#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
All you need to know about Gamergate is that while they were purporting to be about ethics in gaming journalism, they attempted to get a website blacklisted from getting advanced copies of future games because they disagreed with a review score. A publisher only giving advance screening in exchange for favorable coverage is what most people would consider "wildly unethical." For Gamergate, "ethics" means "say what we want to hear or don't say anything at all." That's why their "ethics" complaints have almost exclusively focused on feminism. "I don't want to hear about it, therefore it's unethical to print it." It's a movement for people who have absolutely no idea what journalistic ethics means (as summed up nicely by people who actually study ethics here and here).

What website did they attempt to get blacklisted from getting advance copies and for what reason?
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Way too much bitching and whining going on this past year. Everyone's being victimized by some bullshit boogey man....sooooo sick of it. People just need to do their shit, do it right, and shut the fuck up!

Much like everything else in the internet (and many things in life), you're only as victimized as you make yourself out to be.

You're only as victimized as you continue to post on Facebook. You're only as victimized as you continue to Tweet and YouTube. You're only as victimized as you continue to listen. You're only as victimized as you continue to open your mouth. I hold zero sympathy for you.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
Much like everything else in the internet (and many things in life), you're only as victimized as you make yourself out to be.

You're only as victimized as you continue to post on Facebook. You're only as victimized as you continue to Tweet and YouTube. You're only as victimized as you continue to listen. You're only as victimized as you continue to open your mouth.

Until you get swatted anyway, like one prominent pro-Gamergate woman was last night. Just earlier this year someone got shot in a swatting, it's no joke.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Christina Sommers is a academic feminist and is for Gamergate. Liana K (whom I believe is more pro GG leaning, i'm not sure though you'll have to ask her) is a feminist.

https://twitter.com/CHSommers

https://twitter.com/redlianak

To simply put: There are 2nd wave feminists who are upset of (what they believe) to be exploitation by 3rd wave feminists, vs 3rd wave feminists who are upset they're being challenged.

thanks for clearing that up

pti0WOt.gif
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
What website did they attempt to get blacklisted from getting advance copies and for what reason?

Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 a 7.5 and their reviewer specifically mentioned being uncomfortable with the "deliberate sexualization and objectification" of the main character. There was a backlash with a call for people buying Bayonetta 2 to specifically tell Nintendo they were upset with Polygon's coverage and not let them have advance review copies in the future. Here's Polygon's editor's response and a piece covering the controversy.
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,635
3,095
136
Until you get swatted anyway, like one prominent pro-Gamergate woman was last night. Just earlier this year someone got shot in a swatting, it's no joke.

I was afraid of this happening at some point. People do this SWATT prank on others and either don't realize the danger or don't care. I consider it attempted murder. If your hands are in the wrong place, you have headphones on and can't hear, you can die.
The violence threshold has been moved closer to where it started from.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,549
29,153
146
thanks for clearing that up

pti0WOt.gif

heh. Completely outside of this specific issue, I do understand this. I'm not sure where all the demarcations lie, but there are huge, huge gaps in activism and goals between the various waves of feminists.

I think Sanger and those at the onset of the 20th century were the first wave--their fight was for suffrage primarily, but also control of their body, which was a very different concept of the time. Women were a vessel for babies; nothing more, really. They wisely saw voting rights as the primary obstacle for any and all of their goals.

There was never an argument that women should be treated the same as men (that should be understood to have the very seem skills), but primarily that they should have equal representation and by proxy, equal acceptance.

the 2nd wave--Friedan, maybe? came about alongside the sexual revolution and basically rode that wave to gain more direct control of their sexual lives. This was always an issue (abortion had always been fought as a necessary right to access--it is as old as civilization, and always will be--because the access to safe procedure is the best way to limit the practice). This was also the group that argued for greater representation in the workforce. Within this wave was a more militant offset that pretty much despised the more pragmatic feminists, and I dont' think they ever reconciled (this second niche group is the only type of "feminist" that, basically, 100% of ignorant misogynists on this board and elsewhere use to generalize as "all feminists." What they would call "man-haters")

I think the 3rd wave is a contemporary wave that reimagines the niche militant group within the 2nd wave and hopes to bring those old battles back to the surface.

What we basically have are niche groups with the loudest voice, more or less distorting a generally positive movement.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 a 7.5 and their reviewer specifically mentioned being uncomfortable with the "deliberate sexualization and objectification" of the main character. There was a backlash with a call for people buying Bayonetta 2 to specifically tell Nintendo they were upset with Polygon's coverage and not let them have advance review copies in the future. Here's Polygon's editor's response and a piece covering the controversy.

I'm well aware of the backlash that Polygon received for their score, but where is evidence of this alleged attempt to get them barred from pre-release copies?
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
What we basically have are niche groups with the loudest voice, more or less distorting a generally positive movement.

I feel like this should be the motto of the internet. "Come find like-minded people to echo your own thoughts back to you and allow your opinions to get gradually crazier as you intentionally shut out all opposition until your views don't have any relation to reality anymore." We've created a system that allows people to pick and choose what they want to hear; it turns out, people want to hear things they already agree with. Dissent, like failure, is a great teacher, and most people want nothing to do with it.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,061
23,929
136
With any woman? Did I say "any woman"? I was speaking about the lame fakers holding up signs who pretend to give a shit about the state of gaming. I know one BF4 female gamer and she is very good. She also doesn't waste good gaming time by holding up stupid signs and taking selfies like these fake bitches.
These are people who suck at games because they don't care about games. This whole feminism thing is a huge distraction from the truth of bad journalism, and flocks of stupid girls are now holding up their signs pretending to care about gaming. Many of them probably don't even game, they just want a piece of the drama and to be a part of some stupid movement. Selfies and hash tags and their stupid signs lol.

You and nehalm should compare notes he is afraid of women to.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
This Twitter post. The Polygon response included the image as well:

B0A3e0HIcAA6mXY.png:large

Okay, that's pretty stupid. Hard to imagine anyone thought they'd accomplish this with Nintendo.

However, I don't think it's totally fair to say "GamerGate" is trying to do something like this because someone, even a fairly well known pro-GG person tried to pull something like this. I have a pretty good feeling that if this were discussed at a big GG gathering area like KiA most people would oppose it, not at all the kind of "operation" that'd get a sticky and resounding support.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,061
23,929
136
I'm a real man. I know my nature. You deny it. You sold yourself out along with the rest of them. You envision getting pats on the back from those who claim the false throne of progressivism. You simply ask yourself, "What does the majority believe right now? What can I say that would make me a team player? What can I say that will put me on the popular side of the fence?" And so you say it. You are an emotional parrot, reflecting only the voices and opinions of the popular with no guts to confess your real manhood.
I am a real man, nature first. I see a woman, I want to see her naked to evaluate her. I want to see her breasts to see if they are well shaped and healthy. I want to see if her hips are sexy. You pretend there is something that comes before this. Nothing comes before this. There are many things that come after, but I admit they come after. You lie and pretend they come before.

LOL, you need a case of butt paste for that chapped ass you have.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Okay, that's pretty stupid. Hard to imagine anyone thought they'd accomplish this with Nintendo.

However, I don't think it's totally fair to say "GamerGate" is trying to do something like this because someone, even a fairly well known pro-GG person tried to pull something like this. I have a pretty good feeling that if this were discussed at a big GG gathering area like KiA most people would oppose it, not at all the kind of "operation" that'd get a sticky and resounding support.

Most of their "operations" are in the same vein though; targeted e-mail campaigns to advertisers on websites they personally dislike. There are dozens of threads on KIA about each and every time an advertiser has pulled out of advertising from a place like Kotaku or Gamasutra because of public pressure (never mind that their biggest victory just collapsed as Intel is advertising on Gamasutra again). And KIA even had multiple threads about the Polygon Bayonetta 2 review. While it doesn't look like they were actively calling for a boycott, there were multiple users who took the time to express the opinion that reviews should be written for prospective buyers while apparently failing to grasp that some prospective buyers might actually care about things like objectification. It all comes back to this idea of "if I don't personally care about it, it can't be relevant and shouldn't be discussed." It's the most tone-deaf, self-involved navel-gazing perpetuated by people who think they're entitled to a press that reports solely on matters they deem important lest they be the subject of boycotts and letter-writing campaigns.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
I think a lot of you will be surprised to know that i'm a #gamergate supporter.

However, this narrative that this is a left/right issue is stupid. The overwhelming majority of people who support gamergate leans left:

https://twitter.com/HazmatBrigade/status/518208794401452032

SJW's are a caricature of liberals and most liberals i know don't really identify with SJW's.

Can someone confirm for me... because I can't tell in all honestly: Which side is #gamergate on?

Are the feminists on Gamergate side? Or against the gamergate side? I see both sides using the hashtag so I can't tell for the life of me.


Despite the false narrative, there are lots of self identified feminists who are on the gamergate side.
 
Last edited:

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
Most of their "operations" are in the same vein though; targeted e-mail campaigns to advertisers on websites they personally dislike. There are dozens of threads on KIA about each and every time an advertiser has pulled out of advertising from a place like Kotaku or Gamasutra because of public pressure (never mind that their biggest victory just collapsed as Intel is advertising on Gamasutra again). And KIA even had multiple threads about the Polygon Bayonetta 2 review. While it doesn't look like they were actively calling for a boycott, there were multiple users who took the time to express the opinion that reviews should be written for prospective buyers while apparently failing to grasp that some prospective buyers might actually care about things like objectification. It all comes back to this idea of "if I don't personally care about it, it can't be relevant and shouldn't be discussed." It's the most tone-deaf, self-involved navel-gazing perpetuated by people who think they're entitled to a press that reports solely on matters they deem important lest they be the subject of boycotts and letter-writing campaigns.

I don't consider the e-mails to advertisers really being the same sort of thing. It's along the lines of "this website said X which I didn't appreciate", with it being up to the advertiser's discretion to determine whether or not they think that the website reflects poorly on them. Much of "X" was more along the lines of feeling directly attacked and insulted than someone simply having an opinion they don't like. And I don't think there's anything wrong with informing the advertisers of this. I don't see a "right" to advertisements based on comments that have nothing to do with the comment as anything like trying to create selective distribution of review material because they got bad reviews.

And yeah, there were threads about not liking how Bayonetta 2 was scored, which really has nothing to do with wanting to get Polygon black-listed by Nintendo. If you think that the review was a sincere reflection on what the readers would be interested in that's fine, personally I didn't get that impression at all. I think that the set of players who would not want to play the game on the basis of Bayonetta's design or the camera would realize it pretty quickly without the score reaffirming it. I really don't think anyone has a problem with it being described in reviews, but this particular review seemed - to me - to veer from informative to moralizing, judging both the developers and the players who don't feel guilty about enjoying the game. And I think that the score was not given in a vacuum, meaning that I don't think it would have been scored as low if it weren't released amidst broader criticism of gender representation in games. The first Bayonetta was reviewed by the same author, and while he had a lot of similar criticism he gave it a higher score, despite saying that the second was better in every possible way. That to me sends a different message than I think you're getting.

What I can tell you is that the underlying mentality has not been "don't write about it", but to put it in separate op-ed pieces (yeah yeah I know a lot of people think game reviews are op eds, I don't agree with this); the concern with game reviews is that people have a certain expectation of what score means, particularly with how it gets aggregated on sites like Metacritic.

Anyway, this sort of thing has without doubt been wrapped up in GamerGate but it's hardly thing anyone has focused on. The other notion, that it's a concerted effort to censor Anita Sarkeesian, is also pretty off the mark. No one is trying to get her videos removed, even if a lot of this group doesn't agree with her points (and a lot of the people who disagree DO think there's a problem with the way women are represented in games). It's annoying how people say that it's all about opposition towards improved diversity or inclusion in gaming, and that everything else is a smokescreen, because I really don't think this is a dominant stance on any level. And it's even more annoying that that's pretty much the fairest/most reasonable thing people do say about it - more often they'll say it's about nothing more than actively driving women out of the industry through harassment.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,549
29,153
146
I think a lot of you will be surprised to know that i'm a #gamergate supporter.

However, this narrative that this is a left/right issue is stupid. The overwhelming majority of people who support gamergate leans left:

https://twitter.com/HazmatBrigade/status/518208794401452032

SJW's are a caricature of liberals and most liberals i know don't really identify with SJW's.




Despite the false narrative, there are lots of self identified feminists who are on the gamergate side.


As pointed out earlier, it seems apparent that feminists claim both sides. It's really a matter of what generation, or philosophy of feminism you identify with, as particularly in the late 60s, 70s era wave, there was some very strong in-battling within that movement, which spills over to today

From what I can tell, and I'm really not going to invest much time in this bollocks, it seems that some feminists seem to have made some relevant statments about objectification, and a very honest appeal to developers that they should make some wise decisions based on the growing demographics within the community. I mean, sounds reasonable, right?

Then some basement dwelling neckbeards got on those girls and were basically pissed that there was an idea that they might see less cartoon boobs in their entertainment, so they started posting deaththreats.

Then, it seems like some crazy militant feminists starting going after the neckbeards, and putting their face on this issue and calling for all out no balls-to-the-wall man-hating industry changing whatever. Or maybe--I dont' know if that happened.

Then, it seems like both groups of feminists started blocking deaththreats, which was interpreted by the neckbeards as "waaa! my 1st amendment rights, waaa!"

Then, never to shy away from the wrong fight, the other misogynists and conservatards of the web rushed to the neckbeards' right to proclaim the death of women that threaten cartoon boob exposure, and claim media bias! evil liberals!

Then, the militant feminists got mad, again, and started threatening the neckbeards.

Then, the more normal femininsts, maybe knew to this, were like wtf? and started fighting the militant feminists who had by now taken this fight on themselves as more of a "ban all games!" sort of thing.


Anyway, it's a confusing thing that really only matters for some video games.

There is no journalistic integrity/1st amendment issue for two reasons:

--there was zero integrity in the gaming world long before this. Zero, zilch. nada. none. To use this as a springboard for that is not only pointless, but highly insensitive and mis-targeted, because of reason 2:

--what is being censored here is twitter comments that involve death threats, and comment pages that involve the same. The reality is that unsexed dorks who hate women want to protect their right publish stalkery personal information for real women and ask for their deaths....because of video games.

um, fuck those people. There is no constitutional protection, or journalistic ethics that protects their baseless desire to do this.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
What I can tell you is that the underlying mentality has not been "don't write about it", but to put it in separate op-ed pieces (yeah yeah I know a lot of people think game reviews are op eds, I don't agree with this); the concern with game reviews is that people have a certain expectation of what score means, particularly with how it gets aggregated on sites like Metacritic.

That's more an indictment of Metacritic. I've read Gamergate's complaints about Metacritic being used by publishers as the basis for bonuses, and I agree that's a problem. But that's something that developers need to stop doing; it shouldn't be on a reviewer to base their score on their desire to see coders rewarded for their hard work. A reviewer is there to make a judgment about whether or not a game is worth someone's time and money, and that's hard to boil down to a score. Reviews are inherently subjective; we're asking people to tack an objective numeric value to their subjective experience, then complaining about the value of the number while ignoring the subjective experience it's meant to represent. Ironically, the website that does the best at this, Kotaku, who did away with review scores completely in favor of a "yes, no, not yet" scale, is the site that is most targeted by Gamergate. So in this area Gamergate and I see eye to eye, but I think they're going after the wrong people.

Just by means of personal example, I loved Grand Theft Auto V; I thought it was the best game released last year. I hated Grand Theft Auto Online, the multiplayer component. What is my score for that game taken as a whole? The singleplayer gets a 10, the multiplayer gets a 0; should I go with a 5? That doesn't seem right; I can skip the multiplayer and I'm playing a 10/10 game. But I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that I hated the multiplayer so someone who was only interested in multiplayer might think "oh, this game's not for me then." It's a subjective experience that is hard to pin a number on, and that number is invariably going to make someone unhappy. In this instance, there is no number that is going to accurately sum up my feelings of "great singleplayer, lousy multiplayer." We need to move away from numeric rankings as a whole, especially since the scale for videogames is so ludicrously unbalanced that a 7.5 is considered a "bad review."
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
Ironically, the website that does the best at this, Kotaku, who did away with review scores completely in favor of a "yes, no, not yet" scale, is the site that is most targeted by Gamergate.

It's only ironic if you think that "objective reviews" is the main interest of GamerGate, and it isn't, even if it's emerged as one of several common talking points. The problems with the gaming sites were more about personal relationships between reviewers and developers, double standards on reporting principles when it came to things like scandals, and articles that attacked gamer groups with negative stereotypes and unfair accusations.

I would argue that Gawker media as a whole has emerged as the main target; when it was "just" Kotaku they were about on the same level as Polygon and Gamasutra.

Just by means of personal example, I loved Grand Theft Auto V; I thought it was the best game released last year. I hated Grand Theft Auto Online, the multiplayer component. What is my score for that game taken as a whole? The singleplayer gets a 10, the multiplayer gets a 0; should I go with a 5? That doesn't seem right; I can skip the multiplayer and I'm playing a 10/10 game. But I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that I hated the multiplayer so someone who was only interested in multiplayer might think "oh, this game's not for me then." It's a subjective experience that is hard to pin a number on, and that number is invariably going to make someone unhappy. In this instance, there is no number that is going to accurately sum up my feelings of "great singleplayer, lousy multiplayer."

Well, okay, of course I agree with what you're saying. There isn't an objective metric for what does and doesn't matter when it comes to a game review. It really comes down to a simple matter of what the person's motivations were. Neither of us can really know for sure, and it's probably best not to lean towards the side that assumes bad faith, but it's hard for me personally to shake the impression given context.

A much more extreme (and absurd) example might be more obvious, and would better illustrate where I'm coming from. Like say, if the game had a Samoan, and the Samoan reviewer felt that the portrayal was very inaccurate, went on a rant about it, and gave the game a 2/10 (assume the game didn't seem to otherwise suck). I think at this point it should be clear that the person isn't really writing the review for the audience but to appeal to something else. And the readers would pretty quickly realize this and lose faith in that site's reviews. But something more subtle and more in line with hot button issues of political correctness might go less noticed.

Anyway, I'm sure we won't agree on this, and really that's fine, it's pretty subjective. I personally don't see anything especially inflammatory with people thinking that GamerGate's issues are silly, blown out of proportion, just plain wrong, or even immature (which seems to roughly align with how you see it). What does get me is when it's flat out misrepresented, and when the pro-GG side is characterized as fighting for something it isn't, something completely heinous. Something which inevitably results in people comparing them to ISIS, saying that the world would be better off if they were all sent to gas chambers, and even doxxing and swatting them. If there's any real problem I have with the media it would be this sensationalist narrative that is filled with unsubstantiated claims, repeated by most websites. If people wrote articles on this that were more like your posts here I doubt it would have escalated to anything close to what it has.

We need to move away from numeric rankings as a whole, especially since the scale for videogames is so ludicrously unbalanced that a 7.5 is considered a "bad review."

I agree with this. I don't think scores are a great idea. I think Metacritic is an even worse idea.

Mind you, I don't think 7.5 is seen as a "bad" review per se, just well below expected for a game that was widely praised, where the review had a very specific problem with it.
 
Last edited:

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
As pointed out earlier, it seems apparent that feminists claim both sides. It's really a matter of what generation, or philosophy of feminism you identify with, as particularly in the late 60s, 70s era wave, there was some very strong in-battling within that movement, which spills over to today

From what I can tell, and I'm really not going to invest much time in this bollocks, it seems that some feminists seem to have made some relevant statments about objectification, and a very honest appeal to developers that they should make some wise decisions based on the growing demographics within the community. I mean, sounds reasonable, right?

Then some basement dwelling neckbeards got on those girls and were basically pissed that there was an idea that they might see less cartoon boobs in their entertainment, so they started posting deaththreats.

Then, it seems like some crazy militant feminists starting going after the neckbeards, and putting their face on this issue and calling for all out no balls-to-the-wall man-hating industry changing whatever. Or maybe--I dont' know if that happened.

Then, it seems like both groups of feminists started blocking deaththreats, which was interpreted by the neckbeards as "waaa! my 1st amendment rights, waaa!"

Then, never to shy away from the wrong fight, the other misogynists and conservatards of the web rushed to the neckbeards' right to proclaim the death of women that threaten cartoon boob exposure, and claim media bias! evil liberals!

Then, the militant feminists got mad, again, and started threatening the neckbeards.

Then, the more normal femininsts, maybe knew to this, were like wtf? and started fighting the militant feminists who had by now taken this fight on themselves as more of a "ban all games!" sort of thing.


Anyway, it's a confusing thing that really only matters for some video games.

There is no journalistic integrity/1st amendment issue for two reasons:

--there was zero integrity in the gaming world long before this. Zero, zilch. nada. none. To use this as a springboard for that is not only pointless, but highly insensitive and mis-targeted, because of reason 2:

--what is being censored here is twitter comments that involve death threats, and comment pages that involve the same. The reality is that unsexed dorks who hate women want to protect their right publish stalkery personal information for real women and ask for their deaths....because of video games.

um, fuck those people. There is no constitutional protection, or journalistic ethics that protects their baseless desire to do this.

I agree with a lot of that except:

--what is being censored here is twitter comments that involve death threats, and comment pages that involve the same. The reality is that unsexed dorks who hate women want to protect their right publish stalkery personal information for real women and ask for their deaths....because of video games.

No, that's not true at all.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/10/the-sjws-now-get-to-police-speech-on-twitter/

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/11/the-sjws-now-get-to-police-speech-on-twitter-ctd/

Rand fems are banning people off twitter for B.S. reasons (see the 2nd link about milo).
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
I agree with a lot of that except:



No, that's not true at all.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/10/the-sjws-now-get-to-police-speech-on-twitter/

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/11/the-sjws-now-get-to-police-speech-on-twitter-ctd/

Rand fems are banning people off twitter for B.S. reasons (see the 2nd link about milo).

Also, zinfamous, gamergate has been the one policing twitter for people doxxing/harassing, even gaming journalists are starting to realize that:

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/526240698493054978

We don't actually know who's doing the harassing/doxxing, but there has been a lot of evidence pointing to GNAA doing it to both gamergate/anti-gamergate people.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
As pointed out earlier, it seems apparent that feminists claim both sides. It's really a matter of what generation, or philosophy of feminism you identify with, as particularly in the late 60s, 70s era wave, there was some very strong in-battling within that movement, which spills over to today

From what I can tell, and I'm really not going to invest much time in this bollocks, it seems that some feminists seem to have made some relevant statments about objectification, and a very honest appeal to developers that they should make some wise decisions based on the growing demographics within the community. I mean, sounds reasonable, right?

Then some basement dwelling neckbeards got on those girls and were basically pissed that there was an idea that they might see less cartoon boobs in their entertainment, so they started posting deaththreats.

Then, it seems like some crazy militant feminists starting going after the neckbeards, and putting their face on this issue and calling for all out no balls-to-the-wall man-hating industry changing whatever. Or maybe--I dont' know if that happened.

Then, it seems like both groups of feminists started blocking deaththreats, which was interpreted by the neckbeards as "waaa! my 1st amendment rights, waaa!"

Then, never to shy away from the wrong fight, the other misogynists and conservatards of the web rushed to the neckbeards' right to proclaim the death of women that threaten cartoon boob exposure, and claim media bias! evil liberals!

Then, the militant feminists got mad, again, and started threatening the neckbeards.

Then, the more normal femininsts, maybe knew to this, were like wtf? and started fighting the militant feminists who had by now taken this fight on themselves as more of a "ban all games!" sort of thing.


Anyway, it's a confusing thing that really only matters for some video games.

There is no journalistic integrity/1st amendment issue for two reasons:

--there was zero integrity in the gaming world long before this. Zero, zilch. nada. none. To use this as a springboard for that is not only pointless, but highly insensitive and mis-targeted, because of reason 2:

--what is being censored here is twitter comments that involve death threats, and comment pages that involve the same. The reality is that unsexed dorks who hate women want to protect their right publish stalkery personal information for real women and ask for their deaths....because of video games.

um, fuck those people. There is no constitutional protection, or journalistic ethics that protects their baseless desire to do this.

Wow, that was like, phenomenally wrong. I can't blame you for thinking that's what happened given all the misinformation out there but I don't think it could be more off the mark.

I could try to give an overview of what happened (at least from how I've seen it) but a lot of other places have so it might just be easier to dig that up. But what I really want to address, which is a big, weird undercurrent behind what you said, is that no one has some cause of supporting death threats or other forms of harassment or terrorism. That's not on pretty much anyone's agenda, regardless of what side they're for. Yes, they happen anyway, but by people who are totally anonymous, not ons who then go and try to make a case for it.

Nothing started with death threats, those are just a really sick thing that unfortunately happens with pretty much anyone who gains an audience online and has controversial things to say. Sometimes even with people who aren't controversial and did nothing to seek an audience, like that #AlexFromTarget kid.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
I agree with this. I don't think scores are a great idea. I think Metacritic is an even worse idea.

Mind you, I don't think 7.5 is seen as a "bad" review per se, just well below expected for a game that was widely praised, where the review had a very specific problem with it.

I didn't even mean specific to Bayonetta 2. Gaming scores in general are preposterously top-heavy. This graphic seems appropriate:

UjjrE.png


Video games are the only industry where a 3 out of 4 star review can be seen as bad.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
I didn't even mean specific to Bayonetta 2. Gaming scores in general are preposterously top-heavy. This graphic seems appropriate:

Well it's kind of a problem with a lot of scoring trends outside games. I'm pretty sure it's at least partially influenced by the grading scale in American schools (and maybe others, I don't really know). You know, where anything below 60% is a failing grade and therefore unacceptable. And since this is ingrained starting at a very young age...

Video games are the only industry where a 3 out of 4 star review can be seen as bad.

I still don't think 7.5 is what most would consider bad (I think your infographic is exaggerated), although perhaps it'd leave a worse impression than a 7.5 on say, imdb.