Gaming and Social Justice (The #Gamergate Thread)

[RACECAR]

I definitely recall the guys at Netherrealm studios (When they were still midway Chicago) getting death threats over showing initial sketches of Frost for MK5, I'm guessing because fans thought Sub-Zero was about to be replaced.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Why are people pretending that this is an issue relating to gender, when really it's an issue relating to the unstable :censored:holes that feel that the internet is somewhere that they can behave however they like without consequence?

Well, according to a lot of people in the industry, male as well as female, women generally get harrased more. There sadly seems to be a fair amount of harrasment inside the industy as well.

 

[Imari]

Well, according to a lot of people in the industry, male as well as female, women generally get harrased more. There sadly seems to be a fair amount of harrasment inside the industy as well.

Maybe it's true. But it seems to me that in an equal world the response would be the same whether the person getting harassed was a man or a woman. Just because women are harassed more, doesn't mean that the response to any individual case of a female being harassed should be any different to that of a man who was harassed.

Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. In general, people and media outlets seem to respond much more strongly when there's a woman being harassed.

To me, that's not equality either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Encyclopedia]

That I can agree with.

I'm guessing it's getting more attention because the industry is/wants diversifying. And the harrasment of women in the industry works against that.

 

[niky]

Well, considering the words bitch and prostitute have been used in this thread...

-

It's sad that the actions of a rabid few have tarnished the entire community, but in the end, it's even sadder how the gaming community is so willing to gang up and ostracize those they perceive to be outsiders, merely on the say so of people they don't actually personally know.

This is not to say the women, in this case, are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, but the whole thing reeks of partisan politics, with thousand duped into taking sides either for or against, without knowing the entire story. And that so many obviously passionate voices should have such an unfocused and unclear idea of what they're actually fighting for.

 

[Joel]

Well, considering the words bitch and prostitute have been used in this thread...

That's really what it keeps coming back to for me. Two women keep receiving death threats, rape threats, and get called any misogynistic insult under the sun but I'm supposed to sit here and believe this is all about journalistic integrity and there's no sexism at all. If it isn't about gender, why does Quinn's sex life keep getting brought up? Why does it keep being brought up as a bad thing? Why does she keep constantly get called a slut, bitch, prostitute, whore, as if any of that is relevant?

I just don't really get it. If this is really about gaming journalism ethics it seems pretty strange to me that they'd go after Kotaku and a text based indie game. What about Gamespot and IGN continually shoving out 9/10 ratings for every Call of Assassin's Battlefield Honor Duty Creed game? This whole movement seems to be OK with mainstream reviewers not challenging the rehashed shooters every year, but when women get involved it's a problem. To me it really seems like a weird persecution complex, gaming isn't exclusively the domain of basement dwellers anymore but I think it'd be fair to say that a lot of gamers latched onto that label because they were ostracized elsewhere.

It reminds me a lot of our old Caucasian and Scholarly friend, just this bizzare idea that the "SJW's" and feminists are coming to take away "our" games. Reminds me a lot of how he'd say Obama, liberals, and metrosexuals were taking away cars from the "real" car enthusiasts. They won't stop making GTA games. There won't be women shoe-horned into FPS games. Games will still be made that are bloody, violent, full of explosions, and scantily clad women, just like they haven't stopped making movies like that.

What might change is that every RPG might not have scantily clad women with DD's standing next to buff dudes with cool armour. What might change is female protagonists might start showing up in more games down the line. What might change is women might start working on and writing about games. I get that "gamer" is a core part of people's identity but forbidding people you don't perceive as "true gamers" from enjoying the hobby is a stupid as the muscle car/Honda/BMW guys saying that their circle are the "true car enthusiasts".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If it isn't about gender, why does Quinn's sex life keep getting brought up? Why does it keep being brought up as a bad thing? Why does she keep constantly get called a slut, bitch, prostitute, whore, as if any of that is relevant?

Because she challenges existing ideas. And rather than confront that idea, people would rather provoke it. By labelling her as all of those things, she is immediately written off as a poor human being, and thus anything associated with her is automatically discredited. It's not about gender, but about the insecurities of the people making it an issue.

I'll give you an example: lately I've been reading Gillian Flynn's "Gone Girl". Flynn has been criticised as anti-feminist or misogynist because some of her female characters are seriously messed up. According to her critics, female characters can only be positive, progressive, contributing members of society. They can't be destructive and deceptive sociopaths. Flynn makes it pretty clear that "sociopath" does not mean "woman" or vice versa; this particular character is very much a product of her upbringing, and her internal monologue is used to do just that. But her behaviour and her attitude don't fit the feminist mold, so Flynn must be anti-feminist.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Because she challenges existing ideas. And rather than confront that idea, people would rather provoke it. By labelling her as all of those things, she is immediately written off as a poor human being, and thus anything associated with her is automatically discredited. It's not about gender, but about the insecurities of the people making it an issue.

I'll give you an example: lately I've been reading Gillian Flynn's "Gone Girl". Flynn has been criticised as anti-feminist or misogynist because some of her female characters are seriously messed up. According to her critics, female characters can only be positive, progressive, contributing members of society. They can't be destructive and deceptive sociopaths. Flynn makes it pretty clear that "sociopath" does not mean "woman" or vice versa; this particular character is very much a product of her upbringing, and her internal monologue is used to do just that. But her behaviour and her attitude don't fit the feminist mold, so Flynn must be anti-feminist.

That is not true, at least for me it isn't. The issue for me is that I would rather a game be judged on its merits rather than how good was the lay.

 

[Encyclopedia]

That is not true, at least for me it isn't. The issue for me is that I would rather a game be judged on its merits rather than how good was the lay.

I think most can agree on that, it's just that the accusations are pretty shaky. It wasn't even with the same guy who wrote the review.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Speculation at best. There's nothing that proves that her sleeping with a guy working at a gaming publication meant better reviews for her game. It wasn't even the same guy that did the review of her game.

Hmm I did some checking and it seems Kotaku didn't even review the game. My mistake.

Makes the outrage even weirder.

 

[niky]

Which is something I pointed out several times in this thread.

And something Eron in http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/ debunked when he stated:

There was a typo up for a while that made it seem like Zoe and I were on break between March and June. This has apparently led some people to infer that her infidelity with Nathan Grayson began in early March. I want to clarify that I have no reason to believe or evidence to imply she was sleeping with him prior to late March or early April (though I believe they’d been friends for a while before that). This typo has since been corrected to make it clear we were on break between May and June. To be clear, if there was any conflict of interest between Zoe and Nathan regarding coverage of Depression Quest prior to April, I have no evidence to imply that it was sexual in nature.

@Sanji Himura : This is precisely my point. How can you be fighting against something when you don't know what the hell you're fighting against?

 

[Encyclopedia]

I misunderstood it ( I could've sworn I read it somewhere else) as someone else than the guy she slept with did the review. Oh well my bad.

 

[Dragonistic]

I misunderstood it ( I could've sworn I read it somewhere else) as someone else than the guy she slept with did the review. Oh well my bad.

Those 3 words just about some up my feelings on the entire subject. As far as I can gather there seems to be so much misinformation and one-sided opinions (often presented as fact) that I simply can't fathom what's actually going on.

Personally I feel the sooner the whole thing blows over the better, but in short I feel consumers have every right to be sceptical and critical of journalists if they do so in a constructive way. However those savvy enough to read journalistic articles should also be savvy enough to realise that they are written by people, people not journalism robots who have no personal opinion and are always 100% unbiased/impartial/objective. For example if X journalist does promote Y individuals product because they're friends, if the game is good then more people play it and enjoy it why does it matter so much how/why it got exposed? It'll be blindingly obvious if it's all smoke and mirrors within a short period of time (Aliens Colonial Marines) in a world where user reviews are so easy to find it doesn't take much effort to debunk an article and repeat offenders should be ignored rather than highlighted which effectively increases their gains via ad-revenue in many cases.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying but shouldn't the main focus be making sure good games are promoted and bad games not? Similarly for the journalists surrounding it. I feel figures like Sarkeesian could have long disappeared from the public eye not because she is female or because her points are wrong, but because she does not present her opinions properly and fairly (on the assumption that most seem to agree with this statement). Instead 'gamers' continue to point the spotlight which only makes the problem worse. The same seems to happen with games like Ride to Hell Retribution where the focus is so strong on it being awful that more people buy it for a joke or otherwise thus making it probably a commercial success for all the wrong reasons.

Personally I research games I think I might like and buy the ones I think I will and 99% of the time I'm right because I don't pre-order games blindly before release unless I feel 100% sure of myself and the product in doing so (only one I've got wrong was BF4, and I've learnt from that mistake!). It's really not that hard to do and it's even easier to build up a methodology of where to look to do this without being flooded with spoilers. I apply the same logic to the websites I choose to spend my time on, I don't use Kotaku because I don't agree with many of the articles so I don't go there but I don't feel the need to shout from the rooftops, I can make my own decisions and so can others. What I will take into account are general user scores, gameplay footage and certain individuals whom are transparent to a point where I can identify what is and isn't relevant to my decision.

Does it really have to be any more complex? Do we need to be so emotionally invested in making simple buying decisions?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

For those who are willing to put in the time, here is a page with tons of useful info and links: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/wiki/index





Ironically I might be a bit lazy when it comes to posting in this thread..

 

[Sanji Himura]

Which is something I pointed out several times in this thread.

And something Eron in http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/ debunked when he stated:



@Sanji Himura : This is precisely my point. How can you be fighting against something when you don't know what the hell you're fighting against?

I'll give you that, but my goals were pretty much clear to begin with. Reviews are bought and sold every day for cash, and it is up to us consumers to call said reviewers out on the sort of garbage that they put out every day. Remember, a respected reviewer got FIRED over his Kane and Lynch sequel review after the publisher sunk advertising dollars into the reviewer's site. That should have what started Gamer Gate, not this BS over Zoe Quinn.

The overall objective here is that when you have rival publications CONSPIRING to publish the same narrative against gamers wanting to hold the gaming press accountable for their actions, then you suddenly have a problem with the first amendment in this country. That is where the SJW should be attacking, not protecting Zoe Quinn because she follows their agenda. But there lies the issue, the SJW are in bed(figuratively) with the gaming press pushing an agenda.

 

[Dragonistic]

That is where the SJW should be attacking...

I see this attitude quite commonly within this debate, but I don't see how we can expect an 'SJW' (hate the term) who is often in gaming media/journalism to attack someone for any reason. How are they being impartial and objective if they 'attack' individuals who do not do things in a certain way? Is this not pretty much exactly the sort of problem the #Gamergate movement are supposed to be preventing?

Edit: Put another way, shouldn't an SJW within gaming media be busy making impartial, objective etc. content focused on the games rather than attacking anyone in either direction? Be that directed at 'gamers' or Zoe Quinn etc.? It's wrong of them to post articles on 'the death of gamers' but in my eyes the solution is not to post articles attacking any group or individual irrespective of where they position themselves on this issue. The #Gamergate movement seems to choose rather to continue to attack those individuals for not attacking others instead of letting them do exactly what the movement is supposed to promote them to do, how does that make sense?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The issue for me is that I would rather a game be judged on its merits rather than how good was the lay.

And I could see how that would be an issue if it was an issue - as far as I am aware, those allegations were never proven.

 

[niky]

I'll give you that, but my goals were pretty much clear to begin with. Reviews are bought and sold every day for cash, and it is up to us consumers to call said reviewers out on the sort of garbage that they put out every day.

So why are you picking on Zoey Quinn?

Why is this whole debacle about an indie developer, rather than the media people who are supposedly on the take?

Oh, right... because there's no proof the people involved with her were on the take. And so far, we haven't seen a single review purported to have been "bought" in this manner. (and most reviewers admit it's rather unorthodox, and not quite a game in the traditional sense... except for the trolls who downvoted it on MetaCritic... just because.)

Remember, a respected reviewer got FIRED over his Kane and Lynch sequel review after the publisher sunk advertising dollars into the reviewer's site. That should have what started Gamer Gate, not this BS over Zoe Quinn.

And yet here we are. Nobody started a fuss over that. And even in the past, when reviewers have been outed for being on the take (and those issues go way back), we didn't get an uproar of this level. Just a little buzz, some angry people, and a fired reviewer. Proportionate response.

The overall objective here is that when you have rival publications CONSPIRING to publish the same narrative against gamers wanting to hold the gaming press accountable for their actions, then you suddenly have a problem with the first amendment in this country. That is where the SJW should be attacking, not protecting Zoe Quinn because she follows their agenda. But there lies the issue, the SJW are in bed(figuratively) with the gaming press pushing an agenda.

Regarding First Amendment rights: that was already explained previously. A restraining order was filed asking him to stop because it caused the plaintiff to fear for her life.

http://www.arnellaw.com/FAQ/209A-Restraining-Order-FAQ.shtml

The interpretation simply being that feeding a bunch of trolls more and more juicy bits of Zoe Quinn's biography (merely to warn people that she's a nasty so-and-so) was inspiring more and more of them to harrass her and send her death threats.

Which is demonstrably true. He wasn't sued. He wasn't sent to jail. He had the choice of simply standing aside or insisting on his right to be one of the stars of the GamerGate show. He chose the latter. He does have the right to fight it.

----

Also, First Amendment Rights, beyond that, are not absolute. Death threats, for example, are not considered Free Speech.

----

Again... Conspiracy? House of cards. Have you read all of the articles on "The Death of the Gamer"? Articles coming from many different people, directions, circles and backgrounds? Articles by gamers, journalists, psychologists and outside observers? GamerGate itself is what triggered many of these articles, and they're right. The Gamer is dead.

"The Gamer" being the person who self-identifies as a Gamer, to separate themselves from non-Gamers.

And that's because there is no such thing as a Gamer. There is no person who is able to keep tabs on every single game genre and title that comes out nowadays. With everything from deep, realistic simulation to social media games to smartphone games crowding the field, there's something for everyone.

It's time to face the music and accept the fact that the old lady on the bus playing Level 200 of Candy Crush is a gamer. The twelve year old playing the latest Adventure Time app is a gamer. The forty year old car enthusiast putting in laps at his home driving rig is a gamer.

With the tech revolution, the gamer is dead. Because everyone is a gamer. This is the same thing that's happened to comics in recent years. With a million DC and Marvel TV shows, movies and cartoons crowding the airwaves... everyone is now a comic geek. Which rankles the old boys network of traditional comic lovers. It rankles them even more that there has to be a female Thor... or that people are asking for female heroes to not be one-dimensional cut-outs.

Strange, really... when many of the comic book publishers still don't give a 🤬 what the fans want, falling back on the same old tropes that served them well when their audience was 90% white teenage males. (I could write an entire thesis on the generation on global youth taught that being male and white was the absolute best thing ever by American Movies, TV shows, comics and cartoons... but that's passe... considering American media is finally starting to adjust to changing global audience demographics.)

And the "SJW's"... had to laugh when you went back to that one. Refer to this to see why:

By labelling her as all of those things, she is immediately written off as a poor human being, and thus anything associated with her is automatically discredited.

Using the tag merely reinforces the fact that you don't care about their ideas or input, as anything coming from that channel is automatically wrong, to you. Just as when someone points out that Wonder Girl's boobs are bigger than any sixteen year old's boobs have any right to be (seriously, that comic book cover was pretty crappy), they're painted as an SJW and not worth listening to (but worth harrassing). That's the same elitist crap I see in the comic biz, and in car culture. And I'm sick of it.

And what's the agenda? The SJW agenda is simple: Equal representation, fair treatment, and please stop treating women as objects in games. Wow... such horrible, evil, misguided people these SJW's are!

In the end, a few noisy feminist crusaders will not kill gaming. Gaming is dead. And what will kill it are the gamers themselves. Because when everyone's a gamer...

...nobody will be.

(and to think, I wrote that without knowing the article existed. )

 

[RACECAR]

One thing I always found funny about the "Gamer" label is how not only is it used by people desperately clinging on the "old days", but also as some sort of social status to gain attention (Mostly those who think by playing one of only the most popular game, they are automatically "gamers"). Its really as idiotic and childish as the whole "Console Wars" arguments.

In fact, I sorta agree about the gamer thing. In honesty, the availability of games overall has essentially made the label obsolete as now anyone can have and most likely does play a game.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And what's the agenda? The SJW agenda is simple: Equal representation, fair treatment, and please stop treating women as objects in games. Wow... such horrible, evil, misguided people these SJW's are!

I have no objections to any of the points that they raise. My issue is with they way they are raised. As much as I would love to resolve the problem, I'm a male, and so I have no idea what the female perspective is, and therefore I have no idea what the female experience is. I'm not trying to shirk responsibility, merely suggest that if you want me to come up with an actual solution, work with me. Or let me work with you. Don't say "you must have more equal representation of women!" and then expect me to come up with the perfect solution. That's like asking me to pick a number between one and a million and expecting me to get it right on the first gi.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Again... Conspiracy? House of cards. Have you read all of the articles on "The Death of the Gamer"? Articles coming from many different people, directions, circles and backgrounds? Articles by gamers, journalists, psychologists and outside observers? GamerGate itself is what triggered many of these articles, and they're right. The Gamer is dead.

"The Gamer" being the person who self-identifies as a Gamer, to separate themselves from non-Gamers.

And that's because there is no such thing as a Gamer. There is no person who is able to keep tabs on every single game genre and title that comes out nowadays. With everything from deep, realistic simulation to social media games to smartphone games crowding the field, there's something for everyone.

It's time to face the music and accept the fact that the old lady on the bus playing Level 200 of Candy Crush is a gamer. The twelve year old playing the latest Adventure Time app is a gamer. The forty year old car enthusiast putting in laps at his home driving rig is a gamer.
te was the absolute best thing ever by American Movies, TV shows, comics and cartoons... but that's passe... considering American media is finally starting to adjust to changing global audience demographics.)

To go off topic for a moment, I so agree with this and it's great to see it at as a more common point of discussion now, because it also shows how far gaming as an established platform has come. I read books, but I don't call myself a "reader". I go to the cinema sometimes, but I'm not a "filmer" or a "watcher". The same thing is happening to games and it's only a good thing. Apart for all the sad men who can't handle the fact that "their" thing has gone mainstream of course...............

 

[niky]

It saddens me because I'm a former gamer. And a former comic-geek. But these growing pains are giving us a very rich new, inclusive nerd culture... one which we (hopefully) can share with the next generation. I'm happy my kids get to watch mature, intelligent TV shows about the superheroes I grew up with... shows that present women (like my kids will someday grow up to be) who are more than eye-candy in chainmail bras.

The next generation of nerds, like it or not, will likely be at least 50% female. Which is a good thing for all the lonely male nerds out there. It's great when you can share your love of something like... say... the X-Men*... with your wife-to-be.

I have no objections to any of the points that they raise. My issue is with they way they are raised. As much as I would love to resolve the problem, I'm a male, and so I have no idea what the female perspective is, and therefore I have no idea what the female experience is. I'm not trying to shirk responsibility, merely suggest that if you want me to come up with an actual solution, work with me. Or let me work with you. Don't say "you must have more equal representation of women!" and then expect me to come up with the perfect solution. That's like asking me to pick a number between one and a million and expecting me to get it right on the first gi.

Is it 42?

Sometimes, it's easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. When everything becomes a "discrimination" issue, then it becomes difficult to fix the ones that are actually problematic.

Hence the backlash from some women... who point out that you can't treat women equally, because men and women have inherent physical and psychological differences. Like the whole issue about women in F1.

I think, in the end, what it takes is simply for more women to be involved on the production side, as is happening in comics, TV and movies. You can't force all games into a feminist or female-friendly mode (hell, we can't even make them all kid-friendly or even "newb" friendly), but you can concentrate on making more games aimed at women.

Hey, they're making a "Raven" TV series. Anything can happen.

A series so ahead of its time... with female characters with very human foibles and strengths... arguably more compelling than most of the male cast.

 

[Joel]

Using the tag merely reinforces the fact that you don't care about their ideas or input, as anything coming from that channel is automatically wrong, to you. Just as when someone points out that Wonder Girl's boobs are bigger than any sixteen year old's boobs have any right to be (seriously, that comic book cover was pretty crappy), they're painted as an SJW and not worth listening to (but worth harrassing). That's the same elitist crap I see in the comic biz, and in car culture. And I'm sick of it.

And what's the agenda? The SJW agenda is simple: Equal representation, fair treatment, and please stop treating women as objects in games. Wow... such horrible, evil, misguided people these SJW's are!

This whole thing is "gamers" (white straight teenagers) here who honestly believe that they're being oppressed or "censored" right now. This whole thing is made up of one of the most privileged groups in the history of our species, to the point where they think "SJW's" trying to change the gaming industry to be more inclusive is oppression. They believe women should be allowed to vote, drive, get divorced, and work outside the home, but if you asked if they thought they were a feminist they would say no and distance themselves from the word.

Why? Because they honestly believe women are already treated equally in society and that now feminists are just whining and the balance is switching to men being oppressed. That's what this is about, they think that society and gaming is already inclusive enough and that any more pandering to feminazis is just "reverse sexism". This stuff should be very basic, Sarkeesian's video points out that female characters continue to be scantily clad eye candy and people go in detail to find obscure examples where it isn't true. It's missing the forest for the trees because they're erroneously starting from a viewpoint where women are already equal.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

A good (and lengthy) read: http://www.nichegamer.net/2014/10/how-gamergate-gained-my-sympathy/

This whole thing is "gamers" (white straight teenagers) here who honestly believe that they're being oppressed or "censored" right now.

Are you aware of the #NotYourShield hashtag? It came about because of exactly this. Gamers are more than just straight white men, gamers are of all genders, races, sexualities, political ideologies, etc. Of course a lot of anti-gg disregarded it as sockpuppet accounts and the like.

Gamers don't believe they're being oppressed, but they are tired of being told "you can't make/play games with blah blah because we don't like it". More diverse games are welcome by the GG community, we just don't think that other games should be changed because someone might be offended by something in them (which honestly are really trivial things a lot of the times it seems). Let the "SJWs" make the games they say they want, and let the free market decide if they want them.

 

[Joel]

Care to show an example of a game the feminists have taken away?

 

[Encyclopedia]

Gamers don't believe they're being oppressed, but they are tired of being told "you can't make/play games with blah blah because we don't like it".

This comes up so often but I've yet to see it. All I've seen is criticism of certain elements/tropes which some people fin problematic. Criticism is not about trying to take something away. Criticism isn't censorship.

Not all criticism is good criticism though, but bad criticism exist in any subject really.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Care to show an example of a game the feminists have taken away?

That's not what I said. SJWs try very hard to push game devs to change their (game devs) game to suit their agenda (SJWs). Anything that doesn't fit what they want is labeled as "sexist" or "misogynistic" (Bayonetta two is coming under fire right now becuase, gasp, the main character is too sexy! btw, the person who designed Bayonetta's character is a woman, and you can read about her design process here). I don't have any outright examples right now (though I'm sure I could find some), but I want you to understand I'm not just making **** up to try and push my "side". I'm not sexist, I don't hate women and I don't want to push women out of the industry, why the hell would I? I just want everyone to be able to make whatever games they like without having to worry about gender police saying "no you can't do that because it offends us". I don't want gaming to end up like academia (which now push for and have things like "feminist biology" because regular biology is too sexist. No, I'm not making that up, it's a real thing). I want creative freedom for game developers (even if it means games I don't like being made) and I want gamers to be able to play and enjoy whatever games they like without being labelled as being sexist because the game they're playing has a female with big boobs in it. This is a sensitive subject for me, gamers have always been the target of the media for undeserved things. This picture sums it up pretty well.

And because you didn't answer before, I ask again:

Are you aware of the #NotYourShield hashtag? It came about because of exactly this. Gamers are more than just straight white men, gamers are of all genders, races, sexualities, political ideologies, etc. Of course a lot of anti-gg disregarded it as sockpuppet accounts and the like.

This comes up so often but I've yet to see it. All I've seen is criticism of certain elements/tropes which some people fin problematic. Criticism is not about trying to take something away. Criticism isn't censorship.

Not all criticism is good criticism though, but bad criticism exist in any subject really.

I'm gonna assume you're refering to Anita Sarkeesian with that so I'll take a stab at responding. If all she was doing was pointing out overused tropes in video games I'd be fine with it, but that's not all she does. She's legitimately a con artist. She need $6k so she could make 12 videos in, was it 6 months? That and she wanted to give backers DVD copies (and they should have already have them according to the kickstarter) AND wanted her videos to be shown in classrooms. Instead she received $160k and has made an average of one video every 3-5 months and her videos are cherrypicked points all around (with a couple legitimate points here and there). Before I say more about that though, I first want to point you to this video:



I hope this shows you the level of dishonesty Anita has and why it's not hard to see why people are upset with her blatantly false points in her videos. Here is a gem:


(Watch from 2:27 - 6:48, though the rest of the video is good too)

And you know what's interesting? I don't think Anita even believes what she's saying in these videos. To explain why, let me introduce Jonathan McIntosh. Here is his opinion on The Escapist having an article interview game devs about their opinion on GamerGate. And here is a real head scratcher, this is what he has to say about the player having control over the game character. Those two tweets are just the tip of the iceberg as to the crazy things he says. So who is Jonathan you might ask? Well, here is his twitter description: "Transformative media maker. Pop culture critic. Producer and a writer on the Tropes vs Women in Video Games YouTube series." Yep. He is the one behind what Anita says in the Tropes vs Women videos, Anita is just the face to sell the product. He also sees sexism in EVERYTHING, so I'm not surprised at the obscurities in the Tropes vs Women series. Some of it is quite mundane compared to his usual postings on twitter. And if you are interested, there is some really interesting stuff that's been dug up on him and Anita here (language warning). It goes through a lot of how Anita seems more or less fine with all sorts of things she now condemns on twitter and in her video series, while Jon is consistently seeing sexism everywhere (except where he occasionally enjoys sexy women). Oh and another quick thing, take a listen to this (listen until 2:59 for the main point, but feel free to watch the rest as it has other good points too).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

I want to add this as more or less of a personal note: I'd love to get into this discussion more as there is a lot that needs to be talked about before the whole situation can really be appreciated, but I have a hard time wording things to what I'd like so I can get my point across in a useful manner so chances are there are going to be quite a few things posted in this thread I wish I could respond to but simply won't be able to because I know I wouldn't do what I would be trying to say justice.

I'll leave you all for now with some random things.

GamerGaters political stances.
GamerGaters rallying to report Brianna Wu's harasser. 1 2 3
John Walker or RockPaperShotgun lying about being harassed by GamerGaters.
Youtube comment expressing why they support Gamergate (language warning).
Random thought: A game studio shouldn't have to worry about being called misogynists for "daring" to not include a playable female character in a game (these things do happen).

Edit: Polygon writer who game Bayonetta 2 a 7.5 because of "over sexualization" sure does love his porn.

 

[Imari]

btw, the person who designed Bayonetta's character is a woman, and you can read about her design process here).

Just because the character designer is a woman doesn't mean the character design isn't misogynistic.

I think the Bayonetta character design is the way it is for very specific reasons, among which are that it's sexy and badass looking. I think that's fine, it's doing exactly what it's designed to do. I don't find it misogynistic, but the argument that it isn't because it's designed by a woman is still faulty.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Just because the character designer is a woman doesn't mean the character design isn't misogynistic.

Just like just because the character is designed to be sexy doesn't mean its misogynistic or sexist (I'm not disagreeing with you or arguing btw, I understand and agree with your point).

I'm interested to why sex-positive feminists don't speak out against what could very well be deemed "slut shaming" (a SJW term as far as I know) by these, I suppose, "sex-negative" feminists. Why is being sexy so absolutely horrible? Because straight men might get a kick from it? Oh the humanity. And you know, lesbians might like it too, but you never hear about that (because if SJWs tried to demonize lesbians for liking sexy women they would have quite the ordeal on their hands, but since it's straight guys, it's okay to make them out as demons).

The most interesting part to me is this:

"When we started Bayonetta, our director, Hideki Kamiya, asked me to design a character with three traits:
1) A Female Lead
2) A Modern Witch
3) She Uses Four Guns"

Nothing in there about "make her sexy for the male gamers", so the fact that Bayonetta gets naked wasn't (it seems) to goad male gamers into buying the game. So again, where are the sex-positive feminists championing Bayonetta as the strong, sexy female she is and telling off those who deem her "too sexual". It's gender politics man, I don't like them at all.

 

[Sir Tuddle]

Again... Conspiracy? House of cards. Have you read all of the articles on "The Death of the Gamer"? Articles coming from many different people, directions, circles and backgrounds? Articles by gamers, journalists, psychologists and outside observers? GamerGate itself is what triggered many of these articles, and they're right. The Gamer is dead.

"The Gamer" being the person who self-identifies as a Gamer, to separate themselves from non-Gamers.

And that's because there is no such thing as a Gamer. There is no person who is able to keep tabs on every single game genre and title that comes out nowadays. With everything from deep, realistic simulation to social media games to smartphone games crowding the field, there's something for everyone.

It's time to face the music and accept the fact that the old lady on the bus playing Level 200 of Candy Crush is a gamer. The twelve year old playing the latest Adventure Time app is a gamer. The forty year old car enthusiast putting in laps at his home driving rig is a gamer.

With the tech revolution, the gamer is dead. Because everyone is a gamer. This is the same thing that's happened to comics in recent years. With a million DC and Marvel TV shows, movies and cartoons crowding the airwaves... everyone is now a comic geek. Which rankles the old boys network of traditional comic lovers. It rankles them even more that there has to be a female Thor... or that people are asking for female heroes to not be one-dimensional cut-outs.

Strange, really... when many of the comic book publishers still don't give a 🤬 what the fans want, falling back on the same old tropes that served them well when their audience was 90% white teenage males. (I could write an entire thesis on the generation on global youth taught that being male and white was the absolute best thing ever by American Movies, TV shows, comics and cartoons... but that's passe... considering American media is finally starting to adjust to changing global audience demographics.)

So is everyone a car enthusiast too then?

The "motor enthusiast" being the person who self identifies himself as a motor enthusiast, to separate themselves from non-motor enthusiasts.

So the old lady driving her mercedes benz is a motor enthusiast now? As well as the young twelve year old driving his power wheels? I don't think so. The auto industry may have expanded to cater to almost everyone and anyone, but people who dedicate their passion to cars and motoring as opposed to the people use see it only as a means to get from point A to B are what separate a motoring enthusiast from everyone else. In the same way people who dedicate their lives and even careers to games and gaming as opposed to the old lady and twelve year old playing candy crush only as a time killer separate themselves as gamers.