Gamergate Primer

[cybercoma]

.

Edited October 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

If people don't know the facts that you think you're privvy to, then share them instead of being a belligerent jerk and insulting everyone's intelligence.

[cybercoma]

Actually, sorry, your post is so divorced from reality that I need to address some really horrible logic in them.

I will in a different thread

You have fats about GamerGate and how the media is biased towards it, but you won't share them in the GamerGate thread. Right.

And clearly war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Why quesetion the narrative? It is 'clearly' correct so does not require further evidence.

This is in fact a strawman, unlike when you invoke the term later. I said clearly they're more interested in attacking those women and developers because the study that I posted shows that the vast majority of #GamerGate tweets are directed towards them. What that has to do with Orwellian doublespeak is beyond me. Have you read Orwell?

Because receiving someone tweets proves that the entire #gamergate is about misogynistic bigots and there are no underlying issues or reasons why the individuals listed in the article would receive tweets. Some tweets being misogynistic implies all tweets are misogynistic. With flawless logic like that, how can I not accept the mainstream media narrative? *sarcasm*

The study looked at whether the tweets were positive, negative, or neutral. It's clear that an overwhelming number of negative tweets are directed towards women developers and women not involved in developing games nor the media that reviews games. If there was an agenda of uncovering media corruption and bias, you would think that the majority of tweets would address that. They don't. Those using #GamerGate use it to abuse women on the internet.

You don't get it, do you? They are all biased. BBC, new york times, CBC, MSNBC, etc. ... Why would anyone risk their career and be labelled a misogynist by not going along with the narrative?

Still waiting for you to demonstrate bias. Meanwhile, you criticize the media for reporting on the disgusting things that have been done to these women. Why shouldn't they? Why haven't you or GamerGate vocally denounced these things and tried to distinguish the "real" GamerGate from these idiots? The answer to that is obvious. There is no "real" GamerGate outside the misogynistic rabble. Anyone with two braincells to rub together and a salient point to make about media ethics wouldn't be caught dead associated with the misogynistic neanderthals that have co-opted the GamerGate tag.

There has been no violence in the name of GamerGate. There have been threats of violence. With respect to the threats of violence, I condemn them.

You don't condemn them. You deny that they exist. What was that about Happiness is Slavery? 2 + 2 = 5, much? It's all out there for everyone to see. You're sitting here denying something that people can plainly observe.

Lol, 'something'. Can you please tell me what this 'something' is?

I mean it isn't even that hard. Try using google.

That was a typo since I was writing on my phone. I meant to write "something else," which I've already addressed repeatedly. You would recognize that if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty in your posts. I know exactly what GamerGate claims to be about and that's media ethics in the gaming industry. It was initially about video game reviewers being paid off by developers and more specifically Zoe Quinn sleeping around for good reviews. The latter point actually being a lie spread by a jilted ex-boyfriend.

But then, why am I taking the time to explain myself to you when, as I've mentioned above, you're not willing to do the same. It's arrogant intellectual dishonesty, which is also why you try to demean my position without offering anything of substance of your own. And no "UR STUPID! LULZ! U CAN'T THINK CRITICALLY!" is not substance.

See:

No, rather it is a lack of thinking.

Yet, you say things like:

The vast majority of journalists just blindly follow the narrative and don't question it or do investigative journalism.

Which is a piss poor argument since you're claiming to know the thoughts of "journalists," as in all journalists, which needless to say is ridiculous and impossible. It's not an argument. You're making assumptions and calling it critical thinking. It's actually the opposite of thinking critically. It's throwing your opinion around like a monkey throws its feces.

It also helps if the narrative confirms their pre-existing dogma and bias.

Bias that I'm impatiently awaiting you to substantiate.

Strawman argument.

You like to throw this around at arguments you don't like. What you're making here is the "argument from fallacy" fallacy. And in any case, you really are reifying the media. I'm making an observation about the statements you've made. I will provide examples of you doing this, since you're plainly oblivious to it.

The mainstream media has blindly followed the narrative

[The mainstream media] uncritically regurgitates the same false information.

Once I pointed out the problem with reifying "the media," you changed your tone.

The vast majority of journalists just blindly follow the narrative

Now it's not the media or even all journalists. Just the vast majority of them.

Cause it's not like gamergate has anything to do with ethical journalism or misleading media or anything...

That's certainly the claim, but it really hasn't been demonstrated by their public and vocal online activity.

And for that matter, your posts haven't addressed that issue at all. Your posts here are a clear example of the stuff coming out of GamerGate. You're far more interested in puffing your chest out and calling everyone ignorant and stupid and incapable of thinking critically. You go on and on about media bias without demonstrating it. Here's a really radical thought, if you have a point to make about ethical journalism then make it. Several posts in and you've spent far more time being insulting to posters rather than actually demonstrating media bias or explaining the "real" reasons behind GamerGate. You say they're there, but haven't even argued for them. The fact that you're more interested in attacking people who are critical of GamerGate perfectly illustrates the problem with GamerGate and actually proves the points made about it here and elsewhere.

So thanks for that. This will be the last thing I have to say to you about the topic until you demonstrate that you're clearly interested in having an intelligent discussion about it, rather than insulting posters and alluding to arguments without intelligently presenting them. I've wasted way more time on your posts than they deserve and only because I think it's important that someone presents the salient points GamerGate has about ethical journalism. You have the choice to either contribute to the discussion by presenting those points or continue to act like a keyboard warrior who offers nothing to the discussion but insults. The former might actually support your suggested arguments and foster discussion, while the latter will just prove the journalists point and drag this discussion into the mud as you so often do.

[Remiel]

Your argument would be like saying 'A muslim killed a solider on parliament hill this week. How that soldier was treated is all you need to know. Therefore, all muslims are terrorists'. The only difference is that you are using gamergates rather than muslims.

Except a soldier, even an unarmed soldier, and Parliament are the Chris Kluwes of this argument, not the Felicia Days.

Also, I still keep the definition of terrorism where it was not a terrorist attack until he went for the Hill.

In any case, what cybercoma said.

[-1=e^ipi]

This is in fact a strawman, unlike when you invoke the term later. I said clearly they're more interested in attacking those women and developers because the study that I posted shows that the vast majority of #GamerGate tweets are directed towards them. What that has to do with Orwellian doublespeak is beyond me. Have you read Orwell?

A strawman is when you misrepresent a position as something else and argue against the misrepresentation of that position. I was not making a strawman argument. If you want to call it rhetoric, fine, but it isn't a strawman argument.

The study looked at whether the tweets were positive, negative, or neutral. It's clear that an overwhelming number of negative tweets are directed towards women developers and women not involved in developing games nor the media that reviews games. If there was an agenda of uncovering media corruption and bias, you would think that the majority of tweets would address that. They don't. Those using #GamerGate use it to abuse women on the internet.

Someone receiving a negative tweet does not imply that the tweet is misogynist. How hard is that to understand?

If someone criticizes the arguments of the 'damsals in distress' in question then that counts as negative. Yet according to many people, merely challenging the arguments of these individuals makes one an evil misogynist that needs to be silenced. You know, the catholic church did this for a long time and they called it heresay.

Meanwhile, you criticize the media for reporting on the disgusting things that have been done to these women.

I'm not criticizing the media for reporting facts. I'm criticizing them from omitting facts, giving a completely biased perspective and selectional reporting in order to agree with their confirmation bias.

Why haven't you or GamerGate vocally denounced these things and tried to distinguish the "real" GamerGate from these idiots?

I did. You asked me to earlier, remember? Try scrolling up and please try not to forget facts in order to agree with your confirmation bias.

The answer to that is obvious. There is no "real" GamerGate outside the misogynistic rabble.

With flawless logic like this, how could I disagree?

And I'm sure that there are no "real" gay people outside of what the devil tries to make people do. *sarcasm*

Anyone with two braincells to rub together and a salient point to make about media ethics wouldn't be caught dead associated with the misogynistic neanderthals that have co-opted the GamerGate tag.

Unless the people involved in said scandals are progressive feminists that will label all dissenting opinion as misogynistic in order to silence dissent. So the moment you try to criticize these individuals you are automatically associated with being misogynistic.

You don't condemn them. You deny that they exist.

Oh really? Then what about what I wrote earlier?:

"With respect to the threats of violence, I condemn them."

You're sitting here denying something that people can plainly observe.

In that case, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find actual violence committed by gamergate and not threats of violence. Right?

I know exactly what GamerGate claims to be about and that's media ethics in the gaming industry. It was initially about video game reviewers being paid off by developers and more specifically Zoe Quinn sleeping around for good reviews. The latter point actually being a lie spread by a jilted ex-boyfriend.

No you really don't. You only know what the mainstream media has told you. The Zoe Quinn arc is only 1 part of it.

Edit: Going back to the article you like so much, Zoe Quinn has received far less tweets than Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian. The picture of the article is of Sarkeesian not Quinn. Does that not even put a shred of doubt in your mind that maybe there is more to this than the actions of Zoe Quinn?

But then, why am I taking the time to explain myself to you when, as I've mentioned above, you're not willing to do the same.

I already said I would explain things in another thread. I've been meaning to create a thread about this for a while now.

Which is a piss poor argument since you're claiming to know the thoughts of "journalists," as in all journalists, which needless to say is ridiculous and impossible. It's not an argument. You're making assumptions and calling it critical thinking. It's actually the opposite of thinking critically. It's throwing your opinion around like a monkey throws its feces.

I am making no claim to know all the thoughts of journalists. Please do not strawman my positions.

With respect to the MSM, this follows a larger tread where the quality of the MSM has been deteriorating due to the digital age. Too often, opinion articles are a substitute for fact and articles are written by people that do not understand the topic.

You like to throw this around at arguments you don't like.

Or people just strawman me a lot. Especially people that suffer from large amounts of cognitive dissonance (you, Michael, waldo, etc.).

Now it's not the media or even all journalists. Just the vast majority of them.

Yes. Is that difficult to understand?

That's certainly the claim, but it really hasn't been demonstrated by their public and vocal online activity.

In that case can I say "'Islam is the religion of peace' is certainly the claim of many muslims, but it really hasn't been demonstrated by their terrorist activity. Therefore, all muslims are terrorists."?

No? Then in that case why is your above argument so 'compelling' to you in demonstrating that gamergaters are misogynists?

Your posts here are a clear example of the stuff coming out of GamerGate.

What? I'm a misogynist now?

You go on and on about media bias without demonstrating it. Here's a really radical thought, if you have a point to make about ethical journalism then make it. Several posts in and you've spent far more time being insulting to posters rather than actually demonstrating media bias or explaining the "real" reasons behind GamerGate. You say they're there, but haven't even argued for them.

What is interesting is how little information you guys have on this subject yet you and other posters insist that the MSM narrative is correct and that no further evidence is needed. Even more interesting is that even after I make strong claims about MSM bias, none of you have even bothered to try to get the other 'side of the story' to get a more balanced perspective.

The fact that you're more interested in attacking people who are critical of GamerGate perfectly illustrates the problem with GamerGate and actually proves the points made about it here and elsewhere.

Oh no! Are you trying to label me as an evil misogynist for disagreeing with you? It's not like the anti-gamergate group hasn't tried to label all dissenting opinion as misogynist or anything...

Edited October 26, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Also, I still keep the definition of terrorism where it was not a terrorist attack until he went for the Hill.

I am not disagreeing with this definition.

[Moonlight Graham]

Interesting discussion on the nature of online communities. Besides the points that have already been brought up... I would say that most of these communities are a lot less robust than other types of communities. People join and leave online communities with a minimal cost of entry or exit. Got bored of MLW? Stop posting. In that sense, there is less investment or meaning in being a member/participant of a given online community than most types of "real world" communities.

I think for most online communities this is correct, because they can be just text-only interactions (like MLW, or chat rooms, or online games where people chat mostly through text. Obviously people don't share human emotional connections like face-to-face talking.

But i've played video games where communication would be through voice-chat, and when you interact with people 4-5 times a week for a couple of hours at a time over the course of months or even years, you develop REAL relationships with them. Between games you'll all talk about life, girlfriends/boyfriends, your kids, your jobs etc. and real friendships will develop over time. This has happened to me, where before this happened I would scoff at people who would meet up with people they met doing online gaming and people who even married each other after meeting while gaming online. So, I guess it all depends on the closeness of the interaction, and how well people get to know each other. When it comes to MLW, the interactions are brief and not too personal, with the exception of the chatroom where people get to know each other much more.

[Black Dog]

To me the most interesting (read: grossest) thing about this is the way GGers have purposefully and intentionally co-opted the language of victimhood for their own ends to paint themselves as the oppressed instead of the oppressors (which they are).

That and their generous employment of every single logical fallacy in the handbook, most especially the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. That one really gets a workout.

[cybercoma]

We're still waiting on [Math] to discuss the salient points from GG. There certainly are some. There is a situation in gaming journalism where reviewers are being paid to give positive credit to video games. The developers have also begun giving popular Let's Players on YouTube games before their release, under the condition that they will only speak positively of them. Shadow of Mordor is a good example of this. They were told what they could and could not say about the game, in exchange for receiving advanced copies of it. There is absolutely an important discussion that needs to be had about ethical journalism in the gaming industry. I don't deny that.

This doesn't excuse the abhorrent threats of violence and misogynistic attempt at silencing women who are raising their own concerns about the gaming industry and culture therein. If GamerGate wanted to distance themselves from that, they would be more vocal to denounce it, but they haven't been.

[Black Dog]

In that case can I say "'Islam is the religion of peace' is certainly the claim of many muslims, but it really hasn't been demonstrated by their terrorist activity. Therefore, all muslims are terrorists."?

No? Then in that case why is your above argument so 'compelling' to you in demonstrating that gamergaters are misogynists?

Except in this case, gamers as a whole are Muslims: GG is ISIS.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Black Dog

[GostHacked]

I've been checking this thread out some and may have learned a couple things about the lady in question who is part of this Gamergate stuff.

The following video has two conflicting stances regarding her knowledge and passion for video games. Not sure how she can claim misogyny when she is clearly talking out both sides of her mouth. She seems to be a bit dishonest. And I think that is where the issue lies, her dishonesty more so than her views on misogyny and feminism in view game culture.

And then there is this analysis of her work.

[Black Dog]

I've been checking this thread out some and may have learned a couple things about the lady in question who is part of this Gamergate stuff.

The following video has two conflicting stances regarding her knowledge and passion for video games. Not sure how she can claim misogyny when she is clearly talking out both sides of her mouth. She seems to be a bit dishonest.

What does whether or not she likes games or not have to do with her analysis of sexist tropes in games?

And I think that is where the issue lies, her dishonesty more so than her views on misogyny and feminism in view game culture.

Ha ha. No.

[Black Dog]

We're still waiting on [Math] to discuss the salient points from GG. There certainly are some. There is a situation in gaming journalism where reviewers are being paid to give positive credit to video games. The developers have also begun giving popular Let's Players on YouTube games before their release, under the condition that they will only speak positively of them. Shadow of Mordor is a good example of this. They were told what they could and could not say about the game, in exchange for receiving advanced copies of it. There is absolutely an important discussion that needs to be had about ethical journalism in the gaming industry. I don't deny that.

This doesn't excuse the abhorrent threats of violence and misogynistic attempt at silencing women who are raising their own concerns about the gaming industry and culture therein. If GamerGate wanted to distance themselves from that, they would be more vocal to denounce it, but they haven't been.

I wonder how many of those YouTubers were threatened and doxxed. Probably zero.

Oh and it's pretty funny to that a movement allegedly about unethical journalism practices has scored only a single victory not related to terrorizing females in gaming: getting Intel to pull ads from a a gaming website because it published critical articles on GG, which is exactly the kind of thing they are supposed to be railing against (advertisers using money to influence editorial content).

[cybercoma]

Preaching to the choir, BD.

I'm just saying there are some points that GamerGate is supposed to be addressing that should be addressed. There is an issue of media ethics in gaming journalism that needs attention. In that regard, GamerGate is an utterly abhorrent failure in their mission and have been derailed by stultifying ignorance that they've done little to condemn.

Edited October 27, 2014 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

What does whether or not she likes games or not have to do with her analysis of sexist tropes in games?

She'd actually have to play them. If she is playing the game, she is not focusing on what the game wants you to focus on. The story, the setting, ect. She is picking on a very minor thing about how women are portrayed in video games. I would say mainly based on the look of the female character and where some parts are exaggerated and the garb accentuates that. But if you look at the male characters, it is the same way, exaggerated features with sexy garb (sometimes). That is present in things like WOW and Everquest. Even in a cartoonish fashion, those exaggerations are present. I wonder if the millions of women playing WOW feel oppressed by how they are represented in the game.

But now, does that stop her from playing the video games? Sure does not seem to be that she really has a problem with the games. But then again, she does not have to play or support those games in which she would have a problem with. Leaves most adventure games out, might as well stick to checkers. But then the red might be oppressing the blacks in some terrible way she needs to exploit and rant about.

Some games are just violent, and both sexes get equal sharing of the abuse. Like the GTA series.

Then there are games that have none of what she speaks of, instead of bitching about the ones she does not like, she should promote the games that do fit her ideology. Be a more constructive use of her time and would make her more legitimate in my view. Until then, she seems like a whiner.

But the other main point she makes is the problem in the journalistic realm of things. Good thing I don't read reviews on games before i buy them.

[Black Dog]

She'd actually have to play them.

Is there evidence she doesn't play the games she critiques? Just because someone might not love games doesn't mean they don't play them.

If she is playing the game, she is not focusing on what the game wants you to focus on. The story, the setting, ect. She is picking on a very minor thing about how women are portrayed in video games.

Minor to you maybe.

I would say mainly based on the look of the female character and where some parts are exaggerated and the garb accentuates that. But if you look at the male characters, it is the same way, exaggerated features with sexy garb (sometimes). That is present in things like WOW and Everquest. Even in a cartoonish fashion, those exaggerations are present. I wonder if the millions of women playing WOW feel oppressed by how they are represented in the game.

Now I'm wondering if you've watched any of her videos. her point is females in games are usually depcited as sex objects and sex objects alone (when they aren't being used as mere plot devices to give the male characters motivations)

But now, does that stop her from playing the video games? Sure does not seem to be that she really has a problem with the games. But then again, she does not have to play or support those games in which she would have a problem with. Leaves most adventure games out, might as well stick to checkers. But then the red might be oppressing the blacks in some terrible way she needs to exploit and rant about.

So your answer to the idea that video games are hostile to women is that women just shouldn't play games? OK guy.

Some games are just violent, and both sexes get equal sharing of the abuse. Like the GTA series.

A series where men are mostly fully realized characters with motivations and nuance and women are...porn stars or shrews. Yeah, good examples.

Then there are games that have none of what she speaks of, instead of bitching about the ones she does not like, she should promote the games that do fit her ideology. Be a more constructive use of her time and would make her more legitimate in my view. Until then, she seems like a whiner.

Yeah, there are good examples of games that don't deal in tired tropes and they should be recognized, but the idea that most AAA titles that perpetuate the same old nonsense should be exempt from criticism is bafflingly dumb.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

She is picking on a very minor thing about how women are portrayed in video games.

Well isn't that nice of you, a man, to tell a woman when her concerns are about video game tropes are legitimate or not. And moreover, how much cognitive dissonance do you have when you see the massive amount of threats and hate mail she receives, which only serves to prove her point even further? Do you think a male critic discussing negative aspects of gaming would receive even a fraction of the hate she gets?

[cybercoma]

The problem in the past with video games is that they did not give women agency. Many of the tired old tropes suffered from what one writer called the "sexy lamp problem." That's where women are written into games as nothing more than objects without any thoughts, feelings, will or aspirations of their own.

Here's the test. Take a female video game character and ask yourself if replacing her with a sexy table lamp would change the story. If not, then it's a piss poor depiction of women that objectifies them by stripping away their agency.

"Sorry, Mario. Your sexy lamp is in another castle."

[cybercoma]

Fortunately that is changing, albeit slowly.

[Black Dog]

As someone who has been a supporter of gamergate before it was even a thing, I can attest that most of the information coming out from Cybercoma and Black Dog is simply incorrect. Furthermore, they haven't provided any evidence that GamerGate as a whole has advocated for harassment or doxxing of the other side; something that people like Leigh Alexander and Zoe Quinn herself have supported happening to us.

GG has no central authority or leadership and no set membership. As a result, there's no such thing as "GG as a whole". Only individuals who claim to be aligned with the cause, a great many of whom have been involved with threats and harassment. Which is convenient for people like you when it comes time to disavow negative actions associated with your "movement".

In regards to Black Dog's post, where he asked for evidence she doesn't actually play the games. She herself has admitted she doesn't play games, that she is not "big" on them. Thunderfoot did a good video where he exposed a lie Anita advanced about Hitman Absolution. She made the accusation that HA "encourages the player to attack (strippers), and tries to make the player derive a sexual thrill from doing so". In reality, the player is tasked to avoid the strippers in that level, as they are not the target and could be potential witnesses. You lose points and are penalized for killing the strippers. As an assassin, leaving witnesses alive is bad (easier to ID you in future missions), but the game doesn't overtly encourage you to kill them if spotted. It leaves it up to the player.

This is my favourite-est of all the GG defences/Anita attacks because it so completely misses the entire point, which is a game where women are depicted primarily as sex objects that players can, if they so choose, inflict violence upon is actually pretty darn sexist.

Strawman argument. He said that if certain media offends Anita (ex. Dead or Alive beach volleyball), she is welcome to avoid it. She is welcome to avoid most Hentai games as well if she chooses.

Way to double down on a shitty argument.

She's a critic looking at tropes in games. Why would you avoid something you're setting out to critique?

(Citation needed). I can make up a lot of things about people too without evidence you know.

You used that very fallacy in this post.

For everyone who says they're wanting for "evidence", people are not going to spoon feed you while you sit around and refuse to actually conduct research on the matter. Actually go to these sites, the groups you accuse of these behaviors, and see what people are saying. Don't just regurgitate what you're hearing on Twitter. Unfortunately, I feel I'm going to have to link many, many examples.

Oh god, please don't.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

Whoa where'd that dude's post go?

[Moonlight Graham]

We're still waiting on [Math] to discuss the salient points from GG. There certainly are some. There is a situation in gaming journalism where reviewers are being paid to give positive credit to video games. The developers have also begun giving popular Let's Players on YouTube games before their release, under the condition that they will only speak positively of them. Shadow of Mordor is a good example of this. They were told what they could and could not say about the game, in exchange for receiving advanced copies of it. There is absolutely an important discussion that needs to be had about ethical journalism in the gaming industry. I don't deny that.

This doesn't excuse the abhorrent threats of violence and misogynistic attempt at silencing women who are raising their own concerns about the gaming industry and culture therein. If GamerGate wanted to distance themselves from that, they would be more vocal to denounce it, but they haven't been.

I agree with your points totally. I've always been frustrated with the corrupt relationship between game publishers/developers and gaming media/journalists. The history of game journalism has roots in it being a marketing tool, like Nintendo Power magazine being one of the first popular video game media outlets but owned by Nintendo itself to cover its own games and serving as a marketing outlet for itself. Game Informer magazine is also owned by Gamestop/EB Games, and I can only imagine the conflicts of interest this creates. But its long been time to end this conflict of interest where publishers/devs will punish or reward journalism outlets based on negative/positive coverage and vice versa. Maybe it should even become illegal for these kinds of corrupt conflicts of interest? The biggest controversy I remember is when Jeff Gertsmann (former editorial director) was fired from GameSpot.com for a mediocre review score he gave Kane & Lynch because of publisher complains on score to GameSpot execs. Since then gamers have been very suspicious of game journalists and the neutrality of their review scores.

In that sense, I can understand the initial backlash against the female developer who was sleeping with the Kotaku journalist, though the allegations the backlash was based on were apparently false. Much of the other threats etc. against these females in the industry speaking out is, as you say, horrible. On the other hand, we also have to realize that a big chunk of gamers are young pubescent male boys sitting around with nothing better to do than play COD and post dumb crap on the internet, though I'm sure many of these comments are from adults too.

I think some gamers are also fed up with "feminist critiques of gaming" because of the controversy, also at GameSpot, last year where a transgendered transsexual feminist (born male but lives female) reviewed the mega-hyped Grand Theft Auto V and gave it a score of 8/10 (good score, but lower than what many gamers thought GTA V deserved) and as one of the main negative points of the game was argued that it was "profoundly misogynistic". Gamers freaked out because anyone playing GTA knows the series is purposely misogynistic (a game about gangsters/criminal etc), and also because the same reviewer (Carolyn Petit) gave "Gone Home", a low-budget lesser-hyped game dealing with strong female leads and serious lesbian/LGBT issues, a 9.5/10 not long before.

Anyways, there are certainly issues about gender that is concerning in gaming, but it has always been a male-dominated medium so gender inequality in many areas is to be expected and unavoidable. Women are now getting more interested in gaming because of mobile gaming and casual systems like the Wii. I also have no problem with some female game characters like Lara Croft being treated as sex fantasies for males. Men like sex, they like looking at T&A, perfectly healthy. Men treat women as "sex objects" every day when they look at an attractive women in public and fantasize about fucking them. As long as there are some other non-sexualized gaming heroines what's the problem?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

I agree with everything you said, except about the demographic. The average gamer is 30 years old and the average game buyer is 36 (parents need to buy games for their kids). The demographics have shifted. It's no longer the pre-pubescent kid in his mother's basement.

Edit: I also highly doubt that's the demographic debating media ethics and feminism.

Edited October 28, 2014 by cybercoma

[Black Dog]

I think some gamers are also fed up with "feminist critiques of gaming" because of the controversy, also at GameSpot, last year where a transgendered transsexual feminist (born male but lives female) reviewed the mega-hyped Grand Theft Auto V and gave it a score of 8/10 (good score, but lower than what many gamers thought GTA V deserved) and as one of the main negative points of the game was argued that it was "profoundly misogynistic". Gamers freaked out because anyone playing GTA knows the series is purposely misogynistic (a game about gangsters/criminal etc), and also because the same reviewer (Carolyn Petit) gave "Gone Home", a low-budget lesser-hyped game dealing with strong female leads and serious lesbian/LGBT issues, a 9.5/10 not long before.

This is pretty funny in the context of the other stuff about games journalism. Don't take money from developers to give games good reviews, but don't you fucking dare have the audacity to criticize something I like.

Anyways, there are certainly issues about gender that is concerning in gaming, but it has always been a male-dominated medium so gender inequality in many areas is to be expected and unavoidable.

It's actually entirely avoidable.

Women are now getting more interested in gaming because of mobile gaming and casual systems like the Wii. I also have no problem with some female game characters like Lara Croft being treated as sex fantasies for males. Men like sex, they like looking at T&A, perfectly healthy. Men treat women as "sex objects" every day when they look at an attractive women in public and fantasize about fucking them. As long as there are some other non-sexualized gaming heroines what's the problem?

First of all: gross.

Second: the issue is there's practically no non-sexualized female protagonists in AAA games.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's actually entirely avoidable.

If men have always been most interested in gaming, how do you correct the gender inequality in the number of females working in the game industry? How do you correct the pay inequality? If it's mostly men designing most games for a majority male audience, it's a foregone conclusion that games will continue to be made to appeal mostly to males. That's basic psychology and capitalism.

Second: the issue is there's practically no non-sexualized female protagonists in AAA games.

There are some (Alyx Vance from Half-Life, Chun-Li, Faith from Mirror's Edge, Chell from Portal, Jade from Beyond Good & Evil, Ellie from Last of Us, Kat from Halo Reach etc.) but there definitely needs to be more.