The Voight-Pompff Test

I haven't been keeping up on the corporate side of this. I've heard Intel and some others have pulled advertising from some sites. How have those sites responded, and have the changes (if any) they've made to their journalism codes been effective yet?

Beamer wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 23:19:

And here's what the big Gamergate reddit forum moderators also moderate. Similarly to the celebrities that have supported Gamergate with long histories of hating women but not caring about video games, these guys all moderate anti-woman forums but don't moderate any game forums.
Yup. Ethics. It sure looks to anyone not really buying it that this is totally about ethics.

So basically games and the community in general are being used as a vehicle to attack other people and their message.

I guess I can't criticize too harshly without being a hypocrite. I don't think I've made a game-related post on this site in a few months, with a couple exceptions.

Beamer wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 23:19:
Extra Credits addresses the moderate GamerGate supporters

And the PR battle to defend the "Gamer" label has gone HORRIBLY. Gamers are getting more negative press right now than I've seen in years, and “GamerGat”e is the name everyone has attached to the problem (fairly or not).

Yup. "Gamers" have never, ever looked worse than they do right now.

The NYTimes article linked here a few days ago actually got me to pay attention to this stuff. Most of the commenters held a rather dim view of the gaming community, but not in the way we've seen thrown around here lately. Instead, it was the "grown adult men still play bideogames???" that stood out.

I realized at that point the PR battle was lost long before it ever started lol XD

Mad Max RW wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 22:42:
You want to take a larger movement that is winning and break it into smaller groups to wipe out all that much easier.

Orrrrr, people are just worried about how the gaming community is being represented in the press, especially mainstream outlets.

Have you tried playing on the Quick game speed setting? I think it takes 330 turns as opposed to the standard 500 turns to get to the end game year of 2050. Research and production requirements are lowered for everything so stuff builds faster and is discovered quicker. I can usually beat a game in one night on Quick.

Cutter wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 21:39:
You pretty much need all the expansions to get it to where it should have been to begin with.

This is exactly how I felt. Particularly with regards to religion and espionage, which were in Civ IV but they decided to do away with for Civ V? Oopsie.

It's definitely different than the last iteration in the series. For what it's worth, I also skipped the vanilla game after trying the demo back in 2010.

The expansions really help since they (re)introduce religion and espionage. Plus, the expansions add tourism, trade routes, ideologies (really comprehensive social policies), and a lot more civilizations. Steam says I've put in over 170 hours since I got the game last year, so I feel I got my money's worth. But without the expansions, I would have skipped Civ V.

I'm not really sure how to address the fluidity part. Was it the 1-unit-per-tile and hexagon grid that you didn't like, or was it some other game mechanic(s)?

So years ahead, when we've all got grandkids or grandrobots or whatever applies, I figure Uwe Boll will probably dramatize or document this party for posterity to enjoy. I've been thinking of some possible taglines for his movie, but feel free to add your own and if we can all agree on one, maybe we can sell it to Boll.

"I felt a great disturbance in the Farce, as if a million gamers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced (by the gaming press). I fear something terrible has happened." - Obi Wants Kenobi, Nerd Wars Episode I, romance

"I am Inigo Montoya. I wrote for Polygon. You stole our ad revenue. Prepare to die." - Indiegogo Montoya, The Gamers Bridegroom, family comedy

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a (twitter shaped) boot stamping on a gamer's face, forever..." - George Orwell, Two-thousand and Fourteen, historical drama

Prez wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 03:06:
...but how many times do outsiders who criticize gaming do so out of ignorance because they never took the time to learn about them and the culture? Fox News anyone?

Being an "outsider" and attacking a hobby or media will rarely go well, whatever the angle of attack, I'll give you that. I remember how J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5) wrote that the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America nonprofit considered TV sci-fi to basically be cheap drivel that wasn't "real writing." Straczynski ended up leaving the organization for several reasons, with their attitude towards TV script writers being one of them.

I was about to stop there, but it occurred to me games are kind of on a similar course. It's a hobby that's becoming more accepted, or at least more prevalent, regardless of someone's narrowly defined definition of entertainment or art. But at the same time, as it grows into a more mainstream phenomena, it is going to invite more scrutiny from different disciplines. We're going to see more analysis of games on a cultural, societal, and artistic premise. And I'm perfectly okay with that.

Prez wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 00:16:
She is a phoney because she has been documented as admitting that she has no interest in videogames - this is just an attention-seeking crusade for her.

I think it's important to qualify this with pointing out our hobby is not above reproach, and someone does not need an interest in videogames to comment intelligently on them. I can't speak for Sarkeesian's videos because I've never watched them. But we shouldn't pretend our hobby is immune to outside critiques, because then we do come off as a bunch of insecure children who will adopt a siege mentality at the first sign of impingement on our hobby.

It is precisely for that reason that outside views can be healthy.

The Leperchaun vs. Chewbacca, Go:

Round 1: Chewbacca - total KO
Round 2: Leperchaun - acquired Wookiee pelt
Round 3: Draw - audience distracted by R2D2/Roomba orgy
Tiebreaker: Chewbacca - Han shot first, dammit

Beamer wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 16:39:
She did not say all gamers are like that, but did say that person exists, is horrible, is constantly harassing and lashing out in fear of losing control of his hobby, and needs to be ignored.
Lots of gamers read this and said "I am not that person!" and began campaigns of harassment and lashing out in fear of losing control of their hobby.

Basically we need to turn the Reactionary dial back to zero for all involved, then distribute chill pills. In other words, we're screwed.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 16:16:

Loopy wrote on Oct 16, 2014, 16:08:
THAT is the "gamers are dead" that got people so offended?! What in Jesus and Mohammed is so wrong with that?!!!!

No it wasn't "that article" it was 15 articles all in a 24hr period containing 35-45% of the same content.

Oh, well I can see how that would seem weird. But the content itself doesn't appear to be superbly offensive. The author wasn't saying literally "gamers are dead," just that games are played by so many that affixing a label to people who play them might be outdated.

THAT is the "gamers are dead" that got people so offended?! What in Jesus and Mohammed is so wrong with that?!!!!

For nongamers, it seems like the real issue is perceived misprioritization of First Amendment/Second Amendment rights in Utah State.

For gamers, the real issue is lol

I literally have no idea what "BendGhazi" refers to, but I'm game.

Personally, I'm leaning towards Pearl GamerHarbor. A date which will live...in griefing.

I heard it referred to as GamerGhazi somewhere. MonicaGamer? WaterGamer?

I don't think Silent Hill was done by Capcom? Then again, I can't imagine many of the key developers behind RE 1-3 are working on the Revelations spinoffs at this point.

If your bar for trolling is set that low, it's no wonder you get so riled up. Take a chill pill, bro.