Assuming your analysis is sound, who the fuck exactly is "GamerGate" is it the population of a particular forum? Is it people who identify as "GamerGate"? Is it anybody who says anything negative about Sarkeesian? Not being snarky, I honestly don't know.
I don't know anybody who doesn't believe games are a media product and very few who don't believe they're valid as an art form akin to theater, so it's kinda hard for me to believe that there's an army of people out there who feel strongly that a game is some sort of electronic gratification tool akin to a vibrator or something.
I've still never understood the connection between Sarkeesian (or any other feminist addressing the fact that games are generally offputting for female gamers) and any debate about any kind of ethics in any kind of journalism. How are these two things even in the same conversation?
GamerGate is basically a consumer cult. It is built around an identity as a consumer of video games. They see reviews as a kind of holy text that explains what is good, what is bad and what they should buy. As such they clamor for an objective standard of quality for a product. Any influence on reviews from outside the context of the game itself and perhaps comparisons with other games is a corruption of that objective standard. They draw no distinction between a direct, actual corruption of the reviewer through monetary funds (e.g. the Kane and Lynch reviews or the Shadow of Mordor payola) or an ideological "corruption" by media critics and commentators like Sarkeesian who want to push games as a medium in a certain direction. Any consideration of such viewpoints that go beyond games as a dumb plaything by the developer of a game of course disqualify the developer of that game outright because that would poke a hole in their worldview of games being an objectively product, which is why they hate games like Gone Home or Depression Quest.
In other words, GamerGate considers games appliances, not media, and they are pissed off at people who believe otherwise.
But... but... but... I still don't understand the connection. You say they make a connection, but I can't see it.
GG sees game reviews as biblical scholarship. Sarkeesian is, in effect, a biblical scholar because she talks about the holy games. GG labels her a blasphemous heathen because they disagree with her scholoraship. Because the average GG member is not intelligent enough to counter her words with an informed and well written response they resort to throwing stones.
There is a pro-gamergate video game review site called objectivegamereviews.com, so you tell me.
This seems like an object of convenience for manufacturing a cover story for a bunch of misogynistic bullshit. Who's responsible for that site, though? Like 5 people?
GamerGate started when Zoe Quinn was accused of utilizing a romantic relationship with a game journalist in order to get positive coverage for a game she developed. When all the shitcocks of the Internet descended on her, their excuse was that they weren't doing this because they weren't fighting for misogyny, but were fighting for ethics in game journalism.
If you wan't more details than that, this is a very easy question to answer with Google.
But calling for better representation of women in video games has nothing to do with journalism or reviews. It's criticism, not journalism, and has nothing to do with reviewing.
But... but... but... I still don't understand the connection. You say they make a connection, but I can't see it.
They think it unethical to not outright state every conceivable bias that the reviewer may hold, to not provide "disclosure" of their political or sociological background. They want some objective score that measures the absolute worth of a game, rather than a nuanced opinion that may be influenced through certain previous experiences or a real world context.
It is of course complete horsehockey, ridiculous in its outset and completely unattainable, but that's what they want and they claim its unethical to want anything else. They consider biases of mind the same as being bought by a company and shilling for that company.
But calling for better representation of women in video games has nothing to do with journalism or reviews. It's criticism, not journalism, and has nothing to do with reviewing.
How is saying, " your depiction of women in video games is bad," not both criticism and a review of the game in question or the industry as a whole?
But calling for better representation of women in video games has nothing to do with journalism or reviews. It's criticism, not journalism, and has nothing to do with reviewing.
How is saying, " your depiction of women in video games is bad," not both criticism and a review of the game in question or the industry as a whole?
It is criticism, but not a review.
A review is for the benefit of those looking for entertainment or information, to give an indication or whether the media is worth spending time, money or effort on. That is not what Sarkeesian is doing, nor what other feminists are doing. They are doing criticism.
But calling for better representation of women in video games has nothing to do with journalism or reviews. It's criticism, not journalism, and has nothing to do with reviewing.
So you're implying that the "gamergate" movement is inconsistent and possibly engaged in specious reasoning and bald-faced lying?!?!?!?
It's literally at this point the intersection of Wizards with white supremacists, MRAs, and misogynists. Most of their talking points are described openly in their semi-private staging areas as misdirection. Remember #notyourshield? That was by design to muddy the issue.
"Game journalism" is similarly a canard they used specifically to misdirect from their main issues:
1. They don't like women (except to have sex with) 2. They don't like criticism of games from any perspective other than their own 3. They don't like people with social lives reviewing/making games 4. They feel excluded from the games industry by #3, framing it as oppression 5. They feel like "popular kids" and "feminists" playing games are ruining their "inner sanctum" or "safe space" 6. They enjoy being absolute pieces of shit to people online
Honestly? That really is it. As more and more light has been shined on them, anyone with half a brain has backed away or at least hides their shit-tier true nature. The people who openly remain are increasingly radicalizing in a mostly cut-off echo chamber, lashing out with "Ops" against their "enemies."
There's nothing else. This is all they're actually about.
GamerGate started when Zoe Quinn was accused of utilizing a romantic relationship with a game journalist in order to get positive coverage for a game she developed. When all the shitcocks of the Internet descended on her, their excuse was that they weren't doing this because they weren't fighting for misogyny, but were fighting for ethics in game journalism.
If you wan't more details than that, this is a very easy question to answer with Google.
This I'm mostly already aware of, spare some details, but this is also wholly dismissable and there's got to be quite a bit of evolution past this point of both or all "sides". Nobody gave a fuck when IGN was writing paid reviews on a daily basis, or GameSpy, etc...
I literally don't. I have no idea what that hash tag might even begin to mean to anyone.
#NotYourShield was/is a kind of astroturfing campaign. At first it was sock puppets who posed as minorities and aligned themselves with GamerGate, then some actual minorities joined in. In any case, it was a campaign of declaring that white people were speaking for minorities rather than letting minorities speak for themselves, while GamerGate also basically used them to deflect criticism a la "what I said isn't racist. I asked my black friend and he said it's okay".
I think you're splitting a very fine hair between critique and review. I don't see the distinction you're making. A game is a piece of art and an entertainment medium and I think either aspect is fair game for review and treatment of either constitutes a "review". Movie reviews don't suffer from this dichotomy, they just say stuff like "Sure it's a brainless popcorn flick but it's still worth your admission price." Why should games be significantly different?
Movie reviewing and movie criticism are different things. Really. One person can both review movies and be a movie critic.
This is besides my point. Sarkieesian's videos, from the four or five I've seen, are NOT reviews. They just aren't.
She isn't saying "If you've never played this game, here's why it is/isn't worth your time." She's saying "No matter if this game is good or bad, worth playing or not, if you've ever played it or never think you will, here's something interesting/important/influential about it that will make you a better/more educated person for knowing."
OK, fair enough. That's more of an analysis of peripheral/tangential issues surrounding the game, but... I dunno, if it's specific to one game rather than a collection of games, a publisher, an industry... I still sort of think that's a review.
I admit I haven't watched her videos. I'm just not that interested, so it's entirely possible I'd 100% agree with you if I had any idea what I was talking about in the specific context of those particular critiques. :P
Oh come on. Please, if you're going to argue against a specific point about a specific person making specific videos, at least tell me you've not watched them and don't know what you're talking about before I spend any time responding.
Sarkeesian doesn't do reviews, but other people do and these people might be influenced by criticism she puts at the feet of games as a whole. GamerGate is opposed to her views and is engaging in full warfare against her to fight the "root of the evil" in their opinion.
I think the core of Sarkeesian's argument is: "if you can't change the gender of a character in a video game without having a huge plot problem then your game might be misogynistic." Coupled with, "don't make your female characters pink."
Basically, unless your game has to have certain genders play certain roles because of what it is trying to emulate (a WWII game would not have female infantry soldiers though it could easily have female non-soldier combatants) the roles in the game should be gender neutral.
Look at the latest Dragon Age game. Not only is there a good mix of genders in the game but you can even choose to have a samesex relationship with one of the NPCs if you so desire. With a fantasy game like Dragon Age there is no reason to limit itself to male protagonists.
Take an old school property like Leisure Suit Larry and it just wouldn't work as Leisure Suit Laura because the entire game is one big sexist trope. Take away that trope and you don't have a game.
Luke I still think it's a fairly universal truth that critique == review, almost unambiguously, so I don't feel as though the specific videos are likely to "totally not be reviews" unless they are also "totally not critiques". But sure, fair enough.
Oh I think the whole thing is a giant misogynistic, aspie pity party using absolutely any rhetorical/cultural hotpoint they can to draw attention to themselves.
...which is why paying it any attention is counterproductive.
Luke I still think it's a fairly universal truth that critique == review, almost unambiguously, so I don't feel as though the specific videos are likely to "totally not be reviews" unless they are also "totally not critiques". But sure, fair enough.
Muppet, in this case you are just objectively wrong. So wrong I think you must totally misunderstand what criticism is. Let me demonstrate:
This is movie criticism, focusing on analyzing the shots and scenes of a hugely influential director:
I agree 100% with everything in this video, especially the part where the scenes are contrasted with the Avengers movie.
Now, here is my review of Seven Samurai:
"I thought it was too long, too repetitive, and only got to the end because I could watch it at 2x speed and the subtitles showed up. While it's incredibly important in the history of movie making, I didn't find it particularly fun or entertaining due to the cultural differences between 1950's Japan and my own life experience."
See? While a review might contain elements of criticism, the focus and the objective of a review is utterly removed from that of criticism.
And here is my original point again: the kind of criticism that Sarkeesian is doing in her videos has a totally different focus to game reviews and video game journalism where ethics might be any problem to anyone.
Game reviews are nominally to help you spend your time and money wisely. Game journalism usually focuses on the production and release of games. Both exist with the help and cooperation of the non-press game industry, so it's understandable that people might be worried about ethics.
Game criticism stands apart from these in terms of sales and/or spending time playing them. In Rym's latest video, he mixes in a small review (literally three lines like "You should probably play 1 and 3, but don't try to get good at them") but for the most part he is analyzing them and educating people. The utility isn't in the sale of the game or the playing of the game.
You are objectively wrong because the objective of a game review and the objective of game criticism of the very same game, both for the author and the reader, are different.
Comments
I don't know anybody who doesn't believe games are a media product and very few who don't believe they're valid as an art form akin to theater, so it's kinda hard for me to believe that there's an army of people out there who feel strongly that a game is some sort of electronic gratification tool akin to a vibrator or something.
Also your blog sucks :-p
GG sees game reviews as biblical scholarship. Sarkeesian is, in effect, a biblical scholar because she talks about the holy games. GG labels her a blasphemous heathen because they disagree with her scholoraship. Because the average GG member is not intelligent enough to counter her words with an informed and well written response they resort to throwing stones.
If you wan't more details than that, this is a very easy question to answer with Google.
It is of course complete horsehockey, ridiculous in its outset and completely unattainable, but that's what they want and they claim its unethical to want anything else. They consider biases of mind the same as being bought by a company and shilling for that company.
A review is for the benefit of those looking for entertainment or information, to give an indication or whether the media is worth spending time, money or effort on. That is not what Sarkeesian is doing, nor what other feminists are doing. They are doing criticism.
It's literally at this point the intersection of Wizards with white supremacists, MRAs, and misogynists. Most of their talking points are described openly in their semi-private staging areas as misdirection. Remember #notyourshield? That was by design to muddy the issue.
"Game journalism" is similarly a canard they used specifically to misdirect from their main issues:
1. They don't like women (except to have sex with)
2. They don't like criticism of games from any perspective other than their own
3. They don't like people with social lives reviewing/making games
4. They feel excluded from the games industry by #3, framing it as oppression
5. They feel like "popular kids" and "feminists" playing games are ruining their "inner sanctum" or "safe space"
6. They enjoy being absolute pieces of shit to people online
Honestly? That really is it. As more and more light has been shined on them, anyone with half a brain has backed away or at least hides their shit-tier true nature. The people who openly remain are increasingly radicalizing in a mostly cut-off echo chamber, lashing out with "Ops" against their "enemies."
There's nothing else. This is all they're actually about.
This is besides my point. Sarkieesian's videos, from the four or five I've seen, are NOT reviews. They just aren't.
She isn't saying "If you've never played this game, here's why it is/isn't worth your time." She's saying "No matter if this game is good or bad, worth playing or not, if you've ever played it or never think you will, here's something interesting/important/influential about it that will make you a better/more educated person for knowing."
I admit I haven't watched her videos. I'm just not that interested, so it's entirely possible I'd 100% agree with you if I had any idea what I was talking about in the specific context of those particular critiques. :P
Basically, unless your game has to have certain genders play certain roles because of what it is trying to emulate (a WWII game would not have female infantry soldiers though it could easily have female non-soldier combatants) the roles in the game should be gender neutral.
Look at the latest Dragon Age game. Not only is there a good mix of genders in the game but you can even choose to have a samesex relationship with one of the NPCs if you so desire. With a fantasy game like Dragon Age there is no reason to limit itself to male protagonists.
Take an old school property like Leisure Suit Larry and it just wouldn't work as Leisure Suit Laura because the entire game is one big sexist trope. Take away that trope and you don't have a game.
...which is why paying it any attention is counterproductive.
This is movie criticism, focusing on analyzing the shots and scenes of a hugely influential director:
I agree 100% with everything in this video, especially the part where the scenes are contrasted with the Avengers movie.
Now, here is my review of Seven Samurai:
"I thought it was too long, too repetitive, and only got to the end because I could watch it at 2x speed and the subtitles showed up. While it's incredibly important in the history of movie making, I didn't find it particularly fun or entertaining due to the cultural differences between 1950's Japan and my own life experience."
See? While a review might contain elements of criticism, the focus and the objective of a review is utterly removed from that of criticism.
And here is my original point again: the kind of criticism that Sarkeesian is doing in her videos has a totally different focus to game reviews and video game journalism where ethics might be any problem to anyone.
Game reviews are nominally to help you spend your time and money wisely. Game journalism usually focuses on the production and release of games. Both exist with the help and cooperation of the non-press game industry, so it's understandable that people might be worried about ethics.
Game criticism stands apart from these in terms of sales and/or spending time playing them. In Rym's latest video, he mixes in a small review (literally three lines like "You should probably play 1 and 3, but don't try to get good at them") but for the most part he is analyzing them and educating people. The utility isn't in the sale of the game or the playing of the game.
You are objectively wrong because the objective of a game review and the objective of game criticism of the very same game, both for the author and the reader, are different.
Criticism == review + big words.
I think most people accept reviews do not always include criticism but criticism is an advanced form of a review. Otherwise, splitting hairs.