You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
29

[–] Zenocide 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago 

I'm glad they came out and I'm glad this is getting attention, it's easy for these people to pick on small time pro GG people when we're just everyday ladies and gents, but when they target big companies, people are going to take notice.

It's unfortunate that people have to suffer for it, but it's going to bring the hammer down on this bullshit practice sooner rather than later.

0
1

[–] jmoney 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hi, please excuse my ignorance as I'm pretty clueless on this whole GamerGate thing. I would consider myself a "gamer", but have largely stayed away from the drama people refer to as "GamerGate". I read the wikipedia page, but still find myself...confused as to what exactly it means if you "support gamergate". Why is it called "gamergate" (playing on the "gate" suffix as if it were some kind of scandal). From what I gather, some random female game developer published a game that people thought didn't deserve good reviews...so when it got good reviews, people assumed she slept with someone to get a good review?...am I understanding that? so some people took it too far and started publishing personal info about her and threatening her online? This is where I'm confused as to why it's referred to as "GamerGate", or why anyone would support doxxing/theatening someone? I must be missing something, and I'm just genuinely curious. If someone could fill me in or ELI5 on both sides of the issue...

0
2

[–] auroch 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's hilarious how bad the Wikipedia article is. It really is. That's an entire post in and of itself.

What you're describing with the female developer is the Franz Ferdinand of Gamergate's World War 1. Technically it started everything off, but nobody really cared about it a month in. For the record, it is admitted that she slept with Kotaku reporter Nathan Grayson, who then went on to give her game glowing coverage (though not an official review), while not disclosing his relationship with the dev.

What really caught people's attention, though, was the mass censoring of the topic across the Internet -- tens of thousands of deleted comments on Reddit, topic bans on media sites and even a total ban on 4chan -- that was something, to my knowledge, unprecedented in the history of the Internet. It was impossible to ignore.

Then the "Gamers Are Dead" articles came. It's hard to overstate how bizarre this was. Somewhere around a dozen video game sites all simultaneously (in the space of a couple days) released articles talking about how gamers were dead. They're pathetic manchildren. They're "wailing hyperconsumers" who "don't have to be your audience." Imagine if Entertainment Weekly ran an article about how pathetic moviegoers are.

It was bizarre, and it was clear that some very powerful people do not want people discussing corruption in the media. That's what started Gamergate, not some cartoonish quest to keep girls out.

0
1

[–] Zenocide 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The "gate" part of the term refers to the scandal involved in one of the "events" that prompted a lot of attention around the movement, specifically, the Zoe Quinn issue you referred to. It's a play on the "Watergate" scandal and it was coined by actor Adam Baldwin.

It's worth noting, however, that the actual issues that GG addresses and the problems which created them started long before what is commonly known as the genesis of the movement itself (The Zoe Quinn debacle you mentioned above). You can see a handy timeline of those events here.

For a quick summary on GG check these videos out.

Gamergate in 60 seconds

Here is another good video about the core issue of GG, which is ethics, not harassment or women in gaming.