Hello GUNners!

A friend of mine who I met during my time in San Francisco has just published (as co-editor) a book titled Queer Game Studies.

LINK: QUEER GAME STUDIES

Please follow the link and check it out if you have any interest in LGBTQ rights, issues, or the intersection of gender and gaming.

Let me hear what you think! I can pass your feedback along to my friend. If there is interest, I will offer copies of this book to friends or as prizes in future GUN contests.

A book like this sheds valuable light on how to approach/understand gaming and gender politics in the 21st century.

This should go without saying, but homophobic or otherwise insensitive jokes or comments are unwelcome.

Games and politics don't mix in my opinion. We would end up forgetting why games were made in the first place.

Nukacide wrote:

Games and politics don't mix in my opinion. We would end up losing what games are meant for in the first place.

Let's not mix up what I mean by "gender politics" and just regular ol' politics. When I say "gender politics," I'm simply referring to the way that people think about gender and the way cis-gendered people relate with others who are different.

It's not about "games and politics" mixing or not mixing. The fact is that there are LGBTQ characters in games and the way they are portrayed--whether explicit or implicit--is a statement about gender.

I'm simply recommending this book to anyone who wants to stop and think about the issues involved--I'm not trying to address the issues here. I don't want to start a debate and if this topic turns into one, then it will get shut down. So let's not go there.

@dragbody Thanks for clarifying.

@dragbody look at ME:A or Baldur's Gate II I hate to say it but one is becoming completely intertwined with the other, and it's damaging gaming.

Yeah, I haven't read it so your friend might have some great points, but honestly I think that when games take gender and sexuality politics too far it ruins their games because they are trying to appease an audience that isn't just gamers. It's the same when movies try to shove ethic backgrounds down viewers throats as well.

Just saying, when companies try the "we are tolerant" routine it usually doesn't work out in their favour.

Corvo wrote:

Just saying, when companies try the "we are tolerant" routine it usually doesn't work out in their favour.

You're right! Tolerant companies try to collect "different" people and give them a game developemnt just because they are different, not because they had enthusiam, previous developemnt expirience, etc. Like the situation with ME: A.

I'm very tolerant and want that others peoples respect some otheres not like them but in game/cinema industries it's become the reason to over overestimate the final product that was made by "different" people or which include "different" people.

@dragbody Thanks for your recommendation, i'll take a look.

I defer to SargonOfAkkad where aspects of Gamergate is concerned.
I'm not against salient issues surrounding LGBTQ 'community', I have family who are part of it, but I prefer to focus on real issues like those found in undeveloped countries than the low-hanging fruit 'issues' in the Western world. Gaming and Hollywood has become really dull because of the incessant need to please everyone.

Funny to find a thread on this book here. Read it back when it was released and really liked it. Recommended it to a friend who got into the gamergate bs and it was a stepping stone for him to find his way out of this queer-misogynistic mess. I just hope that the fellas here started looking beyond Carlgon of Sarkad.

Gotta side with the other guys on this one. I think identity politics is a cancer no matter what medium it's thrown into. When you hired someone just because they are part of Group B rather than Group A then you're saying that they're identity is more important than the work they can do. When you aim for people of a certain group, you are most likely cutting out people who are potentially much better fits for your project and thus are depriving your project of the quality it could be. When the best suited artist doesn't belong to Group B, you are getting a less qualified artist by searching only in Group B. When companies try to include people from <insert group> and make it a key advertisement point, then it usually tells you how the product comes out. ME Adromeda seems to be a pretty solid example. Mighty No9 is another good one. Identity politics were a main focus of these two games and they suffered from this.

I don't care who you are. I care about what you can do. If you can produce some great work, then I'm going to be paying attention. If you don't, well you're going to get less attention and the amount varies depending on the quality of what you put out.

If your work focuses on a message you want out there, you best know which target audience to market that focus to and it seems safe to say that most gamers generally don't give a damn about identity politics so forcing it into your content isn't going to be making many want to buy your stuff.

I'm very passionate about art. I want it to be the most it can be. I don't want art to be watered down or held back or it becomes less real in my eyes. When you start changing your art in order to appease someone, then it's becoming less of a piece of art. There is always some give and take, but it's best to keep it to a minimum in order to keep the art as it was originally intended. While I say it's bad to water things down, I'm not referring to the subject of the post, that would be the holding back part doing that. I feel if you have to focus more on being inclusive, you are excluding those who would otherwise be better suited to make your art the best it could possibly be. You're holding your work back.

I'm also very passionate about gaming and I imagine many others who are also passionate about gaming will share this outlook. I just want art to be the most it can be. When the focus diverts away from the art and more towards ideologies, then you are tainting the art.

@StarCheat I think you have a misunderstanding of what GG was all about. Contrary to what the narrative that was declared by "journalists", it was never about "misogyny" or anything like that. It was always about ethics. It all started from a huge ethics problem when a "game" designer slept with journalists to get good reviews for her "game". I put game in quotes because it was essentially a pixelated powerpoint that was roughly 5 minutes long and the reviewers she slept with all gave it 5/5. It got out that she slept with people to get those reviews and then the "journalists" doubled down and started slandering all their critics as misogynists who were only going after her because she was a woman. Since so many of those "journalists" were tied together, they all sided together and they had the means to control the narrative to outside viewers as they were "journalists". And as a note, I put journalist in quotes because it's pretty evident that most of the game "journalists" don't even play games let alone like them so having them in a position to speak for gamers seems like a sick joke.

I've been following GG since it all started. No, I never watched Sargon. Didn't even know who he was until after it died down. GG was always about ethics. Just because the final straw that sparked GG involved a woman does not mean that it was some misogynistic campaign. It was about the corruption in gaming journalism. Outlets like IGN would always give 10/10 scores to games that obviously didn't deserve it. Years of that going on all built up until finally Zoey released her "game". She was the final straw that broke the camel's back. If even a small nobody could buy their 10/10 reviews then the media was worthless because you could never trust them. However, they controlled the narrative as they were really the only ones whose whole point of existence was writing about things in the gaming world and there was nobody on the opposing side in a similar position to counter their narrative. So with no permitted counter narrative, they could label it and describe it however they wanted and they'd be viewed as the "experts" on it because of their position.

As the years went on, GG has made a significant dent towards the goal it set out to achieve. A lot of those media outlets suffered a lot. It turns out that smearing your target audience and calling them sexists and declaring gamers to be dead was a bad decision for media outlets dedicated to gaming. They're a lot less prominent than they were in the past now. They've lost a lot of power over the community as it opened a lot of peoples' eyes. They're dwindling away now. I imagine they'll die out for the most part in a few years unless they start getting uppity again in which case they'd die out sooner.

I'd urge you to look more towards the actual roots of GG and why it all started. It really was never about sexism or misogyny or anything like that. For the most part, nobody gave a damn who it was. They just didn't like the idea that media outlets were so corrupted. You can even see that today with regular media sources. Trust in the media(all forms) has gone down because it's becoming clear how corrupt it can be and that's why GG happened and what it was started for. Corruption.

I can imagine that this thread will derail into a mess though(partially thanks on my part, sorry). If you really want to advertise this book, I would recommend trying elsewhere or Tumblr. Those seem to be the places where the target audience are best found. I truly think those crowds would be your best bet to advertise this kind of subject to. I wish you luck on helping your friend

I myself am a queer man, and I think there is some confusion in this thread. Pursuing studies from a "queer perspective" does not inherently indicate Identity politics (which are dangerous and especially harmful to young LGBT+ people). Rather, the "quuer perspective" is indicative of the inherent wild difference in the lives of queer people that result in a different lenses in which we view the world.

Explaining these things to people who are not queer is difficult, because it is impossible. The only thing that would allow people to understand completely is a literal mind meld. If every experience in you have to imagine all of the individual experiences in your life through the view of something that, until the recent maybe five years, was widely portrayed as abnormal. As you can imagine, this is wildly complex and I am opposed to labeling a handful of essays by queer individuals as indicative of the queer perspective as a whole. Even within the "queer community" there is a wild amount of in fighting, nobody agrees with each other on everything, but you must understand, our experiences are now and will continue to be wildly different than yours because of the way that the world we live in views us. Some people in this thread seem to believe that the world does not look at us differently than our straight or cisgendered kin, but that is simply not true, and it likely will not be true within my lifetime.

The book itself seems interesting. I'll check it out.

Screw4ff wrote:

I myself am a queer man, and I think there is some confusion in this thread. Pursuing studies from a "queer perspective" does not inherently indicate Identity politics (which are dangerous and especially harmful to young LGBT+ people). Rather, the "quuer perspective" is indicative of the inherent wild difference in the lives of queer people that result in a different lenses in which we view the world.

Explaining these things to people who are not queer is difficult, because it is impossible. The only thing that would allow people to understand completely is a literal mind meld. If every experience in you have to imagine all of the individual experiences in your life through the view of something that, until the recent maybe five years, was widely portrayed as abnormal. As you can imagine, this is wildly complex and I am opposed to labeling a handful of essays by queer individuals as indicative of the queer perspective as a whole. Even within the "queer community" there is a wild amount of in fighting, nobody agrees with each other on everything, but you must understand, our experiences are now and will continue to be wildly different than yours because of the way that the world we live in views us. Some people in this thread seem to believe that the world does not look at us differently than our straight or cisgendered kin, but that is simply not true, and it likely will not be true within my lifetime.

The book itself seems interesting. I'll check it out.

I agree with your comment about identity politics is a very dangerous and very manipulative in my personal opinion to others in the lgbt community as well as your point we all have very different opinions.

Like for example i disagree with your comment about the generalisation of people looking at us different. You are true that some do but that is their prerogative and belief in doing so and not all people do, Segregating and label is the problem and results in victimisation when their is none as well as more disdain for the goal of equality. There is no "us" and "them" we should be heading to a world where it is "everybody".

Gaming as a whole shouldn't be about individuals perspectives on the game companies and industry but more about the artistic integrity of the games and expression that this medium provides.

Granted like you said each person has a very different view as well as experiences and that is whats so great about this world is that we can share those views and learn from others. But automatically dismissing people by saying you wont understand also is not progressing the discussion

Just my two cents any hows no offence meant to each persons different views and experiences. Or if i miss understand in anyways


Ps sorry about grammar and spelling i cant be bothered to proof read

AlanaSP wrote:

Screw4ff wrote:

I myself am a queer man, and I think there is some confusion in this thread. Pursuing studies from a "queer perspective" does not inherently indicate Identity politics (which are dangerous and especially harmful to young LGBT+ people). Rather, the "quuer perspective" is indicative of the inherent wild difference in the lives of queer people that result in a different lenses in which we view the world.

Explaining these things to people who are not queer is difficult, because it is impossible. The only thing that would allow people to understand completely is a literal mind meld. If every experience in you have to imagine all of the individual experiences in your life through the view of something that, until the recent maybe five years, was widely portrayed as abnormal. As you can imagine, this is wildly complex and I am opposed to labeling a handful of essays by queer individuals as indicative of the queer perspective as a whole. Even within the "queer community" there is a wild amount of in fighting, nobody agrees with each other on everything, but you must understand, our experiences are now and will continue to be wildly different than yours because of the way that the world we live in views us. Some people in this thread seem to believe that the world does not look at us differently than our straight or cisgendered kin, but that is simply not true, and it likely will not be true within my lifetime.

The book itself seems interesting. I'll check it out.

I agree with your comment about identity politics is a very dangerous and very manipulative in my personal opinion to others in the lgbt community as well as your point we all have very different opinions.

Like for example i disagree with your comment about the generalisation of people looking at us different. You are true that some do but that is their prerogative and belief in doing so and not all people do, Segregating and label is the problem and results in victimisation when their is none as well as more disdain for the goal of equality. There is no "us" and "them" we should be heading to a world where it is "everybody".

Gaming as a whole shouldn't be about individuals perspectives on the game companies and industry but more about the artistic integrity of the games and expression that this medium provides.

Granted like you said each person has a very different view as well as experiences and that is whats so great about this world is that we can share those views and learn from others. But automatically dismissing people by saying you wont understand also is not progressing the discussion

Just my two cents any hows no offence meant to each persons different views and experiences. Or if i miss understand in anyways


Ps sorry about grammar and spelling i cant be bothered to proof read

I should clarify, since I was in a rush, that when I said that the world looks at us differently, I did not mean every individual looks at queer people as someone who is "not normal", but their sexuality does impact the vast majority of peoples opinions, even if they don't recognize it. Identity politics is not simply people claiming to be a victim because they are trans or queer, although that is the most noted example, it is much older than any modern discourse. Identity politics is the kkk, its stereotypes of racial groups and the response, its the communists vs the capitalists, its the nazis master race, its the three-fifths clause, its what tribe you belong to.

You and I agree on that there is no "us" and "them." These groups are imaginary, set up by oppressors and resistors because it makes fighting easier to justify, but as a sapecies we should have outgrown this philosophy, we are no longer tribes, we are humanity. But society at large still categorizes people based off of superficial elements that should matter to no one but the individual themselves.

Here in the west, the "common ideals" are based on traditions only a few centuries old, and a lot of those traditions favor Caucasian men who are straight, cisgendered, and christian. They're not as strict as they used to be, of course, after decades of fighting for some groups, and centuries for others, we are closer now to even ground than ever before. The search for equality is a search not for acceptance, we have that from all that will give it, it is a search for indifference. we are queer, and we are proud of that, just as others should be proud to be straight or cisgendered, but we are no more than human. Often times, people will view queer people exerting this pride as obnoxious or playing into identity politics, when it is a response to bigotry that still exists, even if it is not vastly spread as it once was. Because for every bigot, there are five people willing to hear them out, and thats dangerous with bigoted beliefs, because they can be convincing.

You are probably not convinced by bigoted beliefs, you seem rational and pleasant, but there is a german saying, not even a hundred years old, that goes: if you have a nazi at a table, and four people listening to him, what you have is a table with five nazis. I think about that saying a lot, because these beliefs spread, and if they spread far enough, then people will die. that is why I believe it is important to get queer experiences out in the open.

I would also like to clarify that my comment about the difficulty of communicating the queer experience to people who are not queer was not meant to be reductive, but rather indicative of the struggle to convey such alien concepts, which is why such attempts are frequently met with pushback, because how do you convey such a complicated and spanning subject to people in a concise manner?

I'm not quite sure what you mean in regards to the artistic integrity of gaming, since, to me, one of the greatest features of the medium is that it is so flexible and interactive that these exact subjects can be explained to people in ways that are engaging, entertaining, and, in a way, concise.

I think theres more to talk about but this is already probably seeming like the ramblings of a mad man rather than a response and I'm worried that we are both risking coming off as reductive, so if you wish to table it there then I will leave it to your judgement.

I also could not be bothered to proofread, lol.

The thread is already getting slowly filled up by TL:DR posts that apear to resemble a debate so I'm unsure how many more opinions will get a chance to be shared here.

I read just a small bit of the book on the amazon page, so I can't really form a full opinion on it, but a book like this should totally exist.

LGBTQ chracters and themes have appeared in gaming for a very long time. Often not even directly mentioned. And when peeking at the source pages I saw that the book will probably cover these instances.
Obviously a large number of the worlds video game developers fall into the LGBTQ category and they should be allowed to express themselves through their medium just like any other creator.

There are developers out there who have consistently inserted the subject into their games for a long time that have done it well and developers who have not.

Heck, one of my favourite video game studios: Rockstar Games, still to this day handles the subject very poorly. I love GTA, but I really hope the book touches on how not to do it.

Another noteworthy franchise worth mentioning could be Borderlands. I haven't played the latest entree, nor do I know much about the people working on it, but in the second entree you could find out that most npc's were queer, either through holotapes or generic dialouge. It made no impact on the audience reception, nor on the gameplay. Yet the latest entree has a LGBTQ themed dlc that has become a breeding ground for homophobic players looking to complain.
I'm not sure how the dlc handles the subject, but it is made clear the complaining crowd doesn't either.

I am a strong believer that RPG's that feature relationships, should include same-sex ones as well.
And if a game has a chance to let you play a trans or non-binary chracter, they should take it.
Games like Stardew Valley, Animal Crossing and the Sims have literally no reason they shouldn't be able to let you do that, so they should.
Shout-out to the Sims 4 for including a fully dynamic system for that!

Thanks for the recommendation. I'm looking to expand my tbr pile and this is just what I've been looking for!

Wertologist wrote:

I think identity politics is a cancer no matter what medium it's thrown into.

Great f*cking start. Comparing politics you don't like to diseases. Really wholesome vibes.

Quote :

When you hired someone just because they are part of Group B rather than Group A then you're saying that they're identity is more important than the work they can do.

No. I assume you forgot to mention the condition of "Group A person being better at the job than the other". But still, it doesn't necessarily mean that their identity in and of itself is more important to me. It might. But, especially for creative jobs, the perspective a person brings with them might be more important than their "skill".

Quote :

When you aim for people of a certain group, you are most likely cutting out people who are potentially much better fits for your project and thus are depriving your project of the quality it could be. When the best suited artist doesn't belong to Group B, you are getting a less qualified artist by searching only in Group B.

Yeah, because it is totally possible to appoint an objective measurement of quality to art. And again, the perspective and live-experience a person can bring to a project can be more important and valueable than "pure skill".

Quote :

When companies try to include people from <insert group> and make it a key advertisement point, then it usually tells you how the product comes out. ME Adromeda seems to be a pretty solid example. Mighty No9 is another good one. Identity politics were a main focus of these two games and they suffered from this.

Both games suffered from a whole range of issues. Maybe they suffered from a focus on identity politics. But there are way more important conditions which allowed for the production to be such trashfires. Profitmotive mainly, but that's a whole different discussion.

Quote :

I don't care who you are. I care about what you can do.

What I can do is influenced, if not even determined, by who I am. And in turn it is part of who I am. You can't seprerate that.

Quote :

If you can produce some great work, then I'm going to be paying attention. If you don't, well you're going to get less attention and the amount varies depending on the quality of what you put out.

Really? It seems to me like you paid quite some attention to something you don't deem to be "great work" in ME:A and Might No.9, but aight. And even more again, what you think to be "great work" might be absolute trash and of no value to someone coming from a different perspective than you. Maybe to some ME:A is a piece of great work because of the staff behind it being rather diverse. Unless you apply metaethics, don't try to apply an objective value to art.

Quote :

If your work focuses on a message you want out there, you best know which target audience to market that focus to and it seems safe to say that most gamers generally don't give a damn about identity politics so forcing it into your content isn't going to be making many want to buy your stuff.

"Gamer" is also an identity. So, prioritizing the concerns of "gamers", when making a game, is also identity politics. The Call of Duty games are filled to the brim with identity politcs, as well as other, and always have been. And they sell like hot chocolate. Really, most people who identify as "gamers" simply don't know what identity politics are and that it's not just identity politics when a marginalized group of people get favoured.

Quote :

I'm very passionate about art.

I noticed.

Quote :

I want it to be the most it can be. I don't want art to be watered down or held back or it becomes less real in my eyes.

Great to hear, comrade! I also don't want art to be restrained by the mechanisms of capital. People should be able to freely express themselves, without being dependent on how well their art will sell.

Quote :

When you start changing your art in order to appease someone, then it's becoming less of a piece of art.

I disagree, but that would take too long.

Quote :

There is always some give and take, but it's best to keep it to a minimum in order to keep the art as it was originally intended. While I say it's bad to water things down, I'm not referring to the subject of the post, that would be the holding back part doing that. I feel if you have to focus more on being inclusive, you are excluding those who would otherwise be better suited to make your art the best it could possibly be. You're holding your work back.

Again, what's the best art can be, isn't really objective. Maybe when it comes to ethics, but then pretty much all contemporary art is the absolute friggin' worst it can be.

Quote :

I'm also very passionate about gaming[...]

Obviously.

Quote :

[...]and I imagine many others who are also passionate about gaming will share this outlook.

Yeah, I've been around. You guys are losing numbers. More and more people are developing a consciousness for the holistic nature of society and the meaning and origins of art produced by said society.

Quote :

I just want art to be the most it can be.

No, you want art to mainly serve your taste and desires. You want it to be the best by your standards. Wanting art "to be the most it can be" would mean to wish for the highest level of diversity possible. In all regards.

Quote :

When the focus diverts away from the art and more towards ideologies, then you are tainting the art.

Again, no. First off, no one and nothing anyone does will ever be free of ideology. It's only a matter of whether you're conscious of your ideology and how it influences your work and actions. So, second off, when the focus shifts toward ideologies it only means that the artists are more aware of their intentions and what they want to achieve with their art. Creating a piece of art isn't an end in itself. It's a means to something else.

Quote :

@StarCheat I think you have a misunderstanding of what GG was all about.

I really don't.

Quote :

Contrary to what the narrative that was declared by "journalists", it was never about "misogyny" or anything like that.

Ofcourse not... it never is...

Quote :

It was always about ethics.

It really wasn't. Maybe check up on what ethics are and don't just read the definition of the word on google or smth.

Quote :

It all started from a huge ethics problem when a "game" designer slept with journalists to get good reviews for her "game". I put game in quotes because it was essentially a pixelated powerpoint that was roughly 5 minutes long[...]

Yeah, go ahead and just determine what games and art are. Worked out great so far.

Quote :

[...]and the reviewers she slept with all gave it 5/5. It got out that she slept with people to get those reviews and then the "journalists" doubled down and started slandering all their critics as misogynists who were only going after her because she was a woman

A tiny bit very much wrong, but whatever. No, actually not whatever. They went after her like she f*cking murdered someone. And it all turned out to be lies. None of the accusations were true. "Evidence" was falsified and accusations were just shouted over actual evidence. And they got all up in her private life over something infactual, incredibly meaningless and and absolutely none of their business. If it actually had been about "ethics in game journalism" (lol) they would've gone after the journalists, if anyone. Gamergate wasn't about ethics. It was completely and thoroughly unethical and an actual witchhunt. Absolutely barbaric and not the slightest bit of good can be found in it.

Quote :

Since so many of those "journalists" were tied together, they all sided together and they had the means to control the narrative to outside viewers as they were "journalists".

They sided with each other because people were getting attacked for being acquainted with people who were acquainted with Zoe Quinn and because they all got attacked as a profession over lies. The narrative they put forward was exactly what was happening. I was there as well and I saw the shit done by these dipshits. Individuals were being harrassed because of acquaintance or because of opinions they had on games which were deemed bad by some overzealous brainfarts.

Quote :

And as a  note, I put journalist in quotes because it's pretty evident that most of the game "journalists" don't even play games let alone like them so having them in a position to speak for gamers seems like a sick joke.

About as evident as you obviously not engaging in any sort of scientific social theories and therefore have no actual clue about what qualifies as misogynistic? No, probably way waaay less.

Quote :

I've been following GG since it all started.

#metoo

Quote :

No, I never watched Sargon. Didn't even know who he was until after it died down.

Okay.

Quote :

GG was always about ethics.

Maybe if you keep saying it, it will come true some day. Maybe.

Quote :

Just because the final straw that sparked GG involved a woman does not mean that it was some misogynistic campaign.

Quite the misrepresentation and also wrong.

Quote :

It was about the corruption in gaming journalism.

If it had been, the mechanisms behind it would have been the target and not the ones who got "corrupted" by the system. Ah, right. The corruption isn't happening because people depend on identifiers of value but because "evil identity politics" try to undermine gaming and culture in general, right?

Quote :

Outlets like IGN would always give 10/10 scores to games that obviously didn't deserve it.

THESE ARE OPINIONS! FFS! AND EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE OPINIONS FOR MONEY (or maybe even sex or whatever) THEY ARE STILL JUST OPINIONS! Though I agree that putting scored to art and trying to determine an objective value is unethical and should be met with guillotines. But that on another day.

Quote :

Years of that going on all built up until finally Zoey released her "game".

Factual. "Gamers" could ignore obviously bought and manipulated scores and reviews for decades UNTIL a woman allegedly gave her bodily autonomy to the forces of capital and a reviewer of games allegedly gave her game 5* for it. Both of which never actually happened but yeah, she *just" was "the final straw". Sure...

Quote :

She was the final straw that broke the camel's back. If even a small nobody could buy their 10/10 reviews then the media was worthless because you could never trust them.

I mean... you actually can't trust anyone because anyone could be lying to gain a benefit. And you're right, ofcourse. "Small nobodies" shouldn't be able to buy 10/10 reviews. Only big, rich and powerful companies should be able to do that! Where would we end up if just everyone was powerful?

Quote :

However, they controlled the narrative as they were really the only ones whose whole point of existence was writing about things in the gaming world and there was nobody on the opposing side in a similar position to counter their narrative.

Wrong, again. Gamergate controlled the narrative. They had from the very beginning. The journalists just reported on the narrative GG pushed, how they did it and how it was wrong.

Quote :

So with no permitted counter narrative,[...]

What? The f*ck are you talking about?

Quote :

[...]they could label it and describe it however they wanted and they'd be viewed as the "experts" on it because of their position.

They were the experts because they followed the gaming scene, not just the publishing side, for decades. Now... don't tell me you think it would be better to employ someone because they identify as a "gamer" over someone with years to decades of actual experience IN the business but doesn't identify as a gamer... I know you didn't say this, but I just have this feeling... like yoU WANT TO ENFORCE IDENTITY POLITCS ON GAMES JOURNALISM!?!?!?!?!

Quote :

As the years went on, GG has made a significant dent towards the goal it set out to achieve.

Yeah, Zoe Quinn has worse anxiety issues than ever before...

Quote :

A lot of those media outlets suffered a lot.

Oh... that's what you meant.

Quote :

It turns out that smearing your target audience and calling them sexists and declaring gamers to be dead was a bad decision for media outlets dedicated to gaming.

Sorry to dissapoint you but capital don't work that way.

Quote :

They're a lot less prominent than they were in the past now. They've lost a lot of power over the community as it opened a lot of peoples' eyes. They're dwindling away now. I imagine they'll die out for the most part in a few years unless they start getting uppity again in which case they'd die out sooner.

I'd argue that it made people shut their eyes way harder than before but whatever. I mean, people aren't just blind and deaf to scientific reasoning they fight it. Climate change? Better keep the motor running 24/7 now to show those globalists! Coronavirus?  

Quote :

I'd urge you to look more towards the actual roots of GG and why it all started.

I have and the funny thing is, I even agree that gaming journalism is unethical. But that's a systemic issue because we live in a corruptive system which is something that has to change. But it won't get better by replacing the wrong with the right people.

Quote :

It really was never about sexism or misogyny or anything like that.

Like I said, it never is... It's always something different and if possible something righteous.

Quote :

For the most part, nobody gave a damn who it was.

That's just wrong. I think that many, possibly most, didn't give a damn about who it was and just jumped on the bandwagon. But the people who started it off, kept the engine running hot and profited the most from it, oh, they cared a lot about who the targets were.

Quote :

They just didn't like the idea that media outlets were so corrupted. You can even see that today with regular media sources. Trust in the media(all forms) has gone down because it's becoming clear how corrupt it can be and that's why GG happened and what it was started for. Corruption.

Corruption is the foundation but not why it happened or even started. It happened because corruption allegedly happened in an unacceptable way. By someone who shouldn't be powerful. By a woman who didn't even make a game about cool shooty dudes with murica flags tattoo'ed on their biceps. Capitalist media is corrupt, but not in the way you think it is. You probably won't, but I really actually recommend that you read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman. It's quite the challenge to read and understand, but if you really want to know how corrupted "(all forms)" of media are, it's the goto work. But be warned! It's dangerous left-wing propaganda with is based in scientific reasoning instead of common sense.

Quote :

I can imagine that this thread will derail into a mess though(partially thanks on my part, sorry).

It actually didn't. Though I'd understand if you think it did.

Quote :

If you really want to advertise this book, I would recommend trying elsewhere or Tumblr. Those seem to be the places where the target audience are best found. I truly think those crowds would be your best bet to advertise this kind of subject to.

I don't think anyone on Tumblr is in anyway in such dire need to read this book as you and (actual wild f*cking guess) most people most people who identify as "gamers, are.

Quote :

I wish you luck on helping your friend

Lol, that was years ago. We are way past that. But thanks, I guess.

I think there's a lack of clarity in the discussion, that's led to derailment into political debating, wheen that's kind of a moot point. I can't think of any piece of media that isn't layered with sociopolitical issues. That's kind of the definition of art at the end of the day; expression of our beliefs and feelings via a medium, be it painting, writing, acting, and yes, ultimately, video games.

I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find a single example of anything in the aforementioned fields that isn't political in some way. Hell, even this forums beloved FNV is loaded with gay/lesbian characters, and Fallout series as a whole was created by a gay man; Tim Cain. I did actually do a game study course back at university that touched upon a lot of Queer issues in games, beyond just lgbt+. There's a lot of material written about this stuff, and honestly, rather than blindly debating it, I'd encourage people to give them a read. It is quite interesting to give an alternate view point a try.

For me at the end of the day, a lot of my favourite games have very political subtext when you get past the surface. The difference between games like those, and what I would say causes something of a knee jerk reaction among many, is good writing. I don't think, as many of you guys have pointed out, anything of worth comes from going for low hanging fruit, or simply having diverse writing teams, but often just by having a good solid direction, and people who have an ability to make their characters feel human, and worlds natural, rather than just creating caricatures, or simply grandstanding.

Edit: Plot twist right there. Didn't realise this, but that book was actually one of my course materials at uni. Doesn't time fly?

its nice to see everyone take into consideration Dragbodys request to not have a debate start.

Tribal Raven wrote:

While most of the posts here are civil, please keep this topic free from debate or flaming.

It's understandably a hot topic, but let's not throw coal on the fire.

Sure. Sorry for losing my temper.