Be Excellent To Each Other
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/

Gamersgate
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10186
Page 1 of 12

Author:  Trooper [ Sat Sep 06, 2014 21:45 ]
Post subject:  Gamersgate

I seem to have missed the start of all this, and have no idea what is going on. Does anyone know? Corruption in reviews, sexism, misogyny, Twitter feuds? What is this actually all about?

Author:  Pod [ Sat Sep 06, 2014 21:53 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

It's a load of fuss about pointless crap. (Cue: Me being branded a misogynist or an SJW for saying this).

There's a million rundowns on this topic on vaguely games related sites, e.g. this one I found on google but have no read, and therefore have no idea which "side" the poster is publicly/secretly on, so other people reading this: don't shout at me if it opposes you viewpoint plz. Just search for "Zoe Quinn drama" or "controversy" or something, or just search for your own summary on gamergate (not gamersgate).

Author:  myp [ Sat Sep 06, 2014 21:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GamerGate

Author:  Trooper [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 7:20 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

All those links are terrible at actually explaining what has happened. The synopsis links are written by people who assume you already are involved and know what is going on, Wikipedia misses out any of the things that actually happened, in an attempt to be completely neutral and avoid libel.

The turn of events as I understand it, from reading up:

1) Somebody exposed a journalist and a game developer as having a relationship that wasn't professional and called the journalists neutrality into question.
2) some gamers on the Internet went mental and acted like cunts
3) The journalists have labelled every gamer a cunt.

That about right?

Author:  DavPaz [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 7:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

What a bunch of cunts

Author:  Curiosity [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Synopsis:

Mostly male gamers started a hate campaign against female journalist on 'corruption' charges as she cheated on someone. This included death threats to her and another woman who dared to talk about misogyny in gaming. This moved into a larger anti-corruption in games journalism movement, which was being directed by 4chan as a means to justify attacking the women in question.

Basically the concept of gamergate, that of the games journalism world being corrupt and this being a bad thing, is sound. It just happened that it was a smokescreen so 4chan and an angry ex boyfriend could slut-shame a woman and pretend she traded shags for reviews (which she didn't).

To paraphrase our own Happy Forest:

"Where was all this moral outrage over gaming corruption in the last twenty years before it became about a woman having sex?"

Author:  MrChris [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:37 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Didn't this happen about 3 years ago?

Author:  Hearthly [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:17 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

I'd like to hear asfish's input on this before I reach any conclusions.

Author:  Trooper [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Cheers Curio, that's the best synopsis I've seen so far!

Author:  Curiosity [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:42 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

And if the gamers who aren't fuckwits wish to keep the good parts of the movement going, they should really change the name of the movement itself to show this. Else it's like sorting out the problem in the Middle East, setting up a peaceful Islamic State and then calling it ISIS.

Author:  MrChris [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 13:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Ah, here we go:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9049

Female games journalist does do something wrong, but a load of internet people chuck in some unpleasant misogynistic abuse off the back of it, thereby distracting from the initial issue.

Times they aren't a-changin'. Misogynistic fuckwits be misogynistic fuckwits, etc.

As an aside, whilst I agree entirely with the sentiments of his posts, much lady-kudos to Curio for digesting the Guardian feministas' dictionary. You're sounding suspiciously like Jessica Valenti. ;)

Author:  Curiosity [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 13:38 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Just you wait until Gaywood gets started on 'sexual agency'!

Author:  Mimi [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 13:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Curiosity wrote:
Just you wait until Gaywood gets started on 'sexual agency'!


Has Gaywood changed job again? I'm surprised there's customer demand in the Sexual Agency for someone his height, but I guess we all have our quirks.

Author:  MrChris [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 13:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Curiosity wrote:
Just you wait until Gaywood gets started on 'sexual agency'!

Is that his new business venture? I can't see small Welshmen being much more than a niche market to fill.

Author:  MrChris [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 13:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

o/

Author:  Mimi [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 13:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

\o

Author:  Curiosity [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 14:02 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Popular in the States, apparently ;)

Author:  ElephantBanjoGnome [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 17:06 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

I've been vaguely aware of this. I think the accusation is that said female developer has essentially slept around with whoever necessary to get a very shitty text game onto Steam and promoted with suspiciously favourable reviews. This has brought the legitimacy of the games journalism industry into question, and the fact that shagging around to get a game on a major platform isn't cool.

Of course, I have no idea if any of this is true, but that was the gist I got from it. Detractors have called it misogyny as a defence.

Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 17:14 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

She slept with some people, who had nothing to do with Depression Quest. One of them was a journo for Kotaku who, before they slept together, had mentioned her game in passing in a news roundup. After they slept together, be never wrote another word about her. The other accusations are equally baseless. Even if she had curried favour, Depression Quest was freely available, so she stood to profit nothing.

Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 17:20 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... e_STFU.php

Quote:
Gamersgate: STFU

"As a male voice in the game industry," writes my daughter Vicky, "you should speak out about this."

Ouch.

I wanted to hold my tongue. Because when I let loose, it usually does me no favors. But she's right.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

What do you think you're defending? An industry in which greed-head executives make brain-dead games on a yearly basis that show little to no innovation from one title to the next? You fucking -want- Madden? And the next Call of Duty game, same as the last but with new content from hundreds of exploited drones working hours that destroy relationships because the suits think that's what they want?

For decades, we had a market that catered to Maxim-reading horny boy-men who bought games by developers who spent man-years on developing better physics to make tits bounce in the next beach volleyball title. For decades, we had shameless manager jackasses who thought the best way to market their titles was to hire high-breasted bimbos to pose and giggle at their booths at E3.

For decades, we had the best creative minds of our industry SHUT DOWN whenever they proposed the slightest design innovation, because increasing budgets meant all design risk must be minimized.

For decades, we had no way for people who wanted to do anything creative be able to find any path to market.

Finally, finally, and thank god, we have a viable path of market for indies, and a way for people who want to express themselves through games that will never sell in the millions to find a market. And you find that a PROBLEM?

What kind of blinkered idiots you are?

And of course, indies do whatever the fuck they can to get noticed, because they don't have MILLIONS OF MARKETING DOLLARS TO SPEND. What the fuck would you expect?

Let me explain something do you. Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision: Mutimillionare. Anna Anthrophy? Stroppy indie developer who probably has problems paying her rent. Who has the power here? What the fuck are you talking about?

There's some kind of conspiracy by the in-group to promote indie games at the expense of "real" games? What the fuck are you talking about? Who cares who Zoe Quinn fucked, or didn't fuck? It's none of your fucking business, unless you were one of the people involved, and most of you would give your left kidney to fuck her, if you had any brains. You are unlikely ever to touch anyone with an iota of her talent or intelligence.

And what does that even mean? Have you suddenly noticed that the game industry is undergoing weird changes as a result of this supposed conspiracy? The next Call of Duty being cancelled in favor of triple-A treatment of the next Anna Anthropy design?

Do people who actually care about whether games can be more than degraded violence porn for young men sometimes get together and talk about games that actually matter? And do they sometimes write about such games?

You're fucking right they do! And you should be fucking grateful that someday a more mature and interesting landscape of videogames may emerge from that! That's not what we call "conspiracy;" that's what we call "gamers who care about games."

And what is it with this mysoginistic bullshit?

I want to tell you some stories.

1. The studio head who invited me -and a female employee- to join them at a strip club at a conference, expecting we would all enjoy this as a 'fun time.'

2. The party given by an industry marketing firm where I and Dan Scherlis were approached by a scantily clad woman who was evidently hired to show their clients a good time (not necessarily including actual fornication) and had to explain that we were both involved with people we cared about, and actually were having a perfectly enjoyable time talking to each other.

3. The -very- gay friend of mine who was hired by another firm and started sweating when I approached their booth at a conference, in fear that I would reveal his sexual orientation to his new boss.

4. My friend, Dan Bunten, a seminal figure in early PC gaming, who decided he was a woman, and after extensive surgery, became Danielle Bunten Berry. "Shabbily treated" wouldn't even begin to describe it.

I have no idea why gender and such is even an issue in this conversation. Women have always been a minority in the games industry, to its loss; but they have never been entirely missing. Roberta Williams created the Sierra adventures. Brenda Garno, later Brathwaite, later Romero, was one of the key talents behind the Wizardry series.

If you look at recent IGDA surveys, 80+% of all jobs in the industry are held by men. This is a problem, particularly as industry surveys say that a majority of gamers are women. To be sure, they're playing Candy Crush and not Call of Duty, and maybe that doesn't qualify as a "real game" to you, but if so, fuck off. Games are games, games are good, and it's great that more people are playing them. Stop masturbating with your console controller and get a life.

Anita Sirkeesian has told some pretty obvious truths about the treatment of women in games; controversial ones, and others are free to debate them, but "debate" doesn't normally involve threats to rape or kill.

You can like, or not like, Zoe Quinn's work; tastes vary. But her sex life is not, and never has been, any of your fucking business.

Leigh Alexander is one of the most interesting journalists working in games.

This is bullshit, you are assholes, and shut the fuck up.

Deal with the fact that not all games are, or will be in the future, the same corporate crap that you apparently love so much. And understand that the money-grubbing entities who dole out this crap will continue to feed your fix, because it's a far larger market than is reached by the indie people, whom you despise and spit on, can possibly ever hope to reach.

You're attacking people who have problems making their rent, apparently in defense of people who make millions off your fanboy lusts; and somehow feel threatened by people who love games -- as I supposed you do -- but love games that are a little different.

You are assholes.


Author:  Pod [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 17:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

This is the video that help "start" off the whole thing, along with 4chan and reddit threads etc. You could say that the ex-boyfriend's started it all off, but no one read that until this video came out, I think. The user who made that video, InternetAristocrat, is now something of a "ringleader" in this whole thing.

Warning: Looking at some of the other videos on his channel, Internet Aristocrat is a rather vile human being, so try not to stray further than the video.

Author:  Curiosity [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 18:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

I've not seen it, but have widely read that said video has been widely discredited and is based on lies.

Author:  Bamba [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 19:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

I was vaguely aware of this as a thing but didn't look into it too deeply because my general attitude is 'if there's a drama involving gamer culture and a woman then it's a fucking certainty that the whining is not only utterly baseless but originates entirely from a load of hilariously sexist butt-hurt twelve year olds (and basement dwellers with the emotional maturity of a twelve year old) who don't have a single leg to stand on'. It's depressing as shit that not only do I need to foster such an attitude but that, as a generalisation, it's correct 100% of the fucking time! I love playing games and I love the potential of the medium and I love the incredibly interesting stuff that's happening within the culture even now. It's just a massive shame I need to despise about 90% of the other people who share that interest because they're the fucking dregs of humanity.

Author:  LewieP [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 21:02 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

http://midnightresistance.co.uk/article ... -ass-gamer

Author:  Trooper [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 21:41 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

If this all ends up with less games like Gears of War, and more like The Stanley Parable, and also stops COD 48 from getting 10/10 reviews, then I'm all for it, and I'm totally on the side of the people who are on the side of that, whoever those people are.

Author:  markg [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 22:20 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

I think I find it all a bit bizarre that these people seem to define themselves by the fact that they enjoy playing videogames. I've always enjoyed games in common with most people I grew up with, since the early 80s we've all been playing them. Never ever called ourselves "gamers" though. I'm still massively confused by all this, doesn't it just amount to arseholes on the internet? I get the feeling from reading all the hand-wringing articles that we're all supposed to feel ashamed by association to these people because they play games too. But I just don't. At all. I have nothing more in common with them than I do with everyone who ever read a book or watched a film :shrug:

Author:  Curiosity [ Sun Sep 07, 2014 22:23 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

markg wrote:
I think I find it all a bit bizarre that these people seem to define themselves by the fact that they enjoy playing videogames. I've always enjoyed games in common with most people I grew up with, since the early 80s we've all been playing them. Never ever called ourselves "gamers" though. I'm still massively confused by all this, doesn't it just amount to arseholes on the internet? I get the feeling from reading all the hand-wringing articles that we're all supposed to feel ashamed by association to these people because they play games too. But I just don't. At all. I have nothing more in common with them than I do with everyone who ever read a book or watched a film :shrug:


Yeah, that's a good part of the above article.

Author:  myp [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Bamba wrote:
It's just a massive shame I need to despise about 90% of the other people who share that interest because they're the fucking dregs of humanity.

This is how I feel about football.

Author:  myp [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:29 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Except it's not 90%. It's the vocal minority 10% that ruins it for everyone else.

Author:  Bobbyaro [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:32 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

American Nervoso wrote:
Except it's not 90%. It's the vocal minority 10% that ruins it for everyone else.

but that's just the players.

Author:  MrChris [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:47 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

It's all the people who refer to "their team" when they don't actually play on it.

Author:  Grim... [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

>:(

Author:  KovacsC [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Mr Kissyfur wrote:
It's all the people who refer to "their team" when they don't actually play on it.


Which is the right thing to do

Author:  Grim... [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:05 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

KovacsC wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
It's all the people who refer to "their team" when they don't actually play on it.

Which is the right thing to do

No. No it isn't. Ever.

Author:  KovacsC [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:10 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Why not ?

I play for a team so I refer to as we.. If I watch the team and not play still we?

Author:  Grim... [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:25 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

"They".

Author:  TheVision [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:27 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

I agree with Grim and Kissyfur. I like Chris Jericho but you don't hear me saying "I did really well in that match against Shawn Michaels"

Author:  Curiosity [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:30 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Grim... wrote:
"They".


I'm sure you have referred to your work before as 'we', even when not sitting at your desk.

Author:  Bobbyaro [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

not even vaguely the same.

Author:  KovacsC [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:33 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Bobbyaro wrote:
not even vaguely the same.


Why?

If I play for my team it is we, if I watch the same team, it is they?

Author:  BikNorton [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:37 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

If you watch while still part of the team is one thing. If you're not part of the team, 'they'.

There's a guy at work that if you didn't know where he worked and were unlucky enough to have him randomly start bellowing at you about football, you'd think he was the manager or on the board of Man U or something. It's absurd.

(What he does at work can only loosely be described as "work", mostly he strolls about looking for someone to shout football at)

Author:  KovacsC [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:45 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

I still think it is 'we'.

We played well on Saturday, etc

It is part of the community of sport

Author:  myp [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:46 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Grim... wrote:
"They".

Confusing, as you may be talking about your team's opponents.

"They against them" is just stupid.

Author:  TheVision [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:47 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

American Nervoso wrote:
Grim... wrote:
"They".

Confusing, as you may be talking about your opponents.

"They against them" is just stupid.


You're right. "We against them" makes much more sense. ;)

Author:  Grim... [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

KovacsC wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
not even vaguely the same.


Why?

If I play for my team it is we, if I watch the same team, it is they?

Oh no, that's fine. If you watch Liverpool play and refer to them as "us" then that's not.

Author:  Bobbyaro [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:52 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

KovacsC wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
not even vaguely the same.


Why?

If I play for my team it is we, if I watch the same team, it is they?

you aren't playing for Blackburn.

Author:  KovacsC [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Bobbyaro wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
not even vaguely the same.


Why?

If I play for my team it is we, if I watch the same team, it is they?

you aren't playing for Blackburn.


More the rugby team I play for and watch

Author:  myp [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:03 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Fans invest a lot of time and money into their favourite sports teams, buying merchandise, tickets, watching terrible performances, etc. Without fans, these teams don't exist.

So yes, I think fans can refer to their team as 'we/us'.

*drops mic*

Author:  Bobbyaro [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:05 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

KovacsC wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
not even vaguely the same.


Why?

If I play for my team it is we, if I watch the same team, it is they?

you aren't playing for Blackburn.


More the rugby team I play for and watch


Yes, that is "we" you play for them, ffs!

Author:  KovacsC [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate

Bobbyaro wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
not even vaguely the same.


Why?

If I play for my team it is we, if I watch the same team, it is they?

you aren't playing for Blackburn.


More the rugby team I play for and watch


Yes, that is "we" you play for them, ffs!



But if I am just watching them?

Page 1 of 12 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/