#StopGamerGate2014

[Mattk50]

I guess for me to have any faith that this type of awareness campaign has any impact outside of the people who are already aware of it I would have had to see it work at least once in the past...

As far as I know people still buy Nike shoes and electronics made by, well, anyone so.... who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

It's lasted 2 months now and has pumped out info-graphics, videos, and articles with accurate info, is now on 3 national news outlets(albeit in a very negative light) and spread allover the internet. There's no way it's even possible this hasn't informed a huge number people previously unaware, but was it worth all the effort?... we'll have to see the impact on these sites in the future i suppose. It's unlikely they will crash and burn but hopefully their traffic will drop off enough for them to have serious financial hardships, and move more of that money to people who deserve to get it. People do play video games after all it's not like their time is necessarily better spent playing another round of battlefield.

 

I'd like to promote unbiased journalism and review sites who deserve people's money more. Like, totalbiscuit, nichegamer, hell even escapist at this point is considered one of the fairer sites. I don't think its good for sites that flaunt their ethics problems then are directly hostile to their own userbase to be getting paid for it.

[mach]

WHAT.

so these clowns are saying games are being made to suit males?

Well, first of all I'm a dude and I love playing RPGs.

I ALWAYS choose the female character if there is a customizable option.

I REFUSE to play any games featuring only a muscular dude.

Why? 

 

I want a pretty girl on my screen rather than seeing the male character doing stunts and showing off his pumping muscles

As a straight male I think it's pretty normal?

 

If that woman is saying gaming industry is sexist, HELL YES they are making games just for you females!

[Tech_Dreamer]

Everyone want's to play Jesus but nobody wants to get crucified...

 

 

#thinkdeeper

[mach]

I still don't understand why we're giving any of this any attention...

 

But then again, I also fail to understand why anyone visits gaming review sites or why anyone needs a journalist to cover video games... With PC hardware, cars, cooking, frankly 1000 other things, I totally get it. There's a skill set involved, production values are important, etc.. But when it comes to games, the evaluation of which is almost purely subjective, why does anyone look at anything but user scores on metacritic and Amazon reviews?

 

Haven't we already known for YEARS that video game reviews are worthless?

 

Is that the point of all this? Are we hoping that making enough noise about this on the Internet will educate the slack-jawed CoD kiddies about something that should have already been common knowledge? If so, I guess I applaud the effort, but I wonder if anything can penetrate that particular sub-culture of folks...

Well Linus, I don't visit those sites but do watch game review videos before buying them. I am very picky on how I control the character in game. Sadly, it seems NO game makers mention this anymore. Bad control/ silly battle format are deal breakers for me. 

[Legion]

Two games with female protagonists. Bam! Equality for all. /s

 

Final Fantasy XIII, XIII-2 , X-2 , Bayonetta just off the top of my head.

 

 

Also its a kotaku link you know one of the perpetrators of the shit slinging avoid them link the plague..

 

 

 

Just seen this gem thanks lawlz for saving my hands from typing this list

 

I am not sure what logical fallacy that is, but it is one. You got to be fucking kidding me if you think those are the only two games with female protagonists. Here is a list of games I can think of right now by just looking at my game collection and from memory.

 

Tomb Raider series (already mentioned)

Portal (already mentioned)

The borderlands series

The Alice in Wonderland series.

Perfect Dark Zero

Alien Isolation

Baldur's Gate

Beyond Good & Evil

Giana Sisters series

Left 4 Dead

Lollipop Chansaw

Mirror's Edge

Remember Me

Wet

The Walking Dead series

The Resident Evil series

One or more of the Silent Hill games

Assassin's Creed III: Liberation

Slender: The Arrival

Some of the Star Wars games

Long Live the Queen

Hyperdimension Neptunia games

All the Touhou games

The Madoka Magica games

The Persona series

Fire Emblem series

Most if not all of the Final Fantasy games

Bayonetta 1 and 2

The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon (although I think it's best for everyone if we forget that)

Some of the Castlevania games

Some of the Super Mario games (including Super Mario 2, 3D World, Super Mario Strikers, the smash bro games and many more)

Senran Kagura series

Catwoman in one (or maybe more?) of the Batman game(s)

A lot of the Donkey Kong games

Metroid series

Soulcalibur

Streets of Rage series

Dead or Alive series

The Mortal Kombat series

The Dungeon Siege games

Commander Shepard

Fable 2 and 3.

Killer Instinct series

Skullgirls

The Diablo series

Torchlight 1 and 2

Trine series

Chrono Trigger

All Pokémon games since Crystal (I think)

 

And that's before I start listening games like the Elder scroll series, World of Warcraft, Dragon Age, Neverwinter Night series or Fallout etc where you can customize your character to be female.

 

And remember, this is just a list of games I can think of right now. I am sure there are many more out there.

[Recon97]

Stupid people. Stupid world. Stupid internet. Stupid culture. Stupid society.

EDIT: Stupid females. Long live computers! I dont want to be a human anymore. I want to just…. Just vanish from this universe.

[BallGum]

The whole thing started with people bashing Zoe Quinn for using sex for good reviews. I do agree that that's unethical, but mostly with the game journalists themselves.

I also think Zoe Quinn has done many wrong things, but calling her a slut and a whore is verbal and sexual harassment. Calling a group's actions sexist with examples is not an "ad hominem attack", it is criticising them for something that they evidently did. Hiding behind the claim that your opponents are using ad hominem attacks is cowardly.

Also, as a side note, I think that with the growing amount of women playing video games it would be appropriate for their to be an increase in non-sexualized female protagonists in games.

Her promiscuous behaviour was what highlighted the issue in gaming journalism (for many), and the GamerGate movement wanted major publications to stop this sort of behaviour from happening again.

Since then, more information has come out, including their sexual mailing list.

Calling someone sexist to devalue their argument is an instance of Ad Hominem. It descends to name calling and doesn't add anything to the argument and discussion at hand.

Personally, I feel like the three *separate* issues have been conflated. On one side there is the BS that Anita has been pulling. I feel that she has, for the most part, been refuted and she can be ignored entirely.

We then have Zoe Quinn, a downright despicable individual, but yet another person who can pretty much be ignored since we all know what she is.

Lastly, we have the corruption in the gaming media outlets. There isn't much you can do against this other than finding better outlets and boycotting the usage of sites like Polygon.

Bashing anyone for their sexual choices is harassment in my opinion. I don't think anyone should stick their nose in anyone else's business. I find it downright creepy that people spent their time digging into Quinn's sexual past.

I do agree it was unethical in terms of journalistic integrity, but it is up to the journalists to maintain that. People can have sexual relations with anyone they want, however many times they want, it does not devalue them as human beings.

Gamergate started with the harassment of a woman and continues to do so continuously, calling the supporters' actions sexist is very justified. Not every person is sexist if they agree with some aspects of Gamergate, but the overall series of events that has unfolded is very sexist.

Creepy? Sadly probably. But it needed to be done to find out whether or not she was telling the truth. Turns out she wasn't, and has pulled massively shady crap in the past. You can't dismiss this away by saying 'you shouldn't know that, it was creepy for you to check her past'.

The GamerGate movement is primarily about gaming journalism and nothing more (although it should die soon). It has descended to having to deal with 'SJWs' at times, but that doesn't diminish their real arguments at all.

Calling them sexist to belittle and reduce their argument is ad hominem.

[BallGum]

I guess for me to have any faith that this type of awareness campaign has any impact outside of the people who are already aware of it I would have had to see it work at least once in the past...

As far as I know people still buy Nike shoes and electronics made by, well, anyone so.... who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I've been subconsciously boycotting nike and similar manufacturers for years .

Luckily a lot of the gamers do spend time on the internet so maybe it would help out a little. Personally I think it's goal has been pretty much achieved, all that's left is to boycott the sites and ignore "feminists" (because feminism is a legitimate movement, while these individuals are con artists).

[Recon97]

That is why I never liked any women. Let this planet be women free.

Tbh, I am making this situation nasty.

[HippY]

The problem with both of the things, femisism and GamerGate (okay come on, can we came up with a better name? and no, if you saye Gamening, I just give up) from a core good thing ( get better chances for ladies and with the booming gamng industry let there be less corruption) became entirely different things

 

The problem is that both group want immediate action. But both process are more long term goals, and needs long term work do make them true, they cannot be hurried. But both group tries it with large radicality, and well, with small success. The problem with radical people is that they are moved away from the sensible option, and what we end up, is completely different thing than originally. Like giving women equal chances in the world as men ( and to be honest, it is a goal that we should work forward, and as far as I see, we do really well) being "let blame all the men" that has no effect, as it does not show the problem sensible (no one likes to being attacked out of nowhere) and not even a sensible solution (Most of the time they are just blaming, or they are suggesting too sudden changes)

 

Best would be leave this alone, as there will be no solution here, I assure you

[IdortMasterRace]

feminism =

 

women >>>>>>>>>>>>>> men

 

So much this.

 

I am an equalist, not a feminist.

[Majestic]

People like @Nineshadow @Recon97 @Psykomantis00 actually think they're funny or something?

[Majestic]

The real joke here is feminism. 

 

No you're definitely the joke here, by thinking hags like Anita Sarkeesian are feminists. 

 

There are plenty of cases in which there is a need of feminism, because actual wrongdoings are taking place. Like suppression/rape-cultures and that (for example) even in the west they're  still being payed less for the same job, only to mention a few.

This type of misandy, or in your case bigotry, is hazardous to the case of any justified form of feminism, and these comments of yours (or the gamergate mess for that matter) isn't helping.

 

Stop trying to be funny, and before partaking in these matters, have some actual understanding on these matters.

 

Also, /thread?

[The Gaige]

Here's what I think:

 

Women = Human

 

Men = Human 

 

Therefore Women = Men 

 

 

Any ?s

[Electrostatik]

Lots of high horses around here.  It's hard to avoid the horseshit

[Heisenbleurgh]

Point one. "sexism insensitive". I dont like this term as you can apply this to everyone and anyone who makes a joke. Saying that portraying women negatively is sexism insensitive is a bit silly when men are also shown to be dickheads, buffoons and scaredycats also. Women have also been showed to be strong in games as well as men.

There is a reason why games are more catered to men and show muscular men being the main character.... because men buy more games than women. They play more games than women. This is a hobby for more men than for women, this is why more males are represented and why more games feature a male character to play.

Yes, Representation can matter, but not in this case. Why? Because these characters don't represent ALL woman. These characters don't represent you as an individual. They don't represent reality. Women have been in games where they are strong powerful compared to men.

Why should game makers be sensitive to all people? Anyone can be offended by anything! Just play the games you like and don't cry about games that misrepresent your gender or don't hold to your ideals.

TLDR: Misrepresentation of people in fantasy stay in fantasy, people can see the difference between fantasy and reality and saying that it effects people socially in real life holds no grounds.

My two cents

The fact that it's a joke doesn't remove the stupid or outdated values it might be representing though. Just like "well that's just my opinion/thoughts" is thought to be some kind of get out of jail free card for racist or stupid opinions.

Again, if we go by percentages logic and say men are showcased because they spend more money on the games than women PC gamers have no right to ask for more options themselves since console gamers are the majority? See, everything is about majority until the people against it are not in the majority.

I'm not angry, but I'd like you or anyone else who reads this to understand that representation in different mediums is not a bad thing and not even something that has to ruin the current gaming culture. I can't help but feel but a big reason why men are the majority of gamers is because women have not had games marketed or designed in their favor at all. "That's a boy's toy" is such a common thing you hear at game shops, and consoles and video games have had that association for so long now that parents dismiss any girl's interest. Game developers don't need to make versions of bejeweled or a pink version of CoD, it's literally about having a skin on characters that represents them as their protagonist in their stories.

TLDR: If we say that representation isn't important then let's just use white male actors for every role in tv, movies, games, etc. Diversity is important and painting stereotypes is bad. Minorities have a place in the media besides women to be rescued, lazy latinos and thug black people. Gaming is not being destroyed, it's simply being tried to be appealing to more people and if you really think that's so bad then you're just being selfish about something that isn't even yours to begin with.

And there is choice. They just need to know where to look. Nobody's forcing them to consume the big AAA titles, nobody's forcing them to listen to the ads about the big AAA titles. Just like how people have little choice but to listen to environmental noise, the bombardment of advertising and articles is inescapable, but tolerable.

Sorry but "they need to know where to look" is a pathetic excuse that wouldn't hold ground in other scenarios. Good luck saying that to someone applying for a job. It's not about ads, it's as simple as wanting to play a game and have fun without being made fun of.

Is it that out of the question to want to play a specific AAA game where a minority feels even remotely connected to the character or characters? How is that jeopardizing in anyway the current gaming industry? Why are people so opposed to this? I genuinely don't know.

Most of the time it's as simple as allowing you to pick a character and adjusting the story ever so slightly for it to make sense. It's not about changing a whole catalog of games to be completely different and unrecognizable.

Everyone here is pissed beyond sense if developers get lazy and lock a game to 30fps but refuse to give a single care if developers get lazy and make the most generic characters and their roles in the game.

So much this.

I am an equalist, not a feminist.

FEMINISM IS ABOUT EQUALITY.

"Then why don't you call it equality?" you ask.

Well because it's women who've been the underdog this whole time. Seriously, it's not about raising women above men. It's about having them as equals. THEM. It's about women. Women's rights. The ones that needed them in the first place.

This is as bad as people who complain about there being no white history month or heterosexual pride parade. You're in luck! It's every other month and day of the year.

[LAwLz]

No you're definitely the joke here, by thinking hags like Anita Sarkeesian are feminists. 

 

There are plenty of cases in which there is a need of feminism, because actual wrongdoings are taking place. Like suppression/rape-cultures and that (for example) even in the west they're  still being payed less for the same job, only to mention a few.

This type of misandy, or in your case bigotry, is hazardous to the case of any justified form of feminism, and these comments of yours (or the gamergate mess for that matter) isn't helping.

 

Stop trying to be funny, and before partaking in these matters, have some actual understanding on these matters.

 

Also, /thread?

This is kind of off-topic but I just wanted to address it anyway.

 

Rape-culture don't exist (seriously, it just don't) and the wage gaps are actually far smaller than you can imagine. Rape has dramatically been decreasing and there is very harsh punishments dealt to offenders. You will have an extremely hard time fidning anyone who will say rape is okay and shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

The problem with almost every single "women earn less than men!" statistic is that they omit very crucial factors such as education, the actual job, the amount of overtime (men are twice as likely to work overtime as women), the time they take off fortaking care of children (which makes them miss out on valuable work experience), the risks involved in the jobs (92% of work related deaths are men) and so on.

In fact, when you take everything into consideration then we actually have very equal wages.

 

Here is a very effective thought experiment that disproves the idea that women get paid less for the exact same work. If that statement was true, wouldn't there be heavy discrimination towards hiring men? Companies have time and time again that they will do horrible things to maximize profit, and being able to reduce the amount of money paid to the workers would certainly be high on their list. If women really did get paid less for the exact same work, then companies would be able to reduce the salaries by ~23% by simply firing men and hiring women. But we don't see this happening.

 

If you want further reading then I recommend these two articles. One is from the American Association of University Women (a non-profit feminist organization) and the other is from the American Enterprise Institute in collaboration with an economics profession from the University of Michigan.

Huffington Post

The Wall Street Journal

[BallGum]

Honestly if were going to go into feminism and all, I think it is a noble thing. That's why it's insulting to feminists to hear Zoe and Anita being identified as such. They're in it for themselves.

Here's my view. We should get rid of gender stereotypes. It's a cultural thing that will take a long time since it's ingrained but once it does, we would pretty much have equality.

Eroding perceived gender norms would make a lot of people think "but that's a humanist perspective". Well... Yes and no. Women seem to need that more than men that's why we're focusing on that. Ultimately, eroding gender stereotypes would help both.

[Majestic]

This is kind of off-topic but I just wanted to address it anyway.

 

Rape-culture don't exist (seriously, it just don't) and the wage gaps are actually far smaller than you can imagine. Rape has dramatically been decreasing and there is very harsh punishments dealt to offenders. You will have an extremely hard time fidning anyone who will say rape is okay and shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

The problem with almost every single "women earn less than men!" statistic is that they omit very crucial factors such as education, the actual job, the amount of overtime (men are twice as likely to work overtime as women), the time they take off fortaking care of children (which makes them miss out on valuable work experience), the risks involved in the jobs (92% of work related deaths are men) and so on.

In fact, when you take everything into consideration then we actually have very equal wages.

 

Here is a very effective thought experiment that disproves the idea that women get paid less for the exact same work. If that statement was true, wouldn't there be heavy discrimination towards hiring men? Companies have time and time again that they will do horrible things to maximize profit, and being able to reduce the amount of money paid to the workers would certainly be high on their list. If women really did get paid less for the exact same work, then companies would be able to reduce the salaries by ~23% by simply firing men and hiring women. But we don't see this happening.

 

If you want further reading then I recommend these two articles. One is from the American Association of University Women (a non-profit feminist organization) and the other is from the American Enterprise Institute in collaboration with an economics profession from the University of Michigan.

Huffington Post

The Wall Street Journal

 

Interesting points, i will look into what you linked. You're right, they were perhaps bad examples, yet I did not mention to which extent or credible they were. They atleast have, in contrast to sarkeesians point, some merit to them and are atleast worth discussing. My point was in fact, as far as any actual issues go this isn't one of them. And ms. Sarkeesian is just making this issue up to make money, and in doing so decreases any form of feminism, should there ever be something like that required. It might also lead to companies jumping through hoops to be on the safe side of this non-argument. And we'd get these half-assed and forced options added to games that would otherwise not have female protagonists or development. Which wouldn't be new, since this is already done on a ethnic level.

 

On the rape-culture, I generally meant the disrespect towards them (Especially in the middle-east, Africa and regions like India there is plenty of supression, which might have increasing effects on assualts). Another example could be female circumcision. And on the subject of salary, the system isn't dynamic. The points you bring up are pretty subjective to profiling, and would not necessarily apply to all women. It should be up for much more sensible (no misandry or misandry) discussions or be more transpartent on your paycheck, especially since carreer women might not have kids.

[MF Patrick]

Next thing you know, this chick is going to whine about porn.

[Scionyde]

I think #StopHarassment or #StopDeathThreats would make a lot more sense. Because no, GamerGate does not automatically mean harassment. Lots of notable people in gaming culture have received harassment or threats long before GamerGate was a thing (such as TotalBiscuit, one of the more notable pro-GG figures). Ugliness on the internet has been around for a looooong time.

[DigitalHermit]

Sorry but "they need to know where to look" is a pathetic excuse that wouldn't hold ground in other scenarios. Good luck saying that to someone applying for a job. It's not about ads, it's as simple as wanting to play a game and have fun without being made fun of.

Is it that out of the question to want to play a specific AAA game where a minority feels even remotely connected to the character or characters? How is that jeopardizing in anyway the current gaming industry? Why are people so opposed to this? I genuinely don't know.

Most of the time it's as simple as allowing you to pick a character and adjusting the story ever so slightly for it to make sense. It's not about changing a whole catalog of games to be completely different and unrecognizable.

 

Everyone here is pissed beyond sense if developers get lazy and lock a game to 30fps but refuse to give a single care if developers get lazy and make the most generic characters and their roles in the game.

 

No it's not a pathetic excuse. Games have a certain target demographic, a certain theme, and a limited budget (at least, not in the case of AAA games). (and yes, that is what my university tells us when applying for a job).

 

The thing with AAA titles is that they have this certain narrative. Now the question that comes to mind immediately is "who are the characters?", right? The question that should be asked is "How is the player experiencing the narrative?" Is the player a key participant (i.e. Assassin's Creed), a witness (i.e. Wangan Midnight), or a minor participant (i.e. Left4Dead)? I do agree with the fact that AAA titles have this generic pool of characters within certain genres, however this does not mean that these are the only kinds of characters that exist within the titles. Take for example Tomb Raider (2013). When it comes to selecting a character, this option, I believe is reserved for more open genres of games (like RPGs, etc.). I do find that there is no excuse for writing a cookie-cutter story whose only merits are the action sequences (this needs to change) or for writing a game with a weak campaign.

 

Much like with books (a more traditional form of narrative), each has its target audience, and appropriate audience. Similar to how big Twilight became and how we are (or, at least, I am) not in the target audience, AAA games also have their target audience. If a content is not appropriate for a certain audience, it's marked. That's what the ESRB/CERO ratings are for.

 

As for jeopardizing the industry, I don't quite understand what you mean to say with this.

[Heisenbleurgh]

No it's not a pathetic excuse. Games have a certain target demographic, a certain theme, and a limited budget (at least, not in the case of AAA games). (and yes, that is what my university tells us when applying for a job).

 

The thing with AAA titles is that they have this certain narrative. Now the question that comes to mind immediately is "who are the characters?", right? The question that should be asked is "How is the player experiencing the narrative?" Is the player a key participant (i.e. Assassin's Creed), a witness (i.e. Wangan Midnight), or a minor participant (i.e. Left4Dead)? I do agree with the fact that AAA titles have this generic pool of characters within certain genres, however this does not mean that these are the only kinds of characters that exist within the titles. Take for example Tomb Raider (2013). When it comes to selecting a character, this option, I believe is reserved for more open genres of games (like RPGs, etc.). I do find that there is no excuse for writing a cookie-cutter story whose only merits are the action sequences (this needs to change) or for writing a game with a weak campaign.

 

Much like with books (a more traditional form of narrative), each has its target audience, and appropriate audience. Similar to how big Twilight became and how we are (or, at least, I am) not in the target audience, AAA games also have their target audience. If a content is not appropriate for a certain audience, it's marked. That's what the ESRB/CERO ratings are for.

 

As for jeopardizing the industry, I don't quite understand what you mean to say with this.

It's one thing to be told to look elsewhere when you're not qualified for a job, another to be told so just because of your sex. That is sexism and there's laws that state you can't be denied a job just based on your sex (at least in many countries, can't pretend to know the laws of all of them).

And it's more than just about who you play, but how you're representing characters in general. No, not every woman in a video game needs to a super genius independent badass just like not every woman in real life is, but having more diversity is good, it reflects real life and doesn't feel like you're constantly being pushed out of the picture or ridiculed.

 

What I meant about jeopardizing is that everyone seems to act like wanting character development and expansion is going to destroy gaming. I've seen so many people get personally offended over it, and I genuinely don't get it.

[DigitalHermit]

It's one thing to be told to look elsewhere when you're not qualified for a job, another to be told so just because of your sex. That is sexism and there's laws that state you can't be denied a job just based on your sex (at least in many countries, can't pretend to know the laws of all of them).

And it's more than just about who you play, but how you're representing characters in general. No, not every woman in a video game needs to a super genius independent badass just like not every woman in real life is, but having more diversity is good, it reflects real life and doesn't feel like you're constantly being pushed out of the picture or ridiculed.

 

What I meant about jeopardizing is that everyone seems to act like wanting character development and expansion is going to destroy gaming. I've seen so many people get personally offended over it, and I genuinely don't get it.

 

I do want character development if possible (the only reason why I prefer the modern CoD over Battlefield)... I never said anything about sex or gender since a person's preference is not restricted by those (imo)... People will always have their own opinion on things, and on other people... It's up to the person being targeted by criticism/ridicule on how to recieve it (unless the criticism/ridicule goes into cyber-bullying territory which is bad)...

 

I've personally experienced this since I'm almost campaigning for the recognition of Visual Novels as a form of literary art... And that genre is more known for erotic content than anything...

[EpicAdom]

Da fuq is gamergate?