
On GamerGate: A letter from the editor - aaronbrethorst
http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor
======
hartror
We've moved geek culture from our darkened rooms into the mainstream, games as
a medium have greater exposure that ever before. We're reaping vast benefits
from this, not a day passes now that I don't find a new game worthy of my
attention (and dollars). But this wider audience comes with price, no longer
can games and gamers get a free pass on what broader society considers
distasteful. This won't restrict the gaming experience, if anything those that
enjoy the seedier side of gaming will get enjoyment through the disgust of
broader society, Hatred for example seems to be targeting this cohort.

Maybe I live in a happy little feminist echo chamber but the general mood
appears to me to accepting and even espousing this cultural change. This
upheaval seems to reflect many of the important cultural shifts we have
experience more generally in society. A loud minority fight the change, often
through intimidation, while the mainstream more or less accepts the change
(please correct me if I am wrong I am not a big student of history!). They
will continue to grumble and disrupt for some time but they will tire.

As Katherine Cross said in Polygon a few months ago. They're not coming for
your games.

~~~
Goladus
> A loud minority fight the change, often through intimidation, while the
> mainstream more or less accepts the change (please correct me if I am wrong
> I am not a big student of history!).

That is the narrative, the problem is that it isn't true. The vocal minority
isn't fighting the supposed change so much as it's fighting the corrupt,
hypocritical agents of that change (Vox and Gawker in particular)

~~~
hartror
That has shown to be overblown rubbish time and time again over the past
month.

~~~
Goladus
No, it hasn't been SHOWN to be anything. Opponents aren't showing anything
they're just yelling the same lies over and over.

~~~
hartror
Innocent till proven guilty? The onus is on gamer gate proponents to show
there has been a conflict of interest . . .

~~~
Goladus
> Innocent till proven guilty? The onus is on gamer gate proponents to show
> there has been a conflict of interest . . .

If you're only reading Polygon you aren't going to see GamerGate showing you
anything. And if you're skeptical of my sincerity I'll have to apologize: this
obscure thread is not worth the effort to educate you.

------
A_COMPUTER
In the past the gaming media facilitated buying decisions by acting as trusted
purchase decision agents. Now there is a lot more reviews of games that
explore them as artifacts of culture. There is a culture split between people
who want game reviews and people who want game critique. When gamers say they
want "objective" reviews this is what they mean. Yes they use the term wrong,
but it's not hard to figure out what they mean. Saying that these people are
asking for nonsense is a subtle form of class-signaling, to indicate that
these people are uneducated but you are smart. This is an example of why some
gamers think that some games journalists are contemptuous of their audience.

The other day I was on Polygon. They had syndicated a story from Hollywood
Reporter about the Jennifer Lawrence nude photo hacking. Why is this on a
video game site? It is guaranteed to enrage people that just want to read
about video games, the first group I mentioned. The other reason was again, to
send a message "get out, Reddit filth. Get out, philistines who only want to
talk about games." They have been ramping up publishing articles about
harassment rather than directly talking about Gamergate, as Plant has said in
this article. They can do that. It's their site, and if they think its an
important issue that needs exposure, they can do that. But they are not right
and the people who disagree are wrong. They are simply making a choice and
need to accept the criticism with the praise. Some people don't want that
stuff on a game site. They just want to read about games.

The article. A writer reviewed Bayonetta 2, and docked it for uncomfortable
levels of sexism. He was accused of not being objective, of being unethical.
Again, these are incorrect usages of the terms, but you can figure out what
some people are mad about if you listen to them. Bayonetta gets a 7.5. But
GTA5, a game that is overloaded with sexism, gets a 9.5. First, any reasonable
person would at least want some sort of an explanation. But beyond that, why
the hell is a social critique assigned a numeric value? That doesn't even make
any sense. Guernica with its topical political themes is a 9, so it barely
edges out the Rape of the Sabine Women, which while artistically superb was an
8.9. What? A bunch of people are mad because that doesn't make any god damn
sense.

Maybe Polygon needs to figure out if its reviewing games or if it's critiquing
art. Or maybe it needs to change nothing because it knows exactly what it's
doing. Maybe it makes sense to always have a score, because then your score
gets put on metacritic. It's free advertising. And some game companies
apparently assign bonuses based on metacritic scores, so it's a great way to
boost or punish a company depending on how you feel about them. Game is 9s
across the board except for one guy who dings it because it gave him pain in
his swimsuit area. But I'm being harsh. If it made him uncomfortable, his
feelings are valid in a criticism of a game. But the fact that it's an opinion
piece doesn't mean that a person's statements can't be tested for
inconsistency and stupidity. This is the same guy who defended simcity's
shitty always-on network requirement because the company said it was literally
impossible to do offline play, despite the fact that there was a working
offline play hack and they finally buckled and officially released that
feature. The guy is just shitty at his job and it's not hard to notice.

Finally, back to the politics thing. They are not unique, it is not because of
sexism and pissed off manbabies. It is because of that same group of people
that have never wanted that shit on the sites to begin with. My evidence is
Slashdot. In the period leading up the Iraq war, Slashdot slowly started
adding in political stories. Many people absolutely hated these, but they
started giant flame wars and these posts consistently got the most comments.
It finally culminated in a dedicated politics section. Many people hated it
then, and continue to hate it now. But controversy brings the clicks. Polygon
canned their long-form writer during a staff shakeup, which is doubly sad
because a better form of game journalism was why Polygon was supposedly
created. What are they good for now? Stuff that brings the clicks.

Issues dealing with representation of women in games, or harassment in the
community are legitimate concerns, but many people go to the sites because
they want to read about games. I just want it recognized that many people
didn't want to talk about politics waaaay before the politics were about the
game community itself.

~~~
davidgerard
"no politics" is politics.

