Gaming journalism sites are still, quite rightly, reeling over the backlash they've received over the whole 5 Guys Quinnspiracy scandal that occurred two weeks ago. Kotaku is at the forefront of this hate due to 2 reasons. 1. One of their writers is directly involved and has, seemingly, not received any formal reprimand for potentially mixing business with, I guess, pleasure. Not even an assurance from Kotaku that strict guidelines will be enforced to prevent such issues in the future. 2. Kotaku remains flippant about gamer concerns over nepotism and corruption and essentially has tabled the issue as far as their involvement is concerned, but hasn't stopped missing the point.
Enter Luke Plunkett, Editor at Kotaku.com and author of this opinion piece.
http://kotaku.com/we-might-...
I thought I'd go over it and explain why Luke simply doesn't get it, or doesn't want to, and why he and his ilk are the problem, not us. Let's begin.
"I've been working at Kotaku for nearly eight years now, and while I've seen some online kerfuffles over various issues in that time, I've never seen anything like the past two weeks. There has been so much hate. So many angry words, so many accusations, over...what? Video games? Women in video games? People who write about video games? It would be absurd if it hadn't forced people out of their homes for fear of their personal safety."
No Luke. The "hate" and "angry words" come at the fact that you journalists treat us gamers like we're idiots. Like we don't matter, and like you are above us. So entrenched in your exclusive clique setting with publishers and developers are you, that you fail to see that all of it rests on one foundation. That being the backs of us gamers that keep it all going with our money and our interest. That you would so reduce our concerns to being those of haters who don't want girls in games shows just how arrogant you are and how out of touch you are with us, and why you are part of the problem.
You brought up Anita Sarkeesian fearing for her safety, yet didn't once think to question that if she was so afraid that someone was going to do something to her, WHY WOULD SHE BROADCAST IT ONLINE WHEN ANY POLICE FORCE WORTH THEIR SALT WOULD TELL HER TO REMAIN QUIET AS THEY INVESTIGATE?!
You didn't even bother to look into the fact that she claims to receive exactly this kind of hate ALL the time, yet now she conveniently has to show a specific example that supposedly made her afraid.
It couldn't have anything to do with her most recent video being a flop with all kinds of people fed up with her gross misrepresentation of games and gamers could it? Couldn't have anything to do with the timing of her video's release making the claim that women are in danger in gaming due to the acts of one horrible person and the backlash she received could it? Someone so afraid for her safety that she remains on the internet and still has time to ask for donations. You don't even bother to look into this stuff. You just take a con artist's word at face value because she's a woman. And you wonder why gamers consistently lose faith in the gaming media, and why your site is NEVER spoken fondly of by ANYONE.
"There are a lot of opinions going around about this sad state of affairs at the moment, and you don't have to travel far to find some, but if you want to read something beyond a simple recap, something more substantive, my advice - as someone horrified by the degree of hostility, bigotry and sheer inhumanity that has been on show - is to start with these two articles."
"The first, by Dan Golding, is called "The End of Gamers" ( http://dangolding.tumblr.co... "On the evidence of the last few weeks", he writes, "what we are seeing is the end of gamers, and the viciousness that accompanies the death of an identity."
Hostility yes, bigotry no, inhumanity no. No one cares that Zoe Quinn is a woman. No one cares about the fact that she slept with 5 guys. We consider her to be an awful human being for being a cheating *****, but we don't care about that aspect of her life. We care about her relationship to your journalists, we care about her ability to control discourse by sleeping around, we care about her amassing legions of ignorant and blind fools protecting her from scrutiny and having to face up to the horrible deeds she committed, and we care that she shut down a charity event. We also care that people like you are trying to label her as a victim in need of protection instead of the manipulative, heartless, ethically and morally void person that she is and then blaming US for everything.
As for the stupidity of that Tumblr blog, I might touch on that in more detail in a future blog, but instead I'm going to focus on this little tidbit you included about the death of an identity.
The identity of "gamer" cannot die so long as there are games to play. It is absolutely absurd to think that the identity of "gamer" is dying, for any reason. Anyone that thinks so clearly has their own head up their own a$$.
"The second, by Leigh Alexander, is called "'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over." ( http://www.gamasutra.com/vi... It's a similar piece, albeit one aimed a little more at developers. "'Gamer' isn't just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use", she writes. "Gamers are over. That's why they're so mad. "These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers — they are not my audience. They don't have to be yours. There is no 'side' to be on, there is no 'debate' to be had."
Another stupidity article, unfortunately it comes from a site that I used to respect. However I can't in good conscience respect a site that allows such garbage to pass as a legitimate piece.
Who are these "most people" she's referring to? Has anyone ever heard another person interested in gaming NOT use the label "gamer" when referring to the group of people that play video games? We're mad because we're "over?" Is that why you're writing hateful articles about us all the time, claiming we're the problem and you're not? I suspect that you actually WANT the "gamers" to be "over" so that you could be free to infect the industry with your bigoted, short-sighted, militant ideology. Too bad that's not going to happen. Gamer is not an identifier that can end. Its only qualification is "someone that games" at a basic level.
I'm glad that gamers aren't your audience. As a gamer, I don't want to be associated with someone who is supposed to be a professional and is supposed to have detached objectivity but instead uses insults like "obtuse shitslingers", "wailing hyperconsumers", and "childish internet-arguers." You sound like such an adult right now Ms. Alexander. I also don't want to be part of a group that wants to insert an ideology into a pure artform and dictate how that artform can be expressed. I don't want to be associated with a group that actively promotes censorship and tries to monopolize all discourse so as to paint themselves the perpetual victims. I don't want to be associated with a group that says the same goddamn things that Jack Thompson was disbarred for saying, but gets away with saying it because what's between their legs is different from what's between his.
I wouldn't want to be a part of your audience if I was offered all the money in the world because members of your audience is what's ruining gaming, not gamers. Not the "label" of "gamer." You.
"Note they're not talking about everyone who plays games, or who self-identifies as a "gamer", as being the worst. It's being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by gaming's widening horizons. If you call yourself a "gamer" and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person."
What's the matter Luke? Not willing to fully commit to that kind of hate group? Why bother linking the articles if you're going to try and play Devil's Advocate and be conciliatory to another side? And way to be supportive of one type of generalization (that being the generalization of gamers) but most definitely being against another (that being the generalization of social justice warriors). You have such a conviction and dedication to the truth. Such objectivity and professionalism. If you play games, you're a gamer. There are subsets of gamer such as casual or core gamer, but the basic requirement is that you play games. You being "cool" or not is not a factor and isn't something that needs discussion.
"Once you're done here, I'll see you next week, where we can hang out as thoughtful, considerate human beings and enjoy video games as they are, not what some folks feel they can dictate from a dark corner of the internet."
You mean like Anita Sarkeesian, Carolyne Petit, Katherine Kross, Zoe Quinn, Samantha Allen who insist that games are not just "entertainment" and try to dictate the direction of the industry towards a feminist agenda via the use of shame? The same kinds of tactics that Jack Thompson used and sites like yours were against?
You see, I don't see gamers trying to dictate what games are. I see gamers as trying to prevent others from trying to dictate what games are. I see gamers fed up with being called a group of hate filled, bigoted, rape apologizing misogynists who are complicit and supportive of games that apparently teach men to devalue and dehumanize women. I see gamers as demanding some ethics and morality from the news sites they trust to deliver them unbiased and objective news. I see gamers as refusing to be told that what they like is wrong and that they need Social Justice and Feminism to dictate what makes a good game and what doesn't. I see trolls as being trolls and not caring what it makes the rest of us look like all while you group everyone together to suit your pathetic agendas.
I see you as the problem Luke. Not you specifically, but what you represent. An entire portion of the gaming medium that is unwilling to be professional and instead accepts any manor of favours and bribes to maintain the close knit clique status that is gaming journalism and promoting only one side of the conversation, while drastically overexaggerating and misrepresenting the other side, if you ever choose to talk about them at all.
Don't pretend your hands are clean Luke. They're stained with more green than the Hulk's.
The latest model of ASUS TUF gaming laptops has just had a price cut - check out this gaming laptop deal while you can.
The premium Sony Inzone earbuds are designed for PC and PS5, and they're finally getting a discount after launching in late 2023.
Larian Studios has already started working on the next game, and the CEO thinks it will surpass the team's magnum opus, Baldur's Gate 3.
As bad as all of this is, I'm going to say that hopefully this event will shake gaming up to the point that some social change will alter the balance of power in game reviews.
This just in: The amount of people that see through Anita's "scare" keeps rising. Check out this video for more.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Nice blog keeping them journalist honest is everyones job!
I thought about writing this huge comment about this, but I think TotalBiscuit summed it up perfectly. I suggest that you take a look at it: http://blueplz.blogspot.com...
I think the problem about people labeling everyone and making certain people untouchable, always reacting nastily towards those that use red herrings and non sequiturs to further their own agenda by piggybacking a serious topic that would have a lot of people on their side if it wasn't for the red herrings. And even then, ANY criticism is labeled as vitriol, and "you called out X or Y person, so you are a nasty MRA" or "you think female treatment in games can be better, so you're a nasty SJW that acts like X and Y person". Where's the middle ground?
We can talk about the overuse of distress damsels without agreeing with how certain people choose to frame the argument, and we can call certain people out without going into nastiness. People are either too touchy, or they just use it as a weapon to squelch any opposition to the chosen few that they've designated as the only ones capable of bringing up said topics. You can moderate forums for vitriol without turning off comments completely or being overly sensitive to those that just want to call those people out and hold them responsible to what they say.
Gamers are over? No. This ranch of gaming "journalists" who are kissing feminist @** is what's over. They know this, that's why all of this propaganda is flying around. Looks like a final act of desperation.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
With their wits, they're better off pulling a chokehold on a chicken to get gamer's attention off of this issue. They should take some pointers from Fox News if they want to do this right. 7_7