BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[Fappy]

2. Yes I would argue it was forced, but the whole thing is a bit difficult, seeing as they 'lied' about the endings.

What lies?

Oh please God don't turn this into a Mass Effect 3 ending debate.

Don't make me get out my "Abandon Thread" gifs!

Sorry, I initially brought it up. I was just making the point that the Mass Effect 3 fiasco was the first clear sign of disconnect between journalists and gamers.

Erik Kain did a lot of good articles on it.

I wouldn't say it was the first clear sign, but it definitely highlighted the problem.

Oh yeah, its been bubbling for a while, and the ME3 thing was the first time that tension was really showing.

It got corked though though quickly enough, but it was never resolved, just bottled and ready to burst.

And here we are.

Kind of building off this point; I don't think the main issue dividing our community is about ideologies or "ethics". As has been mentioned in the #GG thread before, I think it has more to do with the increasingly toxic dialogue between gamers, journalists and developers. It is a mutual lack of respect, basically. You can't point to one group and say they're responsible for this mess, but I think we all could have done a better job making our community a positive place (a community in which journalists are a part of, no doubt).

 

[redlemon]

How is you reading what they write stopping society from doing that? I don't see the connection. If you don't read it, then society will turn to shit? How?

It's simple, if someone gives bayonetta 2 a lower score because of oversexualisation, society goes to shit. This can be prevented if we demand that noone ever mentions oversexualisation in a review again and to do that we have to read the review first obviously.

It is also adviseable that we, just from time to time, dress up in elaborate costumes and fight corruption or sjws or cultural marxism or whatever. I think thats the general idea.

I'm pretty sure I was talking about the part where journalists collude together to make society hate a specific group of people but go ahead and keep putting words into my mouth if you think that's going to help.

 

[Catrixa]

At this point, I'm getting the feeling Gamergate is simply focusing on the wrong points when trying to defend their positions. This interview was pretty much "ignore questions, regurgitate rhetoric." If I didn't know what they were talking about, I would have easily mistaken it for a presidential debate. Hell, those ladies could easily be politicians if they learned to be a tad sneakier with their question mitigation. Anyway, from what I've gathered in this thread and that video (and this whole debate, which I've really only seen from an outsider's POV), here's what I think Gamergate is trying to go for, since they didn't actually say any of this:

On journalistic integrity:

Spoiler: TL;DR, my speculations on Gamergate and journalistic integrity. I think there are two problems here: transparency and review diluting.

I don't think this has a thing to do with "objective" reviews. I think there are two problems here. One is, of course, transparency. If a games journalist is being paid by Ubisoft for a favorable review, that journalist has a duty to report this to their viewers. If a journalist could have their views swayed by anything (dev is there to answer questions about the game, they're being treated to dinner by the dev, they're sleeping with the dev, they're allowed to review the game early if the dev is allowed to screen the review, etc.), they should consider divulging that information, lest their credibility evaporate if they're found out (and this is the internet--they'll be found out).

The other issue is some kind of idea about diluting the review pool with non-valuable reviews (reviews you don't agree with, or don't think should affect the score). This makes a ton of sense if you greatly value things like Metacritic and expect others to do so as well. The awkward thing is: Metacritic is a driving force in the industry. So, for example, Supergame X is really fun, and everyone rates it highly. But, it gets a 75 on Metacritic, because a few reviewers hated the main character's outfit. The publisher of Supergame X then dissolves the studio and decides the property can't be salvaged, because it didn't get at least an 80 (or make some amount of money, or something). So, because the main character had a really terrible outfit, the whole creative team behind Supergame X is now gone, and we will never see Supergame Y. Bad reviews literally destroy Ok->Decent->Good games, so having less of them means games with less than 100% acceptance rates have a chance of disappearing forever. I can definitely get why this would anger people, but I'm pretty sure it has less to do with game reviewers and more to do with publishers. Movies with bad reviews still get sequels, so why not games? Review scores aren't a barometer for how well an idea should succeed.

On misogyny and whatnot:

Spoiler: TL;DR, I think we're still just afraid of losing games, and are still just fighting for that.

"Video games make people violent murderers. If we want our children to have any future other than Mad Max for the rest of forever, we will need to outright ban video games forever. Paradoxically, video games are also so addictive that they will turn our children into docile, drooling idiots who won't be able to feed themselves, much less take care of the planet when we're gone. Therefore, as you can see, because of these completely conflicting ideas, we absolutely must ban video games forever. No, we don't need to learn about them or play them, we just need to ban them. Forever."

This was pretty much the Angry Mothers propaganda for the infancy of video games, and it was both frustrating and scary. Not to mention completely and utterly wrong. Yeah, it still gets dredged up from its fetid grave every now and then, but it's only surprising when it's not Fox News doing the dredging. Of course, right after that, we're delving right into how politically correct video games are. How insensitive are we? Can't we all just take a break and freaking enjoy the games we fought so hard to defend? Why do we want to start the Video Games Are Actually Bad train again, right after we just dismantled the damn thing? Aren't we done?

The problem with discussing things like sexism and racism in games is that those discussions generate labels. And calling a game sexist or racist means the person who likes to play it is a sexist or racist, too (whether or not that really makes sense). People bring up the whole idea of "neutering games" or "dumbing games down so that they suck, but aren't offensive to anyone," but I think it's really just the idea of defending the medium from overreacting crazy people who want to shut games down forever. Whether or not the politically-correct interest groups are actually seeking the end of video games should matter, however, and I think it would behoove us to actually ask these questions, as opposed to going back and forth on whether or not sexism and racism still exist. For instance, if someone really does say, "We need to ban video games because they're sexist," we can at least all agree to ignore that point, whether we agree on anything else or not.

This post will probably be buried forever, but if it's not, I hope someone enjoyed it or can correct me if it's completely off-base.

 

[Thorn14]

2. Yes I would argue it was forced, but the whole thing is a bit difficult, seeing as they 'lied' about the endings.

What lies?

Oh please God don't turn this into a Mass Effect 3 ending debate.

Don't make me get out my "Abandon Thread" gifs!

Sorry, I initially brought it up. I was just making the point that the Mass Effect 3 fiasco was the first clear sign of disconnect between journalists and gamers.

Erik Kain did a lot of good articles on it.

I wouldn't say it was the first clear sign, but it definitely highlighted the problem.

Oh yeah, its been bubbling for a while, and the ME3 thing was the first time that tension was really showing.

It got corked though though quickly enough, but it was never resolved, just bottled and ready to burst.

And here we are.

Kind of building off this point; I don't think the main issue dividing our community is about ideologies or "ethics". As has been mentioned in the #GG thread before, I think it has more to do with the increasingly toxic dialogue between gamers, journalists and developers. It is a mutual lack of respect, basically. You can't point to one group and say they're responsible for this mess, but I think we all could have done a better job making our community a positive place (a community in which journalists are a part of, no doubt).

I still believe #GG believes in ethics in journalism. What the problem is so many people are slinging shits to each other, labeling each other with unkind words and it makes both sides dig in deeper and deeper and we're ended up with just a shitslinging contest with nothing going for it while moderates end up being background noise.

The Wu Hotwheels Kain "debate" summed up perfectly how this whole mess is going. 2 people going soapboxes and attacking each other while the moderate Kain just goes "I have no fucking idea what can be done..."

 

[AkaDad]

How is you reading what they write stopping society from doing that? I don't see the connection. If you don't read it, then society will turn to shit? How?

It's simple, if someone gives bayonetta 2 a lower score because of oversexualisation, society goes to shit. This can be prevented if we demand that noone ever mentions oversexualisation in a review again and to do that we have to read the review first obviously.

It is also adviseable that we, just from time to time, dress up in elaborate costumes and fight corruption or sjws or cultural marxism or whatever. I think thats the general idea.

I'm pretty sure I was talking about the part where journalists collude together to make society hate a specific group of people but go ahead and keep putting words into my mouth if you think that's going to help.

Has it ever occurred to you that people "hate" asshole gamers because of their actions and it's not because journalists point out that there are asshole gamers?

 

[Something Amyss]

Well I think we've all learned a lesson from this.

Women can be wrong too. Who knew?

Isn't that what Gamergate is about? Have you floated this theory past anyone?

What I think reviewers need to do is find a person knowledgeable in a certain genre that can explain the game in terms fans know and then also explain in terms others who know can understand. That isn't happening though, most of the time the reviewers just go full bias and full "feelings" on subjects without talking about anything relating to the game or its fans.

But they shouldn't talk about the fans (I'd like to see a game review that doesn't talk about anything relating to the game). Reviews aren't about the fandom. At least, they shouldn't be. The fans are going to buy Halo because it's Halo. The fans are going to buy Dynasty Warriors because it's Dynasty Warriors. The fans are going to buy GTA because it's GTA. A consumer review should address the consumer base, not just the people who are going to buy it anyway.

I mean, I'll say that for a niche publication, they should probably cater to that demographic, but that's not your ordinary gaming mag. Most of them only go as niche as to be PC Master Race Illustrated or Console Fan Monthly, not "Press Square over and over" or "Dudebro News." If I'm going to an RPOG site, I expect to see reviews aimed at RPG fans. If I'm going to the Escapist, IGN, etc., I expect to see a general review.

Kinda ironic that you used the same argument people annoyed at sexism in games threads do.

Only in the same way that it's ironic that the people annoyed at sexism in games aren't applying it evenly.

 

[Something Amyss]

Has it ever occurred to you that people "hate" asshole gamers because of their actions and it's not because journalists point out that there are asshole gamers?

To further this, is it possible that this is the Liberty Valance effect in action?

Rather than the media conspiring to make us look bad to the public, that the perception exists, so it's reported upon?

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

 

[AkaDad]

Has it ever occurred to you that people "hate" asshole gamers because of their actions and it's not because journalists point out that there are asshole gamers?

To further this, is it possible that this is the Liberty Valance effect in action?

Rather than the media conspiring to make us look bad to the public, that the perception exists, so it's reported upon?

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

You said it better than I did, which is usually the case with your comments.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Kinda ironic that you used the same argument people annoyed at sexism in games threads do.

Only in the same way that it's ironic that the people annoyed at sexism in games aren't applying it evenly.

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, could you clarify?

 

[Something Amyss]

You said it better than I did, which is usually the case with your comments.

For your flattery, you shall be spared when the SJW army moulds this world in our image.

Err...Did I say that out loud?

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, could you clarify?

Exactly what you said in reverse. That the people who were saying "don't like it? Ignore it." have suddenly switched around to the "don't like it? Change it for me!"

Similarly, the whole "make your own games" line has come from a ton of people who are demanding a better press. Well, if it's so freaking easy to make better AAA games, why can't these people make a better press and conduct better games journalism? Why, if they feel that this is an appropriate response for others, is it not an appropriate response for themselves?

I'm not even sure that the post you referenced wasn't intentionally ironic, a bittersweet retort to the "make your own games/don't buy it" crowd.

 

[Nirallus]

If you thought gaming journalists were corrupt, what's stopping you from not reading the things they write?

It's simply this - If the gaming press belongs to one clique, subscribes to one ideology, and speaks with one voice, they become the gatekeepers. If Bayonetta 3 comes out a few years down the road and they don't like it because they think it's sexist (or in general, "Game X is Y-ist because Z"), they'll release a barrage of articles saying "It's a terrible game, don't buy it" and they'll tank its metacritic score. Part of what fuels GamerGate is that we recoil at the censorious instinct that crowd* has always harbored. The nightmare scenario is a Comics Code Authority for video games. This time the line taken by moral busybodies isn't "comic books are corrupting our youth", it's "video games are rife with misogyny". We had a taste of it on August 28th with the Time On Target barrage of articles.

*Let's not call them "Social Justice Warriors" because justice is not part of their methods or goals.

Edit: Quoted more than I meant to.

So, to clarify, you read things they write because of something that hasn't happened?

No, don't be deliberately obtuse. I can choose to ignore them, but doing so means their corruption, collusion, and narrative go unchallenged.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Kinda ironic that you used the same argument people annoyed at sexism in games threads do.

Only in the same way that it's ironic that the people annoyed at sexism in games aren't applying it evenly.

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, could you clarify?

I believe he's pointing out the irony (though I think it's more hypocrisy than anything) in the people who usually go around saying "If you don't like it, don't buy it" now ignoring their own advice and going "I don't like it, change it now!"

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, could you clarify?

Exactly what you said in reverse. That the people who were saying "don't like it? Ignore it." have suddenly switched around to the "don't like it? Change it for me!"

Similarly, the whole "make your own games" line has come from a ton of people who are demanding a better press. Well, if it's so freaking easy to make better AAA games, why can't these people make a better press and conduct better games journalism? Why, if they feel that this is an appropriate response for others, is it not an appropriate response for themselves?

I'm not even sure that the post you referenced wasn't intentionally ironic, a bittersweet retort to the "make your own games/don't buy it" crowd.

Ah, I see, well in that case I have no qualms with your comment.
EDIT:Goddamnit, sorry for the double post

 

[Nirallus]

It's simply this - If the gaming press belongs to one clique, subscribes to one ideology, and speaks with one voice, they become the gatekeepers. If Bayonetta 3 comes out a few years down the road and they don't like it because they think it's sexist (or in general, "Game X is Y-ist because Z"), they'll release a barrage of articles saying "It's a terrible game, don't buy it" and they'll tank its metacritic score. Part of what fuels GamerGate is that we recoil at the censorious instinct that crowd* has always harbored. The nightmare scenario is a Comics Code Authority for video games. This time the line taken by moral busybodies isn't "comic books are corrupting our youth", it's "video games are rife with misogyny". We had a taste of it on August 28th with the Time On Target barrage of articles.

*Let's not call them "Social Justice Warriors" because justice is not part of their methods or goals.

Edit: Quoted more than I meant to.

So, to clarify, you read things they write because of something that hasn't happened?

No, don't be deliberately obtuse. I can choose to ignore them, but doing so means their corruption, collusion, and narrative go unchallenged.

Well the example you used hasn't happened, so I wouldn't say it's being deliberately obtuse to point that out. You can clarify what exactly I got wrong there if you want.

To reply to the second part of your post, you appear to be basing their "corruption, collusion and narrative" on things that haven't happened, hence your Bayonetta 3 review. And it doesn't mean it goes unchallenged, it means it goes unsupported. If you actively choose to support them by reading what they write, they will just continue to write it. That's capitalism.

It hasn't happened, but it came damn close. Look at GameJournoPros, look at the Aug. 28 article salvo, look at how few sites would even let people talk about this. Look at Ben Kuchera et al. trying to browbeat Greg Tito into submission just because he didn't ban GamerGate discussion from the Escapist. The corruption, collusion, and narrative have been plainly visible, and beyond that, explained in detail on Page One of the megathread.

Obtuse is saying "it hasn't happened yet, so why are you worried?" I made it clear that the scenario I described is one that I felt might happen, that the industry was trending towards, and that it seemed to be nearing. Capitalism would ensure that alternatives appear, but if one voice takes total control of the public narrative, competitors will be shouted down as misogynist, making it socially unacceptable to be associated with them.

 

[Dizchu]

I must say that I have gained a lot of respect for HuffPost lately with their GG interviews. It's like they are actually interested in a discussion unlike most other journalism sites (Vice is probably the absolute worst). I am also glad that a left-leaning publication took this approach, if Fox News did this it'd spell the end for Gamergate.

I agreed with the neutral stance more than the other two (objective review? Ughh I can see what she was TRYING to say but she said it so poorly) however neither of them were as bad as Brianna Wu in the previous interview.

So yeah. Nice job HuffPost. I hope other news sources follow suit or amend their ways because as a person that is supportive but not a participant in Gamergate, it frustrates the hell out of me when they get misrepresented. I disagree with conservatives but I'm not gonna claim they all hate women or want to execute gays.

 

[Nirallus]

Well the example you used hasn't happened, so I wouldn't say it's being deliberately obtuse to point that out. You can clarify what exactly I got wrong there if you want.

To reply to the second part of your post, you appear to be basing their "corruption, collusion and narrative" on things that haven't happened, hence your Bayonetta 3 review. And it doesn't mean it goes unchallenged, it means it goes unsupported. If you actively choose to support them by reading what they write, they will just continue to write it. That's capitalism.

It hasn't happened, but it came damn close. Look at GameJournoPros, look at the Aug. 28 article salvo, look at how few sites would even let people talk about this. Look at Ben Kuchera et al. trying to browbeat Greg Tito into submission just because he didn't ban GamerGate discussion from the Escapist. The corruption, collusion, and narrative have been plainly visible, and beyond that, explained in detail on Page One of the megathread.

Obtuse is saying "it hasn't happened yet, so why are you worried?" I made it clear that the scenario I described is one that I felt might happen, that the industry was trending towards, and that it seemed to be nearing.

You say you feel it might happen, but that doesn't explain why you're supporting it. Why read the things they write? What is it you're gaining from supporting them like that which outweighs not supporting them? By reading what they write you're actively going out of your way to give them revenue.

I use AdBlock to prevent sites I don't like from getting ad revenue (The Escapist is greenlit). To avoid giving them views I have to rely on archived links (very handy when stories get taken down or altered). I can hardly take up a position against them without reading the articles.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

These interviews gave me one whole hell of a lot of a good morning, I'll tell you typical naysayers that much. And the fact that I know exactly who's going to show up to these threads (including me) every time is getting a bit wearisome.

Some of you aren't even bothering to bring your sarcastic A game anymore. It's disheartening.

With that said:

The "objective review" part was the one bit of this that soured me.

Reviews, by their very nature, are subjective to some degree. I believe a better case could have been made for "more objective reviews" as opposed to an absolute, but, whatever.

The girls had never been interviewed before, especially not in so high stress of an atmosphere (on Huffington Post of all things, hell) and afterwards, in Pol's stream, admitted to being extremely nervous. With more time to delve into the subject, I'm sure it would have been better explained, but the rush to get out counterpoints and an overall message was readily apparent.

Stumbling a bit is to be expected though. *shrug*

And they were doing their collective best to stay on 'message,' which, unfortunately, had to sort of counteract the previous 'message' put forth by Literally Wu. *secondary shrug*

So. Fuck it. I'm still happy about it.

Edit: The fact that NeoGaf was already discussing putting forth articles about these women being victims of "internalized misogyny" not 10 minutes after the stream ended was hilariously and depressingly expected.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

When talking about this chart [http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/3025/suisidemissionfinal8.jpg]

Q: With the ending in Mass Effect 2, there were so many different variables and possibilities for the outcome and what could happen. As players reached the end, they started comparing notes and trying to figure out how it worked. A few months after it came out, we ran a chart in the magazine that showed the layout of how to get the different endings and how things happened. Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?

A: Yeah, and I?d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don?t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we?re taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.

It?s more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2?s...

The reason why you never see the full quote, especially the second paragraph, is because entitled fans deliberately excluded it because they wanted anger to be fueled by misquotes.

And how did your "choices not matter"? Because it was a game or because..?

I've seen the full quote, in complaint threads and blogs, actually.

I'm not sure why it is you think said quote in its entirety, in any way, refutes the points made by the people dissatisfied with Casey's attempts at PR. If anything, the full quote makes it worse. The original endings, pre-dlc, were quite literally A (Control), B (Synthesis), and C (Destroy). Each was differentiated by a color along with incredibly slight differences and did not take into account anything about the character's world-state, aside from cameos of characters (in some cases this didn't seem to matter either) and their "score."

One could make the argument that the "ending" to the series is the ENTIRE game, but this was a terrible way of phrasing it, especially when comparing it to typical "a, b, or c" endings, which refers to, you know, the actual ending, not the third/final act.

Captcha: idk my bff jill ...wasn't that commercial actually airing about the time ME3 was relevant?

Also: derailderailderailderail.

 

[chadachada123]

These interviews gave me one whole hell of a lot of a good morning, I'll tell you typical naysayers that much. And the fact that I know exactly who's going to show up to these threads (including me) every time is getting a bit wearisome.

snip

The "objective review" part was the one bit of this that soured me.

Reviews, by their very nature, are subjective to some degree. I believe a better case could have been made for "more objective reviews" as opposed to an absolute, but, whatever.

And they were doing their collective best to stay on 'message,' which, unfortunately, had to sort of counteract the previous 'message' put forth by Literally Wu. *secondary shrug*

So. Fuck it. I'm still happy about it.

Edit: The fact that NeoGaf was already discussing putting forth articles about these women being victims of "internalized misogyny" not 10 minutes after the stream ended was hilariously and depressingly expected.

Emphasis added. I was going to go off on "objective reviews...soured me," and was going to reply with "dude, just because reviews can't be objective doesn't mean we shouldn't push for being as objective as possible," and was going to go on with examples. But then re-read and saw you covered that. Phew. Nearly jumped the gun.

Anyway. Yeah, the review went pretty well, all things considered. Covered the main points. No real disagreements at all, just one focusing more on corruption, the other focusing more on the "WE. ARE. NOT. SEXIST." clarification.

Otherwise: Oh Neogaf, they never cease to amaze me.

 

[Nirallus]

You say you feel it might happen, but that doesn't explain why you're supporting it. Why read the things they write? What is it you're gaining from supporting them like that which outweighs not supporting them? By reading what they write you're actively going out of your way to give them revenue.

I use AdBlock to prevent sites I don't like from getting ad revenue (The Escapist is greenlit). To avoid giving them views I have to rely on archived links (very handy when stories get taken down or altered). I can hardly take up a position against them without reading the articles.

That still doesn't explain what you're gaining from reading what they write, it just means you're reading what they write but doing so in a way that stops you from engaging them. It's actually worse than ignoring them because you're listening to everything they say but doing so in a way that means you don't have a chance to have a voice.

By doing that, what do you expect your endgoal to be? What's the perfect scenario?

I "gain" nothing by reading the articles, but on principle, I have to read at least some of them myself (there sure are a lot). Otherwise it would be like saying DC movies suck without having watched any myself. Simply posting a pro-GG opinion on their forums gets you banned instantly, which makes me believe that directly emailing them would be futile. The only way to have a voice at all is to do so from other platforms, and to do so en masse, hence #GamerGate.

My understanding is that by creating an online movement of a large enough scale, we can prove against the "Gamers Are Dead" articles that we're alive and well. We can show that our attention spans are far, far longer than the GameJournoPros were willing to give us credit for. Currently we're just trying to get the message out that we're not misogynists, contrary to what much of the media has been saying. Now that GG has national attention, we cannot roll over or falter now. If we do, gaming will be loaded with that stigma for a generation. And it will be all gamers: If the public can't be convinced that the people sending death threats do not represent GamerGate, how will you or I convince them that not all gamers are the stereotype that the gaming press itself has painted? It's an uphill battle but I am confident that as long as we remain civil and persistent, and continue to consistently condemn harassment, that message will get through.

As for the "perfect scenario"? I haven't given it as much thought. But it would include the gaming news sites adopting a reasonable standard of ethics and sticking to it. And applying it retroactively since there should have been one in place all along. If they want an example they can look to the Escapist. As long as we're envisioning a perfect scenario, the gaming press would be so chastened (by loss of viewership and revenue) as to not pull such a cheap and slimy and self-destructive trick as the misogyny narrative again.

As an aside, it's telling that in their attempt to smear the people who called them out, the gaming press was willing to severely damage the image of gamers: The customer base of their industry, and people who were not held in high regard by society at large. Worst of all, the media sensationalizing the trumped-up accusations of sexism might actually scare off some young women who are considering entering the tech sector.