Editor's Note: Why I Still Call Myself a Gamer

[b3nn3tt]

This article was incredible. I haven't actively followed a lot of what's been going on, but I've been aware of the basics through various threads on here. This article has given a very good overview of what's been going on, while maintaining a very worthy message; that abuse is from either side is not good.

I'd have hoped that this was much clearer to everyone, but people do seem to get very passionate about their arguments, and I'm guessing that that leads them to lash out at people on the other side. As I said, I'm not aware of the entirety of what's going on, but from what I've gathered it wouldn't have been such a hugely divisive issue if people on both sides had been willing to debate it without resorting to personal attacks and harassment.

My views on this are the same as my views any time something like this happens that ends up splitting the community; at the end of the day, we're all gamers (I'm not going to stop using that term, when it so accurately describes us as a community), if nothing else we should be united by our love of games, no matter what those games are.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Well done and thank you. Magnificent article.

Both yourself and Mr Macris with his editorial have convinced me that, despite evidence so far all pointing to the contrary, not ALL of the gaming press is a bunch of screaming lunatics.

 

[Batou667]

I'm grateful Greg decided to publish this and make the first move towards clearing the air and possibly even allowing the post-Gamergate peace process to begin in earnest. Similarly, I was impressed that he allowed a mostly free dialogue to occur in that thread when so many other online gaming outlets were taking either authoritarian, silencing stances on the matter or else making patronising "nothing to see here" statements. It's little touches like that which have contributed to The Escapist being the only gaming community I've belonged to for the last three years.

Greg alluded to it, but I think it bears repeating that not everybody calling for more transparency and journalistic integrity is a cyber-bully or a troll. There are two sides to any issue and only through a dialogue can we hope to make any kind of progress. Also, if this hard-line stance on abuse is to work, it absolutely must be applied even-handedly: if you'd decry your opponent using a certain tactic or type of language, you can't in good conscience employ them yourself, even if you consider yourself on the "correct" side. Heck, especially if you consider yourself correct. I'm saddened to see posters in this very thread conflate this call for a better level of dialogue, with the promotion of an enforced, morally-absolute consensus where only one side is permitted to express an opinion.

The one thing gaming never was, isn't, and shouldn't become, is a monoculture. Perhaps we'll never all get along, but we could all stand to try harder.

 

[inkheart_artist]

This was... quite a month. As I watched things unfold it reminded me why I generally don't talk about video games in public. The vitriol can be just too much to bear sometimes. I hope your article is a sign for a brighter future for the medium, or at least a definitive end to the toxicity we've been experiencing. Good work, Tito. This was the first bit of reading I've had in a while that made me feel actually good about my hobby instead of reinforcing that it belongs in the basement with the train set.

 

[Canyoureadmydeadpan]

You guys have done a great job after all this. You admitted fault for not fact checking a story, ran fact checked stories, and even though your talent has a very biased opinion you guys have made it clear that the talent does not reflect the views of the escapist.

So long as you keep up the current changes you've been implementing that I think that will keep everyone happy.

 

[Ralancian]

Both editorial and publisher articles are brilliant. I'm a gamer have been most of my life I can't remember the first game I played but my first real system was a Game Gear. I also dabbled with Acorns and Commodore's my uncle owned a spectrum.

Gamer to me means more than computer games it includes an entire subcultures I'm involved in. Tabletop RPGS, Board Games, Wargaming, Collectable Card Games and Freforming/Theatre Style LARPS.

Alot those communities are massively inclusive and thriving communities that promote their diversity. Certainly the last on list does my a long way.

I do not what to see something I've always considered myself as 'die'. I want my community to speak against unacceptable behaviour from anyone but not resort to personal attacks. I like many in this social demographic was bullied heavily in school and abhor it in my adult life.

We're now reaching the point where geek culture is socially acceptable in the mainstream we should be embracing ourselves and showing what we have to offer.

My wife to be finds me attractive for who I am and being a gamer. I don't want the ugly side to change that perception. I also turn 30 next month and don't think something I consider myself as almost that entire time to be dead...I still want to be a gamer when I turn 60. On equal measure with starting a family soon I want my children to be accepted by their peers and not go through what I did. The only way forward is tolerance of everyone.

I've rambled a bit but this entire gamergate thing got wildly out of control and didn't show anyone in hood light.




P.S DA2 is still a good game playing it again myself now...

 

[Davroth]

I can't say I'm happy with the situation as a whole.

I've been more of an observer of games culture then an active participant for the better part of my life, and I remember rather vividly a time that wasn't filled with vitriol. And I don't wish to put too fine a point on it, since I actually consider it a discussion worth having, but ever since the feminist frequency kickstarter, the gaming culture debates have been in sort of a downward spiral, from what I see. Just the sheer amount of people on both sides of that discussion exchanging abuse, it's just getting sort of unbearable. It makes me question why I even bother with it anymore. Whenever I try to approach either side, and ask questions, it's always seen as some sort of attack. I find that rather ludicrous, because asking questions is the only way to understand other people's positions sometimes. I happen to not be a sex-negative, second wave feminist, which nowadays appears to be the only acceptable form of feminism, at least in context of the whole gaming discussion, so I get vitriol from both sides, whenever I try to throw my hat into that particular ring. Really though, being in the middle of it all, I find it puzzling that Gamergate gets singled out as a movement with terrible extremists, while the same is absolutely true for feminism, or pretty much any movement of a certain size.

We are supposedly allowed to disregard Gamergate due to their bad eggs, but we are not supposed to disregard feminism because they contain some bad eggs. You can't pick and choose right that. And while I think it's great that you, Greg Tito, can now say that you don't agree with any kind of abuse towards or by gamers, where were you the last past months? Why does this deserve attention when the extreme elements of another big movement that has been taking the games industry by storm the past few months didn't? I'm not a fan of treating people differently like that.

And oh, I already know, people will say that feminists get called 'feminazis' and worse all the time, believe me, I heard it all before. The difference is this: Major gaming news sites don't agree with the narrative that all feminists are extremists, but they readily accept the narrative that gamers, most of them, are mysogynist pigs. One is allowed to be defined by a handful of extremists, the other is feminism. And actually, feminists should be the ones most appalled by that practice. Because much unlike people using '****' or 'whore' as a general insult, it's impressing a truly sexist mindset, subconscious it may be. I don't support the narrative that women need any help to hold their own. But sadly, that seems to be the predominant mindset. I find it saddening. The internet is one of the few places where gender doesn't have to be a big deal because it doesn't actually make a difference. There is very little men can do on the internet that women can't, physically. Why do we have to let small, vocal minorities have it be ruined for all of us?

 

[Batou667]

Really? Have you not seen the amount of trouble people that were not straight white males have gone through in gaming culture since the 80s? I mean, it was hard enough to show up at an arcade while female without getting patronized or ogled. Most online games chats are still littered with racial, homophobic and sexist slurs. It was not long ago audible groans could be heard when a female voice joined FPS game chats and WoW raids, I have seen players getting kicked for being a girl IRL.

In the spirit of being honest but at the risk of inviting accusations of privilege; no, I haven't really seen this evidence of historical cis-het-cauc-male domination in gaming. It would be easy to forget just how recently, relatively speaking, gaming became a mainstream and socially acceptable hobby - it was traditionally the reserve not of chest-thumping alpha males, but the kids who were themselves sidelined and marginalised. A simplistic oppressor-and-victim narrative just doesn't fit here. To briefly address some of the other points:

Sexuality: I don't believe gaming has ever been institutionally homophobic. I don't believe that language always reflects underlying attitudes either: "Gay" and "fag" have long been used in contexts that are nothing to do with sexuality.

Racism: If we bear in mind the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory I don't think gamers can be said to be any more racist than the general population. There's nothing inherently exclusionary about games or gaming - certainly it's not a "whites only" hobby, or how else would you explain the fact that high-level Street Fighter and Starcraft players are often Asian? The current best Zangief player in the world is African-American.

Gender: This is where I'll concede things could be better. Yes, I expect being a girl in an arcade in the 80s or 90s was a weird and slightly unsettling experience. Ditto with more contemporary "gamer spaces" like conventions. Part of the problem is, true enough, guys who simply should know better than to act inappropriately. Another side of the issue is, as Moviebob pointed out in a video a while back, that geek-space has historically been the refuge of the introverted, the socially inept, the guys who are emotionally frail or even have legitimate learning or communication difficulties. When gaming rapidly goes from being a nerd hobby to an industry rivaling Hollywood with mass-market appeal, you're going to get a few guys who squirm under the spotlight. As male-female ratios even out, I expect gaming will eventually be something that can be truly gender-neutral. In the interim, please bear with us.

And, hey, trolls will always exist. Let's not feed them.

Things are definitively much better now and the culture has clearly evolved the last 7-8 years or so, but this is because it is striving hard to break free of a monoculture that has had it in a tight grip. I actually thought we had gotten much further and was pretty pleased with how gaming had matured until the recent incidents proved otherwise.

The "gamergate" thing shows how much many forces still resist breaking this monoculture and letting other influences in. Indeed, through its editorials the Escapist has clearly put itself on the conservative side of trying to preserve "gamers" and gaming culture as they are, which is still pretty monocultural in many ways. Personally I had hoped that the concept of gamer and gaming in general would continue to open up and broaden its reach, and I am still not sure it won't, regardless of who tries to stop it.

I don't believe gaming was ever a homogenous culture: if it looked like it, it was simply because it was a niche hobby that was mostly shunned by the mainstream. If most Western gamers were straight white males, that wasn't a conscious decision, at least not on their part. The only meaningful commonality they shared was that they loved computer and videogames.

What "forces" are you alluding to? There are no shadowy cabals pulling the strings. If gamers are rising up and making their voices heard on an issue, then we have to concede that's a reflection of public opinion; it would be intellectually dishonest to conveniently brush that criticism aside in a G.W. Bush-style "They hate our freedom" platitude. As far as I can see, the Gamergate noise for the most part hasn't been just embittered misogynists, trolls, and other opportunistic agitators: a lot of the claims made have been pretty cogent, reasonable and well-documented. What's so objectionable about calling for greater transparency and accountability within the gaming industry? Surely that's exactly the kind of thing that a growing, evolving and serious medium needs?

 

[Batou667]

Forces as in societal forces, it does not have to be directed to be a force. A large part of what I will still classify as a monoculture (since it is clearly still dominated by the cultural moores of the "founding" culture of mostly white males) has taken up in arms to preserve "gaming" from changing. That is the very definition of a conservative force if you ask me.

Firstly, gaming isn't "white" and hasn't been since before the Atari-era crash. From the mid-80s onwards gaming has been the domain of Western and Japanese development.

Secondly, what are these "cultural mores"? In what way are they tailored to white males? Why are they failing to repel nonwhites and women from gaming?

Thirdly, conservatism isn't bad, per se, either in gaming or if we're talking about political conservatism. "Conservative" isn't synonymous with "regressive", it just means favouring methods that are proven. If people are happy with the current state of gaming, why shouldn't they take a conservative stance?

I find it suspicious that this call for transparency in gaming (from a large group of completely non-transparant "gamers") came at this time and directed towards the people they were. I do not trust the motives of the people claiming to want this, nor do I think the results so far achived are in any way laudable. What has happened is that "gamers" have turned on some on the most interesting voices in the industry, refused to take any kind of self correction even when openly confronted with the worst people in the gaming community spreading their vitriol over multiple sites. Even people I respected have taken a "boys will be boys" attitude, and The Escapist has editorialized on the virtue of the "gamer" as an exclusive group that should be separate from the mere mortals that just play MMOs and casual games. It has exposed a very rotten core in the "gamer" community, and I for one has mostly been dismayed that a community I respected responded like that.

The Gamergate backlash probably, I think, represents the outpouring of months and years of frustration that has been thus far mostly repressed by gamers. Zoe Quinn is not the problem, but she has the misfortune of being the straw that broke the camel's back. I think many gamers are understandably irked that their hobby has become so politicised, scrutinised and dissected; and that they're being equated with the worst of the trolls simply through being straight white gamers and not vocally progressive.

In the end we might have to agree to disagree, as I for one think that using fag and gay as slurs is not acceptable. You are basically using a word that can be used descriptive and then making it implicitly a bad thing. You can't use "hetero" or straight the same way at all. Words have power.

Words have power, sure, but words are only as powerful as their meaning, and meaning changes over time. Very few people would get upset about phrases like "paddy-wagon" or "Jerry-rigged" despite the origins being based in stereotypes of Irish and Germans, and likewise very few people would object to the word "dumb" on the grounds that it's ableist.

I certainly don't think it's classy to throw "gay" and "fag" around as expletives, but we have to acknowledge the correct context.

 

[Delance]

"I do not support harassment by gamers or of gamers. Abuse is wrong, no matter what you believe or who you support."

That all I really wanted to hear. Thanks, Greg.

 

[VondeVon]

I agree that people standing up and being voices against abuse is important. I know there have been *many* times that I've taken one look at a mess in the comments and just not bothered to say anything because it's not worth the hassle of the inevitable attacks against me. I do this especially if someone in particular has been attacked but someone else has already stood up for them. It's a relief (a lazy one) that I don't have to stand with someone who's standing alone because there's a whole two people now. I'm gonna try to be less lazy about that and to think about if I were in the position of someone being treated badly - and how I'd hope others would share their strength with me.

It shouldn't have to be just two (or a few) people against the tide, every time people start frothing at the mouth. I see a lot of people get angry at being 'lumped in' with those racist/sexist/aggressive/trollish gamers... but I wonder how many of those people (myself included, except for the anger - I save that for Tony Abbott) might not be be one of them but sure as heck aren't standing against them either. The silence of the argued 'normal many' ("abusers/trolls are just outliers - most gamers aren't like that!") makes the racket of the abusive 'few' look much stronger and all-encompassing than it maybe really is - and that's on those of us who are silent.

The block button can be a powerful tool sometimes, if you have it. Not to silence anyone who disagrees with you, god no - just the ones who can't manage it without 'toxicity'. Maybe Escapist should have a mute button, so when a discussion gets a little too crazy in a forum, people can tune out one or more parties just for that single thread? (And by 'tune out', I mean not get alerts in their inbox.)