Can we talk about 'Gamergate' ?

[FauxFurry]

 

Yeah everyone likes to say that it was ET that was the last straw lol.

 

1st rule:

You do not talk about E.T

 

2nd rule:

You do not talk about E.T.

 

3rd rule:

You do not talk about E.T

 

The Angry Video Game Nerd broke that rule thrice over and in the cinema where everyone (in the limited release screenings,anyway) could hear him,no less.

[Tessina]

Yeah everyone likes to say that it was ET that was the last straw lol.

 

 

*Shudder*

[Tessina]

 

 

Yeah everyone likes to say that it was ET that was the last straw lol.

 

1st rule:

You do not talk about E.T

 

2nd rule:

You do not talk about E.T.

 

3rd rule:

You do not talk about E.T

 

I used to own and play "the game that shall not be mentioned", I Haaaaaated it. Of course back then it was tanks, pong, or the....... forbidden game. 

 

 

Atari's Combat was one of the best games because you could be tanks, planes, or even play tank pong:P    And I will admit I owned the game that will never be named.. (I also considered it the movie that shall never be named only because when it hit VHS  EVERYONE had to play it over and over and over and .. well you get the point).

 

 

[Cynical Misanthrope]

 

I used to own and play "the game that shall not be mentioned", I Haaaaaated it. Of course back then it was tanks, pong, or the....... forbidden game. 

 

Ohh dear. How did you manage to overcome the psychical suffering that comes with it?

 

 

 

Atari's Combat was one of the best games because you could be tanks, planes, or even play tank pong:P    And I will admit I owned the game that will never be named.. (I also considered it the movie that shall never be named only because when it hit VHS  EVERYONE had to play it over and over and over and .. well you get the point).

 

 

 

Ohh my, VHS and (I wont even mention the letters).... I would had jumped from a high cliff asap!

[prideslayer]

A play in three acts.

 

Act I: "gaming journalists may be bought, sold, or otherwise corrupted."

Act II: "the consumer must do due diligence when making a decision."

Act III: "some people on the internet are jerks."

 

Some people seem to think that these three items are mutually exclusive. They are wrong.

Some people seem to think that Act I was newsworthy. They are also wrong.

Some people seem to think that Act II isn't their responsibility. Guess what? Wrong.

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with Act III. If so, well, you're so wrong it's astonishing.

[Chaos63]

A play in three acts.

 

Act I: "gaming journalists may be bought, sold, or otherwise corrupted."

Act II: "the consumer must do due diligence when making a decision."

Act III: "some people on the internet are jerks."

 

Some people seem to think that these three items are mutually exclusive. They are wrong.

Some people seem to think that Act I was newsworthy. They are also wrong.

Some people seem to think that Act II isn't their responsibility. Guess what? Wrong.

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with Act III. If so, well, you're so wrong it's astonishing.

 

I would also wonder what exactly does "gaming journalist" entail. Does it include that fat fuck on youtube with a livejournal who does reviews and has a couple hundred thousand subscribers, or is the title only reserved to people who have some sort of licence and are on the take from giants like EA?

It's kinda hard to figure who's genuine when something as simple as giving an opinion on a video game starts getting called a "profession".

 

[prideslayer]

Reviewers are not journalists, they are critics.

 

Journalists cover news, current events, etc. No license required, but simply editorializing or criticizing does not make one a journalist.

[FauxFurry]

 

A play in three acts.

 

Act I: "gaming journalists may be bought, sold, or otherwise corrupted."

Act II: "the consumer must do due diligence when making a decision."

Act III: "some people on the internet are jerks."

 

Some people seem to think that these three items are mutually exclusive. They are wrong.

Some people seem to think that Act I was newsworthy. They are also wrong.

Some people seem to think that Act II isn't their responsibility. Guess what? Wrong.

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with Act III. If so, well, you're so wrong it's astonishing.

 

I would also wonder what exactly does "gaming journalist" entail. Does it include that fat fuck on youtube with a livejournal who does reviews and has a couple hundred thousand subscribers, or is the title only reserved to people who have some sort of licence and are on the take from giants like EA?

It's kinda hard to figure who's genuine when something as simple as giving an opinion on a video game starts getting called a "profession".

 

Rich from ReviewTechUSA saves everyone the trouble of figuring out whether or not he counts as a games journalist by telling everyone outright that he most assuredly is not.

http://youtu.be/L-QkcftwYGY

Way back before this groundswell began,websites such as Destructoid and GamesRadar made it clear that their staffers were only gaming bloggers,not journalists,but when faced with scrutiny and when their credibility is impugned,then they did occasionally go into 'professional journalist' mode.

 

Games Journalist was a phrase that applied to the employees of old school gaming magazines but the distinction was lost when the Blogosphere sprang into being,professional gaming sites started hiring Youtube gaming personalities without journalism degrees (such as Yahtzee and Jim Sterling) and games magazines began their complete decline from prominence.

[prideslayer]

and games magazines began their complete decline from prominence.

They were prominent at one point?

 

I remember Nintendo Power being "prominent" when I was 12 or 13 years old. Otherwise the gamestop magazine is the only one I've even heard of.

[FauxFurry]

 

and games magazines began their complete decline from prominence.

They were prominent at one point?

 

I remember Nintendo Power being "prominent" when I was 12 or 13 years old. Otherwise the gamestop magazine is the only one I've even heard of.

 

Yes,in the period spanning from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s,which is to say that some of the people posting on this site hadn't even been born yet when they were still the primary source of gaming news and their reviews influenced the fortunes of video game publishers around the world (by which I really mean North America,Japan and maybe the UK and even that might be exaggerating things a bit).

[prideslayer]

 

 

and games magazines began their complete decline from prominence.

They were prominent at one point?

 

I remember Nintendo Power being "prominent" when I was 12 or 13 years old. Otherwise the gamestop magazine is the only one I've even heard of.

 

Yes,in the period spanning from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s,which is to say that some of the people posting on this site hadn't even been born yet when they were still the primary source of gaming news and their reviews influenced the fortunes of video game publishers around the world (by which I really mean North America,Japan and maybe the UK and even that might be exaggerating things a bit).

 

There's a huge gap in time between then, and the rise of bloggers (especially video bloggers) you cited as responsible for the downturn.

 

During that era, I got my information from the boxes in the stores, friends, and BBSes. I honestly cannot remember a single "gaming magazine" from that time period, and I've been a member of the PC master race for gaming since the IBM PC XT.

 

I can still remember playing planetfall and Arctic Fox on an Apple ][, SuperHuey on a C64 (or 128, I forget).. LHX, Wing Commander, and F-15 Strike Eagle II on my 286, etc. I can still "see" the Stellar 7 box proudly proclaiming that all the images on the box were of "actual gameplay."

[FauxFurry]

 

 

 

and games magazines began their complete decline from prominence.

They were prominent at one point?

 

I remember Nintendo Power being "prominent" when I was 12 or 13 years old. Otherwise the gamestop magazine is the only one I've even heard of.

 

Yes,in the period spanning from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s,which is to say that some of the people posting on this site hadn't even been born yet when they were still the primary source of gaming news and their reviews influenced the fortunes of video game publishers around the world (by which I really mean North America,Japan and maybe the UK and even that might be exaggerating things a bit).

 

There's a huge gap in time between then, and the rise of bloggers (especially video bloggers) you cited as responsible for the downturn.

 

During that era, I got my information from the boxes in the stores, friends, and BBSes. I honestly cannot remember a single "gaming magazine" from that time period, and I've been a member of the PC master race for gaming since the IBM PC XT.

 

I can still remember playing planetfall and Arctic Fox on an Apple ][, SuperHuey on a C64 (or 128, I forget).. LHX, Wing Commander, and F-15 Strike Eagle II on my 286, etc. I can still "see" the Stellar 7 box proudly proclaiming that all the images on the box were of "actual gameplay."

 

When BBSes, GameFAQs and other forms of peer-to-peer online video game information sharing systems came into being,it started the process of erosion of the influence of professional outlets but it wasn't an immediate decline since most video games enthusiasts didn't have PCs let alone an internet connection.

 

Those online bulletin boards ate into the sales of those magazines but wasn't as large a threat to them as game bloggers and vloggers are to mainstream game review websites now or as the proper game review sites themselves were to print magazines.

 

This all makes me think of how video killed the radio star then internet killed the video star.

 

One can be quite sure that most folks these days would have no idea who the likes of Major Mike or Sushi-X are but way back when,they were minor celebrities among game criticdom (even though Sushi-X was actually a fictional character played by a variety of game critics).

 

More importantly when it comes to PC gaming,gaming magaines were never a factor in PC games sales. There was Computers and Videogames magazine which game rise to the site CVG but that was definitely a niche within a niche even in its 'prime'.

[Nergui]

There was PC Gamer magazine (now a web publisher) which has been around since the mid 1990s. Although they kind of ran afoul of #GamerGate, although no where near as badly as other sites.

[xarathos]

IMHO:

 

Games "journalists"/critics/etc, are rapidly becoming obsolete. Most of the people I know make their game buying decisions based on the word of YouTubers, let's players, or other people who clearly qualify as, well, GAMERS.

 

While game journalists/critics are increasingly sounding like my parents, grand parents, pastors, etc. Uninformed, out of touch, increasingly inaccurate, demanding attention and clinging desperately to relevance by moralizing about things they don't really understand. They want to be 'mature' critics, so they're repeating the exact same kinds of attacks on the medium that EVERY form of entertainment has faced since before the invention of the playing card. Never mind that it's all been proven false over and over again; nope, scare tactics. They're not writing for their audience, they're writing for, frankly, our parents, who mostly don't care enough to read their crap. Or, I guess in some cases (if you'll forgive the generalization) tumblr users - read 'impressionable young people who think the world is out to get them.'

 

We've been abandoning them in favor of literally ANYTHING that presents as pro-consumer, and they're playing the part of abusive ex FANTASTICALLY. "Pay attention to me, you need me, you need me to tell you what a horrible person you are, stop enjoying yourself, how dare you like this you should be liking what i tell you to like. Stop modding your Skyrim to have more boobs don't you know it's wrong to think boobs are sexy."

 

Yawn. It was boring when my pastor was saying it, guys. It's not any more reasonable coming from gaeme juernalizm.

 

The collusion and stuff is important mainly because these are people who are trying desperately to claim a position as moral authority, and it's one they're fundamentally unsuited to hold.

 

Can I claim that authority? Hell no, but I don't pretend to have it either.

 

I'm gonna be annoyed whenever anyone with a loud megaphone refuses to be disagreed with, basically. And that's all they are. There's no POINT to them except to whip people into frothing frenzies, and we don't need that - we need someone who'll tell us if a company is trying to trick us out of our limited cash reserves, and we can get that pretty much anywhere.

 

If game critics/journalists/whatever can be fixed, let them be fixed. If not, it's time for them to go away and let something USEFUL take their place.

[prideslayer]

When BBSes, GameFAQs and other forms of peer-to-peer online video game information sharing systems came into being,it started the process of erosion of the influence of professional outlets but it wasn't an immediate decline since most video games enthusiasts didn't have PCs let alone an internet connection.

I went and did some digging because I still could not remember a single one of these rags to save my life. Game Informer, EGM, CGW. I vaguely remember those names now that I went digging for them, but I can't remember a single personality, article, or review from any of them.

 

Suggesting any of them were truly influential in affecting gamer opinions (and thus game sales) is really a stretch considering how little exposure they actually had (or have); according to vgsales, only GI has broken 1M subscribers, and I'm sure many of those subscriptions are 'accidents' just like mine was.

 

In 1993, AOL alone had more subscribers than most of the video game magazines did, and plenty of them were gamers, though I suspect this may just dive back into a "what makes a gamer" or, to use your words, "video game enthusiast" argument.

 

One can be quite sure that most folks these days would have no idea who the likes of Major Mike or Sushi-X are

Count me among that group. No clue.

 

This tells me that they were even more "minor" of celebrities than you consider them to be, since I've been an avid gamer since the Atari 2600. I've owned almost every home game console since the telegames Pong console, as well as computer games on everything from the VIC-20 to present.

 

In all that time, over all those consoles and computers, I've never bought a "video game" magazine at a newsstand or bookstore, and only (intentionally) subscribed to one -- which was a blatant advertising rag. I don't believe I'm unique or even in a minority there. I'd bet money that most PC and console gamers now, and in the past, did not buy or subscribe to any of these magazines and don't regularly visit review sites or youtube channels today.

 

That leaves just falling back on the "real" gamer or "hardcore" gamer trope, which is weak on its face. A "hardcore gamer" is presumably the person least likely to need a game review to help them make up their mind.

[GrimReaper]

IMHO:

 

Games "journalists"/critics/etc, are rapidly becoming obsolete. Most of the people I know make their game buying decisions based on the word of YouTubers, let's players, or other people who clearly qualify as, well, GAMERS.

 

Yeah.

 

http://kotaku.com/the-messy-story-behind-youtubers-taking-money-for-game-1644092214

[xarathos]

There's a reason why my list of youtubers is short, but IMHO if someone is paid to review something, they should say so, period. Especially today, when it's impossible to keep something like that hidden for more than a month or so, and the second you're caught doing it ONCE your credibility vanishes FOREVER.

 

The point still stands; I'm a gamer. I want to know what other gamers think of something, and more specifically gamers who enjoy the kinds of things I find enjoyable. I'm going to look for someone who tends to evaluate things based on the standards I value, like "fun," "modular," etc. It's easier to find people like that on YouTube or, heck, forums like this one.

 

And of course I'm looking for consistency and a certain amount of honesty, because once somebody sells out to the PR people they're no more useful than reading the back of the box is.

[FauxFurry]

 

When BBSes, GameFAQs and other forms of peer-to-peer online video game information sharing systems came into being,it started the process of erosion of the influence of professional outlets but it wasn't an immediate decline since most video games enthusiasts didn't have PCs let alone an internet connection.

I went and did some digging because I still could not remember a single one of these rags to save my life. Game Informer, EGM, CGW. I vaguely remember those names now that I went digging for them, but I can't remember a single personality, article, or review from any of them.

 

Suggesting any of them were truly influential in affecting gamer opinions (and thus game sales) is really a stretch considering how little exposure they actually had (or have); according to vgsales, only GI has broken 1M subscribers, and I'm sure many of those subscriptions are 'accidents' just like mine was.

 

In 1993, AOL alone had more subscribers than most of the video game magazines did, and plenty of them were gamers, though I suspect this may just dive back into a "what makes a gamer" or, to use your words, "video game enthusiast" argument.

 

One can be quite sure that most folks these days would have no idea who the likes of Major Mike or Sushi-X are

Count me among that group. No clue.

 

This tells me that they were even more "minor" of celebrities than you consider them to be, since I've been an avid gamer since the Atari 2600. I've owned almost every home game console since the telegames Pong console, as well as computer games on everything from the VIC-20 to present.

 

In all that time, over all those consoles and computers, I've never bought a "video game" magazine at a newsstand or bookstore, and only (intentionally) subscribed to one -- which was a blatant advertising rag. I don't believe I'm unique or even in a minority there. I'd bet money that most PC and console gamers now, and in the past, did not buy or subscribe to any of these magazines and don't regularly visit review sites or youtube channels today.

 

That leaves just falling back on the "real" gamer or "hardcore" gamer trope, which is weak on its face. A "hardcore gamer" is presumably the person least likely to need a game review to help them make up their mind.

 

The more closely one examines the professional games review racket in its entirety,the less it looks like a great white shark and the more it looks like a puffer fish. It looks big and imposing but if one pokes it hard enough,letting out all of the hot air, all one is left with is skin,bones and gristle.

[prideslayer]

The more closely one examines the professional games review racket in its entirety,the less it looks like a great white shark and the more it looks like a puffer fish. It looks big and imposing but if one pokes it hard enough,letting out all of the hot air, all one is left with is skin,bones and gristle.

I suppose. I never saw it as a shark. Or a puffer. A seahorse maybe. Cute, but utterly useless.

[Guest corespore]

 

 

 

[prideslayer]

See, now that's not even cute!

[Cynical Misanthrope]

 

I suppose. I never saw it as a shark. Or a puffer. A seahorse maybe. Cute, but utterly useless.

 

 

Actually, they aren't that useless. Some has adapted very well and use camouflage when they stalking their prey

 

[Guest corespore]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-kJuTbWGKQ

 

 

Look at the date on the second one, 2009, so yeah, this has been going on for sometime. 

 

 

 

 

And this is from back in January

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

The Gamergate phenomenon has been a point of interest for me for a long time. And for my fellow Tumblrites in the house, yes, I am a white, cis, hetero "shit-lord". I've been following this shit for a while, and there are things that have happened that made me re-evaluate my stance a few times. But as it stands? I am for GG, but def against the harassment some have enacted. I understand that every movement of any kind will attract fuckwits who want to co-opt their own message or bile into it, but the same can be said for the SJW side as well. Anyone worth their salt has looked at the harassment and said to themselves "This is bullshit". And both sides need to disown the hateful element each possesses if there's ever going to be a reconciliation.

 

On the point of women being harassed in online games? Not going to deny that it happens. I've never partaken in it myself, and I've always found it very rude and distasteful when I saw/heard others engage in it. But in my experience gaming online (and I've gamed online in SEVERAL different games and genres) its rather uncommon, even rare, that it happens. I admit I probably don't see it much because, admittedly, I'm not female. But when I asked my female friends about it, they've all reported roughly the same thing. There's a few lobbies and games that have been really unbearable, but most of them have been completely fine. They said the most common "harassment" they got was the deluge of friend requests when their gender became known. And that in their opinion, either was easily solved with deletion/blocking of the offending parties.

 

As for women being treated as damsels in distress, or helpless, that may be an old trope, but I've noticed it's been falling by the wayside ias time goes on, and in fact has been trending towards the better in recent years, long before GG was even a thing. More and more games are coming out where a woman is depicted in a very strong, capable light, and more and more we're seeing female protagonists. So to me the accusations that women are only ever treated as damsels in distress rings hollow.

 

There are so many things I want to discuss, but honestly, I'm feeling tired as of this post, and in no mood to expound any further on the subject. Regardless of other's personal stances on the matter, I am happy to see people discussing this in a (mostly) mature manner and not flinging scathing insults at one another as is so common on other places like Twitter.

[Guest]

 

 

 

One can be quite sure that most folks these days would have no idea who the likes of Major Mike or Sushi-X are

Count me among that group. No clue.

 

This tells me that they were even more "minor" of celebrities than you consider them to be, since I've been an avid gamer since the Atari 2600. I've owned almost every home game console since the telegames Pong console, as well as computer games on everything from the VIC-20 to present.

 

In all that time, over all those consoles and computers, I've never bought a "video game" magazine at a newsstand or bookstore, and only (intentionally) subscribed to one -- which was a blatant advertising rag. I don't believe I'm unique or even in a minority there. I'd bet money that most PC and console gamers now, and in the past, did not buy or subscribe to any of these magazines and don't regularly visit review sites or youtube channels today.

 

That leaves just falling back on the "real" gamer or "hardcore" gamer trope, which is weak on its face. A "hardcore gamer" is presumably the person least likely to need a game review to help them make up their mind.

 

Thats definitely not the case in the UK, there was a time when the videogame magazine thing was quite a big deal.You could go into a newsagents like WHSmith's and they'd have a whole shelf groaning under the weight of them. So many folks would stand around reading but not buying that they started sealing them in polythene. Actually, there were more magazines dedicated to videogames than there were cinema, music or any other mainstream pursuit other than wanking. 

 

I don't think many folks do give professional reviewers the final word, most of us are just interested in hearing what others are saying about something. I don't think I've ever purchases a game on recommendation from a reviewer, but I have avoided a few that got panned by them over the years. They serve a purpose.