- Joined
- May 27, 2014
GamerGate Events and Discussion
- Thread starter Saney
- Start date
- Status
chiefshittingbull
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
king of pol jumped the shark when he said jews were reptiles a few months ago. we need to cut this guy loose.
Lord RainbowDash
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
Wut? I watched the stream. Kingofpol just said the numbers of jewish deaths were inflated, not that he denied it happened. And Jayd3fox and IA were obviously just joking around. Seriously, this doesn't matter at all.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
The whole GamerGate thing just seems like two sides of completely unrelated issues(gaming journalism and misogyny in gaming culture) waging war against each other at this point.
Q
QI 541
Guest
kiwifarms.net
That's because, whether or not we admit it, a large part of Gamergate is fighting against the idea that you can simply wave around buzzwords like "misogyny" and "racist" to deflect criticism and shut down all conversation.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
Meanwhile, the antis would screencap it and spam it as **CONCLUSIVE PROOF** that GG is still only about harassment.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Yes and no. It's like asking someone to stop teaching their dog to shit on your lawn, so they reply with "OH GOD STOP YELLING AT ME! PLEASE! JUST LEAVE ME ALONE! I JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE! IF YOU KEEP ASSAULTING ME I'LL CALL THE POLICE". Next thing you know all the neighbors are looking out their windows, watching someone scream about being assaulted by you. You're not looking very good right now. The person you were talking to just slipped and fell and is loudly stating you just shoved them.
The dog is also still shitting on your lawn.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
For us, this is a Consumer Boycott.
It's a chance to make Games Journalism more representative and inclusive, and generally actually worth a damn.
For them, it's a Culture War.
It's a chance for them to co-opt gaming as they know it, and use it as their platform to laud over everyone else.
Consider, if you will, the words of Sargon of Akkad, who's been nice enough to analyze all of this from the start:
From the moment he pieced it all together, we learned that all the "Gamer is Dead" articles had a unifying source - one Adrienne Shaw, and how literally every article in the barrage linked to the same thing via one Dan Golding, a friend of one Zoe Quinn. We also learned of the involvement of DiGRA - a group with relatively noble origins to start, but which was essentially co-opted by ideologues. The narrative put out by Adrienne Shaw was essentially: "I'm fairly sure that most Gamers are white, teenage, straight males, and I don't like those, so therefor "Gamer" is a term that is holding back the progress of advancing feminism in gaming."
Listen to the likes of the Alex Lifschitzes and the Leigh Alexanders, and a prevailing theme echoes forth - they don't like that people can buy what they want, and they don't like that consumers of games are free to enjoy what they like. They hate this because their offends-no-one game model is about as marketable as foodstuffs made from rancid feces. They'll push a Dear Esther or a Gone Home or a Depression Quest as being the greatest thing in fucking existence, and we plebs just "don't get it, man." When we say we don't want a bunch of walking simulators not fit to nibble at the toes of things like The Stanley Parable or games that could have been built in a day using HTML (and indeed, had), they respond by saying we're holding women back in gaming. If we call for accountability in the gaming press, their PR arm is under attack, so you'd best believe they'll react in kind. And indeed, have:
This is a conflict that the other side's been preparing for for a while. They've been steadily trying to infiltrate the hobby for some time to subvert it to their needs, and their coalition is at least as diverse as Gamergate's, and we know this because of things popping up like this for years now - not only the case of things like Sarkeesian's earlier appearances (which were likewise sensationalized into the mainstream), but from previous movements they've attempted to take control of.
The Anti-GGers range from people who stand to profit from it (Team Anita), to people who hope to capitalize on the controversy for their own ends (Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn), to people who want this scandal over so they can continue to perform non-journalistic bullshit designed to draw clicks (Biddle, Alexander, Gawker, et al), all of which are sponsored by a legion of well-meaning but woefully misinformed people who blindly hear misogyny and react like their Berserk Button was hit, Manchurian Candidate style.
It's not all bad news, though. A lot of this mindset that's being pushed forward could only be cultivated in the likes of the raging weal of lunacy that is the likes of Tumblr and Twitter. As such, many of them are absolutely horrible fucking people and have zero ability to manage themselves in public. Brianna Wu's meltdown on the national stage was a great example of this, as is Alex Lifschitz and Zoe Quinn outright losing their shit over a neutral party in regards to Gamergate. They know they can't beat Gamergate via facts, so they go for volume.
It's why they're losing. I won't lie, though, I'll fucking laugh like a Sperg if one of them proposes some shit like Gamer+.
TheWhitestKnight
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2014
Haven't read other comments of yours on the issue; I'm assuming "your lawn" is sort of "gamers' culture."
Isn't the question kind of "Is it gamers' lawn?"--"gamers" as they exist as a group now, that is. Like, I think the opposition would say it's a commons area they want access to. From what little I've read, a theme in the arguments against the "feminist" part at least is something like, "It's a marketplace. If you don't like the way a game portrays women, don't buy it. Put out your own game," with a hint of, "See how many people buy it." From what I understand, they are actively trying to change the culture so that they can sell more of their games.
Or is that not the case?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
I'm hoping for Gamer+. It would be so hilarious. And then to see it fail miserably? Oh, it would be amazing, I got my fingers crossed.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2013
A clever gamer linguist gives his thoughts about gamergate (he's a gamer!)
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
Pretty much. Supporting their friend's non-problematic games and claiming you're an ableist shitlord for wanting to play anything else.
It's dumb though, I mean just because they put out articles about how Bayonetta 2 (or whichever hit game) is the epitome of sexism, is supposed to make me wanna play SJW games? "Oh I don't wanna feel bad about being a straight white male, so I should play this game instead?" Is this what they're trying to accomplish?
No, I wanna play good games. If your SJW game is good, then sure lets play it. If its all preachy and boring then who'd want to play such a thing? Otherwise, there is a reason people play the games they do. They're good, or maybe not even good but entertaining. Fun to play, right?
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
can someone please translate what the hell the caps even mean? i'm all for gaming metaphores(metaphores/puns/wordplay in general) but it's like he utterly drowned his point in references to seem cool, seriously
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
In order:
"fighting on the side of hatred and exclusion is a real downer!!! maybe turn your arrows against that internal demon"
"the real monster is institutionalized sexism via erased representation of nonhegemonic identities... maybe beat that up"
"maybe turn your blade against the problem of Jewish-style underpayment of devs, a real evil imo"
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2014
I don't know if it was an "official" push, but wasn't there an article that suggested the term "Player?"
TheWhitestKnight
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2014
Well, what would you call someone who wants to play something like Depression Quest? Like, what are some of the terms people on your side use for people on the other side?
Well, the theory I'm working on is that the games'd probably be better if there were a market for it. The games aren't good because they don't have the funding and the talent pool.
I'm trying to think about how SJW-approved games would have to suck more than other ones. I think, like any culture, there are actual, historical reasons why gaming culture developed a certain way; those reasons aren't totally blind chance and coincidence, but at the same time, they didn't and don't necessarily have to be what they were or are. Like, I'm not sure it's because people have to value one thing over the other. I'm not sure people have to value, for example, unrealistic representations of people's bodies, men or women, over more realistic ones, or having more games about saving women as passive objects over having more games where they can join in more. I don't know a lot about everyone's stances on all the issues involved; I'm not sure if the "SJW" camp would be overwhelmingly against shooters and things, violence in general. Just off the top of my head, something like the old shooter Raiden or even Final Fantasy or something doesn't seem that sexist or whatever, but you're still, y'know, physically destroying people who don't agree with you. I'm not saying I totally agree, but I can see where people would be coming from if they said they didn't like that kind of dynamic. But I can see how it would fundamentally limit development if all violence and competition were off-limits.
Don't know a lot about the other ones, and frankly I don't know a lot about gaming in general, but I know Depression Quest sure sucked. I think it could've been good, though, if it had, like, a "battle" system? And not just a shitty, overtly limited number of options to pick from? "Motivation points" or whatever? Throw in well-done graphics, voice-acting, and so on? I dunno. I'd be a better gamer if I could think of how to actually make that a good game, but there's always strategy involved when you have a limited amount of resources you need to plan out how to use and that kind of thing. If it's about "fun" and not about saying "fuck you" to anyone, I figure there'd be some way to represent "depression" in a game.
Poor Choices
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
I have no idea why you're being disagreed with, GG has openly stated that it is about journalism integrity and anti-GG is focused on the misogyny in gaming which they think GG is part of. It's why they can't come to agreements on anything, they both suspect each other of ulterior motives because of how they see the issue framed.
Lord RainbowDash
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
So does anyone here remember when 8chan, the other day, discovered that these journos who get bribed off to give good reviews to games without disclossing are breaking a law?
Welp, here's some more info:
Also.....
So yeah.
Welp, here's some more info:
Also.....
So yeah.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
I really don't know. Some people wouldn't care for the term "Gamer". I feel more derogatory terms might come to play like SJW, it really depends on the individual. Gamer kinda covers people who play games. Simple. Although, as Greedy Fireman said, player has been put out there as an alternative term.
I would be all for seeing games made by these people, if they can ACTUALLY make a decent game (not just get the funds and shit out something half assed), that'd be great.
Well gaming is a form of escapism, so you wanna have an engaging game, for the most part, and usually that takes form in typical forms of adventure. Killing aliens, saving princesses, going on quests, stuff you would never actually be able to do. I feel like I might seem closed minded about a "SJW" game, but then again I might be thinking of it realistically. I'd like to think the games they would make would be entertaining, thought provoking, and worthwhile to play, but the people whom are proposing all this seem sorta preachy, and "wanna talk it out". I'm more or less referring to Anita talking about how games "are icky and why can't I get to know everyone." Really though, there are games like that, where your choices effect the game, and you can get to know people for the most part (Fable, Fallout, Sims). Honestly, I would love to see their games get made and see how things play out. Would it be a talking simulator? Or would it be something groundbreaking? With gaming though, it can be anything. But it's an industry none the less, so money matters.
The thing about Depression Quest, is that this is a game you'd find on Newgrounds. There is the debate of whether its a game or not. I realize games come in all different forms, but compared to the other things that where Greenlighted on Steam, it was lacking. It probably could have been better, but that would take work and money. I guess games don't have to be fun, more engaging or playable. Depression Quest to me isn't an appealing game, although for some people games like that are right up their alley.
Also, a battle system? I'm just thinking about how that'd work. Would it be like Final Fantasy, and you choose attacks? "Depression casts Sadness. You cast Remedy. Status cured!"
Last edited:
- Status