"When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum."
"Traditional 'gaming' is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug."
"'Gamer' isn't just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That's why they’re so mad."
George Kay |
When it's either take one side or get dogpiled on and have your career fucked, the silence of content creators isn't baffling at all. There are many facets to this but you can't touch on any of them without being a misogynist pig, apparently.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Christian Nutt |
The sad thing is that in the old days of the internet, games had an online culture. There was a sense we were participating in something that was a NEW culture, not replacing culture with non-culture, with marketing and hype.
The other funny thing is that "gamers" abandoned reading the factory-style coverage of triple-A games, so the blogs and the press were forced onto new things by their audience -- which now rises against them for coloring outside the box. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Ray Kremer |
Replace "video games" with other mostly-young-male-oriented forms of entertainment, such as comics (both American and manga) and the article would be more or less exactly the same.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Nuno Ferreira |
I'm assuming this article is a joke. Because it sounds and reads like one.
"Gamers" aren't over. Gamers are running stronger than ever. There is a divide now, between gamers and casual people who aren't as passionate about the industry, and who are at the root of many problems within the industry. However, that's the amazing thing about videogames. We can cater to everyone. And there is space for everyone. Whether you've been playing since the 80's or just started last week. Identifying and catering to each spefic group, however, seems to be a different beast altogether. It's articles like this that create silly divides and antagonize people, when it shouldn't really have to. We can cater to a new audience without antagonizing the old one. There is space for everyone, and that's a good thing! |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Cleiton Oliveira |
It`s much better to have the freedom to make what we want for anyone, than to be trapped on the expectations of a lot of hateful and spiteful kids.
|
|
|
Er Piotta |
Well, it's true. Gamers are dead, so is gaming. Industry is about gaming as much as WWE is about professional wrestling, to use a comparison regarding entertainment. You can only sell your merchandise to people who don't know anything about anything, which means not gamers for sure.
|
|
|
Joshua Wilson |
You talk about strawmen but you create one every other paragraph in order to build a false narrative in which there is some brave new world being created out of the Sodom and Gomorrah in which gaming, apparently, has been mired and festering.
It's hard to take the morale high ground when using hateful stereotype and prejudice as your pedestal. A lot of people in this world are ignorant asses or worse. The internet allows them to be even more ignorant and ass-like without consequence. This will never change. To try and use those people as an example of, or to shame or guilt, or reflect upon others so that you can press your principles and ideals as truth or fact is in itself questionable at the very least. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Kevin Fishburne |
I apologize if I'm being dim-witted, but what exactly is the issue this article is discussing? I get that gamer culture has gone mainstream (G4 drove that home pretty painfully before it dropped off the air) and that there are mobs of Internet infants that direct bizarre torrents of hatred toward industry professionals occasionally, but as interesting as this article is I'm not sure what you're getting at. 4chan has always been full of misogynists, pedophiles and psychopaths...nothing new there. I'd also like to point out that as offensive as Internet posts can be, the alternative to freedom of expression is cutting heads. Personally I'd rather the psychopaths vent online. In a perfect world everyone would be tolerant, considerate and empathetic, but sadly people just aren't built that way and the Internet gives them a safe outlet.
|
|
|
Kris Graft |
Hey folks! Lemme stick our comment guidelines here as a gentle reminder.
http://www.gamasutra.com/static2/comment_guidelines.html |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Bradley Andrews |
Why the purchase hate? hypercapitalist? hyper-consumers? Lots of subcultures have identities tied up with buying stuff and it's not exactly relevant to whether someone is a troll or misogynist scum.
Look at like Twilight fandom or soccer or EDM people... pretty much anything that can generate a line of fans has some aspect of consumption to it, and if anything gaming is a very affordable hobby. |
|
|
Frank Cifaldi |
oh man the guy I was replying to got banned so
|
|
|
Gabriel Williams |
Articles like this make me sad, for everyone. Spiteful, angry, full of derogatory generalizations...clearly the author has a bone to pick, and I'm genuinely sorry they've had such bad experiences, but this sort of thing isn't okay, or correct, or good.
Angrily generalizing, stereotyping, and name-calling isn't going to help anyone. This article should bolster support for "better gamers and better games", but instead it comes off as offensive to me. Because it's labeling me, and sticking me in a category, and calling me part of the problem based on my gender, race, age. And that's exactly what articles like this should be _against_, not promoting. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Iain Howe |
I believe this article is putting the creative cart in front of the economic horse. Unless you're a self-funded hobby project, nobody can afford to create 'art for art's sake' in our industry. You are generally making a product that you intend to take to market and market forces will determine who your audience is.
You can aim at a demographic more in line with your sensibilities and, if you resonate well with them, tap into a niche market but, even so, you still don't choose who buys your game, posts in the parts of your community that you don't own or identifies themselves with you. And if you're aiming for mainstream, mass-market, AAA territory - you need every customer. Gamers are over? Did Call of Duty stop selling while I wasn't looking? Do EA's sports franchises not make money anymore? Companies that pander to a toxic audience are setting themselves up for trouble but, equally, companies that believe they can ignore their customers are doomed. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Matt Boudreaux |
Without commenting on the actual content of the article; the broad brushing, stereotyping, and dismissive attitude throughout this article really doesn't do her argument any favors.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Luis Guimaraes |
"'Game culture' as we know it is kind of embarrassing"
Somehow I expected to read that as soon as I read the title. I knew it came down to it but was pleasantly surprised to find it so early and so explicitly laid out. I have lately started to observe, as it seems to me, that video-game journalists seem just as concerned with how stating what theirs job sounds at parties as some '-game developers, if not more. Living in Brazil, most times you tell someone you "make video-games" they're baffled and amazed in disbelief at first, ask if you're lying or joking, comment on how "you have to be some kind of genius" and then proceed to ask if you make much money from that and, when you tell them it's not really the case, they tell you not to give up and that it will undoubtely pay off sooner or later. What I get from these pieces is that it's far from how things work in first world countries with a longer term relationship with video-game development and an age pyramid that leans mostly towards the 40-60 range, specially in the western societies. For those reasons I had dodged this kind of subject lately as I sometimes inevitably see most of the "polemic" subjects that surface in media related to the video-games industry as either first-world problems, click-bait or simply the Parkinson's Law Of Triviality in practice as the very "polemic" term naturally implies. I also take notes that such inferiority complex from industry professionals is also more present in cultures where the concept of "bully" is a such well defined one. Where I'm from, everyone "bullies" everyone, to the point where you very early learn how to deal around most of that in many ways, from making fun of yourself and derail the subject, to turn the table around in unsuspicious ways that make the other party seem like a fool, to pushing matters into levels that even the attacking side is uncomfortable with. It's a cultural thing though, and I cannot expect my views of the subject to conform with anybody's that lives in a different society with different unspoken rules. I can't perfectly recall where but I recently read a piece where somebody mentioned feeling the need to apologetically explain that the video-games they made where "no! not that kind!". Maybe it's partially a cultural thing as well, but I'm more inclined to believe it's more of a personal matter and there's no rampant "video-game developer/journalist shame syndrome" around. But still, I can't completely detach my mind from the correlation between those age pyramids and the kind of inferiority complex, as it's a perceived pattern than most people to look down on video-games and to be uninformed enough about them in order to have the kind of narrow views necessary for that kind of impression of video-games being either "kids toys" or some kind of "demon tool". I guess it doesn't help that I have an internal joke with some friends about how some senior citizens would react if they found out a collection of Steam '-games is called a "Library". There were some few situations though, in which I happened to be confronted with negative looks and questions like "still into video-games?", with the implied meaning that I should have somehow "outgrown" them. I could simply have explained to them things in a logical manner and started a discussion about Complexity Science and how everything around us, including whatever their favorite subject happened to be – which in most cases somebody acts like that towards games it is most likely to be Sociology –, is a Complex System, and that games are nothing but small-scale representations of them which shared the same core concepts and patterns. I could have explained that playing games is manipulating Systems,and that engaging is such activities sharpen your mind about those patterns and help you abstracting concepts that can be applied to any situation and how the pursuit of more understanding of how to use Complexity Science to improve video-games as products and as a means to create smarter Culture and combat the Dumbing Down of the next generations was also accomplishing residual advancements in the Science as a whole, which led back to the entire spectrum of Human Sciences. I could have explained that there are more Game Designers that see games as such and that progress is being made in that aspect but that the platform is still too young and also a business, and that it leads to mass-marketing and risk-avoidance that leads not only to the production of mindless entertainment, which sadly supports societal Dumbing Down instead of combating it, but also that the products made with that purpose are the ones with financial backing to be the face of video-games to anyone not invested in the subject. I could have explained that, while negative in many aspects, the business side of video-games is also a necessary evil that sustains the possiblity of improvement in the positive areas by attracting people raised among them to be the future leaders of such scientific developments, and that as a positive side-effect, the pursuit of technological edge against competition, which's the common strategy of the big players in the business, along with the film and animation industries, lead to lots of technological advancements that are useful to many other fields in a short period, like the applications of GPUs for processing in scientific research, such as the NVidia Tesla units used to fuel simulations in Aerodynamics, Termodynamics, Geology, Climate Prediction, Biology, high-scale Chemistry and many other fields. I'd also point out that it's much better to have such scientific and technological leaps fuelled by Business and Entertainment instead of from arms-races caused by World Wars as it has been in the past. I could have brought up the societal aspects of video-games being perceived as "kids-toys", and how it correlates to similar events in Culture and Society across History, from Arts to societal organizations to technological and organizational breakthroughs like the Internet or the Industrial Revolution, and how it's a normal and expected effect that there will be those kinds of opinions. But I couldn't help but let my bitter side lead me into employing those kinds of anti-bully tactics against them, only for the manner and tone those questions came out, and lead them into a downright spiral of wrong assumptions and straight-faced sarcasm until one of them finally was smart enough to realize I was playing them for fools – which suddenly puts at question everything I lead them to believe, with a blurry line as to what was just me mocking them and what misconceptions they already had before –, at which point I had smile and answer: "I'm sorry, that's what I do: I play games." Act apologetic for what a bunch of children with too much time in their hands and too few actual problems to solve? Never. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Benjamin Quintero |
I'm conflicted...
These sort of directed articles are tricky, because we are pointing the finger at "gamers". But a "gamer" is a concept or a distributed social group who don't always agree. A "gamer" is not 1 person. Journalist shaking their finger at "gamers" is not very different from how people might blame the President for everyone's choices up the chain of command, or the way we mistakenly talking about Microsoft and Sony like it's a first name. "I can't believe Microsoft did that!" - said everyone For some gamers, this is their everything. For some people, they see games in their lives like the star quarterback of a small town may dream of a college scholarship. Now comes the part that might anger some people... Gamers are, in many ways, no different than any other oppressed division of society. We need to look at the tension in Ferguson, or the constant jockeying for women in games, or the downright violent outbursts by gamers online as one in the same. Where does all of this tension come from, and why do people act the way they do? I'd like to remind people who shake their fingers at gamers. Just because you are a gamer does not mean that you are a violent outspoken man-child who thinks that women only belong in the kitchen or naked on your bed. This is no different than making the assumption that anyone black in Ferguson is throwing a brick through an apartment window, or looting a TV out of the liquor store. This is no different than assuming that just because some women are having a rough time in the workplace that all women are feeling objectified. There is no 100%, there will always be shades of gray whenever more than 1 person's actions and feelings are being aggregated to represent a social group. The social group who associate with "gamer" are the gaming equivalent of peaceful activists, neutrals, criminals, and mentally disturbed individuals; all thrown into the same pot. Gamers are fighting to hold their ground in a world that still rejects them; a world where The Morning Show will poke fun, make jokes, and talk about pimple-faced adults in their parents' basements. There is rage there, tension, a feeling of abandonment and misunderstanding. When someone, anyone, attacks the image of what it is to be a gamer they feel threatened and are frustrated by the ignorance of another group who refuse to reach out and understand. And when threatened, people do what people do in times like those. Some lash out with words or violence, some run and hide, some just shrug and keep walking, while others might just sit there and spectate. Racism and sexism are age older problems than the way mainstream has segregated gamers. But that doesn't really make it less of an issue for those affected, for those who feel the title of "gamer" is not different than saying, "I'm black" or "I'm female" or "I'm gay"... |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Chris Book |
I'm becoming increasingly of the opinion that both sides are a bitter, toxic minority unwilling to compromise. Meanwhile the other 90% of us basically are fine with whatever. We can definitely do better with inclusion and being decent human beings, especially when our designs stop following the Hollywood summer action movie methodology and start putting effort into stories and characters instead of: BRICK SLABCHEST - MAIN CHARACTER, TITS MCTIGHTOUTFIT - LOVE INTEREST. But the industry isn't as toxic as one side wants to believe, and it isn't as insular and unwelcoming as the other side wishes it was.
There are problems to be sure. There's no denying that our issues are the same that every community has or does face. Unique to us is the fact that our ability to remain almost totally anonymous along with instant communication and feedback. No other medium had to deal with that issue during its growth into acceptance. Unfortunately the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory still holds true to this day. But toxicity is a societal issue, and its something that we all have to try to fix when we can. Articles like this just help to play up the division. It's another Us vs. Them ploy. Not even Us vs Assholes, its Us vs Everyone That's Ever Dared To Be a Gamer. You can't fight toxicity with toxicity. It only makes people more bitter AND makes them look more sympathetic. But either way this is why I just want to make Mech games. So much simpler. |
|
|
Leonardo Ferreira |
If anything, this shows there isn't a problem with games per se; there are more diverse, strange, brilliant and interesting (not to mention, eminently acessible) games nowadays than ever before.
The problem, it seems, it is with games media, and their self-centered, singular discourse. |
|
|
Marvin Hawkins |
I was going to ignore this, and not comment. I think people like myself have been silent for too long. I JUST had an argument with my co worker about this 'drama'. He was trying to explain to me how the sites he participate in aren't harrasing someone, rather they are trying to expose them for being liars. And it's the Journalistic integrity that's at fault. What?
Here's the deal: No one should be harrassed ever. I think Sarkesian's work is interesting. I have never played quinn's game but the concept is also interesting. I think people are upset because of what they represent. Women, 'outsiders' and this is not OK. To the people harrasing others, or trying to spread the truth, please look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you're really doing this. I used to think that these stories came up too often. I used to think the topic was overdone. I get it now. There is no just 'in it for the games'. People's lives are being threatened for their opinions and that's just not acceptable. It's sad it took two awful stories for me to realize that |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Sam Stephens |
-"It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet."
-"It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls." -"‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games." -"this, and headlines about billion-dollar war simulators or those junkies with the touchscreen candies." -"Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time. Suddenly they started wearing shiny blouses and pinning bikini babes onto everything they made, started making games that sold the promise of high-octane masculinity to kids just like them." -"These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had." As other commentators have already asked, how can one expect tolerance, clarity of intent, maturity, and understanding from an article that is filled with spiteful generalizations, inflammatory remarks, and Orwellian glib? Regardless of intent, it's clear the author's frustrations have hijacked the quality of the writing and any sense of professionalism such a sensitive topic necessitates. It's alright to be frustrated, but lashing out doesn't create understanding, only resentment. As for the term "gamer," it's one that I take no issue in subscribing to regardless of the behavior of my peers or the general image the public has. I love games, and I learn so much more by immersing myself in the communities that surround them, volatile as they can sometimes be. I've enjoyed everything from big budget shooters, to Newgrounds flash games, to independent board games. Gamer culture will never die, because games will always exist so long as humans have the time to play them. There will always be people who are passionate about them. So what is the way forward? How can we promote diversity and accessibility while still retaining a community? My approach to these issues has always been different to those of Anita Sarkeesian and Leigh Alexander which highlight diversity and difference. I like to promote what everyone shares. As mentioned above, almost everyone plays games and have done so for a long time. Drilling down into how and why has greatly helped me to understand all players a little better, regardless of gender, race, or economic opportunity. The presentation of Call of Duty may be explicitly masculine, but from what I have seen, there is little difference in how anyone actually plays it. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Mark Venturelli |
Leigh, I am a sincere admirer of pretty much everything you write, but as someone who is not very aware or interested in the details of this whole drama that is going on right now, I am perplexed by this article.
It reads like pure rage and anger turned into words, and I am still asking myself of what use it could possibly be to anyone. I know you are much, much better than this, so perhaps it is time for you and other brilliant writers to calm down and step away from the keyboards for a moment before you turn into the very thing you hate. Reading my go-to places lately has felt like I stumbled into some parallel dimension of internet arguments fueled by pure spite, everyone sounds hurt and incoherent. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Mark Venturelli |
Wow, what the fuck man? Don't you have a minimum bar for decency?
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Vasily Yourchenko |
I am confused by the idea that the average person is any better than the average "gamer". I will freely admit to having a mild case of misanthropy, but as I see it the core of what makes the archetypal "gamer" a terrible person - an egoistical sort of utilitarian hatred for the less fortunate best summed up as "Screw you, got mine!" - is shared by the general population.
|
|
|
James Coote |
I for one want to be a part of this. And there's definitely a willingness from many others in the indie dev community to make this happen. The economics don't stack up though. Most distribution channels are aimed squarely at gamers (consoles, Steam), whilst on mobile, the barriers to entry are too high.
There's always the temptation at times like these to go off and build our own island somewhere else. But I'm still a little bitter about OUYA, because that felt like an attempt to do just that, only to be shouted down by the very crowd that helped spawn it in the first place. Creatively as well, we need to get out of the retro-nostalgia and "making games I want to play" comfort zone. Again, it partly comes back to the economics - when indies have one (or both) eyes on the commercial side of things, they tend towards the conservative, and sticking with what they know. |
|
|
Curtiss Murphy |
'Dramatic' also means 'attracts drama'. At least that's what my wife said when our daughter's nurse got in a fight, at high school, with a student ... (please read that last sentence again, carefully)... I've tried to follow this stuff, and as a 10-year veteran of this industry, I see nothing here that helps advance the art or the science of what we do. It's just ... DRAMA.
And I'm reminded that: "For every minute you are angry, you lose 60 seconds of happiness" - Ralph Waldo Emerson. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Matthias Rigling |
Was the 'geek shaming' really necessary? "A generation of lonely basement kids?" And of all things... "They don't know how to dress [...]", so we are now literally supposed to tell them how to dress? Is this satire? Well, it should be, unless the dehumanizing image of a "petri dish of people" was a deliberate attempt to imply we're dealing with 'sub-humans', simply because they don't live up to 'our' standards of "human social interaction and professional life". Well okay, that last bit was cynical.
The point is, I know many people who try to challenge and actively change what it means to be a 'gamer'. They try to fight against these exact stereotypes. Women can be 'gamers'. People who play Sims or Animal Crossing can be 'gamers'. The idea? People who are passionate about playing games should be allowed to identify as gamers. It's inclusive and I personally think it's the right way to go. But instead, the next time you read an article about a woman who is distraught about other men calling her "not a real gamer", should you just go with the No true Scotsman argument and say "Well you're not, are you? You're not a man, sexist or bigoted, so how could you possibly be a REAL gamer?" That's the whole point: those 'shitslinging' assholes aren't mad because 'gamers are over', they are mad because the definition of the term is evolving and threatens to ruin their little, elitist boy club. So, I'm sorry, but I can't find the overall tone of this article to be constructive in any way... Yes, in the public eye those 'bad apples' do represent the gamer community and that's sad, but... now what? I feel that's like saying "Terrorists and ISIS represent the Muslim community, whether they like it or not!" Is it true? Well, I reckon many would argue 'yes'. Does it legitimate bigotry against Muslims? Definitely not. If this parable was too extreme, maybe think "Extremists and Patriots". Should we now encourage people to abandon ship and jump on a band wagon of "gamers suck, anyway" or should we encourage gamers to speak up against commercialism, sexism and bigotry to advocate a healthy and inclusive game culture? I know, this is basically clinging to this (now apparently controversial and allegedly dated) label, but if we want to actually promote inclusion and tolerance, not just in 'game culture' but in society, in general, I think it's absolutely imperative to say: "It is 100% okay to be passionate or a total geek about playing video games, no matter if casual or hardcore. But being sexist, racist or bigoted is not." |
|
|
Jim Burns |
I like some of what is said, disagree with some
|
|
|
Jonathan Barone |
My first reaction to the article was similar to others here: while Leigh didn't say anything inaccurate, the way she said it was so caustic and inflammatory that she's just giving the gamer shits exactly what they want.
But that's from the comfortable and untroubled viewpoint of a white male developer, who finds said gamer shits reprehensible but who hasn't been the target of their collective temper-tantrums before. The fact of the matter is that articles like this are critically important. Not because they are going to make a 19-year-old who thinks threatening women with rape is great fun realize the error of his entitled, chauvinist ways. NOTHING is going to do that, short of the sort of life-altering personal experience that can't be canned and distributed. This article, and others written with the same bare emotion - rather than the calculated, measured restraint that those well behind the front lines call for - communicate in a visceral way how hurtful and vile these cretins are being. If their victims did nothing but turn the other cheek and keep soldiering on, there'd be little indication to those who aren't intimately familiar with the industry of exactly how bad things are. Articles like this get shared and linked and make outside forces aware of the problem. A formerly oblivious parent of a preteen just starting to play online games could see an article on the subject on a friend's FB, and they could pay closer attention to their child's habits and attitudes and maybe prevent them from becoming another muck-dweller. People who know folks like the aforementioned 19-year-old troglodyte, and who formerly considered their antics amusing and harmless, could stop tacitly endorsing their behavior. And, ultimately, maybe people will start shunning publishers and review outlets who release or praise games that implicitly or explicitly endorse misogyny in the same way they would if those entities released or praised games that were unabashedly racist. As well they should. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Nathaniel Grundy |
As much as the media (Including miss Alexander) wants to characterize this as an "anti-feminist" vs "feminist" issue, the fact of the matter is that there's more to the situation than that. However, every time the supposed "misogynists" try to engage in actual debate, they're immediately designated as the enemy and ignored. This "with us or against us" mindset is childish and toxic, and it needs to stop. On all accounts.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Chris Book |
I like how the header image suddenly changed to make it appear less hostile.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
James Margaris |
I am very happy to see this getting pushback.
Here's the rub - many of the people who complain about how bad "gamer culture" is, or about how bad "the internet" is, or about how Twitter is bad, are clearly part of the problem. It's hard to say more without crossing over into personal stuff so I'll leave it at that. --- Edit: Very tired of "do as I say not as I do" mentality. |
|
|
Benjamin Quintero |
Leigh,
"Lately, I often find myself wondering what I’m even doing here. And I know I’m not alone." This has nothing to do with gamers vs journalist or game culture, this is online culture period. We've seen depressed kids being bullied online to the point where they live stream their suicide attempts. We've seen how nasty the internet can be to someone who reveals online that they are gay because they feel that they can't take that information to their own parents. The internet is just a mine field of suck, but flowers do grow in the spaces between. Please don't confuse internet culture with gaming culture, even if those two spheres do overlap a bit. Gaming culture specifically is still a very cool place, and you don't need to look too far beyond PAX, GDC, GamesCom, BlizzCon, QuakeCon, and many other events where people congregate to share their positive experiences in video games. |
|
|
John Maurer |
On a side note, if you do a search on Zoe Quinn for articles that mention her or her game on gamasutra.com you'll find that the author of this article, Leigh Alexander, has got his named stamped on quite a few, which you can see for yourself if they haven't allowed him to replace his name with anonymous yet.
Which leads me to believe that this isn't a journalist reporting news as he would lead others to believe, this is a blogger defending his friend(s). @GamasutraStaff Just let this one go man, the collateral damage to this whirlwind is credibility. It's just not worth it. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Ryan Andrew Smith |
You know, when I got back from GDCE a couple of weeks ago, me and everybody who went there, male and female alike, from different countries, different backgrounds, different sexualities and personal experiences, talked about how much of a blast we had, how everybody was greatly looking forward to making new things feeling inspired and invigorated... and ever since GDCE the internet has been one constant stream of bile and hatred.
Leigh is absolutely right. There are no sides and there is no debate, because everybody involved in this discussion isn't discussing anything. Everybody's just flinging shit left and right and having insult fights over Twitter - over freaking TWITTER of all places. I've been trying my best to ignore it, but apparently it's even spread over here to Gamasutra, a place I thought would stay out of this. This article (I hesitate to call it an article because it's more of an angry rant) is not helping. There is nothing positive to take from this article. At all. I don't know about you guys, but I don't give a flying rat's ass about all this drama. I'll be out making and playing games with my friends. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Brandon Shelton |
I read through all of these comments and I just wanna say I love this conversation. It's been great and awful, but not awful in the sense of badness, awful in the sense of revealing some kind of uncomfortable horror about the universe and humanity. Like, we're all trying to figure this shit out, but it's hard, and no one really knows what to do, but we know what makes us uncomfortable and what we agree with. We seem to agree on "the problem" for the most part, which makes it even more awful because it's just so damn hard to figure out what to do about it. This has really been a wonderful moment of personal growth for me. (I swear I'm not on drugs right now)
|
|
|
Larry Carney |
I read before on one of Ms. Alexanders' previous blogs that she does not read the comments.
I am simply wondering, that with this indisputably negative and hostile opinion piece, how Ms. Alexander can comment on the negativity and hostility of the culture if she is unaware of that which she contributes towards it? |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Kim McAuliffe |
It's only from a position of privilege that people can sit back and choose to "sit out drama". Labeling the events of the past week as drama is silencing and disrespectful to those who don't have the option to ignore what's going on around them.
|
|
|
sean lindskog |
Here's why this discussion is a total waste of time.
- About 1 out of 10 people enter a debate to exchange ideas. The rest are there to win an argument. - Make it an online debate (where the human empathy factor is removed) - you've got 1 in 100. - Make it an online debate about an emotionally charged issue - you've got 1 in 1000. - Make it an online debate about an emotionally charged issue where each side feels personally assaulted/insulted by the other - you've got 1 in 10000. The other 9,999 people are just getting more angry, and more entrenched in their own dogma, singing in chorus with whichever side of the mob is chanting their mantra. You make it worse by being part of the crowd. Nobody convinces anyone, everyone gets angrier, and it all feeds into a vortex of hate. The only path is to ignore the hate vortex, and live by the same moral code you wish others to. Your example might slowly convince others to change. The online forum wars never will. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Daniel Pang |
http://universeinapockybox.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/damned-audien
ce-part-3-gamers-and-the-argument-for-change/ I wrote this last year. It's way more level-headed than I feel right now, so I feel like this is the only adequate response I can give on the topic given that this was written at a time when my opinion was less colored by the current spate of flat out disgusting things I've read on the internet this last week. |
|
|
Rachelle Bowers |
I've seen Ms. Alexanders' tweets as of late, and I'll admit some bias already because I did not agree with what she said, but I will try to push aside said bias while speaking about this article.
When on the internet, I have never made my gender, my race, my job, or anything else about me become the topic of conversation, because it is rarely relevant to the matter at hand. But I think in regards to this article (and some of her tweets) it is. I am not a "gamer gurl/girl/g1rl/etc." I am simply a gamer. I am 25, mixed, and a graphic designer. I've played since I was a child, getting much farther than anyone I knew on the Sega version of the Lion King game. I played along side my little brother, my male cousins, my friends and now, my fiance. I play my 3DS on the train to work, only to come back home to play on the computer. While I wouldn't solely identify myself as a gamer, I would never deny that it is a HUGE part of who I am as a person. Games have gotten me into graphic design, concept art, and slowly into dev work. Frustrated a bit with an industry that doesn't want to make games I enjoy because they don't "sell well," I have taken the Sakurai approach and decided to work towards making my own games. For the past week or so, Ms. Alexanders, and many others, have been throwing around the term "gamer" and attaching the "young white male" descriptive to it, along with others such as "basement dweller," "nerd," "virgin," etc.. It has been applied to the entirety of gamers, and especially the entirety of the critics in this matter that isn't discussed. I am a part of the group of critics. I am neither a young white male, a basement dweller, and the last two are moot. In this article especially, this description of gamers still stands. I feel oddly silenced, even though I have made my voice and my points known on the matter as the days trail on. I have watched as during discussions or arguments I have partaken in, people have looked over my points in favor (or against) men who have made the same points, only to say, "Hah! You little gamer boys!" If ever acknowledged, I am told I am "deluded," perhaps "brainwashed," and harboring some sort of awful feeling towards others like me. It boils down to, my opinions are not my own, and are just echoing off of the "white male gamers" that are supposedly terrorizing everyone who is trying to do good in the industry. To watch Ms. Alexanders lump "gamers' into one subset, and then tell the reader that there can be no divide, to me is on par with telling me, someone who is mixed, how one part of my heritage acts, and how I am no different from them, even if I honestly am. "Gamer" is a part of my identity, just like being mixed is, but it does not speak on my entirety. I am the sum of my parts, the result of a weird concoction that seems to work somehow. There is always a divide, because people are multi-dimensional, and each have their own personal thoughts and experiences. I am a gamer, and as a gamer, I have made nothing but civil, rational arguments that have been ignored by those who do not believe I can fit into the narrative that they are writing. I mean how could it? I'm sitting here writing this comment, when I could be doxxing someone and spreading nudes amirite? Constantly in this article she is speaking on "gamers" and "gaming culture" as if all gamers are nothing but social rejects. I will admit that I had a super thick shell when I was younger, I could barely speak above a whisper to people I didn't extensively known. But this was a result of difficult upbringings, not gaming. Thanks majorly to gaming and a rather long cashier job, I have become more comfortable and social. I think for myself, I purchase for myself. I am not a robot programmed to do what the creator feels I should do. It appears I do not fit into Ms. Alexanders' narrative, not even a bit. But according to her, I am part of the collective, I am not an individual, I am a Borg. I must assimilate. Gaming sites are not bowing down to "trolls." I am legitimately disappointed to read/hear/see what gaming journalism has become. While I do not snub a writer's opinion, overall if I am going to read about a game that I have heard of or have a slight interest in, I am ultimately wanting to know about the game's mechanics, it's story, it's characters. You are more than welcome to add your thoughts on the game personally thereafter, but as a gamer going to and participating in a game journalism websites, that is what I am looking for. If I want opinion, I happily turn to a blogger, or an op-ed piece. I have not "drank the kool-aid," I understand that the gaming industry is ever changing and ever evolving (sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad). I have recognized however, that there is a large subset of people who, surprisingly like the Borg, are trying to assimilate gaming into what they believe it should be. I am not against new and progressive/artistic games being made, in fact, I welcome it. But I do not agree nor will I stand silently as those who believe they are speaking for me, are trying to change every existing and soon to be existing game into what they think is "right." |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
jin choung |
angry woman angry at angry men.
got it. :P also, is this where i'm supposed to write, "not all gamers"? :P is it possible for me to respond to this piece without more :P ? we shall see... the suspense is killing me too. this piece is intended to convey the message of what? "we're better than this" i suppose? sorry but no we're not. as you intimate yourself in mentioning the piddly crap that we peddle - i.e. "war simulators" and "candy smashing" - this is not high brow stuff by any stretch of the imagination. this is the sum total of the industry's major money makers and you're expecting an audience that... what? engages in discourse befitting rabid fans of "my dinner with andre"? we create juvenile crap. you as a writer gravitated towards writing about this juvenile crap. and you are... now... surprised by the juvenile behavior that this product attracts? disappointed in the lack of new yorker level insight? actually, i'm just surprised at where your surprise is coming from. the internet is a cesspool. you're just discovering this? are you feigning this shock or have you really not been paying attention to all things internet? your online book club conforms to higher standards does it? if you think this is bad, you should try going into an android forum and start hailing the superiority of iphones. or hang out at jezebel.com and speak out about men's rights. this... all this is ooooollllllllld news. where have you been? |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Christopher Gore-Gammon |
I may be very young, but in my experience I have seen that people's viewpoints change greatly with action. When games that invoke change come around more frequently people will begin to question the possibilities. We as an industry, as a community, will move in the right direction when the right games come out; because, when it comes right down to it, what is our community about? The games!
I know this seems very naive, but as an aspiring game developer I will fight to the very end for a better community and industry. |
|
|
Mike Hatley |
So you could have just summed up the entire article with this picture: http://i.imgur.com/VLGZUBy.png
What I find the worst part about these specific types of articles is I keep being challenged when I say that "The agenda" wants to take away parts of my entertainment. They keep saying that it is utterly bullshit and I won't lose anything, only gain. Then you get articles like these that are effectively reverse boycotts. "These aren't the cool kids anymore! Lets take away their toys until they go away!". Articles like this, statements like that pic above, literal calls to war like the one by Elizabeth Sampat (http://elizabethsampat.com/the-truth-about-zoe-quinn/) all make this far worse than it needs to be. You expect calm discussion in face of threats? Do you honestly believe that everyone has threatened you so you should threaten everyone else? You are declaring war on the wrong people, as this rather long blog points out beautifully (http://nastythingssaidabout.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/the-terrible -misogyny-in-the-games-industry/). Right now your motives are suspect because your actions do not match with your stated goals. I believe that if you (personal you and you as whatever side you are claiming to represent) actually wanted to change things in a positive way you would be pushing policies closer to things like what is described here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCJTV5KaJJc If you really want to end the lions share of harassment, to stop muddying the waters so that actual issues could be seen clearly, you would be pushing for more accountability, in all aspects. You wouldn't be championing things like "signal boosting" or lauding shoddy journalism for supporting a bias. You want to sit there on your pedestal and claim everyone else is the problem but you. Makes your entire article sound a heck of a lot like projection. |
|
|
[User Banned] |
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Maxim Preobrazhenskiy |
I am a gamer.
However, it also just so happens that i haven't queued anywhere with a plump mushroom hat for a long long time now. I haven't been really paying a lot of attention to what marketing tells me - instead, i know the kinds of games i like and i know how to find them even in current saturated market. You probably won't see me being a "spokesperson" for anything, because i really have better things to do than impose my opinion on other people via social media. Well, except occasional posts like these ) but hey, being responsible requires occasionally responding to stuff :D I also don't remember appointing any people that the article listed as "speaking for all gamers" as those who speak for me. This "direction" where the "industry discourse went in the past few weeks"? I didn't even see it happen. Because it is by and large irrelevant. People who make genuinely good products in this industry will continue to find their customers and sell well, regardless of what kind of stink is produced by people who haven't really shown the ability to consistently make good products. You are saying that in 2014 the industry has changed... Well, from where i sit, the industry has not so much "changed" as finally started going back to its roots, suddenly realizing that it is time to stop pandering to the traditional gamer stereotype and get back to delivering on stuff that made us all gamers to begin with. Games are more relevant than ever. Those who played games their whole lives are finally getting some real pull in this world. More and more people come to routinely rely on games for delivering the kinds of experiences other people still struggle to find in movies or books. I am not mad about anything right now and i certainly don't feel "over". |
|
|
Andrew Wren |
Well written but a pointless article - nothing will change until the old guard both people and corporations in the game industry die out
|
|
|
Giuseppe Navarria |
This is probably the worst and least constructive article Gamasutra ever hosted, let alone featured.
So sad to see this kind of stuff here... |
|
|
Jennis Kartens |
Sometimes I think not being on Twitter and Reddit and not really caring about the US demographic makes me miss all the fun in the interwebs...
|
|
|
Jon Xavier |
I just want to thank you for writing this. I think you're going to catch a lot of flack from people who will read it as an attack and won't engage with your argument in a meaningful fashion, but for me this is a good summation of what's really happening here — gaming is seeing a kind of conservatism born from the cultural anxieties of a privileged group who see something they define themselves by moving in new directions, with all the ugly identity politics attendant to such movements. If we're going to move past the hostilities and toward a less dysfunctional games industry, we need more levelheaded articles like this to acknowledge the sea change that's happening without getting bogged down by the personalities and the personal attacks. Good job.
|
|
|
[User Banned] |
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
marques oneal |
Gamers as a stereotype is bad, just as all stereotypes are bad. Especially when things like this are going on http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/female-adults-oust-teenage-bo
ys-largest-gaming-demographic/ all these people are gamers. there are a-holes that troll others and attack anita or zoe or even jack thompson(most are probably the same) or whom ever they think is attacking them or a hobby they identify with, need their voice taken away. articles like this do the exact opposite. it gives them a voice by highlighting their words and actions, and can even push some people to sympathize with them due to the name calling and bashing. they don't care if they are seen as horrible they are getting their message out. its the same as the klan or other hate groups. they only care about their message getting out, not how they are precised by society or the majority. These people aren't even gamers, they are a-holes that think they are above others, they are the ones that say facebook games aren't real games, or such and such isn't a real game. that prevents them from being gamers right there. A gamer plays games, not only hardcore games, or core games, or whatever they deem to be games. a game is a game these a-holes don't get to decide who is a gamer, nor do they get to decide what a gamer is. leigh, you don't get to decide what a gamer is either. you don't get to say a gamer is a "young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls", because guess what, there are young women and old men and old women at those conventions too. gamers aren't the a-holes, the a-holes are, and these a-holes don't speak for gamers. gamers are everyday people, from granny playing candy crush to mom playing farmville, to little jimmy playing mario, to jane playing well mario, to dad playing CoD or AC. gamer isn't a stereotype its a way of saying "Hey i like to play games." instead of trying to destroy gamer, you need to actually identify with the word and change what others think about it. if you like playing games, you are a gamer, and you should tell people that. it shows them that their preconceived notion of gamer is wrong and needs changing, or they could say wow I am too. you never know until you try. |
|
|
Steve Fulton |
>>Lately, I often find myself wondering what I’m even doing here. And I know I’m not alone.
No, you are not alone. Not alone at all. |
|
|
[User Banned] |
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.
|
|
|
Neil Sorens |
There are many cultures within gaming, and some are extremely vocal, reactionary, and/or juvenile. Holding up the extreme examples to criticize gaming culture as a whole isn't reasonable. And in a pastime that appeals to teens, loners, and people for whom Internet crusades are a way of life, it's to be expected that there will be friction and unhappy things going on in various corners - and in this case it they are corners that gaming writers frequent for those very reasons: they exude passion and controversy.
The contemptuous potshots at "white" gamers are loathsome but not surprising from this writer. Has it been decided that racial animus is ok as long as it's towards an approved target? What races do Gamasutra's editorial policies allow to be targeted? |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Angelo Abela |
So let me see if I got this... The author is complaining of the consumerists culture within a community that revolves around a consumer product?
|
|
|
Ettore Luigi Gislon |
Tactless and rude piece of writing, that imo comes off as elitist, pseudo-intellectual, and most of all angry at the world for not being as the writer wants it to be.
|
|
|
Luis Guimaraes |
Those are not Gamers. Those are Hooligamers.
Gamers are not "The Problem". Attacking the whole term like this is abstractly no different than using an atom bomb to stop a riot. You'll hit a much broader area than what you're actually targetting with much more lethality than you really need. This is an uncontrolled remedy and, as always, creates more problems from collateral damage than it "solves". In a case where said solution is certain to actually solve the problem, small, measured and counter-measured collateral damage can be considered acceptable, but when the remedy is a blind move in the current Game State and the propagations of the move are just guessed but not really considered, the "any action is better than no action" motto will only feed the current State into more sparkles for chaos. http://pmav.eu/stuff/javascript-game-of-life-v3.1.1/ Also, the initial state of the problem and the current state of the problem are different things. Gamers are not "The Problem" anymore than Lives in Super Mario World are "The Problem". "We're out of Lives. Damn, Lives suck! Savescumming is better!" As videogame developers we are supposed to understand Cause and Consequence very well and have a considerable ability to see the big picture (also known as: System), spot Patterns, see how things came to this current State, reload the Game to a previous State and solve things from there. Sure, we can't go back in time, but we can control the original source of the issue to avoid further damage. Inductive reasoning and emotional reaction are the problem. As much as I respect Leigh and loved Save Merlin The Pig (where's the sequel?!) I can't answer "well played" to this turn. |
|
|
Ryan Keeler |
I appreciate your point of view, Leigh. I'm trying to figure out what to do with it, though. "Gamers don't have to be your audience." If that essentially means "Don't pay attention to comment sections," then I'm with you. Harvesting comment sections for actionable insight would take an entire full-time job and a genius. Trying to do so just leaves the company with no confident ideas and probably a lot of troll-related resentment.
However, if it means "Don't bother targeting the group that identifies as 'Gamer,'" then I'm a bit lost. Creating games under the banner of "Core-Targeted" seems to sell tons of games--Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Destiny (Maybe), Bioshock. If you just want to say that the Internet has jerks on it, then I'm also with you. But still don't have an idea how to put what you're saying to use. |
|
|
Daniel Cofour |
You know what you just did there? You called every person who is arguing for equal rights a Social Justice Warrior(the bad connotation). You called every Muslim a terrorist. You called every black person a thug. Do I need to go on, or did my point get through? You put a very large number of people in a very small box of clearly identifiable negative attributes.
I'm a gamer. I was for a very long time. I got my love of gaming from playing Warcraft, Starcraft, Rome Total War, KOTOR, GTA and so on when I was a kid. I've played all those games marketed towards "self-obsessed lonely basement dweller shitslingers". Yet I'm nothing like what you described here. I never was. Nor are any of my friends who play video-games. You took the worst of the bad apples and applied that description to everyone who happened to share their hobbies with them. And worst of all, the condescending implication that somehow, somehow, my life was defined by some companies' marketing? Are you kidding me? But you claim to champion for inclusivity. So tell me, how is a hit-piece on everyone who, by the random chance of genes, happened to be born white, male and straight, supposed to be inclusive? Inclusivity is for everyone. You are not inclusive if you champion for the rights/conveniences(because gaming is not exactly a right it's a luxury, no particular point, I'm just all about accuracy) of one group by attacking the other. You think you're helping, but you're throwing gasoline on an already out of control wildfire. You look at the state of discourse in gaming, and decry it as sad(which it is), please remember this article, and realise that you're part of the problem. Cause even someone who knows that calling people names and being aggressive doesn't solve anything, and actually makes things worse, it's hard to conjure up the will not to do just that after reading this. I'm sitting here in my room, I just stopped playing a game, have done nothing wrong in my life(apart from that one time I made that "women can't drive" joke, which is a bit of hypocrisy on my part, since that minor DUI incident) I come to this site and see this: you called me a despicable person, called me not-so-nice names, and told me that me, my opinions, my preferences or anything related to me is worthless. Do not be surprised when someone just like me, because of this article, gets pushed over to *your* other side of this gender-war(I say your, because there is no gender-war, I haven't seen it anywhere expect for internet forums, there are gender issues, but those won't be solved by a war a lot of people on all sides of the argument are trying to create), and this inclusivity in video-games discussion becomes one extremist more messier. |
|
|
Jon Knoeller |
I could feel myself becoming sick to the stomach as I read this article. Your hypocrisy and arrogance of the entire situation is appalling and if you fancy yourself as a writer you would do well to consider learning more about a community before writing about it. Maybe go to a video game convention at the very least, and see that the gaming community is one of the most vibrant, accepting, beautiful, and highly social communities you will ever witness. That is, if you put yourself out there and meet them and accept them for who they are.
Or you can live out your pretentious time trash talking them and trying to marginalize them into a group of apes without culture, and that any true gamer can prove that they are not, if you were ever to talk to one. Trying to define us with one sentence or even one article is not good enough especially considering you barely tried, you only singled out the few people who even gamers dislike and despise. And for those people who you singled out accusing them of having no social skills or capabilities, shame on you. I hope you look back at this article and feel nothing but shame for attacking those people who gave you no reason to do so. As somebody who had a very oppressive childhood and nobody to talk to because everybody I tried to be me with made fun of me. I can tell you that I went to games for help, I connected with all the strong amazingly crafted protagonists who stood up for what they believed in and I was inspired and I learned to be confident in myself and was able to become a social being again and stand up for myself. Gaming is not a cause of the socially inept, its an effect, because of people who marginalize and bully them for being different. They go to games and avoid people because video games, the right ones at that, don't hurt them, they only encourage them and teach them lessons about who they truly are as a person. Also I would like those of you who think the gaming community has no culture to look at the things this community has created and the people it attracts. Ranging from fanfiction giving those with a knack for writing the ability to create their own stories in an already established video game universe to fanart for those with a steady hand to mods and skins for those who want to hone their skills as a coder or designer and to cosplayers who can create the most beautiful and life-like costumes to wear to bring their favorite characters to life. So shame on you, for insulting a young community of people without even truly giving us a chance. |
|
|
Jon Knoeller |
I'd also like to add on to this "We are creating culture now." part. The culture has been there since fricking pac-man you've just been too busy slinging shit to notice or acknowledge it. The people who think this article is correct are the exact people that this article is trashtalking. Not gamers, You've labelled gamers completely wrong and I hope you never label them correctly.
|
|
|
Ricardo Hernandez |
I feel compelled to re-post what I posted on the "let's retire the word gamer" article-
--- I struggle to understand the new "fad" - it seems to me, in being ashamed somehow or remove or change pretty innocent words from the dictionary. Now it's the turn for "gamer." I mean really. When did this become a problem? Where is this politically correctness Lysol™ sanitizing dictionary effort coming from? I don't let the media define me. I have used the word "gamer" myself for a *very* long time. Why do I have to give it up all of a sudden? Who defines it is offensive? This reminds me of the whole gay/queer wording. Gays didn't say "you can't say queer"- they said "oh yeah, we *are* queer, get used to it!" They never let the word define them, they appropriated it and marched with it. Of course now I find out there's a new ridiculous similar issue going with the quite innocent word homosexual. I don't understand it. [] You are not going to change other people from using the word the way they want. You have to live by example what it means to be a "gamer." In the ideal case, more than a "gamer" I am simply me. I refuse let this article define what I am supposed to do now, given "gamer" has been used for ages and I used for myself on my own. -- Specifically about this article, I find it completely ridiculous to get one sector within what people may call gamer and make it the total qualification of the entire group. It strikes me as insecurity. Where is it really coming from? |
|
|
Ricardo Hernandez |
Oh and btw, you are citing another article (the article I originally replied to) as evidence that people are more and more uncomfortable with the word "gamer?"
"“Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad. " Eh? WTF. Which people exactly are you talking about? That line up there almost reads like "the reason atheists are mad is because they know god exists."-> which incidentally has made some circles from the Hercules TV series actor. How is this supposed to make sense? This reeks of a conspiracy to change a word. |
|
|
Conal McLaughlin |
A friend linked me to this post. I registered just to voice my opinion. I am not here to troll. Rarely does an Internet article...move me enough to register for potential spam.
IMO, this article represents so much of what is wrong with people these days. Because of small minority of vocal idiots, an entire "group" of people is then made out to be the devil by another even smaller vocal minority. The smaller vocal minority in this case has the biggest and loudest megaphone ( ie media outlets). And of course neither of these groups actually represent the vast majority of people who call themselves "gamers". Even combined they represent a just a small fraction. Slippery slope people. Everyone has their moments of weakness. I understand that people can have impulse reactions and lash out. Especially when a bunch of idiots are running the train on your twitter account (or whatever social media you use). But this exact reaction is EXACTLY what those trolls and instigators want. HELLO. People with big megaphones (ie journalists etc) should be more aware of this then most others. And if you are not prepared for this, then you should consider not putting yourself out there. The alternative....again slippery slope. Fail all the way around. People... EVOLVE PLEASE!!!!!! |
|
|
Daniel Cofour |
And by the by, a lot of people you just grouped here as a big box of despicable strawmen, are advocating for women's right, gay rights, equality and inclusivity. So for that I'll post this quote, originally posted by TotalBiscuit, from Braveheart:
“I beg pardon sire, won't we hit our own troops?” “Yes, but we'll hit theirs as well!” http://blueplz.blogspot.ro/2014/08/this-game-supports-more-than-t wo-players.html |
|
|
Jennifer Hane |
This article says a lot about how we as gamers need to create culture, but I'm left with a muddy impression of what that actually means.
First: yes, gamers are consumers. Somebody has to make the games, and we enjoy giving money to people who make things that we like. I thought that was a GOOD thing? I'd rather see a consumer culture than a pirate culture among gamers. My best reach at what the article is trying to say is that gaming has been characterized by *mindless* consumerism, i.e. gamers buy whatever the big corporations make for them without questioning its quality. They're a herd following fads. This could be true ... but the bare fact that a large number of people buy the same thing from a large company doesn't make them mindless. Perhaps said large company has simply figured out how to make a product that speaks to a lot of people. Me, I just try to buy things I like, whether their creators are big or small, wildly popular or obscure. Whether the consumerism is mindless or not, gamers don't merely consume, they also create: fan art, fan fiction, costumes, and in some cases their own games. There's quite a bit more than just meme-swapping going on in the gaming community. If art, literature, and fashion don't represent forms of culture creation, what does? What, exactly, have we failed to do? "Have money. Have women. Get a gun and then a bigger gun. Be an outcast. Celebrate that." The only game franchise I can think of that actually fits this pattern would be Grand Theft Auto, which is admittedly and unfortunately very popular. Taking it as a representative of generalized gaming culture still feels like a stretch, however. I happily consider myself a gamer, and I've never played GTA or anything like it. My pallette of favorites includes The Elder Scrolls, League of Legends, Myst Online: Uru Live, Dragon Fable, and Sins of a Solar Empire. This article seems to be telling me that I'm somehow responsible to curate a more positive culture for the people who think fantasizing about running over pedestrians is good entertainment. Mmm. It would be nice. But again, HOW? I play better games and promote them by word of mouth. I strive to be an example of good behavior when playing MMOGs. I make derivative works of art that are harmless or positive, and share them with the community. What more do you expect of me and the wider culture of gamers? Speaking of Myst, I've been spending a lot of time with that fan community lately. It couldn't be farther away from the article's characterization of gamers as angry young men striving for hyper-masculinity. Not only is it gender- and age-diverse, I get the impression that *it always has been.* Myst has been around for 20 years and sold millions of copies (it was the highest selling PC game until 2002), and a major part of the audience, as far as I can tell, were families. Kids watched or assisted as their parents played the game. These non-violent adventure games may have receded into the background with the recent market saturation of FPS and RPG battle games, but they have always been a part of gaming, as far back as the 8-bit days, and they still are. |
|
|
Ben Peck |
This author obviously doesn't know what a gamer is. The dictionary definition simply defines gamer as a game enthusiast, more specifically video and computer games. And there are a hell of a lot of gamers out there. So, being a gamer, I find it insulting to be stereotyped because of the actions of a few people. For the record, gamers are not all basement dwelling, socially incompetent, jobless fat loners as this article makes them out to be. But that can be forgiven. That has been a stereotype of gamers for years, and it's not going to change anytime soon. What is unforgivable is the fact that this article makes all gamers seem like sexist, racist, homophobic pigs. That pisses me off. So just for this article, I'm going to use a gaming reference as an example. I play many online MMO games. Me and my friends have formed a clan. It spans across many games and we have a lot of fun together. The point is, our members consist of many people, including women and a few gay people. These are some of my best friends and we have fun outside of games. This article is written from the perspective of someone who only sees what they want to see. And sadly, they only seem to want to see the few people who enforce these stereotypes.
|
|
|
Amir Barak |
I'm a gamer. Been a gamer since I was 5. Will be a gamer 'till I die. Proud to call myself a gamer. And nothing you've done or said so far has convinced me you actually understand how language works or why the term 'gamer' is the root of all evil.
Maybe. Just maybe. It's not the term but some of the people. I've not seen you write an article calling out the word "Germans" just because of Nazism. If someone's an asshole then they are called an asshole. If someone's a criminal then they are called a criminal. Guess what though these people are also fathers and mothers, brothers, sisters, cooks, cleaners, gamers and game developers. No one can reduce a single person to a single word and no one should try. Your article is full of ignorance, misinformation, generalizations and sexism. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Carmen Zecchino |
Gamers aren't dead. We're always out there, in the shadows or the light of day, heroes and villains alike. Gaming on while the rest of the video game world argues and fights and attacks each other. What you consider gaming culture, is a flawed and distorted opinion. You see the mob. They aren't gamers, they play for different reasons. I am a gamer. And there are plenty more of me, guys and girls alike, gay straight or all of the above, who don't care for the nonsense and we respect each other because we share a love for these amazing games. Some of us are 6 years olds and some of us are forty, and older still. As long as our hearts are still beating, gamers live. Born of the original mold, we sit down and we have fun, we don't pick games apart for sport or observe them as critics or obsess over reviews or scores. We enjoy a game, or we don't. But we play because we love it. We get mad at each other in Mario Kart. We sway the tides of epic encounters in shooters and strategy games. We sit quietly at home, absorbed in the story of a massive RPG or waging intergalactic battles across time and space. We're the ones smiling to ourselves playing pinball on our Vita or Pokémon Red on a GBC in the airport. Tapping away methodically at our 3ds. Hooking up our old SNES' and diving into Mega Man X for the hundredth time. We rob banks and slay dragons and toss spells like pro's. We fight across alien worlds and vast deserts, dogfighting in the clouds one day and fending off zombies the next, and we love every second of it. Sometimes we build wonders, other times we destroy them. We lose ourselves in the games we love most and are always looking expectedly into the future for new adventures, new battles, new worlds to explore and new stories to take in. That mob will always be there, it surrounds and attaches itself to anything of substance and works to tear it down, human nature maybe. But this whole "community" you write on could burn down around us gamers, rebuild itself and burn right down again in a never ending cycle of screaming and crying and oddly political or philosophical debates, and we'd still be there. Shielding our consoles and PC's from the ash and ember and gaming right on. We're not dead, we're very much alive and still landing killer combo's, still striving to beat those high scores. We always will be.
|
|
|
Cody Tate |
This article actually made me so furious, I singed up for this website to write this response.
"‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works" And yet, you sit here, trying to be-little such a large community of people, who doing what they're passionate about. What gives you such a moral high ground that you can insult millions of people? Do you actually think we're just basement dwellers who spend 80 hours a week playing video games? No, that's just insulting that you even implied we don't know about human social interaction. I talk to a large group of friends daily, who span across the entire planet, and can name AT LEAST 20 people from every major nation in the planet, can you? "Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time." Why do you try to pick on "Lonely basement kids" in this article, hell, if it wasn't for the "Lonely basement kids" you wouldn't even have a website to post your fairly terrible article on. Those lonely basement kids of yesteryear created the world we know today, if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have mobile phones, we wouldn't have the internet, we wouldn't have micro-processors and we wouldn't have the ease of access to medical supplies we do now, because research would be almost impossible to reproduce to todays standard, if it wasn't for those "Lonely basement kids". So please, before you sit behind your monitor, and try to pick on Gamers and "Lonely basement kids", think to yourself, what have you done for this planet? Why are you so important, that you can get away with insulting millions of people. Gaming is something I'll never give up, it's part of me and I'm happy about it, but if you're going to sit here, poking fun at me, because I enjoy spending my spare time playing video games, then of course I'm going to turn around and tell you to get lost (Would probably use a word that isn't lost), just don't act all surprised when something goes wrong, after you've made fun of those Gamers and nerdy "Basement kids" when you poke fun of them. A website can be taken down just as easily as it can be made, remember that next time you make fun of someone who spends a lot of time on a computer. Enjoy your day. |
|
|
Nick Harris |
Cineaste, bookworm, audiophile, petrolhead, coder, gamer - convenient categories.
|
|
|
Peter Gabriele |
I am sad to see the same stereotypes and social rejection faced by the gaming culture in the 80s and the 90s, resurfacing today because of a dramatic controversy involving harassment by a group of people.
In this article, "gamers" are defined as one single type of individuals, asocial people with no self-esteem and no social skills, immature harassers filled with hate. As with all stereotypes, it was never true. We never had one single group of homogenous of gamers - imagine how easy it would have been for publishers and developers ! Ever since we had the first video games, we had people preferring one over another, people preferring one element of a game over another. - Diversity was immediately the key aspect of gaming: everyone could do anything (within the current technical constraint). Space exploration ? Check. Medieval adventure ? Check. Critique of our modern life ? Check. Cyberpunk dystopia ? Check. I know these examples sounds cliche, but everyone could make and play whatever they wanted, so most of the production was what most people of that generation dreamed about (from what they read in books, comics, or saw in movies). Nowadays the modern tools have made it easier to achieve a more complex result, but the very idea of being free to code and create freely was always there. Just like with literature, video games became a medium on its very first day. But it will take a few decades to get its own masterpieces, just like cinema needed a few decades to truly shine. - Diversity was also within the participants themselves: we had female, male and trans gamers, we had all kind of sexual orientation, all kind of social and ethnic origins. Nobody shouted it on rooftop, because it was normal for gamers that anyone could join the fun. That was before*(1) the "popularization" of gaming (in the mid-to-late 00s), of course. The demographic profile of the "average" (<- note how it simplifies the actual demography, especially if the variance is strong) was a white young american male, sure - but that "average" wasn't representing all the non-white, all the non-young, all the non-male, all the non-american/non-western gamers. These people didn't disappeared, they didn't vanished and transformed into invisible ghosts: they were there, they are there, they never left. That's why grouping all these people, all these games, into one single strongly negative stereotype, is offensive and doesn't help anyone having a better understanding of the question. *(1) The "popularization" of gaming: when the misogynist and judgmental people coming from the IRL society flooded the video game market. These people aren't gamers. They were never gamers. This is the big mistake this article (and many many others) keep making when talking about gaming: they group together the enthusiasts who spent decades building the gaming culture of openness and tolerance, far away from the IRL society - and the entertainment consumers who violently attack women/LGBT/black/hispanic/asian people online, because they can't do it IRL without facing consequences (lawsuits, fines, social rejection). These 2 very different groups hate each others and have been fighting for years: gamers suddenly had to deal with a constant barrage of "lol faggots" and other abusive behaviors from fratboy idiots who only cared about their ego - these aggressors are the exact opposite of gamers, bundling them together is completely wrong. - I understand that seeing these abuses (the harassment and the threats) unfold right in front of us is frightening and make us back up in fear. Yes, fear is among us. But we shouldn't surrender to fear, like we should never surrender to terrorism. For two reasons. It makes us lose our rationality and tolerance, we start being afraid of everyone and seeing evil everywhere. We start being aggressive, wanting revenge to "show them we can fight back, that we're not afraid" (sic). We start wars. We attack innocent people that look like our potential aggressors. We lose all our values of tolerance and humanity, in the false hope of gaining security. It happened countless times in history, it happened to the US society a decade ago, it isn't something we're unfamiliar with. Also, if we pledge allegiance to fear, we massively expose ourselves to manipulation. Anyone who would want to exploit our force or take our wealth will only have to use FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to control us: if we're told we're being attacked from everywhere, we'll give away any amount of wealth to gain "security", and we'll attack (with all our force) anyone designated as our "enemy". Some people know that and will use that to get what they want, no matter what is their apparent "side" in the conflict. - In the previous weeks, we had a complex issue involving possible nepotism and conflict of interest (problems that shouldn't be ignored), while some of the people involved reported threats and harassment, some of it being visible on social networks. At the same time, we had the video series by A.S., praised by some people, criticized by some people (sometime the same people who praised some other elements), that also sparked, according to the video series author, a new wave of insults, harassment and threats. Such worrying events shouldn't make us forget who we were, it shouldn't turn everyone who isn't completely "with us" into a vicious enemy. It shouldn't make us back up in fear and grab whatever is within reach, such as hateful stereotypes about the gaming culture (and gamers) that we abandoned several decades ago. It isn't what we need to face these problems, it isn't what will actually help us contain and control these threats and harassment. Instead of rejecting and demonizing the entire gaming culture and all its participants, we should celebrate what was and is right within that community, to carefully and accurately identify and isolate the few persons insulting and harassing anyone debating the issue of sexism, invading their personal and professional lives to demolish them. And no, the harassers aren't "4chan" or "gamers" or "feminists". These are very easy but ultimately terribly flawed answers. "4chan" is a nebulous group of subgroups (ex: they have their own lgbt board), and even within each board you can have many different people, opinions and behaviors. "Gamers" is a complex notion that can't be summed up in a single paragraph, with a confusing history and many different generations. "Feminists" have a very long and complex history too, with so many different movements, branches and waves, that it's practically impossible to give an universal definition of the word that is regrouping all feminists. Simply because some of the people who participate in social harassment campaigns identify themselves as feminists doesn't mean they're any representative of feminism and "feminists" in general. This is why baseless generalization is the main challenge here, it is THE obstacle on the road to progress, not "gamers" or "feminism" (depending on whichever "side" you're currently in). - I'm sure the author meant no harm to what is *actually* the gaming culture and gamers, L.A. only wanted to express her frustration, anger and fear at what is currently being displayed on Twitter, websites and blogs. What saddens me is how that anger fuels a very hostile and simplistic speech, that is *currently* resulting in actual hate speech by common people outside of the gaming community, toward anyone who identify as "gamers" (no matter what is their gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, etc). "Gamers" are being assimilated to terrorism (I'm not joking), school shootings, all form of cruel physical violence in the world - "gamers" are being described as antisocial sexually deviant monsters with mental diseases that should be locked up and socially rejected by everyone. I never thought I would hear that again - such hate speech used to be limited to conservative biggots afraid of a new medium, back in the 80s/90s - but now it's in every comments section, blogs and articles about the topic of sexism and gaming. - And no, two wrongs don't make a right. A group of malicious individuals insulting and harassing some public figures doesn't mean anyone is allowed to suddenly turn around and attack a very large group of people that might be vaguely related (or not) to the harassers. Simply because foreign terrorism against the US is currently dominated by Islamic terrorist cells doesn't mean americans are allowed to target, harass and kill anyone who is a muslim (or vaguely "look" like a muslim, like it happened with Sihk people). Simply because physical non-white-collar criminality is mainly done by "minorities" (who also happen to live in poverty, which might be the main/only factor at play here) doesn't allow anyone to make general statements about these racial and ethnic groups. Sames goes with "gamers". Simply because some of the harassment come from people being more or less related to gaming doesn't allow anyone to make broad statement about the gaming culture and gamers. Doing that is deeply offensive and disrespectful of all the people who never took part in any harassment (often being victim of harassment themselves), always fought for tolerance and equality, and also happen to be gamers. - I hope the Gamasutra staff will allow this post to be visible, as I believe the notion of "gamer" is crucial to understanding the gaming culture, especially in these troubled times. What we need is openness and unity, not hate and hostility. - Thank you for reading this, I hope we'll find positive solutions to this problem. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Michael Guy |
i don't post often on Gamasutra, but i think the editorial team really needs to rethink the value in allowing culture articles that denigrate most of the readers and developers in the same equally venomous and distorted perception.
it's not backed up by facts or the greater experience of others. it might be connected to a collusive experience, but that's not this article. This article is poorly framed, and seems to be abadoning one argument and picking it right up again. "It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not." which is to ask the question, when did they allow such shitty writing on gamasutra ? the links used, the rhetoric, the odd 'PR' choice of abandoning an entire culture in favour of what .. calling gamers ... customers ? consumers ? fans ? should it be a pejorative term instead of an endearing or derivative one ? "Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad. These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had. There is what’s past and there is what’s now. There is the role you choose to play in what’s ahead." logically, since nothing is solved, only grief and emotional outburst and insulting people with stereotypes, what's ahead is more of the same thing. it's a fatuous article and not what i'd expect on gamasutra. |
|
|
Jo Pearson |
I agree with the article.
I would add to the assertions, a predication that the term 'gamer' will gradually come to have an approximate meaning to 'cinephile' or 'bibliophile'; becoming an interest set so widespread and mainstreamised that identifying as a 'gamer' will eventually no longer suggest an affinity with 'gaming' culture - but instead purely suggests an interest in the medium. |
|
|
Gerry Quinn |
Well, if "gamers are over", presumably that means they are a minor culture which groups unwelcome to them should not be permitted to "appropriate"...
|
|
|
Perry de Havilland |
"Gamer" isn't just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use"
And you know this how? Outside the games journalism bubble, The Gamer is alive and well and if you do not cater to the self described Gamer, fine, someone else will. I know why I play less games than I used to. I have indeed grown up, and I expect more and better games before I am willing to pay for them. I have stopped pre-ordering from every company (I am looking at you Bioware) other than CD Projekt Red, because I am tired of crap games with the best reviews money can buy. I am still a self described Gamer, but I am finding less games being made for me. I am not changing so much as the people who make the games are. Well whatever, I suspect the next crop of developers will figure out how to get me to wave my credit card at them even if the current crop seem to have forgotten. |
|
|
Kelley Ni |
As an avid gamer, I wasn't aware of this nonsense that's been going on until I someone showed me a twitter hashtag calling me, and other gamers, some pretty awful things. Now I'm going through these articles, trying to understand why people hate me and why they are calling me names. I want to know why I'm being to misunderstood by so many, and why do you even care?
According to this article, my culture is over; I don't know how to dress or behave; I know little about human social interaction and professional life; I should question my life choices; I have an industry and I need to control how I present it to the world; my culture is infantile and promote shitty behavior; I am a young white dude with disposable income; I am lonely; I live in a basement; I am angry; I have a powerlessness complex; I am an obtuse shitslinger, a wailing hyper-consumer, and a childish internet-arguer (troll?); I am mad because traditional gaming is "sloughing off". I have been playing video games as long as I can remember, since the early 90's. I grew up with them. Mario taught me typing and I learned to hate that mocking Duck Hunt dog. I was better than my brothers are Space Invader, and they actually respected me for it. Those are my credentials, so I feel like I have the right to call myself a "gamer," yet I don't recognize the culture you're describing as the one I grew up in. I don't live in a basement, I'm happily married to a gamer spouse. At 26, I chose to leave my professional job to pursue my passion. I am a college graduate and tested leader of men and women. I have friends who don't play games, friends who do, and some who help make them. My family didn't have much money growing up, but my parents always managed to get games for us, usually around Christmas time. Usually they'd wait until the release hype had passed and prices dropped, but they were always gifts of love from a parent to a child. I suppose you could say I'm a hyper-consumer, because thanks to my and my spouse's successful careers, we've been able to afford the latest major consoles, and we own them all. If gamers really are these unprofessional degenerate angry young men, living in basements, with no concept of basic human interaction, then how do they also have the money to be hyper-consumers? Or are we all independently wealthy, too? What you've described sound half like the stereotype of the nerd from the 80's an 90's (the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons, maybe) and half like internet Trolls. That's not gaming culture, and this doesn't sound like a debate. The more I learn, the more it sounds like a bunch of Trolls in a Flame War. And how am I supposed to control how people view me, and Gamers in general, especially in today's globalized world? I don't control the industry (if I did, EA would provide better post-production game support) and I don't control what people say on the internet. I'm a user. You can't define me by the actions of corporations. And I am an individual, you can't define me by the actions of others. I believe you're mislabeling your target, and if you're not, you need to more clearly define it, because you say "gamer" and "gamer culture" but then you don't define what it is before you start hurling insults. And for the record, I am a little mad, and a little scared, about the future of the gaming industry. Not because I think gaming culture is fading away - I know that casual gaming is a growing field, and there's still a lot of money to be made from it. What I'm mad about is the quality of mainstream games being released. With some exceptions, quality games are becoming more and more rare. Single player gaming is going away. Call of Duty is going to have more sequels than The Land Before Time, soon, and with even less variety in content. I'm afraid that big game production companies think they've figured out the "magic formula," and, like Hollywood, are going to start cranking out over-priced, cooker cutter shit, calling it a game, and expecting me to buy it. I'm a consumer, and I want to consume, but I'm afraid that soon there won't be anything coming out worth playing, and I'll have to start finding something else to do with my spare time. |
|
|
fred tam |
Writer has direct involvement...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_K13iEWQfY |
|
|
Frank Inktomi |
I wrote the same thing to Luke Plunkett at Kotaku, and it applies to you too.
Many people loved using the word "gamer" when it was hip, popular and upcoming it was such an over-used buzzword. We never asked for a label. That is for marketers and advertisers to use to catch the young market who is looking for an identity. The older crowd, like me, who never dared allow themselves to be branded with it look at you and the rest of your brethren and laugh. Remember that this is a multi-billion dollar industry and how it started. Remember that is why you are here, to make a living writing for this crowd you are ready to claim "is over." Remember that is was our money that helped build this industry to where it is now. We are the "hyper-consumers." Remember the "the gamer" when you look at your bank account and your direct deposit paycheck is there. It is there because you write for Kotaku, which would not exist without video games-which wouldn't exist if we didn't spend BILLIONS every year on video games. Remember that this is supposed to be about having fun. |
|
|
Andrew Jackson |
I've been seeing a lot of buzz about this issue, so I came here looking for articles to see what was going on. Honestly, if this is the kind of article gamasutra is featuring and touting as "exclusive" then I am done with this site.
The only people I've seen using "gamer" as a derogatory term are the ones writing these disgusting, lie riddled, propaganda pieces. You just painted every gamer out there as a socially inept basement dwelling troll. I expect this kind of talk from elderly news pundant on fox, not from a supposedly informed game site. I am a gamer, have been my whole life. And yet, I fit none of the blanket slandering statements you've made. In fact, I don't know a single person that fits your description that plays games. This article has enraged me so much, I can't even begin to point out all the problems with it. Games-journalists' ethics problems are a real concern. Gamers are not "obtuse shitslingers"(although I wouldn't hesitate to put that label on you). And if gamers aren't your target audience that's a good thing, because we don't want hateful, slandering, "journalists" like you representing us anyways. I for one, will keep developing games for gamers because guess what...We are the ones BUYING the games. This whole thing seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the horrible ethics problems that have been exposed in the games-journalist industry. You decide to create straw-man arguments about "gamers" being basement dwelling children, and spread propaganda about "gamer is dead" instead of taking responsibility and owning up to the truth. You hype games you are payed to hype, and ignore games that don't pay the toll. You often "review" games you don't actually play. You push agendas, and turn supposedly objective interviews into subjective slander pieces. Game-journalism is the thing that is dead, you are being replaced by youtube personalities, and ever more informed game developers that can do their own publicity without paying your "hype-tax". Evolve or die, that's how this industry works, and it seems a lot of you "journalists" have chosen the latter (meaning that in a business sense). "Lately, I often find myself wondering what I’m even doing here" - then leave, we won't miss you. |
|
|
Rebecca Richards |
Hi, actual AAA developer here taking Leigh's side. Because someone who actually knows what they're doing should once in a while.
You said something a lot of non-developers don't want to hear and that's why they're scared and angry and trying to ruin you. I met you at GDC and I was very happy to find you were exactly the person I'd hoped you'd be, and this article just proved it. Leigh, don't stop talking and for the love of god don't let anyone silence you. You've said what a lot of people needed to hear, with the exact rage and tempo they deserved. Anyone seriously crying that you "shut down the discussion" is the same type of person who won't allow a discussion to happen and can't recognize that you finally had to break the door down to even start it. I'm a game developer. I will never call myself a "gamer" again. Not until "gamers" decide to grow up. I am done with "gamer culture" because I'm an adult and I've discovered most people that want to be "gamers" don't want adulthood in the first place. The number of days in the last few weeks that I've found myself seriously questioning why I want to make games for people that literally hate my existence is kind of frightening to me. But I'm also too damn goonish to stop because at least I'm getting my girl cooties into their precious vidya games whether they like it or not. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Dylan Morrison |
Before I make my comment, I want to make one point perfectly clear.
I have not been following this whole meltdown, I have not been following any bit of it because I've been too busy playing and enjoying games in a healthy family of 5 other people who play and enjoy games. We call ourselves gamers because that's what we are, we're people for whom games are our passion. I'm 26, I come from an era where "Gamer" meant sitting down in front of the TV blowing into SNES cartridges so we could make Yoshi swallow Shy Guys and "produce" eggs. Where being a gamer meant playing Sonic the Hedgehog. There are people in my household who have tattoos of their favorite game characters, or icons, one even has a song from Ocarina of Time. The point is, we consider ourselves gamers. And I feel insulted by this article. I feel insulted because I feel like by the very title of the article and the fact that not three sentences in you're insulting the kind of person I am. Yes, I've been there, holding posters and queueing at PAX. But I wasn't listless and not knowing why I was there. I was there because I was having fun. Because that's what it's about. I am a gamer, I am proud to call myself a gamer, because to me a gamer is the same thing as being a petrolhead, or a music lover, or a bookworm. It means someone who devours games whole because they speak to them on a fundamental level, they bring them joy, stimulation, memories of childhood. I use games as a way to connect with the children I suddenly find myself sharing a home with after years of living alone. They call themselves gamers too. I'm going to have to make sure this, and the other oddly parrot-y articles out there from other sites, don't get read by them, lest they think me, my fiancee, and their parents are some sort of troglodytes. That's the problem. That's why people are feeling insulted. That's why people in this very comments section are asking why it's so broadbrushed and meanspirited. Not because they're unwilling to look into themselves, not because they're unwilling to face that there are some gamers who are misogynistic, or abusive, or hateful. But because they don't want to be broadbrushed by you. Because some of us just like games. So do I need to find a new word, since "gamer" is dead? |
|
|
David Whitesell |
I self identify as a gamer, and this article offends me.
I own my own home I'm married to my beautiful wife. I workout 6 days a week. I have a full time job. I own a new car. I am a GAMER. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
William Monty |
I haven't played games on a regular basis for many years. I have heard about this Gamer Gate story for weeks and finally started to click on some of the links to find out what this was about.
You are stereotyping "gamers" based on the behavior of some 4chan miscreants. Let's say there are 10 million white male gamers in the US. What percentage of that demographic do you think was involved in this Gamer Gate nonsense? I don't know why you would generalize and insult that entire group based on the behavior of a few. If that was not your intention you certainly came off that way. Perhaps someone who has presumably made a living by writing about video games comes off as a bit derogatory when they state "‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games." You are right. Gamers are not your audience, not after reading this article. |
|
|
Richard Wiltshire |
Censor this if you like, it just proves more that you can't take criticism.
"Ladies", "sisters" or whatever you want to be referred to as, though you can keep dreaming if you exspect something like "your majesty" with this kind of manipulative behaviour. You expect to be respected when anything resembling criticism gets accused as misogyny and dogpilled by the worst kind of tumblr feminists who spout insain nonsense like: "men want to screw woman because it's the closest they can ever get to becoming one" Meanwhile, even you are stereotyping the hell out of what the phrase gamer is, the same way you accuse gamers of stereotyping you, only you go one better and call it news?! Keep this up and you'll be destined for that same layer of hell as welfare sponging immigrants who silence their critics by calling them all racists. Now you can keep making fools of yourselves from your ivory tower of delusional wannabe superiority guarded by desperate white knights, or you could stop shit slinging and I don't know... try taking steps towards gender equality again? Though based on what I've seen you might want to read the dictionary definition of what equality is a dozen or so times to make sure it sinks in. Yes true equality is probably an impossible thing, but how is this scoreboard shit slinging bullshit any better? Your status might make people believe you for now, but it doesn't change the fact you're on the road to becoming the worst kind of hypocrite. |
|
|
Stephanie Vivian |
This is a Video Game. http://youtu.be/uGU2B-_Foy8
|
|
|
Heikki Mylläri |
""These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had. ""
I find it shocking that a fine publication such as Gamasutra would publish disgusting, mindless, vile filth like this. If there is one audience the gaming press needs to always stand by, it is the games enthusiast. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
William Cook |
The problem, I've found, in holding up the mirror to someone's inner demons is that the response is never as measured, calm, or introspective as we might want. And it most certainly isn't acquiescent.
In my experience, the reaction is as violent as the demons are hideous. The ego will go to great lengths to protect itself from being damaged; more-so when it already has been time and again. I sincerely hope the demons haunting the troubled souls whose identity has been threatened here don't cause you too much grief. This article is my first exposure to this site. I'm really impressed. I'll be checking out the rest of Gamasutra as a result. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Guillermo Lamphar |
Gamers never existed. It was a marketing term produced to segment the market. And you know what happened then? Stupid companies created the term "hardcore gamers" which sums up EVERYTHING that is WRONG with this industry.
It is exactly the same than how reader feel about them reading Ulises and other reading Twilight, the difference is that reader/writers think they are way too good to get their hands dirty and "hardcore gamers" don't have this kind of limitation. If the industry as a whole keeps producing stereotypes to try to sell these is the kind of behavior they will get. This pretty much sums it up: "This is hard for people who’ve drank the kool aid about how their identity depends on the aging cultural signposts of a rapidly-evolving, increasingly broad and complex medium. It’s hard for them to hear they don’t own anything, anymore, that they aren’t the world’s most special-est consumer demographic, that they have to share." Oh, and by the way, feminism is a stupid thing too... I don't have a problem with women in gaming industry, I have a problem with the apparent desire to include them just because they have a vagina instead of a penis. If you are working in this industry it should be because you like it and you re capable of producing high quality content, you should not get benefits for being a woman. We need equality and this moronic "gamers" are going to give us the exactly opposite if they keep doing this nonsense. |
|
|
Anthony Mitchell |
"It’s about providing spaces for people to discuss what (and whom) they support." Unless you're angry about a distinct lack of any consideration for cultural identity. Leigh, you clearly do not understand the basics of how a culture is formed:
I'll let merriam-webster head us off: "a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc." So where do gamers fail in the credibility of culture? -Do gamers not have there own beliefs? We believe games are an art that can convey a message. We believe games are a great method of entertainment, and thought provocation. I grant beyond that beleifs get a bit more scattered but that should be sufficient. -Do gamers not share a similar way of life? we play, debate, and find meaning in games. Not so different from the art culture, of theatre. So, I think we pass there. -Do gamers not have art? Oh come on! Do I really have to spell this out for you?! I must say, the only thing about gaming culture that is infantilizing is your depiction of it. Change the words and you would have filled your primary readers with glee. Gamers aren't dead, they're evolving. They are no longer those no life losers in the basement, but the ones that have fully submerged themselves into the media. We are now equivical to movie buffs and art snobs. We're pissed because you seem to want us discarded when it's only because of us that you had a job long enough to see the day the industry hit mainstream! By the way, I don't give a shit about gamergate, anymore it is simply a mask used by misogynists and misandrists alike to tie gaming culture and industry into their arguements. I care about my culture being down-right consistently attacked because we reacted to the idea that our journalists may be decieving us for personal gain. Something tells me that had it not been for the ones going overboard gamergate would be done and we'd be along our merry way. Now gamergate is becoming the opening shots in a war between industry and consumer. |
|
|