I've been reading this.

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/lets-talk-about-gamergate-and-journalism

I agree that many of the assholes are just assholes. And admittedly I'm not sure that especially Anita is attacked for being a woman. She is attacked for the topic she brought up, similar to how Phil Fish was attacked for the things he said (for example about PC gaming compared to console gaming).

But I also believe that Anita's topic is an important one, whether you agree with her not, at least more important than what Phil Fish said or whether a gun gets nerfed.
And no matter if Anita is right, partially right or not right at all with what she says, the discussion about it is important. Yes, even if there is not a single truth to what she says. I believe that we as gamers should have the discussion even if it is to only dismantle it.
Books, movies, music, radio, newspapers, toys, TV - all important mass stuff went through it. Gaming seems to be next. Let's have that discussion and see what comes out. Let's not leave it to the assholes. Neither the gamer nor the gaming journalist assholes.

It's not about not knowing the difference between gaming and real life.
People also know the difference between fairy tales and real life, nevertheless these are known to influence morals (and have been used for exactly that in previous centuries).
I mean, look at all the stupid stuff people believe and even act accordingly. Saying that gaming has no effect whatsoever doesn't seem plausible to me.

What you consume, influences you. Not in a direct line - I rape a woman in a video game, I rape a woman in real life, I shoot somebody in a video game, I shoot somebody in real life - but it does influence people.
If people have wonderful models in real life who counteract these effects, that's great and I wish that for everybody, but I also believe that many, many people spend more time with video games than with the strong independent women in their life who don't need any women-focused feminism anymore.

They still write about games. They just also write about stuff you don't want them to write about.


After saying that Muslims are a race, after comparing this whole thing to WW3, I'm not sure if you're serious with this complaint of me being disrespectful.

And maybe I give you an example of how this discussion in parts has been so far:
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/some_pressfeminism_drama/post60
Close to the bottom of that post:
"Nah, that's why it's not worth associating with Western girls at all. They're all bitches and whores. I personally think countries like the Islamic Republic of Iran have the best policy toward this kind of behavior. "

Real good stuff.

Any way, if I really hurt your feelings, I'm sorry and I apologize for that.
I'm just a bit tired of this discussion. And as a gaming woman seeing many of the assholes spewing their attacks unopposed makes me sad.

I don't think that gaming journalists are right in all they write about this topic but I do wish there were more people opposing the threatening assholes and not just going for this opportunity to rip in gaming journalism and letting the assholes do whatever they want.
There are reasons to criticize gaming journalism and I completely agree with that (see nepotism earlier).
But I appreciate that at least some of them tried to be a voice against the threatening assholes that are running rampant right now.

But I'm no better. I went to watch that twich stream of LordKat and saw what people said there. It was all the "I'll rape (person) with a hot iron rod!" that seems to be so common currently.
And I didn't say anything. I was even a bit relieved to not be at the receiving end of these threats this time.
So, I'm actually no better.

The way he did that review it seems that he only played the first level. Seriously, he actually only uses footage from the first five minutes of gameplay (+ multiplayer). On top of that in a game that has a strong rise in quality after several levels and provides rather diverse settings. One can only wonder whether he actually played the game any further or specifically chose this ugly first level to prove his point that it's an "ugly" game. Either way he did not provide a good or honest basis for the viewers to determine whether they should get the game.

Oddly enough his attitude wasn't even quite the "in your face" thing I expected. It wasn't even real bashing, it was just bad and uninteresting journalism. A good reviewer hating the game would have revealed more information and provided more facts about the game than this guy did.

The Escapist's new ethics policy:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12224-The-Official-Ethics-Policy-of-The-Escapist

Journalism? Internet? Ethics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOYBWwmcXeg

This reason behind the digging is 100% wrong. The digging occurred when an autistic queer woman was bullied by Zoe and her cadre of morally reprehensible people. Documents became available on the IGF, Silverstring Media, Polytron, Indiecade and IndieFund. She calls herself Camera Lady. She's the one who started the sleuthing...I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative of oppressive patriarchy racist neckbeard gamers, but she's the one who spearheaded the movement to start digging for REAL dirt, to expose collusion, if it had occured, etc.

But no, no, let's pretend that this woman wasn't harassed and bullied by another woman and other female friends for simply existing and not agreeing with the social parasites. :P

I watched her videos, i remember that she said that reversing the trope is not a solution. But then what it the solution? She never says it. Why is having to rescue someone as a plot device such an "evil" thing?

And why are we discussing about "solutions" when we don't even agree whether or not the problem exists? I still believe Anita and Zoe are pushing their agenda for fame, they are not really interested in making games evolve. And there are reasonable evidences that support my position.

Again you are making up stuff i haven't said. Read my post. What iam against is how much games, developers and publishers are being labelled as "misogynist pricks" because of simple design decisions. Not long ago RPS made an interview with one of the Heroes of the Storm's developers and the only thing the journalist talked about in the interview was how women were portrayed in the game. The "journalist" didn't even ask about the game itself, all he did was push his personal agenda and bash developers because of how female characters were designed. This is not gaming journalism by any stretch of imagination.

And do you really think they care about how women are protrayed in games? Don't be so naive. The PR company behind most sites pushing Anita and Zoe Quinn's agenda (such as Kotaku, Gamasutra, RPS, Destructoid and others) has Anita herself as one of the advisors. Coincidence? Is it a coincidence that all these sites which have the same PR company published "Gamers are over" articles and other BS AT THE SAME TIME? Sure, it's much easier to believe everything is a coincidence and all the evidence gathered so far is just part of a "conspiracy theory".

Also the main PR person that works in that company is Maya Kramer, who has an intimate relationship with Zoe Quinn.

As for "being aware" of how women are portrayed now, i'll tell you something: women are being portrayed just like men. As someone else already mentioned, games are entertainment, not life lessons.

If you dig into the issue carefully without preconceptions, you will note that no one is "bashing" games like Gone Home and others, that deal with subjects in a more mature way and are focused on sending a message, not providing compelling gameplay. This is not a problem. We certainly need more games like Gone Home. What we can't accept is "journalists" criticizing games for not being like Gone Home. Not every game in the market needs to be like Gone Home, not every game needs to have female characters (like AC Unity), not every game needs to have portray women the way journalists think they should (Heroes of the Storm).

Again: Reversing the behaviour - portraying men in video games as women are portrayed now - is not a solution and it's nothing that anybody wants or has demanded as far as I know.

And sometimes i wonder if you read my posts or interpreted them correctly. I never said reversing the trope is the solution, all i'm saying is that it's just a fucking frivolous plot device. Not every game needs a complex story with complex characters, "saving the princess" is enough for a game that's all about the GAMEPLAY, not the story.

It's just that: a plot device. There's nothing inherently evil in that, only Anita and her loyal supporters seem to take offense on something so fucking irrelevant. The thing is: she doesn't know what games are about, she is not a gamer (as she admitted herself in a video that leaked online). Not every game needs complex female characters. No one plays Mario "to save the princess", people play Mario because of the its great gameplay. "Saving the princess" is the background.

Maybe because all the gaming sites promoting this agenda use the services from the same PR company, which, coincidentally, has Anita Sarkeesian as one of its main advisors? And that this company is the same that is working for a bunch of indie developers who received funds from the journalists from these sites? In the end, they are giving exposure on their site to the game they invested and using the same PR company yo help them achieve their goals. The rabbit hole is much deeper than you think.

That's exactly the accusation. If you don't agree with Quinn/Anita or make games that "objectify" women like using the damsel in distree trope, you will be called a misogynist by her loyal supporters. Actually, the new "insult" is "misogynerd", and even gaming "journalists" are using that insult.

I have already said that it was a mistake, whether you believe it or not is your problem, not mine. Just don't try tu use that to disqualify my arguments because it won't work.

Zoe Quinn's case was just the spark that caused everything to blow up. People have been fed up with the gaming press for a very long time. Do you think people don't complain when COD gets great ratings by "critics" every year by basically releasing the same game every year? Do you think people were not pissed off with the insane amount of SJW BS in most gaming sites?

If you take a look at the Gamergate movement, you will notice that it's not about Zoe Quinn anymore, it's about corruption in the industry, especially in the indie scene. People found out a bunch of stuff about IGF, for example, and how the "winners" are selected. It's not about Anita or feminism anymore. I suggest you research it more before coming up with conclusions.

Zoe Quinn was just what caused people to dig deeper into the rabbit hole. Ironically, the person who digged most of the information we have is a woman. Yes, a woman, not a white male misogynist fat virgin nerd as Anita and her loyal supporters would make you believe.

It's just games, but i have a right to criticize when i see something wrong in the industry driving my main hobby.

Oh, yeah, they are trying to change the industry. First they start accusing game developers of being "misogynists" for no reason. Then they get a bunch of journalists to support them and spread their cause. Then they make "gamers" the enemies of the world by making shitty articles like "gamers are dead" and spreading stereotypes like "every gamer who doesn't agree with us is a misogynist fat virgin nerd who is affraid of women" (i'm seriously not kidding nor exaggerating, this is literally what some of the articles say). Instead of addressing to valid criticism, they are pointing fingers and spreading preconceptions and prejudices.

Oh no, Anita and her supporters will never be happy. They need something to boost their fame and get more money, they will always come up with something. They will always create an enemy. Do you really believe these journalists and Anita give a damn about gaming and "portrayal of women"? Don't be so naive. They're pushing this agenda for personal reasons. Anita doesn't even give a flying fuck about gaming since she has admitted HERSELF that she doesn't like games because she finds them "gross". She just got into the gaming side because she saw an opportunity, there was no one talking about feminism in games, she would become famous by being the first one. And she did.

Then, please, tell Anita and her followers that games also do not represent the real world.

Apparently you have a problem with me criticizing the gaming press.

Wa? Huh? No I never said Nintendo games and Disney films, for that matter, weren't art I just said that they really don't fit with the 'Games as Art' agenda which is trying to have games elevated to the same level as films and books as a legitimate entertainment medium for fully grown adults of both sexes and not just teenage boys and younger
And even if that IS already the reality it's not society's general perception

They want to shut Roger Ebert up, basically
a bit futile now he's dead, but still...

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art

I'm not so sure about that either. Of course there are people who hate these modern feminists and will bash them whenever there is an opportunity, but i really believe that MOST criticism comes from how she dealt with her campaign.

First, she only got so much funding for her videos because she played the victim card and kept acting like a "damsel in distress who needed help defeating the evil internet misogynists who were harassing them". Basically, she used internet trolls to validate her campaign, which is ridiculous.

Second, she lied. She always said in her campaign that she was a gamer and loved games. It turns out that months later a video from her saying that she didn't like games was leaked online. I'm not trying the invoke the "no true scotsman" fallacy here, there's no problem with a non-gamer researching gaming related subjects, but at least you have to be HONEST about it. She wasn't.

Third, when you do a proper research, you don't start from a conclusion to then find data to support it. That's what she did. Without even playing games she launched her campaign to show that games are misogynist. That's not how you do a serious research project, if she was ever interested in doing one, that is, and i'm affraid she wasn't. Anyway, this makes her arguments harder to believe.

Fourth, her project was overfunded by a huge margin. She could have afforded to record her OWN gameplay footage. Did she do it? Nope, she stole footage from other Youtubers WITHOUT GIVING THEM CREDITS. Really cool, isn't it? Especially for someone preaching about equality and justice.

Fifth, she NEVER addressed valid criticism. If she had honest intentions about her whole feminist agenda, she would respond to valid criticism, she would improve her arguments, she would research, she would be open to something called DEBATE. But she's not engaged in any sort of healthy exchange of ideas and information, she wants to impose her personal vision. Period. If you dare to criticize any of her arguments you are a fucking misogynist prick. She always hides being the internet trolls and plays the victim card to dismiss valid criticism. She's not any different from those conservative christians like Jack Thompson who want to censor everything and impose their vision of life down everyone's throats.

The thing is, we are open to debate, but she isn't.

And i could go on and on, but let's stop here otherwise i'll make pages and pages talking about her. If you want to know more, watch some of the hundreds of articles and videos in response to her series.

Like i have said before, there is no discussion when she is only preaching her own vision and doesn't address valid criticism or anything. You don't have a "discussion" when there's only one side speaking. There are many compelling arguments against all of her videos. Does she care? Nope. She doesn't give a damn because it's all about her agenda, it's all about fame and money, she doesn't care about games, as she admitted herself.

The gaming press doesn't do anything about it either. They just preach about how evil and misogynist Blizzard and Ubisoft are, but they do not listen to gamers, they do not listen to the people who visit their site, and the results are starting to show up, they are losing traffic every month.

People have already dismantled her arguments, but she and her loyal journalists supporters don't care.

To be very honest i have never seen people making such a big fuss about feminism in any other media. Of course there are feminists everywhere, but i have never seen something get as big as Anita's agenda and her loyal chain of sites (RPS, Kotaku, GS, Gamasutra, Destructoid, Polygon and others).

Ok, so you're telling me that Jack Thompson was actually right? Games do make people more violent then? Let's just agree to disagree here.

By the way, there's a huge difference between the "fairy tales" you mentioned and games. These "fairy tales" have been passed from generation to generation for centuries to serve as examples of how people should behave. Games are simply not "examples of how people should behave". They're actually something that lets you "escape" from reality for a few moments, that's why we do things we would never do in real life. That's why we have stuff like Carmageddon and Postal. Going by your logic, games like Carmageddon would have to be banned, because they would influentiate drivers. Even racing games would be dangerous.

That's a very dangerous way of thinking. I could use your logic to justify every kind of censorhip.

I've got a solution: let's ban games then. No more murders, no more misogyny, the world will be a perfect place to live in. Because something as silly as an entertainment product in which i have to rescue the princess certainly makes me a misogynist prick. Oh, i also jump on turtles to kill them. And i break down vases to find rupees.

Sorry for being blunt, but i really don't buy into that "games influentiate people" idea, especially when there's 0 scientifical proof of that.

First, i have already said that i made a mistake because of language barriers and i apologized for that. Second, i'm not comparing anything to WW3, that was a hyperbole, "a figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect".

And why are you showing that to me? I didn't post it and i would never say that. Do you really think one bad post is enough to dismiss a bunch of valid arguments around the subject?

Don't let the real misogynist assholes cloud your judgement, there's a lot of valid criticism around the whole issue.

You won't find any sane individual promoting threats and harassment. If you watch the most vocal users on Youtube about the Gamergate issue, you will see that ALL of them are against this kind of behavior. The "threatening assholes" are a very tiny minority. And like i said, welcome to the internet, there will always be a bunch of trolls on the internet who have nothing do other than making other people's lives more miserable. Like i said, it has nothing to do with fact that Quinn and Anita are women. Game developers receive threats all the time as well, remember when Treyarch developers received death threats because they nerfed one gun?

But the thing is, gaming journalism never makes a big fuss about it unless it's targeted at Anita/Quinn and other people who share the same agenda. This is what's weird. Developers, Youtubers and other personalities are receiving threats all the time and no one gives a fuck. Unless you're Anita or Quinn, you're alone.

Sure, we need to fight against harassment, but we should do so against every kind of harassment, not just those aimed at Anita and her friends.

Another thing is that "journalists" are not helping it either. Instead of trying to solve the situation in a more pacific way, they are throwing more fuel at the fire. You don't have to be a genious to realize that when you publish an article calling gamers "fat virgin nerds who are affraid of women" (that's what one of the articles literally says), you will get a vitriolic response. These articles that have been published recently are downright offensive, it's no wonder they are receiving threats.

Again, let me reiterate that i'm not defending this kind of behavior, i'm just saying that journalists are aggravating the issue even further.

Also, something i forgot to add to my first post is that Zoe Quinn's case only blew up out of proportion because she tried to CENSOR everyone who dared to talk about the subject. What happened here was the Streisand effect. She tried to censor so much that the whole thing was blown out of proportion. She filled a bunch of DMCA strikes against many Youtubers, including TotalBiscuit. TotalBiscuit has a shitload of followers, she would probably get away with it by censoring smaller channels, but she would never get away with a channel as big as TotalBiscuit's. I can't see how anyone in its sane mind would support someone who promotes censorship.

Irregardless how we feel about Jeff as a reviewer or how good Kane and Lynch was as a game (both subjective topics), it was revealed why he was fired by GameSpot of all places later on. Corruption was admitted in an interview between Jeff (who was no longer on NDA to not talk about it) and Jon Davison (VP of Gamespot at the time). The advertisers put pressure on the magazine by pulling advertising for games they support and he got the axe. There is no rebuttal from Jon on any points.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GagFPnSG0j4 (explanation starts at about 9 minutes in)

This is a big problem in the bigger magazines since they are reliant on advertisers who pay the magazine and fund the games directly or indirectly. If a game is bad, it probably will not get a lower score than say an average game due to fear of reprisals. Jeff does assert things have gotten better at GameSpot else he would not be doing the interview. However, the main issue is still present. Gamespot is just doing better at backing it's reporters.

I know, in 2012 official statements on the issue began popping up. I still say that he simply screwed up as a reviewer. But who cares - he formed his own portal where he can continue writing terrible reviews until he dies.

No... (At least not by default)

In blood Money, you got an reward of 1000$ if you killed EVERYBODY on a map, if you kill civilians and there is no proof it reduces your bonus, and when you have lots of dead people and lots of witnesses you get 0$ bonus ;)

To put this into perspective, the reward for total stealth with only target killed is ... 150000$ ;)

So the game does not really hand-hold you. But it rewards you greatly if you play Hitman properly. And the money is pretty important... makes later missions easier.

Her point is in so far complete nonsense as that in all the Hitman games the perfect rating is always along this: No witnesses, all deaths accidents (even if civilian, if it's an "accident" it's not murder), no knocked out body found. So obviously you gonna have to drag bodies around if you knocked someone out. It is part of the gameplay, it is not focused on specific npc's though. It's a general action.