Can we talk about 'Gamergate' ?

[pinky6225]

 

 

 

Oh ok so simple fact playing of damn sapper on coffee brake make you fucking gamer. Comparing people invested in their hobby with "casual" is retarded if you ask me. Hobbist spend money on their hobby and they are main target. Investing time and money make you gamer not fucking fact of playing farmvile.

 

 

 

You seem to give a lot of fucks, quite literally. lel

 

A gamer is someone who plays video games. That's it. There are more sub-groups inside that main-group (casual gamers, pro gamers, core gamers etc) but there simply are no 'real' or 'false' gamers. You have a definition of what a gamer is (plays video games) and if you fulfill the prerequisite (playing games) you are a gamer.

 

The only valid differentiation here is defining sub groups. To fit in those sub groups you have more prerequisites that you need to meet. For example, a hardcore gamer is someone who spends alot of time and money for gaming. If you play video games and spend a lot of time and money on gaming, you are a hardcore gamer. If you don't, you are not. Again, this is a no true scotsman fallacy, look it up if you don't believe me.

 

 

If "gamer" means anyone who has ever at somepoint in their life touched a video game then its a rather meaningless definition as it applies to pretty much every single person

 

[windpl]

 

 

 

Oh ok so simple fact playing of damn sapper on coffee brake make you fucking gamer. Comparing people invested in their hobby with "casual" is retarded if you ask me. Hobbist spend money on their hobby and they are main target. Investing time and money make you gamer not fucking fact of playing farmvile.

 

 

 

You seem to give a lot of fucks, quite literally. lel

 

A gamer is someone who plays video games. That's it. There are more sub-groups inside that main-group (casual gamers, pro gamers, core gamers etc) but there simply are no 'real' or 'false' gamers. You have a definition of what a gamer is (plays video games) and if you fulfill the prerequisite (playing games) you are a gamer.

 

The only valid differentiation here is defining sub groups. To fit in those sub groups you have more prerequisites that you need to meet. For example, a hardcore gamer is someone who spends alot of time and money for gaming. If you play video games and spend a lot of time and money on gaming, you are a hardcore gamer. If you don't, you are not. Again, this is a no true scotsman fallacy, look it up if you don't believe me.

 

 

Yea I'm starting to be bit a little repetitive but fuck that ;p

 

Sorry but I refuse to believe that merely fact of doing something makes you invested in that. For example lets take my Mom. If given a chance she will play fuck of any game that I'll give her (if it is her area of interest) but on my own system - she do not, own any and she don't want to or do not have need to own any. She is using opportunity she is given and for sure she wouldn't call herself a gamer (but she is close to it). Same as you would be invated to play football match with people that do that by regular basic, you would call yourself a football fan. That's it.

 

[DoctaSax]

We're all gamers, except people who make a big deal out of calling themselves that. Those are posers.

 

Been following this thread, and I still wouldn't know what to tell people this gamergate thing is about. This tells me it's about fuck all of any importance.

[Guest corespore]

We're all gamers, except people who make a big deal out of calling themselves that. Those are posers.

 

Been following this thread, and I still wouldn't know what to tell people this gamergate thing is about. This tells me it's about fuck all of any importance.

Actually, this does matter. The occupy wall street movement, Atheism plus. Look at what these psychotic SJW's do to everything they touch, they utterly destroy it.

If they get to have say over what games get made in the future what sort of games do you think will be made? You can kiss and new version of Fallout and Elder-Scrolls goodbye. And this very site, do you really think if people like Anita have public say over if these kind of sites are allowed we will be here anymore? 

 

[DoctaSax]

Now, now, the only people that have a say over which games get made are accountants.

This site... some people don't like us, that's nothing new. And we're still here. If we're ever not, we'll end up someplace else. Game porn is a movement too, can't stop that.

[Guest carywinton]

Gee I wonder if http://gamerleaks.com is available as a domain for purchase, I see a great enterprise for that site based on what I have seen in this topic..

[RitualClarity]

Reality check: actual gamers don't give a shit about any of this. Most folks who sign off on this are those two-hours-a-week types.

Owning a motorcycle doesn't make you a biker, voting doesn't make you a politician, and finishing Super Mario doesn't make you a gamer. Period.

 

 

 

One of my friends girlfriends used considers herself a gamer because of farmville.

 

I remember there was this report recently that said women are now the biggest gamer demographic. I thought it was a little suspicious, then I found out they consider a "gamer" anyone who plays candy crush or that kim kardashian "game". That was just depressing.

 

LOL

 

What I am doing.....

[GrimReaper]

 

 

If "gamer" means anyone who has ever at somepoint in their life touched a video game then its a rather meaningless definition as it applies to pretty much every single person

 

 

 

A person that plays video games, not has played.

[Yami X]

 

What I don't get about Gamergate is if the movement is concerned about games journalism ethics then why bother with Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn at all? And why run Jenn Frank out of games journalism?

 

You're under the assumption that this is really about ethics in gaming journalism like they keep saying?

 

 

 

Spoken like someone that has utterly no idea what they're talking about.

 

Reality check: actual gamers don't give a shit about any of this. Most folks who sign off on this are those two-hours-a-week types.

Owning a motorcycle doesn't make you a biker, voting doesn't make you a politician, and finishing Super Mario doesn't make you a gamer. Period.

lol

 

Actual gamers should give a damn about all of this because at the end of the day if you don't and just let people who don't give a single shit about the hobby pull a fast one you're fucked period.

[GrimReaper]

Publishers and developers only understand the language of money. They produce what sells, if violence and sex sells, they will continue to do so. No company would produce a politcal correct product if that means they have to give up a part of the market for others to capitalize on. No amount of Anita Sarkeesians will change that. It's like when people said violence in games is bad for you, do we have less violent games now? Nah.

[Kendo 2]

Actually, this does matter. The occupy wall street movement, Atheism plus. Look at what these psychotic SJW's do to everything they touch, they utterly destroy it.

If they get to have say over what games get made in the future what sort of games do you think will be made? You can kiss and new version of Fallout and Elder-Scrolls goodbye. And this very site, do you really think if people like Anita have public say over if these kind of sites are allowed we will be here anymore? 

I agree with you to a point.  SJW hypocrites can and will sabotage something if they can, like those girls who infested the recent ComicCon.  They'll manufacture a controversy and then wage war; that is what they do.  The 'woman takes 10hr walk in New York' video bullshit is a prime example.  'Let's fabricate a cause to prove our neurotic worth.'  That's what I think when I see SJWs in action.

 

I doubt the video game industry will buckle under the weight of people like that douche Anita.  I can promise you that the bean counters and suits in game companies know about gamergate, the fringe fem-nazi element and all the BS associated with what's going on.  In the connected society we live in there is no way they wouldn't know.  It boils down to the dollars they can make off of gamers.  If a game sucks no one will buy it, no matter what these self -proclaimed game review sites think or say; or who they align themselves with.  If I'm a GOW fan I'm going to buy the next release, regardless of what a 'game reviewer' has to say about it.

 

Gaming is a big industry over and above the games themselves.  People buy new computers, update operating systems, buy new (and expensive) video cards. etc. all for the sake of playing games.  If there is one kink in that system it will be a problem for BIG corporations and they won't tolerate that.

 

The backlash of what Anita and others have done is already hitting home for the game rags that backed them and their stupidity.

[pinky6225]

 

 

 

If "gamer" means anyone who has ever at somepoint in their life touched a video game then its a rather meaningless definition as it applies to pretty much every single person

 

 

 

A person that plays video games, not has played.

 

 

Seems to me i'm able to type those two words together and they make sense and the world doesn't explode so i think has played is fine.

 

The point still stands if you make a definition so broad that it doesn't actually define anything anymore then its not a very good definition (by very good i'm being polite)

 

[Emberheart]

Publishers and developers only understand the language of money. They produce what sells, if violence and sex sells, they will continue to do so. No company would produce a politcal correct product if that means they have to give up a part of the market for others to capitalize on. No amount of Anita Sarkeesians will change that. It's like when people said violence in games is bad for you, do we have less violent games now? Nah.

No, developers have to produce what they know they can finish and release, often a publisher or financier may presure them with deadlines or demanding a change in context. Developers have their hands tied and within that limitation they are creative. You do not understand what a developer does.

 

The movie Iron Sky wanted to be a serious sci-fi about Nazi's on the moon, with Disney as both financier and publisher stating they do not want to be linked to a serious sci-fi about moon Nazi's. They demanded Johanna Sinisalo would rewrite the movie is a dark comedy to lighten it up. Timo Vuorensola had to agree, or he'd not get the funding and his movie would not release. The games industry behaves simularly sometimes. Only when you have a succesful studio and people'll be certain you'll sell your games on popularity alone, can you make what you want and do what you want, such as with the Rockstar Games studio in NYC.

 

That's why indie games make the tripple A market feel threatened. The tools to make games become readily more available and indie devs are coming closer and closer to making games of tripple A quality. This means indie devs have greater control over what game they make and publishers and financiers can apply less presure. The era of indie games only looking like a second hand mod for a game is ending fast. Small game studios that are somewhat of a hybrid between indie and professional are evidence of that. But devs make game to have a story to tell, much like movie writers and directors want to tell a story. Steven Spielberg doesn't say "hrmm what makes the most money, aliens, oh lets make E.T. just for the cash" either.

[GrimReaper]

 

 

Seems to me i'm able to type those two words together and they make sense and the world doesn't explode so i think has played is fine.

 

The point still stands if you make a definition so broad that it doesn't actually define anything anymore then its not a very good definition (by very good i'm being polite)

 

 

 

A person that plays video games = a person who has a habit of playing video games. Means it's an ongoing process.

 

A person that has played video games = a person that tried video games or has played them in the past but for whatever reason doesn't do that anymore.

 

As you can see, the term 'gamer' applies to everyone that plays video games. Not everyone that has touched a game once in their life time. To make the whole deal more specific, you can divide into core, casuals, pro or whathaveyou gamers. Either you are a gamer or you aren't.

 

 

 

No, developers have to produce what they know they can finish and release, often a publisher may presure them with deadlines. Developers have their hands tied and within that limitation they are creative. You do not understand what a developer does.

 

That's why indie games make the tripple A market feel threatened. The tools to make games become readily more available and indie devs are coming closer and closer to making games of tripple A quality. This means indie devs have greater control over what game they make and publishers and financiers can apply less presure. The era of indie games only looking like a second hand mod for a game is ending fast. Small game studios that are somewhat of a hybrid between indie and professional are evidence of that.

 

 

And that's why 99% of all indie games are the clone of a popular concept? I mean, how many indie-retro style-puzzle-platformer-tower defense games are out there? Or how many super-sandbox-survival-early-access titles? If indie developers have proven anything it's that publishers do not kill the creative spirit of the developers. Most simply don't seem to have one, I'm afraid. Just look at the steam shop and search for indie, it's like the same game over and over again in different colors.

[Tessina]

 

Reality check: actual gamers don't give a shit about any of this. Most folks who sign off on this are those two-hours-a-week types.

Owning a motorcycle doesn't make you a biker, voting doesn't make you a politician, and finishing Super Mario doesn't make you a gamer. Period.

Having a blog also doesn't make you a journalist.. legal definitions notwithstanding.

 

I'm pickin' up what you're layin' down.

 

Also I own two sportbikes, and ride year round. Trying to sell one of 'em, tough this time of year because so many pansies stop riding as soon as the leaves start changing color or the temperature is below 70.

 

 

Miss my bike, but alas because of my leg I can no longer support a bike at stops or pick one up if I happen to tumble over, so my days of riding are done.   But I was also dumb enough when I was younger to ride through mountains in the middle of the night in January.. so maybe a wise thing that I don't ride anymore

[prideslayer]

 

 

Reality check: actual gamers don't give a shit about any of this. Most folks who sign off on this are those two-hours-a-week types.

Owning a motorcycle doesn't make you a biker, voting doesn't make you a politician, and finishing Super Mario doesn't make you a gamer. Period.

Having a blog also doesn't make you a journalist.. legal definitions notwithstanding.

 

I'm pickin' up what you're layin' down.

 

Also I own two sportbikes, and ride year round. Trying to sell one of 'em, tough this time of year because so many pansies stop riding as soon as the leaves start changing color or the temperature is below 70.

 

 

Miss my bike, but alas because of my leg I can no longer support a bike at stops or pick one up if I happen to tumble over, so my days of riding are done.   But I was also dumb enough when I was younger to ride through mountains in the middle of the night in January.. so maybe a wise thing that I don't ride anymore

 

You can always get a trike or sidecar rig!

[Emberheart]

 

 

 

Seems to me i'm able to type those two words together and they make sense and the world doesn't explode so i think has played is fine.

 

The point still stands if you make a definition so broad that it doesn't actually define anything anymore then its not a very good definition (by very good i'm being polite)

 

 

 

A person that plays video games = a person who has a habit of playing video games. Means it's an ongoing process.

 

A person that has played video games = a person that tried video games or has played them in the past but for whatever reason doesn't do that anymore.

 

As you can see, the term 'gamer' applies to everyone that plays video games. Not everyone that has touched a game once in their life time. To make the whole deal more specific, you can divide into core, casuals, pro or whathaveyou gamers. Either you are a gamer or you aren't.

 

 

 

No, developers have to produce what they know they can finish and release, often a publisher may presure them with deadlines. Developers have their hands tied and within that limitation they are creative. You do not understand what a developer does.

 

That's why indie games make the tripple A market feel threatened. The tools to make games become readily more available and indie devs are coming closer and closer to making games of tripple A quality. This means indie devs have greater control over what game they make and publishers and financiers can apply less presure. The era of indie games only looking like a second hand mod for a game is ending fast. Small game studios that are somewhat of a hybrid between indie and professional are evidence of that.

 

 

And that's why 99% of all indie games are the clone of a popular concept? I mean, how many indie-retro style-puzzle-platformer-tower defense games are out there? Or how many super-sandbox-survival-early-access titles? If indie developers have proven anything it's that publishers do not kill the creative spirit of the developers. Most simply don't seem to have one, I'm afraid. Just look at the steam shop and search for indie, it's like the same game over and over again in different colors.

 

 

You're just ranting now, unsubstantiated without any sort of empirical evidence. Not every developer is talented, that doesn't mean all developers are untalented. If a tripple A company makes bad games, they'll bust and thus they cancel a game before release. There's often a marketing or research division which alone surveys if a game will or will not succeed. But when indies make bad games, they often have the luxury due to low expanses to release their game anyway. If an indie company fails, they just don't make another game and disappear from public view, devs start anew with different people, with a new company name. If an indie company is succesful, they sooner or later find themselves grown into a fully fledged company and people don't count them amongst the successful indies anymore, having outgrown the term indie. A lot of succesful game companies started in a garage or single rented office space with a tight group of friends, before growing into multi-million entertainment businesses.

 

Steam is a bad example to judge indie games from. Steam is to games what Amazon.com is to books. Go look at how many conspiracy fluff books you can find there. Are they a solid example representing all young, starting and unestablished writers? No.

[Derpakiin]

I think Gamergate is a massive joke.

 

It's a bunch of people who are incapable of making their own opinions on their video game purchases, so they become overly reliant on journalists to make the opinions for them. Then get butthurt that they got shafted into buying a game they didn't like.

 

I've tried reasoning with them that a completely impartial media outlet doesn't exist in the real world and that everyone has to do their own research and fact-checking. Looking up the information on your own is the best way to make an informed purchasing decision.

 

Almost all of Gamergate are very against developing this basic life skill because it imparts some sort of personal responsibility on them when they buy games. They prefer to blame everyone around them instead of themselves for their own shortcomings. As I see it, that makes them no different to SJWs.

To me, if they can get fooled into buying a game they don't like, they are no different than the gullible fools who microwave their iPhones after seeing that fake Apple Wave promo. Read your shit up or look for other sources. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of independent reviewers on Youtube and on other sites who review games in their free time but Gamergate gamers somehow ignore them.

 

This movement looks more like a cover for certain individuals to anonymously harass people and quickly shrink away responsibility when confronted about it using the 'no true Scotsman' routine.

[windpl]

I think Gamergate is a massive joke.

 

It's a bunch of people who are incapable of making their own opinions on their video game purchases, so they become overly reliant on journalists to make the opinions for them. Then get butthurt that they got shafted into buying a game they didn't like.

 

I've tried reasoning with them that a completely impartial media outlet doesn't exist in the real world and that everyone has to do their own research and fact-checking. Looking up the information on your own is the best way to make an informed purchasing decision.

 

Almost all of Gamergate are very against developing this basic life skill because it imparts some sort of personal responsibility on them when they buy games. They prefer to blame everyone around them instead of themselves for their own shortcomings. As I see it, that makes them no different to SJWs.

To me, if they can get fooled into buying a game they don't like, they are no different than the gullible fools who microwave their iPhones after seeing that fake Apple Wave promo. Read your shit up or look for other sources. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of independent reviewers on Youtube and on other sites who review games in their free time but Gamergate gamers somehow ignore them.

 

This movement looks more like a cover for certain individuals to anonymously harass people and quickly shrink away responsibility when confronted about it using the 'no true Scotsman' routine.

 

When someone spit on your face you say it is raining, I'm right? Right.

 

[Derpakiin]

 

I think Gamergate is a massive joke.

 

It's a bunch of people who are incapable of making their own opinions on their video game purchases, so they become overly reliant on journalists to make the opinions for them. Then get butthurt that they got shafted into buying a game they didn't like.

 

I've tried reasoning with them that a completely impartial media outlet doesn't exist in the real world and that everyone has to do their own research and fact-checking. Looking up the information on your own is the best way to make an informed purchasing decision.

 

Almost all of Gamergate are very against developing this basic life skill because it imparts some sort of personal responsibility on them when they buy games. They prefer to blame everyone around them instead of themselves for their own shortcomings. As I see it, that makes them no different to SJWs.

To me, if they can get fooled into buying a game they don't like, they are no different than the gullible fools who microwave their iPhones after seeing that fake Apple Wave promo. Read your shit up or look for other sources. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of independent reviewers on Youtube and on other sites who review games in their free time but Gamergate gamers somehow ignore them.

 

This movement looks more like a cover for certain individuals to anonymously harass people and quickly shrink away responsibility when confronted about it using the 'no true Scotsman' routine.

 

When someone spit on your face you say it is raining, I'm right? Right.

 

 

I don't see how your analogy applies here.

 

If you don't think the article is fair go find another article and see what it says. Then after looking up several independent sources you gather them together to make a decision on what to buy. Is that concept alien to you?

[windpl]

 

 

I think Gamergate is a massive joke.

 

It's a bunch of people who are incapable of making their own opinions on their video game purchases, so they become overly reliant on journalists to make the opinions for them. Then get butthurt that they got shafted into buying a game they didn't like.

 

I've tried reasoning with them that a completely impartial media outlet doesn't exist in the real world and that everyone has to do their own research and fact-checking. Looking up the information on your own is the best way to make an informed purchasing decision.

 

Almost all of Gamergate are very against developing this basic life skill because it imparts some sort of personal responsibility on them when they buy games. They prefer to blame everyone around them instead of themselves for their own shortcomings. As I see it, that makes them no different to SJWs.

To me, if they can get fooled into buying a game they don't like, they are no different than the gullible fools who microwave their iPhones after seeing that fake Apple Wave promo. Read your shit up or look for other sources. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of independent reviewers on Youtube and on other sites who review games in their free time but Gamergate gamers somehow ignore them.

 

This movement looks more like a cover for certain individuals to anonymously harass people and quickly shrink away responsibility when confronted about it using the 'no true Scotsman' routine.

 

When someone spit on your face you say it is raining, I'm right? Right.

 

 

I don't see how your analogy applies here.

 

If you don't think the article is fair go find another article and see what it says. Then after looking up several independent sources you gather them together to make a decision on what to buy. Is that concept alien to you?

 

 

You see, there is slight problem when article doesn't say nothing about game but about people that play it. But I presume that you ignored every single post in this thread - and just slapped your educated opinion here.

 

[Derpakiin]

 

 

 

I think Gamergate is a massive joke.

 

It's a bunch of people who are incapable of making their own opinions on their video game purchases, so they become overly reliant on journalists to make the opinions for them. Then get butthurt that they got shafted into buying a game they didn't like.

 

I've tried reasoning with them that a completely impartial media outlet doesn't exist in the real world and that everyone has to do their own research and fact-checking. Looking up the information on your own is the best way to make an informed purchasing decision.

 

Almost all of Gamergate are very against developing this basic life skill because it imparts some sort of personal responsibility on them when they buy games. They prefer to blame everyone around them instead of themselves for their own shortcomings. As I see it, that makes them no different to SJWs.

To me, if they can get fooled into buying a game they don't like, they are no different than the gullible fools who microwave their iPhones after seeing that fake Apple Wave promo. Read your shit up or look for other sources. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of independent reviewers on Youtube and on other sites who review games in their free time but Gamergate gamers somehow ignore them.

 

This movement looks more like a cover for certain individuals to anonymously harass people and quickly shrink away responsibility when confronted about it using the 'no true Scotsman' routine.

 

When someone spit on your face you say it is raining, I'm right? Right.

 

 

I don't see how your analogy applies here.

 

If you don't think the article is fair go find another article and see what it says. Then after looking up several independent sources you gather them together to make a decision on what to buy. Is that concept alien to you?

 

 

You see, there is slight problem when article doesn't say nothing about game but about people that play it. But I presume that you ignored every single post in this thread - and just slapped your educated opinion here.

 

 

If people want to make social commentary then so be it. I don't see how that affects how you play your videogames.

 

The only articles that should matter to you are the ones that helps you make an informed purchasing decision. Everything else is just trivial nonsense that people get worked up about that has no bearing on the videogame industry and only get as big as they do because you keep giving them attention.

 

[Nergui]

But isn't that the whole crux of the whatever it is. The feminist's poison M&M analogy about men can also be applied to game journalists after that "Gamers are dead" thing.

 

Better to form an informed opinion by asking other gamers since professional game reviews are tainted.

[windpl]

The Art of #GamerGate

 

 

 

[Guest corespore]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGwJ3-vmw44

 

And now for something completely different.