I have a question about Gamergate

[Kalyx triaD]

Don't simplify what I'm saying. There are markets, demographics, niche interests. This is fact.

And when people who have little interest in the core expectations and culture of any given group, while trying to subvert it, they are outsiders. Call it a boys club. Call it a women's club. Doesn't matter.

Sarkeesian is an outsider because she doesn't know how games work, while taking what she thinks and running with it. It's not because she's a woman (we have those). It's not even because she's feminist (we have those too). It's because she doesn't know the industry. And the running theme with people like her is they take their uninformed viewership and make proclamations about what they think are problems and solutions. I can talk about why Anita is pedestrian all day; beginning with her hilariously erroneous definition of fail states and endgame goals. She wondered why you couldn't call EMTs after a person is killed in Watch_Dogs. This is not something a core gamer would say. It's not a progressive or enlightened thought. It's something somebody who doesn't understand goal progression in games would think. She showed her lack of understanding while 'critiquing' Assassins Creed as well, wondering why a mission constantly saw a villain kidnapping and killing women in one mission.

It's a soft fail state, Anita, it loops until you find a stealthy way to stop the badguy. She and her supporters may think she found a crushing example of why a game is sexist, but AssCreed players who watched her video just saw her (or whoever) play the game incorrectly.

And no; don't even think about saying she was only playing it a certain way to highlight a problem. Her argument was not the restructure of fail states - she did not understand why the game looped the challenge. I watched her videos. All of them. I would not say she doesn't know what she's talking about to slight her or belittle her argument. I'm not saying saying she's an outsider as some kneejerk reaction to a woman reviewing game mechanics. It's my conclusion. My critique of her work.

If she wants to highlight issues with games, it would behoove her to educate herself about how and why certain genres work the way they do. I hope that answer your questions.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Originally Posted by The Rogerer Who is the collective? The developers or the audience? Because the audience is the world. How can you be an outsider to a mass produced product stacked at the door of Walmart? It is pop culture. It is multi million dollar advertising budgets. Is Arthur Gies somehow an outsider? Why is Anita Sarkeesian an outsider? She's an 18-35 tech savvy American. Am I an infiltrator? Don't think I've seen DTTS break as much as this. He's acting like me. Polemic is everything. All the chess pieces go back in the same box.

"Acting like me" as an insult. I think you're done here, my child.

[The Rogerer]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD She wondered why you couldn't call EMTs after a person is killed in Watch_Dogs. This is not something a core gamer would say.

You're right. It's something a child, or an adult, or someone with something new or vital to say. I'm sure a woman watching you game has asked such a question, and I'm sure you snorted with derision. Haven't you heard there are no stupid questions? You wouldn't hear it from someone who just trudges through game after game, accepting the status quo and the contrivances again and again and again. I welcome it. Fuck this 'core gamer', he can stick his Doritos up his arse. Games are costing more and getting more and more homogenised. The Spectrum and Commodore had an unbelievable rainbow of crazy, imaginative games. I've watched it get dumber over the years.

What you think of as this 'collective' is just tribal stagnation. You know why genres become niche? Because they're no longer appealing on their own - they rely on nostalgia, habit and people who stopped expecting new things.

The defence of this sort of idea, of 'core' gamers, is something that everyone should try and break out of. I become more and more conscious of how dumb games are. Destiny feels like a peak. There are so many things in destiny that don't make any intuitive sense whatsoever. Why is this here? Because another game did it, that is an answer you'll hear again and again looking at Destiny. We're sleepwalking. Be fucking grateful that someone has the interest to question it.

I've been gaming longer than you, I typed my first code to make a game as soon as I could learn to read. If you want to play this tribe shit, then it's you that's on my turf. And I want the petty minded manchildren out of MY gaming. Except I don't really. You can play in the treehouse all you want. There will be more than enough of the same stories, over and over again, coming. Kill and kill again.

[Ruien]

This thread use to be awesome. Now it is this

[The Rogerer]

Originally Posted by DTTS "Acting like me" as an insult. I think you're done here, my child.

I'm glad you see absolutely nothing negative about acting like TheRogerer. It really warms my heart.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by The Rogerer You wouldn't hear it from someone who just trudges through game after game, accepting the status quo and the contrivances again and again and again. I welcome it.

Oh yes what we've been doing is trudge through game after game. We've never challenged the status quo and "contrivances" concerning game mechanics. You are correct. And by correct I mean off your rocker.

What you think of as this 'collective' is just tribal stagnation. You know why genres become niche? Because they're no longer appealing on their own - they rely on nostalgia, habit and people who stopped expecting new things.

So what?

You really think games are some sort of social service, do you?

The defence of this sort of idea, of 'core' gamers, is something that everyone should try and break out of. I become more and more conscious of how dumb games are. Destiny feels like a peak. There are so many things in destiny that don't make any intuitive sense whatsoever. Why is this here? Because another game did it, that is an answer you'll hear again and again looking at Destiny. We're sleepwalking. Be fucking grateful that someone has the interest to question it.

She's not questioning anything concerning game design (and certainly not intuitive options/UI... HA!). I'm starting to think you don't actually watch her videos. Hell, what you;ve said about Destiny is more informed and valid than any of her vids so far.

On the core gaming thing; how identifying groups work is you see the trends and label them after the fact. Nobody just out and said these are core gamers and these are casuals. Nor is it a hard rule - but you have to recognize trends. There are people who drop 20+hrs a week on gaming, and most of them play certain types of genres. Conversely, there are people who spend a few hours a week on games, and there's also correlation between the genres they play. If you're a game company you would be risking a great deal pretending these groups are the same because of outliers and exceptional cases, all because some people don't like that there are core gamers and casual gamers overall.

I've been gaming longer than you, I typed my first code to make a game as soon as I could learn to read. If you want to play this tribe shit, then it's you that's on my turf. And I want the petty minded manchildren out of MY gaming.

Then code yourself something that moves the industry away from us manchildren until the most profitable action is to service non-manchildren. Take it back.

[Kalyx triaD]

And I'm not posting that last little challenge to shift the goal post, like anybody could just up and make a game. I said that, as I did with EGC about the mental illness/film thing, because that is the language of change in these industries. I feel a great many things are sub-par in certain genres. I've written some blogs and posts here about them, but these are also things that sell. At some point I know if I firmly believe something should work a certain way and it would light a fire in that genre I gotta put the damn thing together or support people who are speaking my language. Actions speak louder than words and barring that - money talks. That's why I asked if you think gaming is some kind of social service.

[The Rogerer]

I'll code a JS script that hides all your posts. Outside of that, 'Do better' is empty bootstrappy rhetoric. You wrote a big article to Bungie telling them why they should put the sword in Destiny, why didn't you just make your own MMO shooter with a sword? Huh?

I don't know what you mean as a social service? I think games are entertaining but they're also generally really stupid. They put stories in these games with the purpose of making them appealing experiences and ultimately, they want my money. If they want my money then I'm allowed to make a decision on whether their story is good or bad or smart or dumb or whatever. I can write about that. I can talk about trends. I can guess as to why they wrote things this way or that. A lot of decisions are stupid, and they only appeal to an audience who don't know any better, so the whole thing becomes an echo chamber. I feel like I grew up and they didn't necessarily grow up with me. These games are sold around their story - at this point it's the only thing that differentiates many of them - so it's almost the most important thing. Is every story about a sociopath with a gun?

[Swiss Ultimate]

Dear TheRogerer,

I don't hate you. I don't think you're a bad person. I'm pretty sure you're a very generous and caring lover too.

Please, stop acting this way.

Sincerely,
DTTS

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by The Rogerer I'll code a JS script that hides all your posts. Outside of that, 'Do better' is empty bootstrappy rhetoric. You wrote a big article to Bungie telling them why they should put the sword in Destiny, why didn't you just make your own MMO shooter with a sword? Huh?

Funny you say that.

But I'm glad you mentioned my post (which can be found right here on my blog >>> HERE!!), because it highlights the difference between criticism and solution orientation from an informed person versus an uninformed person (why can't I ride the ambulance with hurt people in this shooting game).

These games are sold around their story - at this point it's the only thing that differentiates many of them - so it's almost the most important thing. Is every story about a sociopath with a gun?

I disagree with this. *sips tea*

[Swiss Ultimate]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD And I'm not posting that last little challenge to shift the goal post, like anybody could just up and make a game. I said that, as I did with EGC about the mental illness/film thing, because that is the language of change in these industries. I feel a great many things are sub-par in certain genres. I've written some blogs and posts here about them, but these are also things that sell. At some point I know if I firmly believe something should work a certain way and it would light a fire in that genre I gotta put the damn thing together or support people who are speaking my language. Actions speak louder than words and barring that - money talks. That's why I asked if you think gaming is some kind of social service.

Making games is serious business, Kal.

We must make sure that all games made are in line with the accepted social views...just like in science fiction.

[Kalyx triaD]

Oh I know it's serious business.

I'm all about... Serious Business.

[The Rogerer]

Originally Posted by DTTS Making games is serious business, Kal. We must make sure that all games made are in line with the accepted social views...just like in science fiction.

You're not allowed to say that! As a qualified insider and certified game maker I disqualify your opinion and give it the RED CARD. You're outta here!

[Kalyx triaD]

I did not know you were a coder, though. I wonder; would you approach a game project story first or gameplay?

[The Rogerer]

Both. Sometimes you have a notion that you want to communicate via the medium of gameplay. Sometimes you think 'Nobody's made anything like Cannon Fodder since Cannon Fodder'

[The Rogerer]

Originally Posted by DTTS Making games is serious business, Kal. We must make sure that all games made are in line with the accepted social views...just like in science fiction.

I feel you brother

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by The Rogerer Both. Sometimes you have a notion that you want to communicate via the medium of gameplay. Sometimes you think 'Nobody's made anything like Cannon Fodder since Cannon Fodder'

Interesting.

[Swiss Ultimate]

When making a story do you pull out your Social justice warrior checklist or do you let it happen organically?

[Kalyx triaD]

Stand down, private (or are you captain or whatever by now?); I was legitimately interested in what he thinks is important in game production. Doing my Prime Factors thing. We can find the source of rifts this way.

[Swiss Ultimate]

I'm the highest rank of all. Civilian.

[Kalyx triaD]

That's gay. Tell me your damn rank, soldier.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Seriously though, I will reword my question.

Do you write a story with the intent of conveying a social message or do you write what entertains you?

[Swiss Ultimate]

Also, can you describe your reasoning for being anti-GamerGate? What is it about them that is bothering you so much?

[The Rogerer]

You're going to let him talk to you like that?

I wrote a text adventure about how disappointing a life focused around 3d printers would be. I think of mechanics and story quite separately. I would say that I usually try and stick with traditional mechanics in the stuff I make for a variety of reasons, bearing in mind a lot of the reason I'm making a game is more to test and sharpen my skills, or get to grips with a certain technology. Making things happen on a screen presents a number of problems that are educational to solve. You can bung any old story in there if you want to.

If I think of a story first, then I want to tell something quite distinct that I don't think I've seen before. Papers Please is probably the best example of this I've played within the last year. That is something I wish I had made.

[Swiss Ultimate]

I like text adventures in general btw.

May I continue asking questions in the hopes that I can better understand your over-all thinking on this?

[The Rogerer]

I will add to that in that a game like Papers, Please is practically perfect because the mechanics ARE the story. They are intwined in a way that places you inside that scenario and the rules of the game force decisions that match up to the scenario that the player character is in. It's not just a game about shooting that has cutscenes and audio clips giving exposition between shooting sessions.

[Swiss Ultimate]

I still have to play it. I was obsessed with text games throughout my childhood. I, Damiano is probably my favorite. Ended up finding the book it was based on when I was in high-school at a used book store.

[The Rogerer]

I will deign to answer your questions, although you are an outsider. Please complete a NDA form and wear your black lanyard at all times.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Two steps ahead of you. I already filed the i983 forms and received my Press Badge.

Do you have a problem with Kalyx and the gamer gate movement? If so, why?

[The Rogerer]

My short prelude answer is yes. Like all good hatred, it is a projection of personal guilt

[Swiss Ultimate]

What about Kal's position do you dislike? What would you advise the Gamer Gate people to do?

[The Rogerer]

Stop shooting themselves in the foot and everyone wins. Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Videogames received a massive dose of it's funding after it was DDOSed by 4chan. She would be almost nobody if it were not for the boatloads of sympathy people end up having for her. Also any GG I meet will state that it's not about harassment or women, but when I came into this thread Kalyx was directly tweeting Anita telling her that she was wrong to feel harassed. My number 2 GGer keeps denying that it's about women but he first posted about it fuming about Zoe Quinn 'acting like a whore' and complaining, literally, about 'females in gaming'.

As I have also said, I think the supposed manifesto of gamergate is fundamentally misguided, and frankly just too silly. Also many members seem happy for a moral race to the bottom, justifying behavour by acting in the way that they disparage their enemies for. At that point, what separates you from what you hate?

[Swiss Ultimate]

Can you point me to the post where Kal told someone she was wrong to feel harassed? Who is your #2 GGer? Do you think Kal is somehow sexist?

Do you think a majority of Gamer Gate members act in a way that is unethical? How would we go about figuring out the difference between a few fringe lunatics and a significant trend here?

What do you find silly about the "manifesto"?

I am still very ignorant of "gamer gate" on account of a shoddy memory. All I have defended is Kalyx's posts here which have been extremely clear and concise. I believe in giving credit where it's due. No one, from what I have seen, has really made the case against the group, and more often than not some people in this thread have willfully ignored Kal's points and explanations just to continue feeling the way they do.

[The Rogerer]

I can't make a judgement on all the members of gamergate. My experience with Adam Baldwin is that he enjoys playing the cigar chomping Reaganite and he's addicted to arguing, and serious gamergaters should probably regret his involvement because he's a big shitehawke.

I don't think Anita's videos are very good. I thought her original youtube series was interesting enough and I was curious to see what money could to do them. I was pretty disappointed with the results there.

Anyway, the real problem with GG is that a)with the best will in the world, it will never be able to separate itself from the Zoe Quinn stuff, b)it's a breeding ground for shitehawkes on both sides and c)as I say, I think talking about objectivity and journalistic ethics just has no place in something that is enthusiast press, and I really cannot shake the feeling that the core arguments about this really are a disproportionate response to radical feminism. Tumblrites and these 'SJW' people, if I must, do often have a shocking lack of perspective and are probably contributing a fair amount of shit.

If all things are equal, and nobody commited any wrongdoing, I would still be against the aims of gamergate. Trying to place this at the feet of the press, now, doesn't make any sense. Gaming press had a power over the industry and a position to abuse it in the 90s. This was in reponse to their relevance at the time. Gaming press is now less and less relevant and any consumer is in a position to completely bypass them, not only from the wide range of opinions out there, but also the opportunity to instantly watch masses of streamed footage of a game, which probably gives the best impression on it's quality without any editorial interference.

To then complain to care about a lower review score because of a personal quabble that a reviewer has:

a)tries to deny the inherent personal subjective experience of engaging these things, which you'll never be able to successfully do and so it's better to meet it head on than try to repress it
b)implies that there's some sort of dishonesty from the perspective of the reviewer
c)tries to paint the notion of the 'core' gamer being the true voice, when that's a self defeating perspective as it is
d)plays into the hands of, as I said, people putting boobs in games because it takes money out of your pocket

I say let everyone have their say. I love reading reviews of things that hate what I love. I love reading reviews that love what I hate. Let my opinion change. I go back to things I played or watched or read years ago and I look at it in a whole new light, with my experience and age. I would crumple up those old reviews I wrote. We're young and dumb.

Aside from the logical fallacy fencing and freedom of speech and what not, GamerGate is just too embroiled in the origins of attacks against women, regarding an industry that has historically been a young boys club, and that's something I've always been conscious of. Once it got onto twitter and forums, it's too hard to pin it down to anything after that. The root of it is still that it too often gets away from what it pretends to be about, and I think what it claims to be about isn't good either. It doesn't make sense. Games journalism is already defanged. It's future is to be as subjective as possible. My favourite reviewer is Tim Rogers. His reviews are about 50,000 words long and usually end up mostly talking about what he was doing in the mid 90s or how the game reminds him of playing Mario 3. He is also absurdly game intelligent and is able to dissect the experience in a way that cuts right to the core. Objectivity means nothing to a Tim Rogers review.

[Swiss Ultimate]

That seems pretty fair and concise (size withstanding). I'd like to see what Kal feels about it, but I will say a few words that I think are appropriate.

Diversity of thought is incredibly important in any organization. My favorite quote and one I used on all my email signatures at work is by Patton, "If every one is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking."

The industry SHOULD be challenged. People should be expressing their opinions and questioning the status quo. I also believe people should be pushing back, having that public debate in the economy of ideas so that the best ones succeed and the lesser ones fade. I think a group of consumers coming together and forming a lobby (as in political lobby) is a good idea. I wish every consumer group had a lobby fighting for them right now, because as of right now it is incredibly difficult to break into gaming. Viral game hits are wonderful and all, but how many indie gamers really make anything comparable to main stream production companies (real question, I don't know).

One thing that really stands out to me is that I was asking myself the same question about the power that the game media has these days. As you pointed out, people can watch game footage on youtube and get a much better idea, much of the time, than a 3 page review as to whether or not they'll enjoy it. It'd be like if every movie that came out let people watch the first 30 minutes for free and then decide whether or not they want to pay. It'd be such a short investment of time and provide a better choice than believing that opinions of a movie critic.

Anyway, thank you TheRogerer for that explanation.

[Vastardikai]

As an outsider, all I really see are the stated goals of GG vs. what they do to achieve said stated goals.

Are there serious issues with VG Journalism? Yes. Kalyx and I have both mentioned quite a few. But what how would going after game developers or critics help fix the flaws with VG Journalism? And the only Journalists again that they seem to go after are the folks who bitch about GG. How about go after the ones who kid-glove the new CoD that is at best marginally different from the old CoD? How about bitch about the companies who advertise a game showing cut-scenes or stills not used involving the game engine.

I quit really being serious about games in a very piecemeal fashion. I stand by my belief that the Skate series killed skateboarding games even more than the annualization of the Tony Hawk series did. Personally, I don't want realism. If I wanted to skateboard for real, I'd jump on a skateboard, fall off of it immediately and wear a cast on my arm for a couple of months. I really liked the music games, but that trend died off kind of quickly. I won't play another Madden game until they do a serious revamp of the engine that makes the play new and exciting. I hate FPS, and action RPGs feel really boring at the moment. Before I knew it, I wasn't really interested in playing video games anymore. (well, apart from Animal Crossing right now, but that's more boredom than anything else.) Getting old sucks.

[Swiss Ultimate]

I have read Kal's criticisms about that sort of thing. I want to assume that's what GG is about, but I'm happy to wait for more info.

[Kalyx triaD]

My personal issues with games journalism, as anti-GGers I've met on Twitter have noted, seem to be much more agreeable than what GG is about. I've come across this support for my own issues with the industry so much it's made me rethink how much I participate in this mess. Not one anti-GG I had extended talks with had issue with issues I highlighted, I have noted this. The ones where me and GG meet most is journalism ethics, but honestly my personal issues are way beyond that. I consider myself a supporter still because I believe in the message.

I find myself in a weird position that some feminist may have been. Feminism says they're about equality, but their actions reek of double standards and female superiority. But what of the self identified feminist who's attachment to the name begins and ends with equality? She has nothing to do with the bint who tweeted #killallmen, or feminist groups who deny accused men rights while protecting accused women. People would say to that girl, "Equality isn't a feminist thing anyway, just believe in that and leave the baggage behind." I have said that.

So I'm in a real funny place where my own advice rears its head. I have noble intentions for the industry that people who hate GG completely agree with. I can champion the ethics in journalism, along with my more serious qualms, without considering myself GamerGate. As I said to the feminist a few weeks ago, the goal is much more important than the tag anyway.

That's where I am right now.

In a little bit I am going to respond to Rog's last big post. It's worth a reply.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by The Rogerer I can't make a judgement on all the members of gamergate. My experience with Adam Baldwin is that he enjoys playing the cigar chomping Reaganite and he's addicted to arguing, and serious gamergaters should probably regret his involvement because he's a big shitehawke.

I'm fine with him only as a fellow supporter of GG. I have a dislike for ever tweet he does outside of that. Love him on screen, but he's somebody I otherwise would not follow. actually, there's several people I'm only in league with by a strange bedfellows set-up. GG naturally gained the assist of conservatives because the politics being pushed back are hyper left. I'm a left guy myself, so in this bizarre thing I'm sided with people I otherwise wouldn't communicate with on a social. But I think this is a strength of a movement, if it's able to build bridges between ideologies.

And honestly; whenever something comes along and actually gets rivals to join forces, it's a huge hint that the joined forces may have some legit issues there. Righteous causes have a habit of featuring bitter rivals joined together as opposition. That's just my personal observation on history anyway.

Anyway, the real problem with GG is that a)with the best will in the world, it will never be able to separate itself from the Zoe Quinn stuff

Sad but true.

b)it's a breeding ground for shitehawkes on both sides

How is this a specific problem with GG? This can be an issue with any movement ever. And can GG be blamed for creating assholes on the other side?

c)as I say, I think talking about objectivity and journalistic ethics just has no place in something that is enthusiast press, and I really cannot shake the feeling that the core arguments about this really are a disproportionate response to radical feminism. Tumblrites and these 'SJW' people, if I must, do often have a shocking lack of perspective and are probably contributing a fair amount of shit.

I don't think GG wants objectivity in the sense you're thinking here. We know robots aren't writing these articles. Nobody's silly enough to mean that kind of objectivity. I don't even think GGers posit this a great deal anyway. It comes down to ethics. It was a lack of this that led to GG at the beginning, and there very simple things the journalists could have done to kill this before it started.

To then complain to care about a lower review score because of a personal quabble that a reviewer has...

I don't think GG is concerned about some guy giving a low score. You are talking about the Bayo2 thing, yes? I have explained what the problem was with that piece and it had nothing to do with the score.

The root of it is still that it too often gets away from what it pretends to be about, and I think what it claims to be about isn't good either.

I wanna ask; what would the line be in your mind where something goes from pretending to being?

GG funded a feminist game jam. GG raised money for anti-bullying awareness. GG put women forward when anti-GG kept telling them to stand down and be quiet (fancy that). GG showcased the true diversity of the gaming community when anti-GG kept pushing their 'gamers are all white sexist' narrative. Every journalist who has had equal communication with both sides almost always notes how GG treated them great while anti-GG were shockingly harsh (the latest case being YTer David Packman).

At what point, to you, does this illusion of being a good cause become a good cause? Is there any action GG can take, for you, that would finally separate it from it's complicated origins (it was not about harassing a women, as somebody who seen this unfold live, but I'm done arguing this info)? Why can't you measure the good over the bad? Is it that you don't care about the lives that were improved because of us? Cancer research, female developers, people of color speaking out; are these not things you find impressive?

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by DTTS I have read Kal's criticisms about that sort of thing. I want to assume that's what GG is about, but I'm happy to wait for more info.

Vast is on the money about the hegemony of gaming mechanics and aesthetics. I'd go farther and say is kinda ruined the HD era of gaming. We'll see what this generation goes, so far so good.