BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[Obama's Dad 420]

I think people on both sides need to talk more in metaphors. That's the thing the discussion needs. Both sides are angry and dismissive enough. We just need more metaphors. Because. There. Simply. Aren't. Enough.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

But he's talking about the end state of the game. And he's right, there's FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR more than A, B, C. The Geth can be dead. The Quarians can be dead. Jack can be dead. Miranda can be dead. The Krogan can be lead by Wreav. The Salarian councilor can be dead. All of that already is more than A, B and C, and that's not even scratching the surface.

This is made even clearer by the fact that he straight up spells out what he's talking about:

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.

It's not "making the argument", it's literally just reading what he said. He's not even comparing it to "typical a, b, c endings" like you said, he's comparing it to the ME2 graph that he was asked about in the question he's responding to.

If we're going to be pedantic, sure. All of those things can happen and, superficially, be counted as a part of the "end state." It's just that there was no, worthwhile or otherwise, expression of any of them in the ending itself.

Most of those were decided prior to the ending proper. Said ending, proper, has none of those things and is a terrible case of telling (via the Star Brat) and failing to show/reflect (via the actual ending cinematics) them.

Not to trot out a two-year-old dead horse in video form, but:


There is, loosely, A, B, and C. With minor variation between the 7 cinematics that are affected by a player's score and not their decisions.

Note the last part, which is the question, "Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?"

His entire answer is an acknowledgment of and comparison to the ME2 ending while describing the ME3 ending and its apparent superiority, in terms of choice and impact of decisions on the ending/end state, as compared to its predecessor.

 

[Kameburger]

You know what, good for Huff post for letting them talk. Did I agree with everything they said? No. But I did think they made a point. If you try to have these discussion in a lot of places you get immediately shut down as some sort of violent misogynist, or what ever terrible word we come up with while in the mean time I'm not sure that one would be treated with the same hostility.

It does end up reminding me of what the south park creators said when they were talking about why they don't like liberals, and they said that despite the fact that there is an image of conservative groups that would get up in arms about insulting their beliefs, it was the liberals who, when insulted, would write the most vial and vitriolic hate mail.

It's slightly different, but I think that it's easy for people to associate gamergate with what ever Anita Sarkeesian, because it's been so agressively associated with the threats that come her way. But I think while their are sociopaths and crazy people that dislike her and my associate themselves with the movement, its really not about that and I think deep down we understand that.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I really like that this interview happened. And I hope they'll do more of the same.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

You're talking about the very end of the game and disregarding everything about the end state of the game.

He's talking about the end state of the game, and spells this out in his response.

It's not being pedantic, it's literally just reading what he said.

If you're going to disregard the end state of the game, then you can't use that quote to pretend he's talking about the very end of the game, because he explicitly points out he isn't. You're trying to say he is, which is called lying.

I'm not disregarding anything. I acknowledged it in the very first sentence.

"All of those things can happen and, superficially, be counted as a part of the 'end state.' It's just that there was no, worthwhile or otherwise, expression of any of them in the ending itself.

Most of those were decided prior to the ending proper. Said ending, proper, has none of those things and is a terrible case of telling (via the Star Brat) and failing to show/reflect (via the actual ending cinematics) them."

I'm saying that the ending proper does not do a good job, if it did at all, of conveying said state and that, as it was presented, it amounted to an A, B, and C outcome. Further, the original was rife with plot holes, the most glaring of which (in all instances where a relay exploded) would have seen the galaxy utterly destroyed, thus rendering all previous choices moot.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a liar either. Just makes you look like an asshole. An asshole who enjoys abusing the text system as much as I do, which endears you to me for obvious reasons.

And just to be amazingly hypocritically pedantic; nowhere in that reply does he specifically say "end state."

He says, specifically, "the state of where you left your galaxy" which, as mentioned with the original endings, would have been a ruinous hellzone.

Now, shut up, watch this:


And get feels with me.

 

[Nirallus]

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 unequivocally 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 to 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 misogyny might actually scare off some young women who are considering entering the tech sector.

As long as Gamergate is tied to Zoe Quinn, which it always will be, it's never going to shake the massive amount of misoginy that surrounds it. And, looking at the sheer apathy its members have surrounding all of its misogyny ("every organisation has its bad apples" "this is just our enemies using this as a tactic to distract from what we want to talk about" etc) Gamergate doesn't seem like it has any clue, or even cares, about being associated with a hatred of woman and/or minorities.

People in GamerGate care very much about those negative associations, because they are not true. The people sending death threats aren't part of the "organization" because there is no organization. We can repeat with sincerity, until we're blue in the face, "harassment is wrong". We are doing that, constantly. It won't purge the internet of trolls. Focusing on Zoe Quinn is missing the point profoundly, and that goes for those who harassed her, those who dug up dirt about her, and those who want to keep putting her in the spotlight. If your mind is made up that the movement is totally misogynistic, what else could I possibly tell you?

 

[Baresark]

That was interesting. Though they did manage to dance around a couple of topics. Not the best interviews I have ever seen. It's clear they had things they wanted to get out and that kind of overrode answering the questions in a proficient manner. They definitely could have used a bit more prepping.

That said, it's good this interview happened. I don't really care that much about GG, I'm neutral on the whole thing, but GG gets demonized so much, it's ridiculous. Saying all GG's are misogynist and sexist and racist based on the actions of a few is the same as saying that all feminists are man hating lesbians because a small number of them are.

 

[Nirallus]

As long as Gamergate is tied to Zoe Quinn, which it always will be, it's never going to shake the massive amount of misoginy that surrounds it. And, looking at the sheer apathy its members have surrounding all of its misogyny ("every organisation has its bad apples" "this is just our enemies using this as a tactic to distract from what we want to talk about" etc) Gamergate doesn't seem like it has any clue, or even cares, about being associated with a hatred of woman and/or minorities.

People in GamerGate care very much about those negative associations, because they are not true. The people sending death threats aren't part of the "organization" because there is no organization. We can repeat with sincerity, until we're blue in the face, "harassment is wrong". We are doing that, constantly. It won't purge the internet of trolls. Focusing on Zoe Quinn is missing the point profoundly, and that goes for those who harassed her, those who dug up dirt about her, and those who want to keep putting her in the spotlight. If your mind is made up that the movement is totally misogynistic, what else could I possibly tell you?

I never mentioned people sending death threats.

But no, you're not doing that. I am literally yet to see someone from Gamergate going "Guys we need to do something about all the misogyny". Even you, right there, are apathetic towards it. You don't want to address the complaints about misogyny, instead trying to fog it off as "not (being) true".

I had assumed that sending death threats to women constituted misogyny. What are the specific complaints about misogyny that you're talking about here?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'm not disregarding anything. I acknowledged it in the very first sentence
"All of those things can happen and, superficially, be counted as a part of the 'end state.' It's just that there was no, worthwhile or otherwise, expression of any of them in the ending itself.

Most of those were decided prior to the ending proper. Said ending, proper, has none of those things and is a terrible case of telling (via the Star Brat) and failing to show/reflect (via the actual ending cinematics) them."

Which in no way contridicts his statement. You say it never showed it, but the arcs all end beforehand. You see the end of the Krogan arc. You see the end of the Geth/Quarian arc.

I'm saying that the ending proper does not do a good job, if it did at all, of conveying said state and that, as it was presented, it amounted to an A, B, and C outcome.

Because they had their conclusions earlier. You already know the end state of the game, why go over something that has already happened?

Further, the original was rife with plot holes, the most glaring of which (in all instances where a relay exploded) would have seen the galaxy utterly destroyed, thus rendering all previous choices moot.

Well no, it's not. For example you are trying to pretend that the two most advanced pieces of technology in the entire galaxy do the same thing to the relays as a big rock. MAAAAANY fans didn't assume that, and lo behold the extended cut (note, "extended", not "changed") clarified that.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a liar either. Just makes you look like an asshole. An asshole who enjoys abusing the text system as much as I do, which endears you to me for obvious reasons.

And just to be hypocritically pedantic; nowhere in that reply does he specifically say "end state."

He says, specifically, "the state of where you left your galaxy" which, as mentioned with the original endings, would have been a ruinous hellzone.

You tell me not to call you a liar, then chose to pretend he's talking about something he isn't.

Oh, you smarmy thing you.

1. You're misunderstanding, apparently. I said they weren't shown/reflected in the ending proper via the ending cinematic. And while the arcs themselves certainly "end," what actually happens, at the end, to those races is not touched upon by the original ending. The original ending effectively stranded the entire armada at Earth with only FTL to, eventually, get them home, which I suppose counts as an end state by omission?

2. See 1

3. I'm trying to pretend? Jesus, be just a bit more condescending. Ok, this was explained or touched upon, in the original ending...where? All we had to go on at the time was the Arrival DLC, in which, a relay exploding caused its solar system to be vaporized. There was no "qualifier" presented as to what type of/cause for the explosion would or would not cause such an event. "Pretending" that it isn't a reasonable assumption, given the information at the time, is just disingenuous.

4. Except I'm not. And I've made that readily apparent multiple times now. But, by all means, keep up the jerk attitude when I was trying to go all 'olive branch' on you.

Edit: I'm realizing I'm only engaging in this because it's something to be annoyed about that isn't GamerGate...it's been so long, man.

 

[JohnFei]

Really enjoyed the interview.

You know their narrative is breaking down when even Huffpo is covering our voices. CNN also gave a neutral and well-researched article. All this following Brianna making a fool of herself screaming at a disabled person and BBC giving us a fair assessment.

The story of Gamergate is coming out, and the blowback is gonna be glorious.

 

[jamail77]

It does end up reminding me of what the south park creators said when they were talking about why they don't like liberals, and they said that despite the fact that there is an image of conservative groups that would get up in arms about insulting their beliefs, it was the liberals who, when insulted, would write the most vial and vitriolic hate mail.

Oooooh. Not the best example. Sorry, I'm not even going to address the OT. I've got a beef with Matt Parker and Trey Stone and this is the perfect opportunity to bring it out. I know it's a bit nitpicky and might come off as cherry picked, but I really need to get this off my chest. Knowing me, it's probably going to get really long and ranty, so fair warning if you're not interested in rambling words.

Even though I watch South Park, I've really grown to dislike the creators' reasoning for being "above both sides" and how often it seeps into the show and makes a great or just decent episode subpar. You see, they claim to be above all the infighting, how people think you have to be super liberal, they use Michael Moore as an example, or super conservative, they use shooting Iraqis overseas as the example here. So, while they don't hide their conservative leanings, they consider themselves more center than most people and certainly more logical. The problem? Whenever they hit both "sides" they hit liberals worse. They say it's because everyone skewers conservatives, so it'd be like beating a dead horse, that making fun of liberals is more fun. They say it has nothing to do with who's worse. They say that the statement Matt made years ago that, "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals" wasn't what Matt really thought, but rather just done for trolling's sake and shock humor. I don't believe any of that honestly. They show too much pettiness for me to believe them. I remember when Kenny had to save heaven from the armies of hell via a golden PSP created by God himself. Kenny couldn't fulfill his destiny because he was in a medically sustained coma. Republicans wanted to keep him on feeding tubes, Democrats said it was inhumane. They even show The Emperor from Star Wars influencing the Republicans. Yet, in that same episode the Democrats are still portrayed as worse, as morons ruining everything, despite using 1 of the most evil villains in fictional history, so evil it's practically cliche, to substitute in for Republicans. They had to get a better dig in at the Democrats regardless. Then, they go back to saying how they're above it all. Nope, they're not and their arrogance and pettiness in refusing to admit it is something I find very distasteful. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican] actually sums up what I mean pretty well. You can see them contradicting each other and then claiming they're not really contradicting each other. To be fair, how you interpret their statements is subjective, so you may not see it as hypocritical the way I do. I wouldn't care if they stopped acting so high and mighty how they're above all the arguments. I don't really associate as a Democrat, so it's not like I'm set up to be insulted anyway.

You also have to understand that why they might get more hate mail from liberals is the intended audience. There's a reason the term "South Park Republican" exists (even if the creators don't like that fans coined the term) though if you clicked on my link you already know enough about that. My post is getting kind of vindictive though, so I'm going to take a break and brighten up the mood with a more satirical (though kind of half serious) take on that term just for hahas. Won't link it onto a word this time just to emphasize this is a chance to take a break from how exhausting my post probably feels and remove some of the cynicism it probably emits. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/South_Park_Republicans

Good break? Okay, so the liberals who watch might be more active in their critique than the conservatives who watch too. In my experience, of the people who watch South Park liberals are more vocal about their criticism and conservatives just talk about how stupid the insults were, but how it's not worth getting vocal to the creators because they're stupid people and who likes talking to stupid people. So, there is just as much hate from conservatives, but they don't voice it as strongly. That's anecdotal though. Outside of the show, respective liberal and conservative vocal-ness on issues obviously varies; otherwise, you're generalizing. There are other shows that have creators claiming they get more hateful mail from conservatives. Even if it doesn't balance out to same amount of vitriol from both "sides", it's disingenuous for them to dismiss liberals by their limited mail rather than from statistics or extensive (as in been all over the country, had civil discussions with very political people, etc. and even then that's still anecdotal) experience with liberals.

Not gonna lie, still watch the show. That 2 parter episode on the console wars was great. I know I might be misjudging them and that they're better than they sometimes seem. It might just be an act for "shock humor" as they say. They've never proven this to me though, so I can't help judging them so harshly despite mostly liking the show.

Personally, I think that it's much harder to choose a side AND admit it openly no matter who you're with. When you're independent you can get out of any serious argument and not come off as a spiteful jerk refusing to cooperate. When you admit to leaning towards one side or the other, you have the burden of still having to act civil despite all the stereotypes of your side and despite all the partisanship divide that has caused you trouble, trouble such as costing you friends on the other side of the poltical spectrum. We need to have a healthy conversation on how it's okay to lean as long as you don't treat people terrible for leaning in the other direction and as long as you're willing to compromise for the better good instead of acting stubborn out of selfishness and over-dedication to ideology. That's why I've never have hidden where I lean politically even though, technically, I'm registered as an Independent. There are some terrible figureheads, but I really don't think there's that many politicized people who are awful people. Yet, I hear way too often how Democrats are devil reincarnate or Republicans are devil reincarnate. If you only pay attention to the hateful, "opposite from your side", people on TV and then distance yourself from people you ACTUALLY KNOW on the opposite "side", so you're only hanging out with people on your "side" then of course it's going to seem that way. There's a term for that: Confirmation bias. Honestly, regardless of my political views, if you're a civil, respectful person with a good heart deep down I can get along with you. I could care less if you're conservative or liberal if you have that going for you.

 

[Nirallus]

I never mentioned people sending death threats.

But no, you're not doing that. I am literally yet to see someone from Gamergate going "Guys we need to do something about all the misogyny". Even you, right there, are apathetic towards it. You don't want to address the complaints about misogyny, instead trying to fog it off as "not (being) true".

I had assumed that sending death threats to women constituted misogyny. What are the specific complaints about misogyny that you're talking about here?

It was founded on misogyny, seems to have an air of misogyny about it (notice how there's a ton more complaints about SJW's or "politicising" games rather than ethics in journalism?) and when complaints about it are brought up, members just respond to it with apathy ("eh it happens nothing we can do about it" "there's always a few bad apples" "you're just trying to distract from what we want to talk about" etc) which perpetuates the misogynistic air.

People see through it.

The first point is simple genetic fallacy. It's not about Zoe and hasn't been for a long time. What happened or did not happen between her and her ex led to later events that exposed the shady practices of gaming journalists. Those who harassed her ought to be ashamed. It doesn't make the criticism of the gaming press invalid.

Politicization of the gaming press is a problem with journalistic ethics. Obviously it's not a problem exclusive to gaming. Complaints about SJW's and politicizing the gaming press come about for the reason I mentioned in my first post in this thread: It is never healthy for the press to follow one ideology and speak with one voice. I put it to you that if the gaming press was was filled with WND types, agreeing behind closed doors to run this and kill that, the complaints would be about Fundies and... politicizing the gaming press. Doesn't matter whether it's a Jon McIntosh or a Jack Thompson, we recoil from authoritarian moralizing.

GG is a consumer revolt against the gaming press, so of course that's what we want to talk about. I don't think GamerGate is a misogynist group, because I don't hate women and neither do any of the prominent people who support it. So when the press we're criticizing goes to such great lengths to call us all misogynists, I know instinctively that it's untrue. That's why I take such offense to it, and it's why I recognize it as a deflection.

You think you're seeing through something when there's nothing there.

 

[Belaam]

It's not about Zoe and hasn't been for a long time. What happened or did not happen between her and her ex led to later events that exposed the shady practices of gaming journalists. Those who harassed her ought to be ashamed. It doesn't make the criticism of the gaming press invalid.

Maybe not. But it certainly taints the whole #gamergate message. In case hashtag activism and the cliched -gate weren't bad enough. Someone may put a Confederate flag on their car to support State's Rights, but almost everyone who sees it is going to think racism and slavery.

If gamergate needs to be taken seriously, they need some clear bullet point goals (because right now they are so vague as to be meaningless) and a new name.

I found it particularly informative that one of their initial examples of women in gaming was King's Quest. Because, you know, Roberta Williams is easily the most powerful woman in the history of gaming... and that was 30+ years ago when she was pretty much literally the only woman in gaming and there hasn't even been a contender for the title since.

Politicization of the gaming press is a problem with journalistic ethics. Obviously it's not a problem exclusive to gaming.

nor is it a new problem; which helps make the Quinn tie seem like an odd trigger. If GG were triggered by the Shadow of Mordor stuff, it would not be facing the criticism it is. But, as fruit of the poisonous tree, it did have its basis in a misogynistic lie and is now stuck with that origin. That origin opens all kinds of criticism about later movement, as when groups previously pushing for creationism taught in schools all started going, "no, wait, we mean we want Intelligent Design taught" and we even have a scientist who says we should do so.

we recoil from authoritarian moralizing.

You mean like a group dictating that a feminist analysis of gaming isn't valid?

GG is a consumer revolt against the gaming press, so of course that's what we want to talk about. I don't think GamerGate is a misogynist group, because I don't hate women and neither do any of the prominent people who support it.

I'm really not sure I'd go with the "any", but again: Regardless of the actual cause or mission of gamergate is tied to misogyny due to its origins and ties to death threats against prominent women in gaming and game criticism. Compounding this issue is that there seem to be at least half a dozen competing ideas even within the gamergate community as to what it's goals are.

Transparency in journalist's financial incentives when reviewing a game?
Then why so many flame wars and so few, say, open letters or specific complaints to gaming sites (particularly when getting Kotaku to ban review contributions to games actually panned out pretty well)?

An end to critical analysis (ie Feminist, Marxist, Queer, etc.) of games?
Never going to happen. To many gamers taking Literary Analysis 101 and needing to write papers on something with which they are familiar (on top of which, the whole gamergate thing has got to be a goldmine - I suspect the next five years of Sociology Masters Theses are going to be chock full of gamergate analysis).

Is an actual goal those of the Mens Rights Movement guys who seems to have jumped on board and are their usual selves?
Because that doesn't work out for anyone.

Gamergate, as a title, is a bust. Too many ideologies, no clear goals or plans to reach them, and of course, that origin story that ties it closely with its worst elements.

 

[xPixelatedx]

These three women are very brave considering the amount of harassment women get for openly supporting GG. I wish them all the luck in the world and hope the backlash for this isn't too harsh. Bad move on Brianna's part for painting the movement as a 'boys club' the first chance she got when the world was watching, and right before this happened, on the same show to. I know she was being reactionary and emotional from what she just endured, but even she should have been smart enough to see what an uphill battle that was going to be. Can't call real people on camera sock puppets, sorry, this isn't going to be as easily dismissed as it is on the net. Now from the perspective of average people, her side was being disingenuous from the start.

 

[JohnFei]

These three women are very brave considering the amount of harassment women get for openly supporting GG. I wish them all the luck in the world and hope the backlash for this isn't too harsh. Bad move on Brianna's part for painting the movement as a 'boys club' the first chance she got when the world was watching, and right before this happened, on the same show to. I know she was being reactionary and emotional from what she just endured, but even she should have been smart enough to see what an uphill battle that was going to be. Can't call real people on camera sock puppets, sorry, this isn't going to be as easily dismissed as it is on the net. Now from the perspective of average people, her side was being disingenuous from the start.

Speaking of harassment, I wish they'd provided some of the million cases of threats and doxxing against Gamergate supporters. I guess it'll have to wait for another time.

EIther way, very happy to see the mainstream media actually being nuanced in their approach of GG. From now on, the ludicrous one-sided narrative is only going to be harder and harder to peddle.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

It's a bit of my takeaway from a lot of this whole discussion: there are people loudly decrying wrong journalist practices who have no clear idea of how journalism works.

So, what then? Do we start pushing for mandatory Communication or Journalism 101 classes on the collegiate circle? How do we address that issue?

For the most part, the notion of "reporting" speaks volumes. You aren't delivering an opinion piece or an essay; you're laying out the skinny for, well, whatever it is you have to report. It could be a flash flood, a string of murders, a Hollywood fiasco or a scientific breakthrough - you just have to lay out the facts as they are. Ideally, that is. Dig a little and you realize bias is virtually impossible to exorcise from the proceedings. It's in the wording, the chosen areas of analysis or exposure, even right down to how television news reports can be shot on-site can be either misleading or actually lead to informed opinions. It's exactly why you can have three berjillion news outlet trucks covering the same event, and you'll hear three berjillion DIFFERENT accounts of the same thing.

So going back to games, how *can* you explain to the GamerGaters that there's just no feasible way to eliminate bias entirely? We'll just never be rid of the people going "Oh yeah? Well, IGN gave it a 6.0!" or the usual anguished cries of "THIS REVIEW WAS TOTES PAID FOR!"

No journalist, whether he be from games journalism or even political commentary, will ever manage to please everyone simultaneously.

 

[renegade7]

"Objective review."

*sigh* There is no such thing in gaming. With artstyle, gameplay, story etc all including subjective qualities you can't have an objective review worth a damn.

But on the other hand we have now "graphics are shit because I PERSONALLY don't like the art-style". When people ask for "Objective reviews" they want reviewers to dismiss their own biases to see the bigger picture.

I think the point is that that's basically impossible. Ultimately, "graphics" just mean how pleasant the game is to look at, but that has no objective meaning. The only objective statement that can be made about a game's graphics is specs like the fidelity of the textures and polygon counts, but in regards to actually enjoying the game information like that is useless because people reading reviews want opinions, not technical datasheets. The latest Call of Duty may have great graphics from a technical standpoint, but that doesn't say a thing about whether the game actually looks nice. Minecraft, on the other hand, can create beautiful scenes through skillful use of extremely low-quality graphics. But the point is that that's subjective: plenty of people might find the blockiness of Minecraft ugly. Dwarf Fortress, to most people, just looks like someone puked ASCII all over the screen, which is often a major stumbling block for new players. Plenty of people still manage to get past that, though, and enjoy the game greatly despite its primitive graphics.

I'd call the graphics of Call of Duty crappy and unremarkable despite their technical quality, and I'd call EVE Online gorgeous despite the low-tech graphics engine.

There is no such thing as an objective opinion. The point of reviews isn't about objective information about the game, it's about providing a sample of opinions that others can work off of.

Example, we expect reviewers to put their political biases to the side. However, if a game has a clearly political message or contains social messages that some may find offensive then that's certainly something that a reviewer ought to acknowledge because things like racism and sexism may genuinely influence one's enjoyment of a game. However, what qualifies as racist or sexist enough to warrant one's mention is subjective: one can consider Saint's Row to be either a harmless parody of hip-hop culture or a continuation of its sexist and racist themes.

Some reviewers may acknowledge that. Others may consider it not important enough to mention when reviews are limited in length and there are more interesting points to make. But a reviewer isn't compromising objectivity by mentioning it: if it influenced his or her enjoyment of the game, then it might influence that of other players, and it should be mentioned in the review so readers can make their own judgments.

But ultimately it's important to understand that at the end of the day, reviews are opinion pieces. There is no such thing as true objectivity.

 

[Verlander]

Yeah, they reaffirmed my stance against Gamergate.

 

[BadNewDingus]

God. I hated that host. He was so rude and just kept trying to push the women into his belief. I mean, can both sides just ban together to go against the host!?

The women just said that it isn't an issue, but he kept spinning it back to sexist issues. I admire the women in the interview who could've easily just said, "Yes, all male gamers are sexist and there needs to be something done."

Again, this is all the media that is causing trouble. No big surprise there.

 

[DaViller]

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.

Sorry sorry, it´s just that it´s kinda hard to keep all the gamergate topics apart at times. Sometimes it´s collusion, sometimes it´s corruption and sometimes it´s cultural marxism. Also how does batman come into this again? Like it´s realy tough to keep track.

 

[Wasted]

I am someone who tried their best to avoid the emotional beginnings of GG, but I see it in a more negative light as time goes on. I am all for journalistic integrity but hate how many GG members wave away the severe harassment issues as not representative of their message, whatever that message may be since it changes depending who you speak to.

That being said, why didn't the recent Shadow of Mordor early review guidelines cause a huge uproar within GG? If journalistic ethics is really the driving force of GG, then this event should have caused the biggest reaction. That did not happen and Shadow of Mordor essentially got a free pass even with its well known and well documented shady practices.

This event just makes me think that Shadow of Mordor needed a female representative to be the focus of hate and vitriol before people spoke out against it.