It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
dragonbeast: (actually, remember how they said they feared gg would be on mars? First signups have started. Come to area 53 Nevada for a first impression.)
Living on Mars sounds like an endless battle against an intractable opponent where every victory is quickly rendered irrelevant by the planet's endless, soul-devouring onslaught against any and all who dare challenge it.

...
.....
.......

Huh. GG might be some kind of secret Mars astronaut training program, now that I think about it. Fine, I'll join, but only if my bearthren can join me. Because space bears.
Attachments:
low rated
avatar
LeonardoCornejo: I will explain it to you. there are two forms of refer to the sterotypical gamer. First, the gamer that plays mainstream games and is not interested in artsy hipster tytles, using this as the stereotypical gamer, then that means the stereotypical gamer is still the norm. Second, if the stereotypical gamer is described as a socially inept basement dweller, then it does not exist. that is what I am trying to say. The mainstream gamer is the same it was twenty years ago, interested in DOOM and Halo more than in Gone Home and Depression Quest. And that is not going to change just because a bunch of journo bullies say so.
OK, so you think that:

1. The gamer that plays mainstream games and is not interested in artsy hipster titles is neither dead or on its way out? I don't think anyway would suggest otherwise. That's so obvious it goes without saying, isn't it?

2. The "socially inept basement dweller" never existed? I can assure you you are completely wrong there. Most of my friends and I in the 80s fitted that stereotype exactly.


avatar
walpurgis8199: Anyway I'll keep this short. If that was really what she meant, which I don't believe for a second, why was the narrative when all this drama started that it was just white males trying to drive women out of the industry? The aritcle matches the narrative, angry white males .... privilige.... misogyny... patriarchy etc.....
I think that narrative fits in quite well with my reading of the article.
Post edited June 22, 2015 by htown1980
low rated
avatar
LeonardoCornejo: I will explain it to you. there are two forms of refer to the sterotypical gamer. First, the gamer that plays mainstream games and is not interested in artsy hipster tytles, using this as the stereotypical gamer, then that means the stereotypical gamer is still the norm. Second, if the stereotypical gamer is described as a socially inept basement dweller, then it does not exist. that is what I am trying to say. The mainstream gamer is the same it was twenty years ago, interested in DOOM and Halo more than in Gone Home and Depression Quest. And that is not going to change just because a bunch of journo bullies say so.
avatar
htown1980: OK, so you think that:

1. The gamer that plays mainstream games and is not interested in artsy hipster titles is neither dead or on its way out? I don't think anyway would suggest otherwise. That's so obvious it goes without saying, isn't it?

2. The "socially inept basement dweller" never existed? I can assure you you are completely wrong there. Most of my friends and I in the 80s fitted that stereotype exactly.

avatar
walpurgis8199: Anyway I'll keep this short. If that was really what she meant, which I don't believe for a second, why was the narrative when all this drama started that it was just white males trying to drive women out of the industry? The aritcle matches the narrative, angry white males .... privilige.... misogyny... patriarchy etc.....
avatar
htown1980: I think that narrative fits in quite well with my reading of the article.
Yeah, I was going to say - did any of the 'Gamers are Dead' articles ACTUALLY mention game genres or platforms? Or is this assertion that its 'artsy' and / or 'causal' games vs. 'hardcore' games the first erroneous assumption in the formation of a bunch of conspiracy theories?

As is the assumption that the 'Gamers are Dead' articles, posted in defense / coping with the trauma of the harassment that Quinn and later Sarkessian received were supporting Sarkessian's 'moral crusade' agenda and not just supporting her right to speak without being made to fear for her life, if you think about it...

Being shocked an appalled that Anita isn't allowed to say words without receiving death threats is not the same as buying into and wholeheartedly supporting every crazy thing that comes out of her mouth...
Post edited June 22, 2015 by Fever_Discordia
low rated
avatar
Fever_Discordia: snip
avatar
Brasas: Hi Fever,

First, I want to say if something I said went too close to the bone, it was largely unintended. The first part of what I posted referred to the dialogue Rwarehall and you were having, but the second half was generalizations. This is not to say I am sorry, in fact if you see yourself in what I described, then I am rather pleased than unhappy. Please note the conditional statement ok?

The reason I assume I might have touched a nerve is because, as I also detailed further via PM, I see hardly any relation between your reply and my post. You actually open up some interesting tangents, which I'd be glad to discuss further, but probably not in this thread.

So, to not leave your reply without answer, and now that I have cooled my temper somewhat and the storm of replies to you subsided, here's what I find objectionable in your post:
1 - you imply not advocating thread lock is enough tolerance. Constantly even, so maybe occasional attempts are fine? :) What a low barrier that is mate...
2 - you strawmen positions on entitlement and segregation and imply selfish motives motives to me pretty much out of thin air
3 - you hyperbolically state we or I are: trying to take over the whole forum, wanting you (singular and plural) out of the thread, and fans of Reaxxion... this last one is a shooting offense to me in particular, as I'd never post anything so short as a reaxxion article :P
I, myself was addressing more the general flow of the thread in my reply to you, or at least bringing it in.

What I meant was that :
Apparently, everyone who posts in this thread, who is not a fan of GG is automatically an SJW
Apparently, SJWs are a group-think cult who all think and act alike
Apparently, SJWs will not engage with GG and shut down attempts to converse at every opportunity

So, y'know, spot the logical fallacy...
Post edited June 22, 2015 by Fever_Discordia
avatar
LeonardoCornejo: I will explain it to you. there are two forms of refer to the sterotypical gamer. First, the gamer that plays mainstream games and is not interested in artsy hipster tytles, using this as the stereotypical gamer, then that means the stereotypical gamer is still the norm. Second, if the stereotypical gamer is described as a socially inept basement dweller, then it does not exist. that is what I am trying to say. The mainstream gamer is the same it was twenty years ago, interested in DOOM and Halo more than in Gone Home and Depression Quest. And that is not going to change just because a bunch of journo bullies say so.
avatar
htown1980: OK, so you think that:

1. The gamer that plays mainstream games and is not interested in artsy hipster titles is neither dead or on its way out? I don't think anyway would suggest otherwise. That's so obvious it goes without saying, isn't it?

2. The "socially inept basement dweller" never existed? I can assure you you are completely wrong there. Most of my friends and I in the 80s fitted that stereotype exactly.

avatar
walpurgis8199: Anyway I'll keep this short. If that was really what she meant, which I don't believe for a second, why was the narrative when all this drama started that it was just white males trying to drive women out of the industry? The aritcle matches the narrative, angry white males .... privilige.... misogyny... patriarchy etc.....
avatar
htown1980: I think that narrative fits in quite well with my reading of the article.
1.Yes; its clear that that demographic is only going to get bigger as more kids get phones.
2.No, never existed. At most; there were 50% of gamers who were like that. That trope itself was created by the MSM after they observed MMO players. Now; MMOs are very rarely the main consumption game for most gamers. Even when it was; I doubt it couldn't have been more than 50% considering there were titles like Doom Out quite early as well. So in the 80s; you were a minority! Yay! Congrats!

Then it must be feeling and not thinking, 'cus thinking requires analysis of facts. Who tried to drive who out of the industry? Zoe Quinn was driven out? You are again generalizing because you want a perfect enemy. Like it or not; you don't live in a world where someone just wakes up one day and thinks;''You know; gaming would be better if the no names who are the developers were only male, because I can't really feel the toxic masculine culture oozing out from my screen when one among all the poor pawns doing modelling work for CoD is a female''; so deal with it.

PS; I'm not anyone's smurf and I don't have any smurf accounts. I just replied because my free time and the stupidity of your arguments made a great combo.
avatar
Fever_Discordia: Yeah, I was going to say - did any of the 'Gamers are Dead' articles ACTUALLY mention game genres or platforms? Or is this assertion that its 'artsy' and / or 'causal' games vs. 'hardcore' games the first erroneous assumption in the formation of a bunch of conspiracy theories?
From Leigh's (the most widely-referenced of the Gamers Are Dead articles):

"By the turn of the millennium those were games’ only main cultural signposts: Have money. Have women. Get a gun and then a bigger gun. Be an outcast. Celebrate that. Defeat anyone who threatens you."

I'm not really following the conversation you all are having and currently lack the sleep to catch up, but just wanted to point out that it definitely sounds like certain types of games and genres are being heavily implied. Another of the G.A.D. articles explicitly mentions Call of Duty. I'm pretty sure it's the first one that set off all the others, in fact. Here's a link to the terrible thing if you're interested: click
low rated
avatar
Fever_Discordia: Yeah, I was going to say - did any of the 'Gamers are Dead' articles ACTUALLY mention game genres or platforms? Or is this assertion that its 'artsy' and / or 'causal' games vs. 'hardcore' games the first erroneous assumption in the formation of a bunch of conspiracy theories?
avatar
227: From Leigh's (the most widely-referenced of the Gamers Are Dead articles):

"By the turn of the millennium those were games’ only main cultural signposts: Have money. Have women. Get a gun and then a bigger gun. Be an outcast. Celebrate that. Defeat anyone who threatens you."

I'm not really following the conversation you all are having and currently lack the sleep to catch up, but just wanted to point out that it definitely sounds like certain types of games and genres are being heavily implied. Another of the G.A.D. articles explicitly mentions Call of Duty. I'm pretty sure it's the first one that set off all the others, in fact. Here's a link to the terrible thing if you're interested: click
... On the other hand chill because what Ms. Alexander is suggesting is just flat-out not going to happen is it?

I mean I can understand that she was upset at the time about the heat that certain female figures were receiving and it's nice that gaming genres are diversifying, being more experimental and breaking new ground but, at the end of the day the big AAA game line-up of any given year is going to contain just as many guns, bullets, cars, explosions, swords, wizards and muscles as the summer blockbuster line-up

Just because the local steakhouse introduces a vegetarian option doesn't mean they're about to stop selling steak, as long as you are there wanting to buy steak in sufficient numbers there will always be someone there to sell it to you - that's just market forces

It's enjoying your steak while knowing that there's a chap with a beard and an flesh tunnel eating a nut cutlet at the next table that you're going to have to deal with, so get over yourselves and stop worrying about the sky falling because it ain't!
avatar
227: From Leigh's (the most widely-referenced of the Gamers Are Dead articles):

"By the turn of the millennium those were games’ only main cultural signposts: Have money. Have women. Get a gun and then a bigger gun. Be an outcast. Celebrate that. Defeat anyone who threatens you."

I'm not really following the conversation you all are having and currently lack the sleep to catch up, but just wanted to point out that it definitely sounds like certain types of games and genres are being heavily implied. Another of the G.A.D. articles explicitly mentions Call of Duty. I'm pretty sure it's the first one that set off all the others, in fact. Here's a link to the terrible thing if you're interested: click
avatar
Fever_Discordia: ... On the other hand chill because what Ms. Alexander is suggesting is just flat-out not going to happen is it?

I mean I can understand that she was upset at the time about the heat that certain female figures were receiving and it's nice that gaming genres are diversifying, being more experimental and breaking new ground but, at the end of the day the big AAA game line-up of any given year is going to contain just as many guns, bullets, cars, explosions, swords, wizards and muscles as the summer blockbuster line-up

Just because the local steakhouse introduces a vegetarian option doesn't mean they're about to stop selling steak, as long as you are there wanting to buy steak in sufficient numbers there will always be someone there to sell it to you - that's just market forces

It's enjoying your steak while knowing that there's a chap with a beard and an flesh tunnel eating a nut cutlet at the next table that you're going to have to deal with, so get over yourselves and stop worrying about the sky falling because it ain't!
Exactly. Games are diversifying and taking exploratory leaps into different areas. Which means there is enough space for everyone. Just because a steakhouse sells vegetarian doesn't mean its gonna become a hipster earth freak PETA joint. So have respect for people who have been dining there for more time than you were and stop threatening the chef with death unless he / she makes the place vegetarian only. Just because you find kale good and steak bad (which I find bad; I'm also a vegetarian :P) bad doesn't mean everyone else does; and stop trying to make it like they should.
low rated
avatar
Fever_Discordia: ... On the other hand chill because what Ms. Alexander is suggesting is just flat-out not going to happen is it?

I mean I can understand that she was upset at the time about the heat that certain female figures were receiving and it's nice that gaming genres are diversifying, being more experimental and breaking new ground but, at the end of the day the big AAA game line-up of any given year is going to contain just as many guns, bullets, cars, explosions, swords, wizards and muscles as the summer blockbuster line-up

Just because the local steakhouse introduces a vegetarian option doesn't mean they're about to stop selling steak, as long as you are there wanting to buy steak in sufficient numbers there will always be someone there to sell it to you - that's just market forces

It's enjoying your steak while knowing that there's a chap with a beard and an flesh tunnel eating a nut cutlet at the next table that you're going to have to deal with, so get over yourselves and stop worrying about the sky falling because it ain't!
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Exactly. Games are diversifying and taking exploratory leaps into different areas. Which means there is enough space for everyone. Just because a steakhouse sells vegetarian doesn't mean its gonna become a hipster earth freak PETA joint. So have respect for people who have been dining there for more time than you were and stop threatening the chef with death unless he / she makes the place vegetarian only. Just because you find kale good and steak bad (which I find bad; I'm also a vegetarian :P) bad doesn't mean everyone else does; and stop trying to make it like they should.
But there's eating steak and then there's eating steak at hooters isn't there?
I mean I can't believe that Alexander wrote that article without thinking about what kinds of movies and TV shows are popular and thinking that the gaming landscape would be any different
But I can't see, say, an off-colour rhyme about suicide and transvestites making it into an ep. of Supernatural, American Horror Story or the inevitable next Transformers movie, although I don't think it would have gotten anywhere near that particular game either if it weren't for the peculiarities of Kickstarter and funding tiers - dangers of our brave new world on all sides!
avatar
Fever_Discordia: ... On the other hand chill because what Ms. Alexander is suggesting is just flat-out not going to happen is it? [...] at the end of the day the big AAA game line-up of any given year is going to contain just as many guns, bullets, cars, explosions, swords, wizards and muscles as the summer blockbuster line-up
What makes you think I was anything remotely not-chill when I posted that? In fact, I challenge you to find a single post anywhere in this forum where I've said anything along the lines of "they're coming for our violent gamez!" Were you trying to quote someone else, maybe?

And while I'm barraging you with questions, did you even read the article I linked? Surely if you had you'd have realized that it characterizes gamers using CoD (then uses Candy Crush and some obscure indie to show that games aren't all CoD and somehow prove that gamers are inflexible, because logic means starting at the conclusion and working your way backward to rationalize it), puts pretty much anyone whose gaming tastes don't align with his into that group, then claims that they're now "irrelevant" and that games aren't "for them" anymore.

I checked; that's the first article from which the others sprung into being hours later. It's absurd to claim that the rest were somehow empowering and designed to smash the commonly-held perception of gamers given that context. I forget if you or htown were arguing that, but there you go.
low rated
avatar
Fever_Discordia: ... On the other hand chill because what Ms. Alexander is suggesting is just flat-out not going to happen is it? [...] at the end of the day the big AAA game line-up of any given year is going to contain just as many guns, bullets, cars, explosions, swords, wizards and muscles as the summer blockbuster line-up
avatar
227: What makes you think I was anything remotely not-chill when I posted that? In fact, I challenge you to find a single post anywhere in this forum where I've said anything along the lines of "they're coming for our violent gamez!" Were you trying to quote someone else, maybe?

And while I'm barraging you with questions, did you even read the article I linked? Surely if you had you'd have realized that it characterizes gamers using CoD (then uses Candy Crush and some obscure indie to show that games aren't all CoD and somehow prove that gamers are inflexible, because logic means starting at the conclusion and working your way backward to rationalize it), puts pretty much anyone whose gaming tastes don't align with his into that group, then claims that they're now "irrelevant" and that games aren't "for them" anymore.

I checked; that's the first article from which the others sprung into being hours later. It's absurd to claim that the rest were somehow empowering and designed to smash the commonly-held perception of gamers given that context. I forget if you or htown were arguing that, but there you go.
You are referring to this part:

"When, over the last decade, the playing of videogames moved beyond the niche, the gamer identity remained fairly uniformly stagnant and immobile. Gamer identity was simply not fluid enough to apply to a broad spectrum of people. It could not meaningfully contain, for example, Candy Crush players, Proteus players, and Call of Duty players simultaneously. When videogames changed, the gamer identity did not stretch, and so it has been broken."

To me, he is saying that the 'gamer identity' (whatever THAT is) is to tight and restrictive a definition to encompass all that gaming is, not gamers themselves being inflexible

I mean you call the article a 'terrible thing' and seem to take personal insult from it, I see an academic think piece that I don't fully agree with but has an interesting perspective all the same, both articles talk about this 'gamer identity', I'm not entirely sure what that IS, I suspect that it means different things to different people. Alexander seems to equate it with a 'shut-in' stereotype that Shadowstalker denies exists or ever existed so Alexander is, apparently saying that imaginary people that only exist in her own head are no longer relevant - because THAT's worth starting a war over...
avatar
Fever_Discordia: But there's eating steak and then there's eating steak at hooters isn't there?
I mean I can't believe that Alexander wrote that article without thinking about what kinds of movies and TV shows are popular and thinking that the gaming landscape would be any different
But I can't see, say, an off-colour rhyme about suicide and transvestites making it into an ep. of Supernatural, American Horror Story or the inevitable next Transformers movie, although I don't think it would have gotten anywhere near that particular game either if it weren't for the peculiarities of Kickstarter and funding tiers - dangers of our brave new world on all sides!
I don't know. I don't even know what hooters is :P
What similarity between TV and movies and games. They serve entirely different audiences. What is good in a movie may not be good in a game and vice versa.

EDIT : I wonder the being online of which individual coincides with dragonbeast and me losing 2 REP and RW going down 6 in just a few minutes.............
Post edited June 22, 2015 by Shadowstalker16
low rated
avatar
Fever_Discordia: But there's eating steak and then there's eating steak at hooters isn't there?
I mean I can't believe that Alexander wrote that article without thinking about what kinds of movies and TV shows are popular and thinking that the gaming landscape would be any different
But I can't see, say, an off-colour rhyme about suicide and transvestites making it into an ep. of Supernatural, American Horror Story or the inevitable next Transformers movie, although I don't think it would have gotten anywhere near that particular game either if it weren't for the peculiarities of Kickstarter and funding tiers - dangers of our brave new world on all sides!
avatar
Shadowstalker16: I don't know. I don't even know what hooters is :P
What similarity between TV and movies and games. They serve entirely different audiences. What is good in a movie may not be good in a game and vice versa.

EDIT : I wonder the being online of which individual coincides with dragonbeast and me losing 2 REP and RW going down 6 in just a few minutes.............
It's freaky that I've held steady at 1000 rep for so long considering the things I've been posting - maybe the forums don't let you lose stars? Like maybe I've hit a plateau?
Post edited June 22, 2015 by Fever_Discordia
avatar
Shadowstalker16: I don't know. I don't even know what hooters is :P
What similarity between TV and movies and games. They serve entirely different audiences. What is good in a movie may not be good in a game and vice versa.

EDIT : I wonder the being online of which individual coincides with dragonbeast and me losing 2 REP and RW going down 6 in just a few minutes.............
avatar
Fever_Discordia: It's freaky that I've held stead at 1000 rep for so long considering the things I've been posting - maybe the forums don't let you lose stars? Like maybe I've hit a plateau?
I wasn't implying you; BTW. I don't know about stars. You did have 999REP yesterday and I think you still had 4; so probably true.
high rated
avatar
Fever_Discordia: To me, he is saying that the 'gamer identity' (whatever THAT is) is to tight and restrictive a definition to encompass all that gaming is, not gamers themselves being inflexible
"What is actually going on is an attempt to retain hegemony. Make no mistake: this is the exertion of power in the name of (male) gamer orthodoxy—an orthodoxy that has already begun to disappear."

Sure sounds like it to me. In fact, that's pretty much his entire argument. The point he was making was that the ethics thing was invented by a bunch of stereotypical, shooter-playing (see the bit about "real gamers" and Candy Crush that narrows what he's talking about down to CoD) male gamers in order to lash out against games changing, that change being the catalyst for the definition not applying anymore. Gamers being inflexible isn't just something he implies; it's the premise of his piece. When he says "the gamer identity," he means GG (it came out as the hashtag was just starting tot take off). Just read the paragraph where he claims that "the gamer identity [...] has nowhere to call home, and so it reaches out inarticulately at invented problems, such as bias and corruption, which are partly just ways of expressing confusion as to why things the traditional gamer does not understand are successful" Last i checked, the abstract concept of "gamer" didn't do anything like that.

But seriously, I'm sleepy, so we'll have to argue semantics later.