but that imitation works both ways.

 

[aliengmr]

It boggles my mind that anyone could think that serious artistic criticism could be anything but good.

I love serious artistic criticism of video games, can't get enough of it in fact.

What I can't stand is when endless debates on politics get in the way of serious artistic criticism. The thing is if it was just an argument I have no interest in then I would simply ignore it but the only 2 issues I have ever said "enough is enough" to (Sarkeesian and #GG) are issues where the argument has started having very unpleasant consequences for everyone involved and unfortunately this includes the entire gaming community, which I consider myself to be a part of. In both cases the 'criticism' isn't limited to just being a calm and interesting debate. It isn't just a heated argument. It isn't even JUST petty name calling and insults. In both cases people talking about it has led to some of those involved taking it upon themselves to interfere in people's personal lives which, aside from being extremely unpleasant for the individuals on the receiving end, reflects badly on the group the aggressors identify with, in this example that's gamers.

When I say shut up about gamergate or give it a rest about how much you all apparently hate Anita Sarkeesian it's not out of some urge to shame people into keeping their views to themselves or to quell a discussion simply because it's not what I want to talk about, it's because that argument has unfortunately encouraged some appalling behavior. Behavior I want to see come to an end, partly for the benefit of the victims but ultimately because I'm seeing something I care deeply about being dragged through the mud. When the BEST case scenario for a 'debate' is that it doesn't do any more damage to all involved I think it's perfectly fair to suggest that people move onto something else instead or pointlessly prolonging that debate for the sake of having the last word.

It may be totally selfish but I'm tired of calling myself a gamer only to get the response of rolled eyes and condescension from everyone else and ridiculous squabbles like this becoming so severe that media from around the world start covering them is only making things worse. Maybe some people don't care what the world in general thinks about them or about gaming and that's up to them but I do care and, in some situations, saying "please don't talk about x" is the only way to express that.


Tl;dr - Some criticisms/ arguments are only ever going to have a negative effect, both on the people directly involved and those indirectly involved. If a political debate involving gamers gets nasty it makes the whole gaming community look bad and in those situations I'll happily tell people that having that they should just drop it to stop things getting worse.

Part of me wants to agree with you, it really does. But I just can't, seeing how games, for better or worse, have started tackling these issues, we have to mature enough to talk about them. We really have to start accepting some realities about ourselves as gamers or we'll never work through it.

Above all we can't start actually censoring viewpoints we don't agree with. Nothing about recent events has troubled me more than this prospect.

I understand reacting to criticism coming from people like Anita Sarkeesian and wanting to just disprove everything she says. I was doing those things when violence was a big deal. Getting angry and frustrated from the attacks and scapegoating, but its different now. Games are up there with film and books, we have some catching up to do. Our hobby isn't in jeopardy anymore from those outside sources, we have to stop treating it as though it is.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Well in this scenario both groups are unwilling to sacrifice their fun for the sake of other people's fun so that would mean that by your standards they would both lack empathy.

Well, except DA EVUl FEMINISTS on this site are actually still playing those games and most of the requests don't actually take away from the "other side" so that's false.

How is that not true? I've seen tons of critics saying 'stop doing X, stop doing Y'. X and Y might be things people enjoy.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Hey, you know what...

This is a funny read to me. Who is afraid? I encounter the criticisms, and I'm unafraid. I point out the faults that I believe said criticism holds, and I'm met with a volley of off-point, distracting shaming language. Glass houses...

What's funny is that my views are actually fairly moderate. Have we considered that maybe the negative reaction to certain ideologically driven criticism is at least somewhat based on the quality of said criticism? Is that a possibility? There are certainly some who behave as though it's unassailable truth.

I'd be interested in talking earnestly with people about a given topic, providing they can refrain from insults and smugness. Nobody need take someones self-assigned-superiority seriously, and it's best kept to yourself.

Ok fine, I think most of the talk of objectifying female characters is just shaming straight male sexuality. I mean if a game has a skimpy outfit and calls it armor that's just stupid and deserves to be called so. If a game wants to pretend it's not pandering to male's sexuality but it is then sure, give it hell. And I too am tired of seeing that pandering in certain games but I don't consider anything wrong with objectifying fiction.

look at Dead or Alive anything but the fighting games, it's pretty clear with its intentions of arousing male players and it gets trotted out a lot (especially by Jim Sterling) as a huge problem in the industry. They talk like the game is sexist or bad for existing because it objectifies women. I don't see the problem, really I don't. Not even from a 'oh games aren't being taken seriously because of this' angle. I mean its not their job to get games taken seriously and every medium has its base pandering even if you ignore porn. There's 50 Shades of Grey Pirahna DD all sorts of stuff that goes by without people saying 'oh novels shouldn't be taken seriously'. And then when I see objectification trotted out every time a woman with a skimpy outfit is in a game I really think they just have a problem with men and their lusts.

A general theme of blowing problems out of proportion is what makes me weary when I see 'feminist critique'. E: And yes I realize that last part is subjective, it's just what I think personally.

I agree.

I don't know why they trot out DOA: EBV all the time either. I get that it's purely about the T&A, but so what? Don't play it. Are you embarrassed by it? Why? The first sold less than 600k copies and the 2nd only sold 230k copies, it's not representative of anything in the real world, and is apparently trending negatively. I get that they think it's shitty, but apparently the public agrees for one reason or another. Dead horse.

The reason is rather simple:

Being negative and pissing on someone's filet mignon is easier and more satisfying than being positive and cooking your own.

Agreed.

What is perfectly evident to me is that if you want respect from a certain demographic of gamers, you can't just sit there and criticize games, like Anita Sarkeesian. You have to go out and make your own, like Zoe Quinn or Jennifer Hepler.

THEN you'll get respect.

The creator of a twine game that is in the public eye because she reported her alleged harassment to a press that was dumb enough to run with it, and a writer that made it clear she'd rather be writing for anything other than videogames.

I understand why you chose those examples, and I don't much care about the filet-Mignon analogy... But if you chose others from the pool of more talented and less notorious female-developers your jab would be rendered ineffective.

How is that not true? I've seen tons of critics saying 'stop doing X, stop doing Y'. X and Y might be things people enjoy.

And I've seen tons of gamers yell out that sexism, racism and homophobia are part of gaming culture and should be preserved.

What. Is. Your. Point?

What's yours?

I'm pretty sure there's some iffy inference happening at your end. This is all a little passive-aggressive and nebulous for me. I made bold the part of your post I have doubts about.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

What's yours?

I'm pretty sure there's some iffy inference happening at your end. This is all a little passive-aggressive and nebulous for me. I made bold the part of your post I have doubts about.

Yes, it was a reference to the Cross Assault Incident, one of my favorite things to pull out of my bag when someone tries to either use individual examples out of his experience to define a whole group of people or argue that his anectoditcal evidence holds any merit. Especially when it is as vague as his.

I have my backlog of gaming communities defending sexual harassment, transphobia and homophobia. Not even individuals. I still don't use them as anything more than a counter to posts like the one I quoted. Unless it is not accepted to use this line of argumentation to bag all feminist in one bag.

Do these examples explicitly say "leave my racism, sexism and homophobia alone!" or is that just your interpretation? That's what I'm asking. This being the internet, I have no way of knowing if your ability to parse information is reliable or if you're a nut-bag who sees racism, sexism and homophobia literally everywhere... Even when it's not there.

You know what I mean? I don't mean to be insulting... But, are the games in question explicitly exhibiting "X, Y and Z", and are the people you're talking about explicitly defending the inclusion of the definitely present "X, Y and Z"? I'm sure you can see why I have doubts about the level of opinion and dodgy inference that could be at work here.

For all I know you're presenting an unflattering caricature of the faceless and nameless,and if that's what's being sold, I won't be buying.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Do these examples explicitly say "leave my racism, sexism and homophobia alone!" or is that just your interpretation? That's what I'm asking. This being the internet, I have no way of knowing if your ability to parse information is reliable or if you're a nut-bag who sees racism, sexism and homophobia literally everywhere... Even when it's not there.

You know what I mean? I don't mean to be insulting... But, are the games in question explicitly exhibiting "X, Y and Z", and are the people you're talking about explicitly defending the inclusion of the definitely present "X, Y and Z"? I'm sure you can see why I have doubts about the level of opinion and dodgy inference that could be at work here.

For all I know you're presenting an unflattering caricature of the faceless and nameless.

Actually, the Cross Assault incident included people literally defending the sexism, racism and homophobia in a certain community (fighting game community) as an integral part of it.

?This is a community that?s, you know, 15 or 20-years-old and the sexual harassment is part of a culture,? said competitive fighting game player Aris "Aris" Bakhtanians on a recent live stream for Capcom's Cross Assault show, ?and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it?s not the fighting game community.?

Source [http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/when-passions-flare-lines-are-crossed-updated/1100-4006/]

He also had quite a lot of support from a small, vocal minority. I could find more than that but you see that it is a few years ago.

This is why I love that incident. It gives me the opportunity to use it against generalisation. Because as much as people defended this statement, plenty of people from the same genre stood against this notion. It would not be fair from me to label the fighting game community, or the gaming community at large with a conclusion based off incidents like this. Same for other communities, movements or whatever.

The others are smaller ones, mostly where you had individuals imply (not in a subtle way) the same.

Heh... I knew that was gonna be a Klepek piece when I saw it was Giant-Bomb. I'm not going to read this whole thing, because I'm no kind of masochist... I got the gist though.

I don't disagree with you about generalizations in general(heh...). You read "not all republicans are like that", "not all liberals are like that" or "not all feminists are like that" all the time, and mostly the response you have in mind is "yeh, fair enough", maybe with a "but..." in mind. The thing about all of those self-identifiers is that they all suggest more about the person in questions values and beliefs than the term "gamer" does. So while I'm not crazy about generalization, I am an adult and don't need a steadfast rule in place... I'll decide on each case based on merit.

What's been interesting to observe lately is how readily generalizations and assumptions have been employed in the gamergate information war. If you'll excuse the slightly Godwin-esque analogy: Anyone can burn the Reichstag down and implicate whoever they please. That's the nature of the internet. Asking for "fair" in any of what's going on seems like a waste of effort, like spitting truth into an ocean of lies... The ratio is fucked. Go for a swim and the best you could hope for is that a little truth has stuck to your leg when you get out.

I believe that's where so much of the aggravation comes from. Other mediums may have had their bumps in the road as they were being established, but none have had to deal with the anonymous, malleable lie machine that can be utilized by any ideologue that is the internet. Misrepresentation isn't occasional, it's damn near constant. "Gamers" have a tough time battling it because they're not organized, there's no manifesto, there's no connotations of noble intentions or mythology to hide behind. We're not a movement, we're just consumers. Our defenses suck, anyone can have their wicked way with us.

I think what I'm saying is: If you think lumping "gamers" in together, and lumping political ideologues of the same flavour in together is the same level of egregious... I think you're barking.

 

[Lightknight]

Do these examples explicitly say "leave my racism, sexism and homophobia alone!" or is that just your interpretation? That's what I'm asking. This being the internet, I have no way of knowing if your ability to parse information is reliable or if you're a nut-bag who sees racism, sexism and homophobia literally everywhere... Even when it's not there.

You know what I mean? I don't mean to be insulting... But, are the games in question explicitly exhibiting "X, Y and Z", and are the people you're talking about explicitly defending the inclusion of the definitely present "X, Y and Z"? I'm sure you can see why I have doubts about the level of opinion and dodgy inference that could be at work here.

For all I know you're presenting an unflattering caricature of the faceless and nameless.

Actually, the Cross Assault incident included people literally defending the sexism, racism and homophobia in a certain community (fighting game community) as an integral part of it.

?This is a community that?s, you know, 15 or 20-years-old and the sexual harassment is part of a culture,? said competitive fighting game player Aris "Aris" Bakhtanians on a recent live stream for Capcom's Cross Assault show, ?and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it?s not the fighting game community.?

Source [http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/when-passions-flare-lines-are-crossed-updated/1100-4006/]

He also had quite a lot of support from a small, vocal minority. I could find more than that but you see that it is a few years ago.

This is why I love that incident. It gives me the opportunity to use it against generalisation. Because as much as people defended this statement, plenty of people from the same genre stood against this notion. It would not be fair from me to label the fighting game community, or the gaming community at large with a conclusion based off incidents like this. Same for other communities, movements or whatever.

The others are smaller ones, mostly where you had individuals imply (not in a subtle way) the same.

Edit: An addition: I did not argue that there are games that include the above. At least not in this thread (I would not bet that there are no sexist or racist games in this world, not only just games that have some problems that are of sexist or racist nature).

Wait, you like to use a specific incidence as a reason not to use generalities? Generally speaking, generalities are conveyed from a variety of specific cases rather than one. By only using one generality you are effectively generalizing only one game's subculture and only at that moment in time. If someone has multiple instances of an issue. Like the diverse number of competitive fighting games that support a similar culture, then you can indeed begin to use generalities with some gravitas to them. Even then, you can't say that competitive gamers are all sexist/bigots/etc as you just pointed out, but you can say that the communities seem to have a problem with those issues. Dismissing appropriately achieved generalities as invalid simply because you say so or because generalities make you unhappy isn't a valid rebuttal. Generalities aren't logical fallacies as long as the generalities were appropriately developed from multiple incidents and are also applied generally to the communities they relate to rather than individually.

What you just did was make an argument against stereotyping individuals in the group and you stated an unfounded opinion that the people supporting a bad community were actually the minority group in the community. Do you have evidence to support this claim that supporters of the community problems are the minority of the community? Otherwise you are committing a "hasty generalization fallacy" by defining the group composition of individuals while also technically saying that's bad to do.

But replying to a generality with a generality that has nothing to do with the validity of the original is just pointless. If it's used as a debate tool then you're just red herring-ing the poster. Generalities can be individually discussed on their own merits without all being bad.

If you'd like to see a list of faulty generalizations that are logical fallacies, then here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

The thing about what the poster said on Journalists telling us what to do or what not to do was a vague generality. You could have instead asked for a specific example or two and then discussed that. Keep in mind that generalities are not meant to be applied to all individuals, otherwise it's just a stereotype.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I understand why you chose those examples, and I don't much care about the filet-Mignon analogy... But if you chose others from the pool of more talented and less notorious female-developers your jab would be rendered ineffective.

Both had achieved a degree of notoriety before their respective "controversies".

BTW, to the best of my knowledge Hepler went on to write her own video game. She never defamed the medium. She just had ideas about skipping more traditional notions of game play to get to story, which she considered the meat of the experience. Something we see regularly these days in games like The Walking Dead, To the Moon, etc.

 

[Lightknight]

Heh... I knew that was gonna be a Klepek piece when I saw it was Giant-Bomb. I'm not going to read this whole thing, because I'm no kind of masochist... I got the gist though.

I don't disagree with you about generalizations in general(heh...). You read "not all republicans are like that", "not all liberals are like that" or "not all feminists are like that" all the time, and mostly the response you have in mind is "yeh, fair enough", maybe with a "but..." in mind. The thing about all of those self-identifiers is that they all suggest more about the person in questions values and beliefs than the term "gamer" does. So while I'm not crazy about generalization, I am an adult and don't need a steadfast rule in place... I'll decide on each case based on merit.

What's been interesting to observe lately is how readily generalizations and assumptions have been employed in the gamergate information war. If you'll excuse the slightly Godwin-esque analogy: Anyone can burn the Reichstag down and implicate whoever they please. That's the nature of the internet. Asking for "fair" in any of what's going on seems like a waste of effort, like spitting truth into an ocean of lies... The ratio is fucked. Go for a swim and the best you could hope for is that a little truth has stuck to your leg when you get out.

I believe that's where so much of the aggravation comes from. Other mediums may have had their bumps in the road as they were being established, but none have had to deal with the anonymous, malleable lie machine that can be utilized by any ideologue that is the internet. Misrepresentation isn't occasional, it's damn near constant. "Gamers" have a tough time battling it because they're not organized, there's no manifesto, there's no connotations of noble intentions or mythology to hide behind. We're not a movement, we're just consumers. Our defenses suck, anyone can have their wicked way with us.

I think what I'm saying is: If you think lumping "gamers" in together, and lumping political ideologues of the same flavour in together is the same level of egregious... I think you're barking.

Great point. There are far fewer journalists that we see and read in mainstream gaming sites than there are gamers. Generalities about journalists can be far more easily achieved that generalities about gamers which includes hundreds of millions of people. If ten highly public journalists say a thing then that's a significant number of journalists. If ten gamers say a thing then who cares?

A lot of journalists want to change things in games. This isn't necessarily bad but the question is whether or not they want to change things to make the experience better for all gamers or if they are championing only a single and potentially small segment of gamers. For example, Yahtzee complaining about the quality of games is a reviewer wanting the games themselves to improve which would enhance the game for anyone playing it. Someone like Anita Sarkeesian looks at games and decides that we shouldn't like saving damsels from tyrants because it makes her feel sad inside and she wants us to feel how she feels. Then journalists jump on her side because she incorrectly associates damseling with objectification because she doesn't understand that a grammatical object (the thing acted upon in any sentence where X does Y to Z, like "the doctor saved the infant" would somehow be objectifying the infant in Sarkeesian logic) is not objectification. This example is particularly troubling because she's actually advocating taking away an entire plot mechanism that is one of the most meaningful mechanisms we have in any form of media. The desire to protect and rescue the people we love. Thankfully, sometimes the two types do overlap. Like someone pushing for more customize-ability would benefit smaller special interest groups and give the main gamer more options. Advocating more diverse plots is also something that can benefit everyone. But sometimes people just advocate making panty hose more ball friendly at the cost of comfort to females just because they want the men who also wear panty hose to have equal representation. Because that makes sense [/snark]

Hopefully people can understand why those of us would be more favorable of the individuals advocating for making our experience better over the individuals telling us it's bad to enjoy saving princesses and friends? Hopefully TheKasp can see why the original poster would be upset about the latter example.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Hopefully people can understand why those of us would be more favorable of the individuals advocating for making our experience better over the individuals telling us it's bad to enjoy saving princesses and friends?

Is that seriously where you think the roots of that particular controversy lay?

That her sole point was "Less rescuing princesses, it makes me sad", and the rebuttal was "Nooo, we like saving princesses, please stop, you make US sad?". And then the journalists felt the need to wade into the fray with articles like "Princesses Evil, and the People Who Save Them Repugnant", and BOOM, controversy?