RE: NPR on #gamergate women videogames

In reply to
NPR: Gamergate controversy fuels debate on women and video games

This article seems to imply a few things
1) That appearance of games like Candy Crush Saga and Words with Friends is a large enough change in game industry to "leave" someone "behind".
2) That people who enjoy a more of a classic game experiences are by and large afraid of being "left behind"
3) That the vocal minority that harasses women is the same group of people as those who enjoy classic game experiences

Putting (2) and (3) together brings us to the inevitable conclusion that
(4) people who enjoy classic game experiences deserve to be "left behind" in the name of protecting women of the industry against harassment.

Let me address these statements in order.

1) Not true. Candy Crush Saga and Words with Friends are a not all that groundbreaking in anything but monetization models. As far as games medium is concerned, these games serve as gateway drug to the industry for a lot of people. That is great, both because of inclusivity reasons and because these games earned the industry a lot of money. However, the notion that casual games are eventually going to supplant the classic genres doesn't hold up. In fact, as the history of Angry Birds franchise shows, it is instead casual players that are becoming more interested in "core" experiences.

2) Again, not true. I am a very run-of-the-mill representative of someone who likes classic game experiences and i don't feel at all "left behind". If anything, i feel that the world is finally catching up to where i am. I am actually more worried for game journalists who seem to have gotten themselves swept away in the "casual games" fad (and the flood of money that it brought). A game journalist that has forgotten what makes games good to begin with is someone on a fast track to becoming irrelevant in games industry.

3) Again, not true. There are vocal harassing minorities in every community. They are not representative of anyone but themselves and should never be assumed to be the voice of the entire community. Sadly, modern Internet culture gave those voices a lot of power, and we have not yet figured out how to properly deal with them. I don't feel it is fair to accuse specifically gamers of this large-scale cultural failing, though. Neither it is fair to place the burden of responsibility for this failing on just gamers.

Since statements (2) and (3) are not true, statement (4) is not true. Gamers do not deserve to be called "dead" because there is a harassing minority that is not even unique to gaming scene.

However, a more fundamental problem with statement (4) is the very idea that you can somehow "leave gamers behind". This is not what is actually happening, as i demonstrated in reply to statement (1). What actually happens is that the whole civilized world is embracing the gamer culture, much like how in the past it embraced book-lovers and movie buffs.

Revolutionaries be advised. Woe to those who scorn the forces of the heart! - Romain Rolland

RE: Escapist FW: Female Game Devs RE: #GamerGate

Written in reply to:
Escapist: Female Game Developers Make Statements on GamerGate

I understand the feelings of all the great ladies that posted. However, to me, the salient takeaway from all of this seem to be a number of statements.

-----
First set of statements:
"Zoe Quinn had the right to get away with everything she did because she was a woman".
"Popular people shouldn't have to deal with responsibility for their image that comes with popularity"
"Game developers make your games. Don't attack them if you want more games"

I find all of these statements wrong.
Being a woman and / or popular does not excuse corrupt behaviour. Especially not if woman supposedly has equal rights and responsibilities to man.
If you are popular, you are responsible and should expect to be held responsible.
Devs don't get to hold their consumers hostage.

-----
Second set of statements:
"I am unprepared to deal with the less savory implcations of modern Internet culture and would rather it just stopped"
"I feel guilty for not standing up to it with my friends"

These i find similar to be sentiments appropriate to a helpless child, not a grown human being (of any gender). I can empathise because i have been a child once, but i can't support because i'm a child no longer.

-----
Finally, a third set of statements that i am more partial to:
"The public is much more eager to attack women than men"
"I don't want to make games for toxic people"

The first is indeed true. Not sure how fair it is to blame gaming scene specifically for it, though. It is a part of a larger problem and i guess combatting this state of affairs is what gives feminism its vitality.
You need to ask yourself, though. If a woman in question is indeed corrupt, should you protect her because she is a woman or should you call her out on her corruption?

The second statement is understandable and is definitely a personal choice. There is a token retort that this toxicity is not representative of the gamers at large, but we all know this answer isn't really working :(

My personal answer to this is that i sincerely believe that people - even the most toxic ones - can change for the better. And games can be a vehicle for this change. However, that change won't happen if people making those games elect to just turn their backs because they can't handle a little immaturity (however amplified by modern Internet culture)

So, imo: