What I find ironic about people complaining about the discussion of social/political issues in games is that for a long time, gamers complained that video games weren't taken seriously as being meaningful. They were upset that a person who consumes movies and books could be considered being cultured, but people who played video games were only wasting their own time.
So when people actually try to have serious discussions about the content in video games, now they ask why everybody is taking video games so seriously? Now video games are just supposed to be escapism? Now it's just for entertainment? Now when gamers find their favorite games being criticized, they pull up vast conspiracies like GamerGate in response?
This is about wanting to have your cake and eat it too- gamers want to be able to say their hobby is meaningful to people who question the value of the hobby, but then say it's just escapism to the people who criticize the content.
It seems to me that gamers never really wanted their hobby to be examined for meaning like they claim. They just wanted the time they spent with video games to be externally validated.
*Note: no, I don't think GB is corrupt for being friends with Harmonix. I think that is silly. Yet it's an incredibly obvious and overt close dev/journalism relationship that seems to be exactly the kind of thing GamerGate is so upset by, but somehow it completely slipped under their radar? How odd that the bastions of research and fact-checking that is the GamerGate movement somehow missed such an easily-confirmed target for one of the centerpieces of their "concerns". Huh. Weird, that.
Also that there was never any call for a boycott to Game Informer, a publication owned by Gamestop. Isn't that an obvious potential conflict of interest?
Cool. I stand corrected, and I thank you for providing some facts on the matter. I still think a lot of people believed that the tag referred mostly towards anti-gamer articles in the press, though, as I did. I also know a lot of people abandoned #gamergate for #gameethics at one point, so obviously many did realize that gamergate had too much hate associated with it.
Sure, people believed it referred to those articles as opposed to the campaign against Quinn, but for journalists/critics, they had already seen what happened to Quinn. So when you have people with honest concerns about gaming journalism using that hashtag, journalists were naturally going to be skeptical about their intentions.
For those of GamerGate who honestly wanted to have a discussion about the problems in gaming journalism, their good intentions were doomed the second . Did they really think the gaming press would take them seriously? The fact that you have good intentions and legitimate concerns is not enough- how you go about achieving those intentions will have a major impact on your success.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "gamergate" was a result of the concept of "gamers" being attacked and generalized by the gaming press, which then led to many critical of the gaming press to unite under that banner. I don't think anyone started using "gamegate" as a hashtag before Leigh Alexander wrote her "anti-gamer" article, and many in the gaming press wrote similar articles.
It's true that some used gamergate hashtags to spew hate towards Zoe Quinn, but I'm pretty sure it didn't start as that. The Zoe Quinn thing started well before gamergate.
People who expect journalism to be unbiased are the same people who expect journalists to be robots.
Bias is a fundamental part of human psychology. You can't just put it the side, it's always there, no matter what you do. If you read something that appears to be unbiased, then what that probably means is that the bias is invisible to you.
For those of GamerGate who honestly wanted to have a discussion about the problems in gaming journalism, their good intentions were doomed the second they decided to join a movement that was originally started as a harassment campaign on an indie developer. Did they really think the gaming press would take them seriously? The fact that you have good intentions and legitimate concerns is not enough- how you go about achieving those intentions will have a major impact on your success.
@juno500: Hasn't Nich been out of journalism for almost a decade now? I wouldn't be surprised if people simply didn't remember, likewise with people such as John Ricciardi, Mark MacDonald, Greg Kasavin, Jeff Green, or Erik Wolpaw. Or Che Chou, James Mielke, Anthony Gallegos, Shane Bettenhausen, Tom Francis, Jay Frechette, David Ellis...
Why does it matter how long he's been out? He reminded people he was a journalist when he explained how he's been acting in a manner that GG finds unethical.
Last night, Nich Maragos went on twitter, used #GamerGate and explicitly admitted to engaging in the behavior that the movement claims to be against. Over the course of several tweets, he explained that he works for a game company, used to write about video games as a journalist, and made friends with several other journalists. Those same journalists later started covering the games he started making. This is exactly what #GamerGate claims to be against.
This got very few responses. Here he is, making himself a target, explicitly stating in no uncertain terms what was going on, and #GamerGate doesn't care. The few responses he did get were people upset at implications of misogyny, NOT that he was engaging in behavior they find unethical.
It is getting hard to believe that this is earnestly about ethics when the movement has been so selective about who receives sustained criticism.