Hey, here's a more important fact of consumerism. The overwhelming majority of consumers/fans have a much bigger influence to the creation and reputation of games than journalists. It doesn't matter to some of them because they intentionally choose to ignore it or rely more on the opinions of their friends. (My brother says he has always had a disdain towards critics and the only one he ever valued for years is James Rolfe of all people.) People want to imagine journalists as gatekeepers, when they are mostly middle men. This is especially true for reviews.
You forget that there's also the 3rd Party with the developer. The studio has to make the game functional and enjoyable, market it, keep it at a reasonable budget, and distribute it for people to buy.
That's why games that are terrible can still make money or have an influence. That's why critically acclaimed games can still fail causing the producers to shut down. And many consumers buy these things because of their own personal biases, brand recognition, or random curiosity. If YOU want to make an impact on the journalism, then you need to convince other people to be enlightened consumers. (It'd be great if that were true, but let's face it, it's not.) The fans are the majority and the way they spend their money or time or attention makes more of an impact. That's exactly why Saarkesian got popular in the first place, because so many random people got together to complain about her. (aka the Jimquistion Video)
More women in sciences etc...? You do realize that the systems in place actively discourage their entry, right?
I'd be willing to fight against those barriers. Most people have more than one dimension they're not all Feminist or anti-Feminist. There are women who make fantastic games. I personally will not be unwelcoming of them.
Of course there was the Fine Young Capitalists who did a gaming kickstarter. 4chan mostly donated to them because they're not friendly with Zoe Quin, but at least it means these women will have resources to make games.
Your first principles here are bullshit. You're basically saying that "non-gamers" have no right to criticize games.
I'm saying anyone involved in either side off GG who are only interested in politics or agendas and not making games or Journalism better. Those people are unwelcome.
While people disagree, it doesn't automatically make people who disagree evil.
So once again, what is the definition of a "gamer?"
It doesn't matter at all.
What exactly is wrong with "game journalism?"
Also, you seem to somehow think that reviews are the same as journalism. What's an example of something actually wrong?
How are Reviews different? Reviews sell games based on trust between reviewer and consumer. Is reviews are biased that trust is broken.
Hey, here's a more important fact of consumerism. The overwhelming majority of consumers/fans have a much bigger influence to the creation and reputation of games than journalists.
But it's important not to misrepresent what fans want to the companies. Journalists act as a bridge. A Gamer advocacy group could also act as that bridge and that's something I'd like to see.
If YOU want to make an impact on the journalism, then you need to convince other people to be enlightened consumers.
Once again a Gaming advocacy group could help there too by fact checking reviews and journals. GG as it is is not an advocacy group. But there are people involved in it that could contribute to something good.
That's exactly why Saarkesian got popular in the first place, because so many random people got together to complain about her. (aka the Jimquistion Video)
People love to have a villain, and she'll never go away until people stop hating on her.
People love to have a villain, and she'll never go away until people stop hating on her.
Who are these people that love to have a villain? If you're referring to the people who've made threats to her and her family, or created a video game where the point is of beating up on her, then yes, they do love what they do.
I don't even know exactly what you mean by that statement.
Ohh just about everyone! I probably even look like a good villain.
If you're referring to the people who've made threats to her and her family, or created a video game where the point is of beating up on her, then yes, they do love what they do.
I'm not going justify that. But you can't blame me for it.
I don't even know exactly what you mean by that statement.
I'm saying the only way to 'defeat' her is to stop paying attention to her. Also the threats have to stop, it's inhumane and muddling the issue.
Having slogged through the last few pages here, I can say this:
There is no issue, Halfmoon.
The implication is that companies and reporters in the game industry are in cahoots, and you're saying that there needs to be some sort of pro-consumer/gamer advocacy group to prevent inaccurate reporting on games. That this sort of thing is SO RAMPANT and out of control that there needs to be a movement to fix it.
Having been around a while (as in, NES came out when I was young) I can honestly say that it's obvious when someone is not being honest in their opinion in a report or a rating. If they shill or sell out, it's immediately picked up on.
GG's entire movement (depending on the day) was based on Quinn sleeping around to get better reviews. Which, I might add, never happened. It's demonstrably false.
You have an issue that doesn't really exist, so an advocay group would be pointless at best, and at worst it'd be, well, Gamergate.
GG's entire movement (depending on the day) was based on Quinn sleeping around to get better reviews. Which, I might add, never happened. It's demonstrably false.
We already established that she did have that relationship. Please keep up.
GG's entire movement (depending on the day) was based on Quinn sleeping around to get better reviews. Which, I might add, never happened. It's demonstrably false.
We already established that she did have that relationship. Please keep up.
Kid, fuck you. How is it proven that she "slept around" to "get better views?"
Either back that up or you're just straight-up guilty of slander.
Also, AGAIN, what is the specific issue? What specifically are you mad about?
So once again, what is the definition of a "gamer?"
Christina Sommers calls herself a feminist, but other posters are calling her an Anti-Feminist.
There are multiple ideologies within a group. All of gamers or feminist can't be defined exactly.
This sort of blows my mind because you are equating gamers and feminists as sort of equal ideologies. Dude one is based around people playing games, the other is based on the oppression of an entire gender.
"Feminism" is very well defined: most of the people who disagree with the established definitions are either grossly ignorant of the debate and discourse of the last seventy years, or else are the straight-up misogynists.
Apparently gamers aren't allowed to vote or have sex. Truly a tragedy.
At least I don't have to share drinking fountains with them. And man, the lynchings. Not a day goes by that I don't see some poor gamer murdered by a bunch of SJWs.
Either back that up or you're just straight-up guilty of slander.
I did earlier. Yes she DID have a relationship with a journalist, But it was not one that reviewed her games. So it did not actually affect the game review. She told this to the BBC.
"While the relationship happened, the review did not."
So yes, the link was false. But there was a relationship. Zoe Quin really had nothing to do with this and it's not her fault. She might even be progressing the medium towards Art. Many of the most famous historical artists today, had a great deal of controversy in their lives.
I don't even care about her. I'd like it if people stopped harassing her. I don't like being held accountable for other people's harassment.
The first tweet is exactly what it's states. Please learn to comprehend and try not to spin it to something else that you use as a point that has nothing to do with what was originally posted.
Let me give you a little of my own history so you can judge me as a human being rather than an avatar of a movement.
In 2008-9 I was involved in the Dragonball Evolution controversy. I wanted to let FOX do their thing and surprise me with a better than awful movie. But for whatever reason battle lines were drawn and a horde of angry DBZ fans were attacking FOX and anyone who had anything nice to say about them. I had nice things to say about FOX so I was an enemy. There were death threats to FOX, bomb scares, and the movie ended up getting pushed up and released unfinished. I asked "Would Goku want you to act this way?" and was harassed for it online. It was no where near as bad as Zoe Quin but I can empathize with her.
In 2010 or 11 I was involved with an absurd shipping war in the Sonic fan base. I made a video asking if Sonic could just not date anyone, and Counter Strike gamers made a video of pasting my likeness as a tag on the wall and saying "Kill the Fat Faggot." They'd shoot the image of my face and scream into their microphones. These weren't little kids, they were college aged young adults playing adult games.
In 2012 there was an argument on a Gundam Play By Mail RPG that I was in and it got very personal and petty. I doxed the offender, It's very easy to do, and made a plan to send fake complaints to his place of work. BUT, I realized how wrong it was and stopped myself. I deleted all the information I had on him and was able to control my anger.
I've been on every side of an internet conflict. I've even been attacked BY gamers. I've even been attacked by GG on another website and been accused of being a spy for the press. Even so I still think there could be some good eggs in the group and they shouldn't be written off entirely.
Internet 'Wars' Are not new, and they'll likely never go away in our lifetime.
What specifically are you angry about in video game "journalism?" What specifically needs to change?
These Gamers are mad about collusion between journalists and parties wanting to sell games, paid agreements between these parties, and jealousy that journalists receive premium gifts and event tickets. The third one is admittedly silly. But with the first two these Gamers thought they understood who they could trust and felt betrayed by the battery of "Gamers are Dead" articles.
I and some other gamers feel excluded from the discussion of if games are sexist or not. I'd like to sit down in person with some people on both sides and discuss it without all the name dropping and threats but it's become really difficult.
I've really wanted to talk about this! But one side will block you for assuming you want to harass them and the other side will harass you because they don't want a conversation they just want to be right.
That you actually want to talk about it makes you different from most of the GG'ers I've talked to. For the most part, they want conversations about politics or feminism and such to leave the conversation of games fullstop. They don't think it has a place at all when someone is giving a review of a game.
Okay now the comparison of Rosa Parks and Miss Sarkeesian was because PBS's Idea Channel recently called her the Rosa Parks of Gaming.
Do you actually have a primary source for that statement? I watch PBS Idea Channel, and the only time to my knowledge that Mike discussed GamerGate was at the end of the Logical Fallacies episode, in which he addressed that people stated their refusal to watch of the previous episode (which was on game mechanics) because Dan from Extra Credits, a vocal opponent of GamerGate, took part in it. Neither Sarkeesian nor Rosa Parks were in any way mentioned during the statement.
To humor you I put in "PBS Idea Channel Rosa Parks" into Google and found this episode of the sister-show PBS Game/Show, which yes, does draw a similarity between Sarkeesian and Parks. However, I can't really say that this comparison is entirely unjustified.
The odd thing though is that this video is more than a year old ("Published on Sep 24, 2013") so I don't really think this is really the trigger for the sudden influx of personal appropriation of the Civil Rights Movement by the GamerGate community.
Comments
https://web.archive.org/web/20140202170429/http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8568051&publicUserId=5379799
One big reason I stand by Giant Bomb so firmly is that Jeff Gerstmann was partially fired from Gamespot because he didn't play ball.
You forget that there's also the 3rd Party with the developer. The studio has to make the game functional and enjoyable, market it, keep it at a reasonable budget, and distribute it for people to buy.
That's why games that are terrible can still make money or have an influence. That's why critically acclaimed games can still fail causing the producers to shut down. And many consumers buy these things because of their own personal biases, brand recognition, or random curiosity. If YOU want to make an impact on the journalism, then you need to convince other people to be enlightened consumers. (It'd be great if that were true, but let's face it, it's not.) The fans are the majority and the way they spend their money or time or attention makes more of an impact. That's exactly why Saarkesian got popular in the first place, because so many random people got together to complain about her. (aka the Jimquistion Video)
Of course there was the Fine Young Capitalists who did a gaming kickstarter. 4chan mostly donated to them because they're not friendly with Zoe Quin, but at least it means these women will have resources to make games. I'm saying anyone involved in either side off GG who are only interested in politics or agendas and not making games or Journalism better. Those people are unwelcome.
While people disagree, it doesn't automatically make people who disagree evil. It doesn't matter at all. How are Reviews different? Reviews sell games based on trust between reviewer and consumer. Is reviews are biased that trust is broken.
Reviews are when Patrick gives his opinion on a game, as in http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/the-evil-within-review/1900-681/
One is giving the facts of a matter, the other is explaining your feelings on a game. I can't so much as say "NBA 2k15 looks like real basketball" without it being an opinion that one may or may not agree with.
I don't even know exactly what you mean by that statement.
There is no issue, Halfmoon.
The implication is that companies and reporters in the game industry are in cahoots, and you're saying that there needs to be some sort of pro-consumer/gamer advocacy group to prevent inaccurate reporting on games. That this sort of thing is SO RAMPANT and out of control that there needs to be a movement to fix it.
Having been around a while (as in, NES came out when I was young) I can honestly say that it's obvious when someone is not being honest in their opinion in a report or a rating. If they shill or sell out, it's immediately picked up on.
GG's entire movement (depending on the day) was based on Quinn sleeping around to get better reviews. Which, I might add, never happened. It's demonstrably false.
You have an issue that doesn't really exist, so an advocay group would be pointless at best, and at worst it'd be, well, Gamergate.
There are multiple ideologies within a group. All of gamers or feminist can't be defined exactly.
Either back that up or you're just straight-up guilty of slander.
Also, AGAIN, what is the specific issue? What specifically are you mad about?
Again, there is no evidence to support the issue(s) you want to advocate against even exist.
It's the same as saying you want all restaurants to ban and stop serving the endangered red herring.
At least I don't have to share drinking fountains with them. And man, the lynchings. Not a day goes by that I don't see some poor gamer murdered by a bunch of SJWs.
This again shows the Flaws of Twitter since you weren't able to find the context of that argument.
"While the relationship happened, the review did not."
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29821050
So yes, the link was false. But there was a relationship. Zoe Quin really had nothing to do with this and it's not her fault. She might even be progressing the medium towards Art. Many of the most famous historical artists today, had a great deal of controversy in their lives.
I don't even care about her. I'd like it if people stopped harassing her. I don't like being held accountable for other people's harassment.
A quick Google search answers this. http://www.themarysue.com/twitter-users-mad-about-gamergate-block-bots/
The first tweet is exactly what it's states. Please learn to comprehend and try not to spin it to something else that you use as a point that has nothing to do with what was originally posted.
You basically took it out of context.
What specifically are you angry about in video game "journalism?" What specifically needs to change?
In 2008-9 I was involved in the Dragonball Evolution controversy. I wanted to let FOX do their thing and surprise me with a better than awful movie. But for whatever reason battle lines were drawn and a horde of angry DBZ fans were attacking FOX and anyone who had anything nice to say about them. I had nice things to say about FOX so I was an enemy. There were death threats to FOX, bomb scares, and the movie ended up getting pushed up and released unfinished. I asked "Would Goku want you to act this way?" and was harassed for it online. It was no where near as bad as Zoe Quin but I can empathize with her.
In 2010 or 11 I was involved with an absurd shipping war in the Sonic fan base. I made a video asking if Sonic could just not date anyone, and Counter Strike gamers made a video of pasting my likeness as a tag on the wall and saying "Kill the Fat Faggot." They'd shoot the image of my face and scream into their microphones. These weren't little kids, they were college aged young adults playing adult games.
In 2012 there was an argument on a Gundam Play By Mail RPG that I was in and it got very personal and petty. I doxed the offender, It's very easy to do, and made a plan to send fake complaints to his place of work. BUT, I realized how wrong it was and stopped myself. I deleted all the information I had on him and was able to control my anger.
I've been on every side of an internet conflict. I've even been attacked BY gamers. I've even been attacked by GG on another website and been accused of being a spy for the press. Even so I still think there could be some good eggs in the group and they shouldn't be written off entirely.
Internet 'Wars' Are not new, and they'll likely never go away in our lifetime.
I and some other gamers feel excluded from the discussion of if games are sexist or not. I'd like to sit down in person with some people on both sides and discuss it without all the name dropping and threats but it's become really difficult.
I've really wanted to talk about this! But one side will block you for assuming you want to harass them and the other side will harass you because they don't want a conversation they just want to be right.
To humor you I put in "PBS Idea Channel Rosa Parks" into Google and found this episode of the sister-show PBS Game/Show, which yes, does draw a similarity between Sarkeesian and Parks. However, I can't really say that this comparison is entirely unjustified.
The odd thing though is that this video is more than a year old ("Published on Sep 24, 2013") so I don't really think this is really the trigger for the sudden influx of personal appropriation of the Civil Rights Movement by the GamerGate community.