Super Left/Super Right Bias in Gaming Media

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So something has been bothering me for a bit about gaming media, and I feel with the recent changes and some of the articles here at the new Escapist it made it more concerning;

Why, exactly, does it seem like pretty much all major gaming news outlets are either extremely left-wing or or extremely right wing?

(Trending towards, at least in my opinion, the left wing but there are absolutely right wing equivalents out there.)

It feels like basically every major site out there is either is hardcore trying to tow the SJW/PC line and make everything about LGBTQ or feminism or the patriarchy or competing in the Victimization Grand Prix - or conversely secretly or openly trying to convince people to become Neo-Nazis and support white nationalism, bigotry, racism and generally other unscrupulous endeavors.

I think off the top of my head I came name five sources that don't fall into this trap either way - YongYea, SkillUp, LevelCap Gaming, Layman Gaming (of which SkillUp is a part) and HeelvsBabyFace. One of those is just an ex-WoW streamer/Youtuber who moved into mocking devs for their stupidity instead of gaming because of Blizzard basically murdering WoW slowly over the last few years, and another is just the two guys taking the piss out of everybody in gaming for the stupid things they do, leaving only three real sources for news/reviews.

How did gaming media become this deeply entrenched in this kind of political battle? Was there a memo I missed? Didn't we all kind of agree that we wanted less of this kind of thing surrounding our games?

EDIT: This is excluding sources that are specifically dedicated to ONE game or ONE kind of game and thus would likely be smaller, less noticed or simply not relevant to the larger gaming media discussion EX: Maximillian Dude.

I'm not seeing it. If outlets like IGN or GameSpot or GameInformer or RockPaperShotgun have a political bias it's not a very radical one. You can never be entirely apolitical when discussing media but I don't feel like game journalism and criticism as a whole are defined by extreme politics.

Before continuing, I want to know what would be your definition of slightly left-wing.

For a long while gaming media was moderate right-wing, not only in their social commentary, but in how they operated (made deals with big companies for high-scores, good reviews, and even the power to have negative journalist fired or unrelated products advertised). This went for so long that it became the mainstream norm and any social commentary looked out of place (even Yathzee looked like a radical leftist whenever he criticized a Call of Duty game for the lack of female or black characters).

So, something I think should be noted is that while games media has become more politicized within the last decade, this isn't a development in isolation, nor inherently bad. It's often been said that Gamergate was systemic of a wider culture war, and given everything that's happened since then, and the polarization of US politics, I'm inclined to agree. However, the 'politicization' is also reflective of games' greater ability (or willingness) to engage in socio-political themes. So, you can't really analyze any themes or motifs of early Mario and Sonic games, but when you get stuff like Metal Gear and BioShock, who wear their ideas on their shoulder, then analyzing them based purely on that perspective becomes valid (though in a game review, you should still, y'know, talk about the gameplay).

That said, this may be overreacting. I frequent a variety of game sites - the only mainstream one that really dips into this is Polygon, and usually Polygon at least keeps these pieces as op-ed rather than as integral to its review and reporting process. Now, sometimes it can get silly (e.g. there was this tiff about the lack of transgender characters in CoD: WWII), but at the least, it does reflect the growth of the medium.

Money. Its only ever about money. Extremisim on either side gets clicks.

Headlines like: Lara Croft is a relic of the Patriarchy and should be a gay trans African Man
gets clicks, which equal ad revenue.

Likewise: Gearbox bends over for soy-boy cucks by patching in gay lines for male characters
gets clicks, which equal ad revenue.

Always remember, journalists aren't doing this for the love of writing, they're doing it to earn a profit. Its their job not to get you to read, but to click.

Silentpony:
Money. Its only ever about money. Extremisim on either side gets clicks.

Headlines like: Lara Croft is a relic of the Patriarchy and should be a gay trans African Man
gets clicks, which equal ad revenue.

Likewise: Gearbox bends over for soy-boy cucks by patching in gay lines for male characters
gets clicks, which equal ad revenue.

Always remember, journalists aren't doing this for the love of writing, they're doing it to earn a profit. Its their job not to get you to read, but to click.

Would it be too rude from my part to ask for the links to those articles?

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:
Money. Its only ever about money. Extremisim on either side gets clicks.

Headlines like: Lara Croft is a relic of the Patriarchy and should be a gay trans African Man
gets clicks, which equal ad revenue.

Likewise: Gearbox bends over for soy-boy cucks by patching in gay lines for male characters
gets clicks, which equal ad revenue.

Always remember, journalists aren't doing this for the love of writing, they're doing it to earn a profit. Its their job not to get you to read, but to click.

Would it be too rude from my part to ask for the links to those articles?

I kinda' morphed those ideas from an article I read that Samus should be trans, and one about Ubisoft giving in to SJWs by letting gay characters stay gay in their 'have a kid' DLC.

Although you could probably find something similar at either the Quartering, Razorfirst or Jezebel

They don't, baring certain loud exceptions.

It's just that, back in the day, an opinion article about how more female protagonists or how maybe people should tone down the trash talk or how a joke didn't really land would just be...ehh? Okay?

A video of a journalist playing a game badly on a convention floor on the 3rd day of no sleep would've been a fun joke to rib the guy about, not some new front in an anti-journalist culture war.

I mean, guys like Sargon or Quartering have always been around, they just didn't have tens of thousands of irony poisoned hangers on giving them thousands of dollars to not read.

When I was growing up, some fresh-faced college dude waxing on about philosophy they didn't quite get was grounds for an eye-roll and a wanking pantomime, not calls for firings and helicopter rides.

Wait, are you counting YouTube channels like the quartering, comics & diversity, geeks & games and the like as 'gaming media'? Because they're not, they're a gaming/geek community. Same with YongYea and Laymen Gaming by the way. They're not official gaming media, they're just dudes with YouTube channels.

I can't say I've seen hardcore anything from IGN, Gamespot, Giant Bomb ,Game Informer, or the Escapist.

I think a lot of ''right wing'' Games media is probably a reaction to Gamergate. People with right leaning thought concluded that the games media was unbearably leftist and corrupt so they decided to just start their own channels or their existing channels were reinforced by viewers who lost faith in traditional Games media.

I don't think the traditional games media has ever truly been this huge lefty conspiracy. Most Game journalist do hold left wing views and some of them have taken up pet political issues to examine. However as the new right wing press became increasingly hostile to traditional journalist and as a fair number of them did went on to become Trump cheerleaders they might seem more left wing in comparison.

Casual Shinji:
Wait, are you counting YouTube channels like the quartering, comics & diversity, geeks & games and the like as 'gaming media'? Because they're not, they're a gaming/geek community. Same with YongYea and Laymen Gaming by the way. They're not official gaming media, they're just dudes with YouTube channels.

I can't say I've seen hardcore anything from IGN, Gamespot, Giant Bomb ,Game Informer, or the Escapist.

Well, lots of people get their information about games and gaming news from Youtube channels, and publishers even make deals with some of them to talk about specific games (like Bethesda did with the Skyrim "remaster" for PS4/XBOX1). Lots of publishers rely on the so called "influencers" to speak about their games; so if they take them into consideration, we should have them in mind too when talking about gaming media.

Gamers made it that way. Gamers gate changed how gaming media worked and set distinct political divides in sites. I guess, I can't actually see how a right wing gaming site looks, I suppose they just constantly bitch when any game has a female protagonist or a trans character or a non-white on the box and they probably just meme Duke Nukem all day.

CaitSeith:

Casual Shinji:
Wait, are you counting YouTube channels like the quartering, comics & diversity, geeks & games and the like as 'gaming media'? Because they're not, they're a gaming/geek community. Same with YongYea and Laymen Gaming by the way. They're not official gaming media, they're just dudes with YouTube channels.

I can't say I've seen hardcore anything from IGN, Gamespot, Giant Bomb ,Game Informer, or the Escapist.

Well, lots of people get their information about games and gaming news from Youtube channels, and publishers even make deals with some of them to talk about specific games (like Bethesda did with the Skyrim "remaster" for PS4/XBOX1). Lots of publishers rely on the so called "influencers" to speak about their games; so if they take them into consideration, we should have them in mind too when talking about gaming media.

I'm sorry, but I don't. At best I view them as columnists, though most of these guys just rely information from other channels and then give their opinion on it.

Paragon Fury:
(Trending towards, at least in my opinion, the left wing but there are absolutely right wing equivalents out there.)

Because you're bringing your own baggage into this, of course it looks that way. Same reason for your bizarre examples of major gaming media.

Worgen:
I guess, I can't actually see how a right wing gaming site looks, I suppose they just constantly bitch when any game has a female protagonist or a trans character or a non-white on the box and they probably just meme Duke Nukem all day.

I forget the name of the site, but there was one blog/site I came across that had a "get woke, go broke" list. And while each game on the list arguably went "broke," a lot of the examples were pretty sketchy as to proving that correlation equalled causation. Examples I remember include:

-Agents of Mayhem: Got woke (had a Muslim ninja as a character), went broke (flopped)

-WildStar: Got woke (an article complained about the aurin's look), went broke (shut down)

Like, you really had to stretch these examples, but the people on the site lapped it up.

Still, aside from Polygon, I can't really think of many sites that do have a bias one way or the other. Stuff like IGN and GameSpot will readily review stuff like CoD without a single mention of how "it's perpetuating the military industrial complex" or somesuch.

Hawki:

Worgen:
I guess, I can't actually see how a right wing gaming site looks, I suppose they just constantly bitch when any game has a female protagonist or a trans character or a non-white on the box and they probably just meme Duke Nukem all day.

I forget the name of the site, but there was one blog/site I came across that had a "get woke, go broke" list. And while each game on the list arguably went "broke," a lot of the examples were pretty sketchy as to proving that correlation equalled causation. Examples I remember include:

-Agents of Mayhem: Got woke (had a Muslim ninja as a character), went broke (flopped)

-WildStar: Got woke (an article complained about the aurin's look), went broke (shut down)

Like, you really had to stretch these examples, but the people on the site lapped it up.

Still, aside from Polygon, I can't really think of many sites that do have a bias one way or the other. Stuff like IGN and GameSpot will readily review stuff like CoD without a single mention of how "it's perpetuating the military industrial complex" or somesuch.

That is amazingly stupid.

I would say Kotaku has a left leaning bias, they have plenty of articles about sex games and about lgbt games and such.

Edit: Found it (source: https://www.oneangrygamer.net/get-woke-go-broke-the-master-list/)

I haven't bothered going through all of them, but...yeah. I mean, sure, I can concede the female controversy over BF5 hurt sales, but then you have the unspoken theory that Battleborn flopped because of a Vice article (not Gearbox, VICE) stating that the story was about powerful women.

Just...no. No. Battleborn flopped because it was released in the shadow of Overwatch and no-one, not even Gearbox, even seemed to know what the game was.

Hawki:

-WildStar: Got woke (an article complained about the aurin's look), went broke (shut down)
.

Wildstar was literally the least woke western mmo on the market.

Like half the cast of main characters were men propelled by the deaths of their wives and daughters

Sometimes both separately

Sometimes it was their wife pregnant with their daughter

One of the exile *protagonists* was a man who nearly caused the extinction of his species because his wife died of natural causes

And we're supposed to relate to him

Like it was laughably bad

Probably because you're extremely online or something.

Literally all of my gamer friends have little to no knowledge or interest in reviews or even looking at the supposed politics in games or game reviews. Hell, the only reason I knew about that Movement That Shall Not be Named was because I visit this site.

Most of the mainstream outlets are pretty bland, all things considered.

I might humbly suggest a lot of this imaginary nonsense.

Paragon Fury:
It feels like basically every major site out there is either is hardcore trying to tow the SJW/PC line and make everything about LGBTQ or feminism or the patriarchy or competing in the Victimization Grand Prix - or conversely secretly or openly trying to convince people to become Neo-Nazis and support white nationalism, bigotry, racism and generally other unscrupulous endeavors.

Maybe its just me but I feel this is one of those instances where I need to say "citations needed". What kind of articles are you seeing to support this theory and how often do they really show up?

Wait, what 'super left in gaming'? Wait a minute, LGBTQ themes = 'super left' on its own? If that legitimately bothers you, I doubt I can find a small enough violin.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Wait, what 'super left in gaming'? Wait a minute, LGBTQ themes = 'super left' on its own? If that legitimately bothers you, I doubt I can find a small enough violin.

I believe the current tagline is something like 'two genders becuase science.' I usually point that chromosomes correlate to genitals not behaviour thus science is more about the former not the latter

Casual Shinji:
Wait, are you counting YouTube channels like the quartering, comics & diversity, geeks & games and the like as 'gaming media'? Because they're not, they're a gaming/geek community. Same with YongYea and Laymen Gaming by the way. They're not official gaming media, they're just dudes with YouTube channels.

I can't say I've seen hardcore anything from IGN, Gamespot, Giant Bomb ,Game Informer, or the Escapist.

By that definition, most gaming "journalism" sites are the same. There's almost no such thing as "official gaming media" outside of stuff like Nintendo Power or Official X-box Magazine.

altnameJag:

Casual Shinji:
Wait, are you counting YouTube channels like the quartering, comics & diversity, geeks & games and the like as 'gaming media'? Because they're not, they're a gaming/geek community. Same with YongYea and Laymen Gaming by the way. They're not official gaming media, they're just dudes with YouTube channels.

I can't say I've seen hardcore anything from IGN, Gamespot, Giant Bomb ,Game Informer, or the Escapist.

By that definition, most gaming "journalism" sites are the same. There's almost no such thing as "official gaming media" outside of stuff like Nintendo Power or Official X-box Magazine.

Yeah, but most of these have people employed with some sort of background in journalism or the industry. It's also just the way they present themselves, they don't feel like channels/sites just spewing their opinions. Most of these other channels just feel like guys on their soapbox. You could say Jim Sterling is also one of these people, but there's actual dicipline their, which I feel the others don't have. YongYea seems like an okay dude, but he can easily get a bit drama-happy. There's no higher-up to keep them in check and tell them to maybe cool it a bit and not make 7 videos back-to-back on one twitter incident.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Wait, what 'super left in gaming'? Wait a minute, LGBTQ themes = 'super left' on its own? If that legitimately bothers you, I doubt I can find a small enough violin.

You can look in the youtube comments or user reviews for a game that mentions climate change once and someone will complain about it being "too political". Try it. Believe me, it won't take long.

And of course, any game that has an openly gay main character will trigger someone because reasons.

The right has it's own share of "snowflakes", it would seem.

Dalisclock:

You can look in the youtube comments or user reviews for a game that mentions climate change once and someone will complain about it being "too political". Try it. Believe me, it won't take long.

And of course, any game that has an openly gay main character will trigger someone because reasons.

The right has it's own share of "snowflakes", it would seem.

Yeah, but this one can obviously spell. I've had running debates with a Catholic priest on things like ethics and theodicy. It's a bit hard not to chalk up many of them as conservatives that sway to the right in terms of things like civil liberties for gender and sexual minorities. But at the very least they can maintain an argument that isn't 'too political', or 'leftist agenda' or whatever in their eyes.

What the fuck is 'too political' anyways? I mean if there was the gaming equivalent of Sartre's The Age of Reason would that be 'too philosophical'? Fucking BioShock. Beyond Good and Evil. Civ series. DEFCON: Everybody Dies. HoI IV. When did it suddenly become uncool to have basic inclusion and reconciliation of the fact that sociological phenomena is still thoroughly 'gamefiable' to coin a word?

How is having LGBTQ themes in a game 'too political', but the mythical assumption that gaming can't have that not itself 'too political'?

I mean at least 'leftist' 'SJWs' might at least explain their reasonings why something is bad. A lot of it I feel is simply because these 'SJWs' simply have an argument based on research and critical analysis that isn't just two words.

I don't think I've ever run into a right wing publication. I've ran into a lot of "anti-sjw" ones, but they don't actually tend to advance any policies or ideas that are strictly right wing and are just reacting to the SJW menace whenever it rears its ugly head as a healthy counterbalance, they're sites that sprouted when the existing websites decided to declare gamers are dead. They don't go far enough in the other side to actually advocate for the mirror image opposite of the sjws, they just tell them to go away and leave gaming alone, a sentiment I cherish myself despite being a socialist pro Bernie person.

I legit have never read any article in any site ever that advocated for the removal of a gay character or against their originally-intended inclusion out of the blue, whereas there's been hundreds advocating for their inclusion. People seem to think that advocating against adjusting an existing game due to external pressure is the same as actually exerting pressure yourself against those characters but no, what you do there is protect the game's original form.

On one hand you have people who are just trying to protect games which were intended to be as they are and on the other hand you have people who want to change them for their politics. Unless someone actually starts off singling out some random game that nobody brought up prior and rails against its gay characters, they will NEVER be the same as an SJW who rails against it not having them, even if they rail against the SJW and in effect end up railing against gay characters.

They're not being anti-gay there, they're not being right wing there, they're just being pro-game. People just use the fact that the way in which being pro game manifests itself when in situations involving SJWs tends to be against some type of minority to malign the anti-sjws as some sort of hateful mob, which is underhanded.

In my mind there's 3 groups, the SJWs, the anti SJWs and the right wingers. Anti-sjws come from all over the political spectrum, they're the people I see not using gaming as a means to an end but rather seeing gaming as an end in and of itself.

Eurogamer recently admitted to being activists for a political message above anything gaming related, which to me is a betrayal, irrespective of which message it is that they claim to be an activist for and how much I might agree with that message in a vacuum.

Right wingers like that Quartering dude at least seem to put gaming before politics and while they make their biases clear they tend to not let them cloud their view of games. SJWs on the other hand will often put politics above games and condemn glorious games for purely political reasons that ignore the game's merits.

The recent Assassin's Creed Odyssey comes to mind, no, mictortransactions for experience point boost are toooootaly fine, gamers complaining about them are entitled but heterosexual reproduction...now that is going too far I say! Change your art to fit my politics. Change your canon story cause I want your char that you came up with that is an expression of your soul to be gayer! (ignoring the fact that ancient Greeks would still have children while simultaneously engaging in homosexuality, btw)

I can't have that idiocy and if it means allying with right wing gamers I'm fully willing to do that since I value gaming above winning political arguments.

Dreiko:
I don't think I've ever run into a right wing publication. I've ran into a lot of "anti-sjw" ones, but they don't actually tend to advance any policies or ideas that are strictly right wing and are just reacting to the SJW menace whenever it rears its ugly head as a healthy counterbalance, they're sites that sprouted when the existing websites decided to declare gamers are dead. They don't go far enough in the other side to actually advocate for the mirror image opposite of the sjws, they just tell them to go away and leave gaming alone, a sentiment I cherish myself despite being a socialist pro Bernie person.

I legit have never read any article in any site ever that advocated for the removal of a gay character or against their originally-intended inclusion out of the blue, whereas there's been hundreds advocating for their inclusion. People seem to think that advocating against adjusting an existing game due to external pressure is the same as actually exerting pressure yourself against those characters but no, what you do there is protect the game's original form.

On one hand you have people who are just trying to protect games which were intended to be as they are and on the other hand you have people who want to change them for their politics. Unless someone actually starts off singling out some random game that nobody brought up prior and rails against its gay characters, they will NEVER be the same as an SJW who rails against it not having them, even if they rail against the SJW and in effect end up railing against gay characters.

They're not being anti-gay there, they're not being right wing there, they're just being pro-game. People just use the fact that the way in which being pro game manifests itself when in situations involving SJWs tends to be against some type of minority to malign the anti-sjws as some sort of hateful mob, which is underhanded.

In my mind there's 3 groups, the SJWs, the anti SJWs and the right wingers. Anti-sjws come from all over the political spectrum, they're the people I see not using gaming as a means to an end but rather seeing gaming as an end in and of itself.

Eurogamer recently admitted to being activists for a political message above anything gaming related, which to me is a betrayal, irrespective of which message it is that they claim to be an activist for and how much I might agree with that message in a vacuum.

Right wingers like that Quartering dude at least seem to put gaming before politics and while they make their biases clear they tend to not let them cloud their view of games. SJWs on the other hand will often put politics above games and condemn glorious games for purely political reasons that ignore the game's merits.

The recent Assassin's Creed Odyssey comes to mind, no, mictortransactions for experience point boost are toooootaly fine, gamers complaining about them are entitled but heterosexual reproduction...now that is going too far I say! Change your art to fit my politics. Change your canon story cause I want your char that you came up with that is an expression of your soul to be gayer! (ignoring the fact that ancient Greeks would still have children while simultaneously engaging in homosexuality, btw)

I can't have that idiocy and if it means allying with right wing gamers I'm fully willing to do that since I value gaming above winning political arguments.

My read of the Assassin's Creed thing was that it basically didn't offer any additional choices about the player having the child. Removal of choice is a big sticking point in branching path RPGs. And believe me, holy hell was raised about them putting in paid EXP boosts.

Gordon_4:

Dreiko:
I don't think I've ever run into a right wing publication. I've ran into a lot of "anti-sjw" ones, but they don't actually tend to advance any policies or ideas that are strictly right wing and are just reacting to the SJW menace whenever it rears its ugly head as a healthy counterbalance, they're sites that sprouted when the existing websites decided to declare gamers are dead. They don't go far enough in the other side to actually advocate for the mirror image opposite of the sjws, they just tell them to go away and leave gaming alone, a sentiment I cherish myself despite being a socialist pro Bernie person.

I legit have never read any article in any site ever that advocated for the removal of a gay character or against their originally-intended inclusion out of the blue, whereas there's been hundreds advocating for their inclusion. People seem to think that advocating against adjusting an existing game due to external pressure is the same as actually exerting pressure yourself against those characters but no, what you do there is protect the game's original form.

On one hand you have people who are just trying to protect games which were intended to be as they are and on the other hand you have people who want to change them for their politics. Unless someone actually starts off singling out some random game that nobody brought up prior and rails against its gay characters, they will NEVER be the same as an SJW who rails against it not having them, even if they rail against the SJW and in effect end up railing against gay characters.

They're not being anti-gay there, they're not being right wing there, they're just being pro-game. People just use the fact that the way in which being pro game manifests itself when in situations involving SJWs tends to be against some type of minority to malign the anti-sjws as some sort of hateful mob, which is underhanded.

In my mind there's 3 groups, the SJWs, the anti SJWs and the right wingers. Anti-sjws come from all over the political spectrum, they're the people I see not using gaming as a means to an end but rather seeing gaming as an end in and of itself.

Eurogamer recently admitted to being activists for a political message above anything gaming related, which to me is a betrayal, irrespective of which message it is that they claim to be an activist for and how much I might agree with that message in a vacuum.

Right wingers like that Quartering dude at least seem to put gaming before politics and while they make their biases clear they tend to not let them cloud their view of games. SJWs on the other hand will often put politics above games and condemn glorious games for purely political reasons that ignore the game's merits.

The recent Assassin's Creed Odyssey comes to mind, no, mictortransactions for experience point boost are toooootaly fine, gamers complaining about them are entitled but heterosexual reproduction...now that is going too far I say! Change your art to fit my politics. Change your canon story cause I want your char that you came up with that is an expression of your soul to be gayer! (ignoring the fact that ancient Greeks would still have children while simultaneously engaging in homosexuality, btw)

I can't have that idiocy and if it means allying with right wing gamers I'm fully willing to do that since I value gaming above winning political arguments.

My read of the Assassin's Creed thing was that it basically didn't offer any additional choices about the player having the child. Removal of choice is a big sticking point in branching path RPGs. And believe me, holy hell was raised about them putting in paid EXP boosts.

No see, the issue here is that the same sorts of people (like that Kotaku guy who decried Dragon's Crown's art style and called the sorceress a Loli cause he doesn't comprehend anime artstyles) who were calling people entitled for complaining about the microtransactions where in turn complaining about the childbearing. Such rich, idiotic irony, pungent with ignorance is not oft uncovered.

Dreiko:

Gordon_4:

Dreiko:
I don't think I've ever run into a right wing publication. I've ran into a lot of "anti-sjw" ones, but they don't actually tend to advance any policies or ideas that are strictly right wing and are just reacting to the SJW menace whenever it rears its ugly head as a healthy counterbalance, they're sites that sprouted when the existing websites decided to declare gamers are dead. They don't go far enough in the other side to actually advocate for the mirror image opposite of the sjws, they just tell them to go away and leave gaming alone, a sentiment I cherish myself despite being a socialist pro Bernie person.

I legit have never read any article in any site ever that advocated for the removal of a gay character or against their originally-intended inclusion out of the blue, whereas there's been hundreds advocating for their inclusion. People seem to think that advocating against adjusting an existing game due to external pressure is the same as actually exerting pressure yourself against those characters but no, what you do there is protect the game's original form.

On one hand you have people who are just trying to protect games which were intended to be as they are and on the other hand you have people who want to change them for their politics. Unless someone actually starts off singling out some random game that nobody brought up prior and rails against its gay characters, they will NEVER be the same as an SJW who rails against it not having them, even if they rail against the SJW and in effect end up railing against gay characters.

They're not being anti-gay there, they're not being right wing there, they're just being pro-game. People just use the fact that the way in which being pro game manifests itself when in situations involving SJWs tends to be against some type of minority to malign the anti-sjws as some sort of hateful mob, which is underhanded.

In my mind there's 3 groups, the SJWs, the anti SJWs and the right wingers. Anti-sjws come from all over the political spectrum, they're the people I see not using gaming as a means to an end but rather seeing gaming as an end in and of itself.

Eurogamer recently admitted to being activists for a political message above anything gaming related, which to me is a betrayal, irrespective of which message it is that they claim to be an activist for and how much I might agree with that message in a vacuum.

Right wingers like that Quartering dude at least seem to put gaming before politics and while they make their biases clear they tend to not let them cloud their view of games. SJWs on the other hand will often put politics above games and condemn glorious games for purely political reasons that ignore the game's merits.

The recent Assassin's Creed Odyssey comes to mind, no, mictortransactions for experience point boost are toooootaly fine, gamers complaining about them are entitled but heterosexual reproduction...now that is going too far I say! Change your art to fit my politics. Change your canon story cause I want your char that you came up with that is an expression of your soul to be gayer! (ignoring the fact that ancient Greeks would still have children while simultaneously engaging in homosexuality, btw)

I can't have that idiocy and if it means allying with right wing gamers I'm fully willing to do that since I value gaming above winning political arguments.

My read of the Assassin's Creed thing was that it basically didn't offer any additional choices about the player having the child. Removal of choice is a big sticking point in branching path RPGs. And believe me, holy hell was raised about them putting in paid EXP boosts.

No see, the issue here is that the same sorts of people (like that Kotaku guy who decried Dragon's Crown's art style and called the sorceress a Loli cause he doesn't comprehend anime artstyles) who were calling people entitled for complaining about the microtransactions where in turn complaining about the childbearing. Such rich, idiotic irony, pungent with ignorance is not oft uncovered.

I doubt very much there is any crossover in people - not to be confused with "journalists" - who like Microtransactions but decry the ability to have children in a game. Or vice-versa for that matter.

Gordon_4:

Dreiko:

Gordon_4:

My read of the Assassin's Creed thing was that it basically didn't offer any additional choices about the player having the child. Removal of choice is a big sticking point in branching path RPGs. And believe me, holy hell was raised about them putting in paid EXP boosts.

No see, the issue here is that the same sorts of people (like that Kotaku guy who decried Dragon's Crown's art style and called the sorceress a Loli cause he doesn't comprehend anime artstyles) who were calling people entitled for complaining about the microtransactions where in turn complaining about the childbearing. Such rich, idiotic irony, pungent with ignorance is not oft uncovered.

I doubt very much there is any crossover in people - not to be confused with "journalists" - who like Microtransactions but decry the ability to have children in a game. Or vice-versa for that matter.

I don't think they expressly like them as much as they dislike the concept of gamers complaining about anything so they will latch onto any excuse they get to call gamers entitled without an ounce of self-awareness. It was the same type of person like those who called gamers entitled and sexist for disliking the Diablo Immortal trailer, because apparently people didn't dislike it for their purported reasons but rather because phone games are played mainly by women and it was their way of being anti-woman.

Though, this topic is about journalists, so I do think it is fair to bring them up. Random youtubers may not count as "media" but sites like kotaku, eurogamer and polygon undeniably do.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Wait, what 'super left in gaming'? Wait a minute, LGBTQ themes = 'super left' on its own? If that legitimately bothers you, I doubt I can find a small enough violin.

We've had this conversation before, but is there a single game that has ever dealt in LGBTQ themes (not representation, themes)?

Dreiko:

The recent Assassin's Creed Odyssey comes to mind, no, mictortransactions for experience point boost are toooootaly fine, gamers complaining about them are entitled but heterosexual reproduction...now that is going too far I say! Change your art to fit my politics. Change your canon story cause I want your char that you came up with that is an expression of your soul to be gayer! (ignoring the fact that ancient Greeks would still have children while simultaneously engaging in homosexuality, btw)

I can't have that idiocy and if it means allying with right wing gamers I'm fully willing to do that since I value gaming above winning political arguments.

I'm not sure if that was the issue.

Wasn't the issue that if you made your character LGBT, you were being locked into the relationship, rather than the need to squirt out a baby? There's similar precedent for this kind of frustration - remember ME3, where if you pursued a relationship with Jacob in ME2, the sequel automatically invalidated it regardless of player choice?

Hawki:

We've had this conversation before, but is there a single game that has ever dealt in LGBTQ themes (not representation, themes)?

I'm sure there's one out there, somewhere. On the flipside I can't think of any one, full time reviewer or otherwise, that actually treats videogames as if other media forms where they employ critical analysis of textual and subtextual content as you get with things like film critics.

But then again I'm sure that would get painted as 'too political' and yet impotently whine why people don't consider videogames being an artistic media. It's almost as if a reactionary hypocrisy born from a dual desire to pretend their hobby is meaningful, but evidently not meaningful enough to actually make people momentarily introspective about media they wish simply to mindlessly consume.

It's like the children by the poolside clamouring for their parents to see their cannonball and pretending like they have a right to be offended when the adults would rather have a conversation.

Games are the only art-form where everyone is expected to stick their heads in the sand, politically speaking, while creating or talking about it. I understand. Good luck with that.

Hawki:

I'm not sure if that was the issue.

Wasn't the issue that if you made your character LGBT, you were being locked into the relationship, rather than the need to squirt out a baby? There's similar precedent for this kind of frustration - remember ME3, where if you pursued a relationship with Jacob in ME2, the sequel automatically invalidated it regardless of player choice?

That doesn't work in the historic context of the Peloponesian war, since everyone was free to be bisexual basically. Fundamentally, the notion of making a purely gay character is at fault and people were caught up in their own notions that they were projecting onto the game, while the game itself just makes you able to be bisexual, as showcased by your hero having a baby in the dlc story.

This is a case where I'd not even fault the game for not explaining it strictly enough that you're only ever bisexual at most (even if you only have same sex relationships) since you ought to be cognizant of the historic context of the era to just presume this going on in the game.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here