For other types of media
By Coupled Moment
Membership Days
[A note to admins/site staff/whoever is in charge of that sort of thing: I didn't want to put this in General Off Topic because that felt more like a "banter" board than one for more serious discussion but I'm not 100% convinced this is the right board either (my reasoning is that games are definately a form of media albeit not a news medium) so if you see fit to move it elsewhere I'll not be kicking up a fuss about it.]

After thinking about recent posts in this thread I felt there should be somewhere to talk about games* (both the good and the bad) without interfering too much with criticising the Mail's approach to reporting about games. [Links in the next paragraph dealt with harassment and abuse, so a content warning may be in order. This is that content warning.]

I've also just read about a horribly depressing development in the world of gamer culture here. Apparently someone was so angry that a woman is making feminist critiques of video games that they felt it necessary to issue some horrific threats to her. What's depressing is that this is by no means unique and it's more or less expected that any woman involved in gaming (even if it as a developer rather than a critic) to suffer this sort of shit. The people who make these threats are invariably from the Young Male Dickhead demographic (YMDGs - Young Male Dickhead Gamers) but they aren't the majority of that demographic, rather they are spurred on by the YMDGs' complaints that women playing games somehow constitutes a threat to them. I have spoken to** YMDG's that believe that "the feminazis" are genuinely out to destroy gaming completely (by, for example, removing all violence from every game***) and when you see that people really believe this and that they are told similar things by a lot of the popular voices in their community it is easy to believe that the more violent or unhinged YMDGs would threaten violence against these women. I would guess that some of this bullshit victim attitude might have its roots in the fact that older YMDGs (that is those in their mid twenties rather than their teens) might have been bullied at school because they were geeky and socially awkward (christ knows I was) and, having not really moved beyond their school experiences, project the attitudes and social power of their tormentors onto anyone who is critical, in any way, of their hobbies but 1) that doesn't excuse it and 2) that is based on absolute guesswork with no real data or expertise on my part. It's also unsurprising that most YMDGs are politically on the (libertarian) right since both groups are masterful at painting the powerful as the victims of those over whom they have power. Basically (cutting out digressions) YMDGs have a massively childish victim complex about feminism (or their deranged straw version) and it causes some of their number to make threats to (and an even greater number of them to harass) women in gaming (who may not even be feminists, necessarily) and that's just not cricket.

Incidentally, if you haven't, you should watch Anita's videos. If it weren't for the elephant of her most vociferous critics, and the cowardly pack of cunts that harassed and threatened her, trumpeting around the room and shitting on everything I'd have made this post much more about them.

*Though not so much in the "I have played game x and really like it" sense.
**"Had long, pointless online screaming matches with" seemed a bit too unwieldy but is certainly more accurate
***Yes, really.
By Samanfur
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
I've been keeping an eye on both the Sarkeesian and Quinn cases. Reprehensible and in no way representative of gamers as a whole - as I heard said a while ago, it's not that the online population is more stupid, but that they all have a soapbox and a megaphone. And I can't help thinking that the backlash of these man-children wouldn't be so strong if they didn't suspect, deep down, that they were a minority, no longer the gatekeepers they were thirty years ago and on the losing side.
By cycloon
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
'GamerGate' and its ilk seem to me to be part of that ugly, pseudo-intellectual reaction against economic and social pressures that put the blame squarely on 'lefties' and 'feminazis' rather than, y'know, the people who actually hold real power.

Sound familiar?
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
It's not for nothing the "movement" is being courted by such delightful persons as James "James Fucking Delingpole" Delingpole, and the rest of the writers at Breitbart.
By Coupled Moment
Membership Days
ACG wrote:It's not for nothing the "movement" is being courted by such delightful persons as James "James Fucking Delingpole" Delingpole, and the rest of the writers at Breitbart.
One of the (many, many) reasons that their feeble "it's all about journalistic ethics" bollocks is so laughable.
Gamergate is completely bonkers. It *is* just about trolling, and anyone who thinks it has a decent point to be made somewhere about ethics in games journalism should be starting their own movement, not bleating about taking back/protecting a movement that started off shit and got worse and was never about what supporters say it was in the first place. It's like claiming the BNP wasn't all bad and trying to rehabilitate it while it still features batshit mental racist thugs doing the exact things in the name of the BNP the people trying to rehabilitate it say isn't anything to do with it anymore. They're either idiots or woefully/deliberately naive. or both.

I mean, even Louise Mensch has tweeted pro-gamergate stuff (probably on the orders of Murdoch given she seems to know fuck-all about it, as a lot of Sun readers probably don't want anything more thoughtful than FIFA 14, sports car games and massive tits in Dead or Alive). If that's not a clue that it's fucked up and wrong beyond all comprehension I don't know what is.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts LikeBB
As I said on another thread, some time ago, when the Wii was released there was a considerable dose of scepticism about it from the 'mainstream' gamer community. Who wants to play boring golf and tennis simulators when there are zombies to kill?

The answer - all the people who don't want to kill zombies. People who up to that point haven't bought consoles because they haven't perceived them as being 'for them'. People who'd love to get some exercise but don't want to leave the house. People who want something such as Guitar Hero or a dance simulator that they can enjoy with their kids. And they bought the Wii in droves.

The 'gamer community' has, for a long time, been dominated by its core membership - young men with disposable cash. Their attitudes have prevailed on the message boards and letters pages, so game designers have pandered to them, while others, turned off by their attitudes and manner, have said 'stuff this' and either quit trying to make their voices heard or simply ignored them. The 'core gamers' (if you like) have come to believe that their world is not just the sub-set that it is, but the whole world. Because they haven't heard (or listened to) any dissenting voices.

It's the same attitude that predominated in the filmmaking world - for years films have been marketed almost entirely at young men, because that's the core market. Recently it's occurred to people that if you make films for people outside this group, they might come back to the cinema (so you may have noticed plenty of films in the last few years aimed at the 60something market, usually starring Celia Imrie and Bill Nighy, because 60somethings like films too and have disposable cash). Essentially, if people don't like what's on offer, you can either ignore them, or give them something they will like. One way leads to a stagnant and up its own arse market, technically amazing but of little interest to anything outside an increasingly hard to please (because they've been pandered to so much) core. The other way leads to more people getting involved overall, more money, and more investment that benefits everyone.
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
It's mostly a twitter tag....or a board at 8chan (yes, there's an 8chan now, for the people who get kicked off of 4chan, just think about that for a moment)
By Coupled Moment
Membership Days
mojojojo wrote:I don't really know what 4chan is, except that aresholes use it, although I don't know what they do there.
It's pretty much a loose collection of (image)boards where people discuss common interests and/or post porn (depending on whether the board is NSFW or not). It attracts a lot of arseholes though because: 1) by default members are completely anonymous to each other (using a name is possible but frowned upon in most circumstances); 2) moderation is very light because it's all about freedom of speech (that is, freedom from the consequences of speech); 3) some of the common interests include "trolling" (the infamous /b/ board) and "being a fuckawful racist" (the /pol/ board); and 4) a lot of the other interests include things like video games (/v/ & /vg/), anime (/a/) and tabletop games (/tg/) which have a minority of toxic fans and those fans voices are louder since more of them are attracted by points 1-3.
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

She's floundering.

If people can't get around the paywall I'll sti[…]

Peter Hitchens

Hitchens has entered pointless tit phase. Christ[…]

"Boris" Johnson

How odd that Johnson says it's a matter for Bi[…]