It's a big mess. A sort of culture war in the games industry where the two sides are roughly the far left-wing (or "progressives") VS the center-left and the right-wing.
You can more or less know which side you'll agree with based on which of those groups you fall into.
As for understanding it, the reporting on it was frankly atrocious and 90% of what you'll read in the media about it is just opinion pieces with little-to-no evidence for the claims made. (as the VGChartz article rightly points out)
To get a rough idea of it, the best place to go would be the David Pakman interviews on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAss&list=PLNlFRucnM-Eh81w9RY34OL7A9UjD26KDO
He interviews various prominent people from both "sides" and does a pretty good job of remaining neutral.
What is Gamrgate??? Don't know and don't care.
Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.
| Veknoid_Outcast said: What and who represent the prosaically-named "Gamergate" movement is probably lost forever at this moment, buried under narrative and counter-narrative. You'll hear sensational reports from both the Gamergate and anti-Gamergate movements, but the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. One narrative explains that Gamergate exists solely to fight back against corruption and nepotism in the video game media, but I think that obscures a very important fact: that Gamergate was a movement rooted in the attempt to maintain the status quo. It wasn't simply about journalistic integrity; it was about keeping social criticism and political ideas out of the video game industry. Another narrative explains that the so-called anti-Gamergate movement is simply trying to draw attention to social and cultural problems in the video game industry. Again, this fails to address the reality that many who criticize sexism, racism, bullying, and misogyny in the video game sub-culture are doing so to advance their own political agenda, and not to effect any serious reform in this medium we all hold dear. And then there are trolls on both sides, who co-opt the conversation and confuse the debate. In a way I'm sympathetic and hostile toward both sides. For those who subscribe to Gamergate, I understand 1) the desire to play games in peace and 2) wariness about the politicization of video gaming. And yet I think having an open, honest discussion about the cultural impact and legacy of video games is a conversation worth having. For those who subscribe to anti-Gamergate, I appreciate the wide-angle view that games, like all media, do not exist in a vacuum; and that they are fair game when it comes to social criticism. Yet, I believe that the vast majority of video game enthusiasts are well-adjusted, well-meaning, respectful, fun-loving people that don't deserve to be lumped together with a fringe group of misanthropes who spew racist, homophobic, and sexist ideas. So, it's a complex issue with many different layers. And it can't be summarized - let alone solved - in a sound bite. Just my two cents. |
That's one of the best impartial accounts I've seen that should frankly replace the current Wikipedia entry.
I think perhaps the only thing you get slightly wrong is the idea that gamergate is/was about preserving the status quo. I haven't seen that per se. I think it's more accurate to say that it's AGAINST changing the status quo by illegitimate and dishonest means. So for example, you take someone like Sarkeesian. I don't think many people in gamergate just want her completely silenced and her criticisms not heard, I think they just wanted the gaming media to ALSO represent the other side and the many opposing views, which just didn't happen at all. She was given a complete ideological free ride by the media that was pretty much unheard of for a political agenda.
I think you're confusing "we're not going to listen to anything this person says" and "we need to hear all views on this issue so we can figure out what needs to be changed". Those are very different positions.
Gaming has changed.
It's not about gamers, or having fun.
It's not even about entertainment, escapism, or procastination.
It's an endless series of twitter and media battles,
fought by misogynists and attention whores.
Gamergate, and its vast consumption of human decency,
has become a irrational, self-perpetuating flame war.
Gaming has changed.
Game Journalists on Games websites,
use Anti-Gamer Rhetoric.
Trolls on their forums
rage and make death threats.
Media control.. Misinformation control..
Emotion control.. Battlefield control.
Everything is ignored, and blown out of proportion.
Gaming has changed.
The age of gaming is now the age of anti-gamers,
averting enjoyment from video games.
And he who controls the media, controls gaming.
Gaming has changed.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
| sundin13 said: The fact that so many people see the idea of ethics in gaming journalism as irrelevant saddens me... As a tl;dr to gamergate: The media was crossing a lot of clear ethical lines thinking that it was "no big deal" and when people started to call them out on it, they freaked out highlighting a myriad of additional issues. At the end of the day, gamergate is the reason that gaming sites now refuse to allow someone to cover their best friend's game without disclosure. In its current form, gamergate mostly serves to keep an eye on the gaming media to ensure that they are following their own policies. |
While I agree ethics are important, I think the best way to achieve this goal is to ignore it, at least actively. The issue is fueled by the attention given to it.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
| the_dark_lewd said: It's a big mess. A sort of culture war in the games industry where the two sides are roughly the far left-wing (or "progressives") VS the center-left and the right-wing. |
far left? you shitting me? anarchists and communists are far left. "progressivs" are the radicals of the centre. they dont talk about real social problems, they are just talking about themself and why they should have more power, they dont want equality or better chances for the poor.
trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.
More or less.
Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive
What is gamergate?
People who became just as annoying as the ones they are trying to "fight".
At least they aren't toxic though, unlike crazy SJWs, so there's that i guess.
It's two groups of idiots flaming each other, plus a bunch of fools with good intentions tricked into 'joining' the other side.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
