Quboid wrote on Sep 8, 2014, 14:01:

William Usher wrote on Sep 8, 2014, 13:38:
a calculated attack on games culture

What specific attack on games culture?

http://markdownshare.com/view/a524affd-e679-40be-8aa1-72058065dc2a

Beamer wrote on Sep 8, 2014, 14:00:


How come you haven't taken your proactiveness to your own site? How come you do it on Blues? Where is your article on all of this?

Look on the front page of Blues about the IGF.

Beamer wrote on Sep 8, 2014, 14:00:

You have a site. You have traffic. You have a voice. Why are you hiding it? Why aren't you posting long rants like the one in this thread under your own name on your own site where more people will see it?

Google up #NotYourShield, let me know what the first article is you see in GNews.

Beamer wrote on Sep 8, 2014, 13:42:

Aren't you the games media for CinemaBlend?
Are you really advocating a DoS against your peers?

Are you really advocating a DoS?


And you really think anyone was trying to censor?

Advocating DoS? No. Encouraging people to get proactive? Yes.

And if you don't know about the censoring that has gone on at NeoGAF, Reddit, N4G and tons of other forum boards across the net when this first got underway, I really don't know what to tell you.

EDIT: Also, almost forgot to mention that Polygon's Chris Grant has a blacklist of individuals within the industry that they've been sharing around amongst "the clique". How is that even right?

I find it fascinating that some of these sites are now turning tail; trying to fix the narrative that they broke.

The one thing they don't understand is that they drew first blood.

Gamers would have been willing to let the mass internet-censorship go had there just been an apology (if that) and the ability to openly discuss the events surrounding #GamerGate.

Like all things, the discussion would have passed and -- at worst -- Kotaku's reputation would have been sullied just a bit more than it already was. I doubt people would have started investigating the matter further (sort of like what happened with Doritogate).

Instead, the game journo (I like to say "game journo scum" but I'll be civil here) decided to fan the flames and extrapolate their agendas to a wide audience with a calculated attack on games culture. WHY? It was a death knell for them.

Gamers don't die, we respawn. Gamers don't quit, we restart. Gamers don't stop, we press continue.

They attacked a culture who has been conditioned not to quit once they've been drawn into battle, and media -- strangely -- thought that individuals who spend all day trying to beat bosses and conquer levels would just go away and die. WHY?

At this point, gamers have already collected in a few places that still allow for open discussion and have already made it known that they are willing to play the long game; the game of attrition.

There is a site blacklist being passed around (Don't worry Blues, you aren't on it ;)) and active browser add-ons that will absolutely cripple the larger sites in the long run (it auto-retrieves pages from the nearest archive instead of allowing click-throughs to the site).

Needless pandering from RPS at this point won't save them. They already put their stake on the wrong side of the war and gamers are adopting the "Never Forgive. Never Forget" mantra.

I'm just curious what will happen if/when #GamerGate actually gets out into the wild so the larger community out there will know what's going on? Once this breaks through to mainstream it's going to be game over for the larger websites.

That was smart of Alex to follow through with a 4chan interview.

Just so you guys know, bombs are about to drop and there's a lot of people who are about to get burned [serious corruption allegations have surfaced from the indie front].

Major victory coming soon for the GG crowd.

Just to quote from their official website...

The Award For Stupidest News Website Goes To: INCGAMERS.COM For their clear stupidity actually thinking this site was siezed and believed that we have been arrested.
I hope you all see how stupid sites dedicated to a online game can be.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 29, 2014, 21:23:

I really have no clue what this is referring to.

4chan is working with gaming communities across the web to contact advertisers to pull support from sites that are "attacking" their audience.

However, all I'm going to say is that the places where I keep tabs on discussions from the inside have made no mention of this, so it's probably just someone trolling to boost hope for /v/.

Beamer wrote on Aug 28, 2014, 18:29:
Lastly, I fail to see how doing what Anita asks, which means occasionally having a female character to something more than get kidnapped or die, would render gaming "well and truly destroyed." Including female characters that do something other than sleep with the hero or die didn't seem to hurt Captain America 2 or Guardians of the Galaxy, the two biggest movies of the year.

It's already been done.

Prez mentioned Borderlands 2 and I rattled off just a few games off the top of my head that are already doing the opposite of what she's complaining about.

Essentially NO ONE from the other side have said why they don't support the games that fit the narrative they say does not exist in gaming. How is Lilly Looking Through or the Giana Sisters sexist or exclusionary? How don't they fit the feminist agenda? And why aren't they being talked about?

As I mentioned, it's not about game culture at all. We don't see the games that should appeal to the SJWs being promoted by the SJWs.

The real issue is that these games that the SJWs feel will "evolve" or "mature" gaming don't sell that well. So who's fault is it that the games they say don't exist actually do exist and the people with the power to promote them won't?

Beamer wrote on Aug 28, 2014, 10:21:
I'm sorry, it just seems like people not comfortable enough with their own masculinity and place in the world to question how it impacts other people. Rather than question, it's lashing out in ways far worse than what "SJWs" do.

I'm responding to this here because the newer responses are completely off-topic.

Nevertheless, you're directing this statement at people who are angered that gaming culture is now seen and viewed by those in the industry and outside of it as this festering pot of misogyny. People seriously need to look up the definition of that word because it does not mean what they think it means.

Keeping on-topic: A lot of gamers are angry at the so-called SJWs because they misrepresent facts and distort context for an agenda.

For instance, why are they attacking games geared toward males who like fantasy sex and violence? It's like a bunch of men getting angry at women who read romance novels because they distort the reality of how men actually are.

Different games sell to different genders. It would be nice if the groups yelling "misogyny" and "unfairness" all the time at least did their research. More women play social/casual games than men do. More women spend more money on these games than men do (there are market reports, facts, that back this up. Google it.)

It's no surprise that Farmvilles and The Sims games of that ilk are marketed toward females just the same as Gears of War and God of War are marketed toward males: These companies are selling to demographics that make them money.

Dairy corporations don't market milk to farmers.

As far as female representation goes in the more core markets? Of course it's not the same as males. Could it be better? Of course.

However, you'll still find an ample amount games on Steam and elsewhere if you just type in "Female" under the games category for a list of titles that allow you to play as a female across all types of different kinds of games. But what you won't find are any SJWs talking about those games or even supporting or promoting them. Lilly Looking Through? Moon Hunters? Aegis Defenders? Dex? Are these games regularly featured in the tirades against games geared toward 14 - 32 year old males?

Why is that?


So far I only see it as a sick culture for people who are angry to express it on a platform. They have never used that platform to help the companies, female game designers and aspiring creators to get their ideas and games out there. They only attack the other side.

Saboth wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 22:04:
I hope this thing flops horribly and there's a ton of negative PR generated. Paying to "rent" games by the hour or day is a wet dream for scummy publishers like EA. If it ever gained traction, 10 years from now it might be AOL all over again, except with games. I know they all lust after the MMO models and wish they could find a way to ream people for monthly subscriptions for their inane sports and shooter games they plop out on a yearly basis.

A post after my own heart. Well said.

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 18:55:

No doubt this design comes from testing the controller vs traditional analogs in a variety of games. I'm guessing for racing games especially the analog is wayyy better than the touchpads.

Here's the thing, I don't care what the testing says, I'd just like to be able to purchase the one they originally unveiled. Heck, I'm inclined to say that I would buy a couple different iterations of these controllers just for different play-styles.

I just hope they give users the option, at least, and that they don't completely bury some of the original designs just to cave-in to gamers who have never used it before.

Also, the haptec pads can be okay for racing games, it just depends on how they're calibrated.

Codename Eagle was one of the best games I could never convince anyone to play.

I loved the open-world, mutli-vehicular mayhem. It amazes me that the only game to come close to imitating that play-style has been Far Cry.

Cutter wrote on Jan 22, 2014, 14:44:
This is only news if someone is actually breaking the law. So have they actually caught anyone doing that?

Articles surfaced indicating that this is a clear violation of FTC regulation. Polaris, Machinima and now EA have made it clear that they've amended (or made clear) in their agreements and for their associated partners that paid endorsements must be publicly pronounced by content creators where applicable.

Machinima and Microsoft just barely dodged a bullet with the FTC and international advertising regulators by making the change (just yesterday, following mainstream media reports).

You console gamers can enjoy your 30 FPS while I, on the other hand, have every intention of buying two GTX 690's at wholesale value (should be about $333 each).

The only problem is 4k resolution will still tax this rig. God damn it.

I'm sorry, but why on earth are you buying two GTX 690s when the R9 290X is specifically designed for 4K resolution monitors and you don't have to worry about your system being taxed?

eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 13, 2013, 12:21:

[snip] But what kind of fucked up parenting brings someone up doing the wolf whistle on a MICROSOFT PR EVENT (it's bad enough there are still cretins around doing it in public in bars and clubs (Although I have seen clubs that threw people out for doing it))

Whoa, wow...so wolf whistling is now sexist and the result of bad parenting? Wow.

Also, you can get ejected from a club for wolf whistling? Really? So using non-verbal gestures to indicate that someone is worth whistling to is now misogynistic and sexist?

Oh boy. Does this also apply as being rude and inappropriate if a guy does it to another guy?

So uh...when Jack Bauer told Curtis to "Don't fight it...just let it happen" when he had him in a sleeper hold before escaping and doing his thing, he was actually raping Curtis?

I'm confused.

Quboid wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 17:00:
I really don't think they give a damn about you or me. This is bigger than what annoying little customers are worried about.

We'll never know, but I wonder if the SimCity debacle has anything at all to do with this. Probably not.

Think bigger, Padawan.

They have just under ten days to run enough damage control to get everyone and their mama going "Battlefield 4? Oooooh, that's some new hotness right there!"

What better way to distance yourself from all the bad PR than to have the "face of evil" take the dive for the company and have Lucy Bradshaw make a post or take part in an interview where she's constantly saying "It's all Maxis fault".

In the bigger scheme of things -- and I'm basing this kind of thinking on what their board of directors are possibly planning -- they need to make sure that the EA logo does not infuriate or incite ire when it appears in the Battlefield 4 reveal trailer.

Now if they're really smart, they'll completely forgo adding the EA logo at the end and just have DICE there. Knowing the short attention span of most gamers, they'll say "Well, the SimCity thing was Maxis fault; this is DICE we're talking about, they're not gonna drop the ball".

Redmask wrote on Mar 15, 2013, 20:14:
After the way EA has handled SimCity I'm not touching their games until they've seemed to learn their lesson.

This.

I'm absolutely frightened that the gaming community's short attention span and gaming media's salivating-wolf mentality for hits will erase all of EA's past media transgressions to hype up, promote and sell Battlefield 4.

As much as I admire and praise DICE's talent as designers (Mirror's Edge = love) I can't see myself getting excited at all about Battlefield 4 while EA's poor reputation is the only thing I can think about whenever I see that logo plastered on a brand.

http://tinyurl.com/aufbgnu

http://tinyurl.com/b7dr6hm

Can't be bothered to find more at the moment. Basically it's just EA panicking.

Remember a similar thing happened when they staged that gay protest and then acquiesce to the LBGT community in order to misdirect some of the negative press they were getting? Yeah, it's just more stuff like that...sort of.

Unless he's a shill.

A few were actually spotted accidentally still logged into their EA accounts while singing praises to the company and managed to get caught.

It was a true "LOL" moment and a wake up call for everyone who thinks that companies don't do this.

From what I've played I don't think the new XCOM will kill the old ones. There's still stuff from Apocalypse that isn't even remotely touched upon in the new game. And with limited soldiers, lack of base attacks and a lack of inventory micromanagement, a lot of the difficulty is removed from the newest game. It still seems like a lot of fun, though.