A Few Words About GamerGate

@euandewar: Because he's friends with Zoe and even did that harassment panel with her. He'll get shit for what ever he writes.

Hey, buddy. I assume this is directed toward me since I quite literally said "both sides are shitty." Not sure why you didn't just straight up reply to me. Maybe you were hoping I wouldn't see it? No such luck, I'm afraid.

Since you're calling me out, I'll respond; your post is pretty laughable. One side was built on shit? Nah, son. Both were. GG is built on shit of perfectly understandable ideals that have been corrupted to incorporate bollocks that they were apparently opposed to, while their detractors are straight up built on deflection and dishonesty. When you bring up a "victim complex" I'm honestly not even sure who you're talking about since they're both guilty of it. I'm too fucking drunk to even take this seriously.

So, I've followed this closely (it is fascinating,) and am sympathetic to the journalism ethics and professionalism aspect of GG, but I don't actively support the movement because there are too many other aspects I don't quite agree with.

A thought regarding it being about harassment and misogyny: The more that people actively try to spread this false message, the more people start actively supporting the movement. Basically, any rational human being that actually takes the time to look in to what they're doing is going to see that it isn't about that. You have to judge it by the actions of the majority, and the majority of them are not harassing anyone and are trying to actively support women (in fact there are a ton of women that have been very vocal in support of the movement.)

It is true that some people have been harassed in the name of their movement. But some people have also been harassed in the name of opposing their movement. There has been general online verbal harassment, death threats, doxxing, hacking, and more coming from fringe minorities on both sides and directed at the other. Also, voices in the middle that claim no specific allegiance have been attacked in the same way, again by people seeming to act in the name of one side or the other.

Until the facts about what is happening start appearing in the media, GG is just going to get bigger and keep on rolling. Sadly, I think the problems in the games media are more to do with complete incompetence almost entirely across the board rather than any kind of nefarious collusion or conspiracy. It seems like it will be a long time before they realize that their response is the thing perpetuating it.

Fullbright pulled out of PAX because PAX organizers did something that they considered offensive. Intel had to make the same type of decision. But to get that example even more fitting, let's go ahead a change it to something a little closer to the what happened with Intel.

People were offended by what Leigh wrote. They asked Intel to consider dropping their ad support. Intel looked into the matter and agreed that was was written was offensive, and decided to drop their association with the website that published her article. You view this as cowardly.

So then, if Bioware--just to pick one of the more progressive game companies--was asked by fans to consider canceling their association with PAX during the height of the whole "dickwolves" controversy, and Bioware did just that, would you view that as cowardly? Would you say that they "caved to a stupid internet campaign"?

As for Jeff coming out against the term gamer as well, that would be a good point if Jeff pretty much said the same things, but I don't think he did. I don't think he used the term gamer to mock people who go to gaming conventions, generalize them as socially inept, and conflate them with people sending death threats, did he?

Does John Drake work in the gaming press? Did he write an article defending someone when he was contributing to their Patreon account? Then perhaps that's not the best example. I don't care much about the "conspiracy!" side of gamergate, I think this is the least interesting stuff to talk about, and I think the blame should rest with the editors rather than Jenn Frank. I think Jenn Frank did nothing wrong, and I think that its a shame she left the industry.

As I've said, you can find plenty of hypocrisy on all sides of this issue, but that's just not a great example of it.

There are strong voices in this discussion suggesting "This person is only being targeted because they are a woman. No one would care if a man said the same thing." That's kind of a personal attack on literally anyone who is disagreeing with you, which makes me uncomfortable with its use. It's pretty much a blanket accusation of misogyny, and I think there is a good chance that it's often not true.

Consider Adam Orth. Remember him? Mr. "Always online is the future, #deal with it." Remember what happened to him. Remember MS letting him go. Remember the massive amount of hate that was thrown his way. And now imagine if everything that happened was the same, only he was a woman.

You would have a large number of people claiming "This person is only being targeted because they are a woman. No one would care if a man said the same thing." And they would be convincing. And they would backup their claims with proof, in the form of gender targeted tweets that included slurs that specifically refer to women. And they would convince many people that no one would have cared if a man said the same thing. And they would be wrong.

I think that much is fact, but the rest we can only speculate. Would Alice Orth would still have her job today? Would MS not dare fire someone who had suffered such abuse for the crime of being female? Would many people successfully conflate those opposed to always online with assholes sending hateful and harassing tweets to a woman? It's interesting to think about.

The whole thing was a silly, dumbass clusterfuck.

@spaceinsomniac: I think you misunderstood what I was saying about John Drake. My point was that Drake contributed to the Patreon of Jenn Frank. Which is what Maya Kramer did and why Frank's article about Quinn was called unethical.

As far as the rest of the post, look, if you really think there's no hint of misogyny going on with GamerGate then I'm not sure what to tell you at this point. Legit criticism are legit criticisms but look at literally everybody targeted by GamerGate. Does that not tell you something? While "this person is only being targeted because they are a woman. No one would care if a man said the same thing" may not have been true when it comes to the Adam Orth situation, that doesn't mean it can't be true in others.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I was under the assumption that Drake contributed to Zoe. Why would a journalist have a Patreon account, and why would anyone in the gaming industry think it's acceptable to contribute to it? Like I said, I don't really care much about this aspect of the discussion, but that just screams conflict of interests even to me. That sounds about as ethical as a radio show host in the 50s with a tip jar on their deck.

So has Jenn Frank written anything about John Drake? As I said, I'm not well-versed in this part of the discussion, because I don't care very much about it.

Everytime I see gamergate I just think of gamersgate. It is a website where you buy games and I have been using it for years. Sometimes they have good deals that are cheaper than steam.

I have not followed this "conspiracy" or whatever it is called, I play the games I like and I have people who's oppinions I trust. I don't care if some JRPG's get aweful scores because half the reviewers on the internet take of points any time any fan service is in a game. I have enjoyed many games with a metacritic score around 60. I have been playing for long enough to know what I like and you don't need to trust just one reviewer or even any reviewer, you can ask people on forums, read about what people are saying, look at user reviews instead of proffesional ones. There are so many ways to learn about a game.

@milkman

Thanks for writing this, you said what much of what I've tried to get across for the past what 2 years now far better than I've ever been able to.

People definitely over-think this. It's really pretty simple, it's impossible to have any sort of reasonable or productive discourse or effect change on journalism ethics or feminism or any topic really when having the "wrong" opinion or being a person viewed as an outsider brings a hate mob to your doorstep (in some cases literally).

As long as blatant misogyny & heavily gendered harassment runs rampant right in front of us being done in the name of the gaming community with no response from said community, then the gaming community is going to justifiably have the reputation it has as being a community that is hostile to women.

I don't like that at all as someone who loves games and as someone who has seen the great capacity for goodness this community has, but the actions of the past two years really have made it clear what the gaming community cares about and what it doesn't. Their words may say one thing, but their actions clearly say another. People are clearly putting a lot more time and effort into combating any perceived slight (real or imaginary) aimed at this community, then actually attempting to combat harassment being done in their name.

That's incredibly unfortunate.

That's exactly my point. No one ever asked these questions. It's why I find it impossible to take GamerGate seriously when it's clear there is a ulterior motive to things they pick and choose to get upset about.

That's a good point, and like I said earlier:

I disagree with a LOT of what comes out of gamergate. Seriously, every time I try to watch a video, I end up internally shouting to myself "oh my gosh, you're engaging in the same stupid cycle of misrepresentation / generalization / conflation that you're speaking out against!" Throw a rock in this debate, and you'll hit a hypocrite.

But I've also seen a lot of issues that have nothing to do with the "conspiracy!" side of gamergate being ignored by the press, such as the doxxing of gamergate supporters, or the women who identify with the movement, or the campaign against TFYC, or Phil Fish attacking an indie developer after the developer claimed that he was sexually harassed, etc. While many in gamergate pick and choose things to get upset about, many in the gaming press pick and choose things to report.

I think both are pretty awful, and clear examples of hypocrisy.

This has gone so far over my head that I have no idea what its about, how it started, nor do I even care.

Ignorance is bliss.

Thought this was well funny

@spaceinsomniac said:

I have a hard time believing Intel pulled their advertising from Gama because they actually though Leigh's article was offensive, when it's much more plausible that they were just trying to appease the GG crowd. There's a world of difference between doing someone on principal and doing it under pressure. Besides, even if you didn't think their initial actions were cowardly, their followup statement was so utterly spineless that I can't imagine either side seeing them in a positive light now.

No, because Bioware have a history of supporting women, so it would be natural for them to come down against something like the Dickwolves controversy. To the best of my knowledge, Intel has never given any indication that they give a shit about press corruption, or gamers' fragile feelings, or whatever else the mob is upset about this week.

I don't think Leigh did any of that either, but let's leave that aside for a minute. Jeff said that "most people who identify with their hobby are fucking assholes" and told gamers to "grow up, find another interest, spread your fucking wings a little bit". It's difficult to imagine someone being legitimately offended at what Leigh said not also taking exception to Jeff's words.

@conmulligan: What Jeff said at that PAX panel was a close minded and shitty thing to say. Probably the most misguided and dumb thing I've ever heard him say.

@milkman: Actually no Jenn Frank was directly contributing to Zoe quinn's patreon and Maya cramer was contributing to Jenn Frank.
And Then Jenn Frank wrote an article that wholy ignored what gamergate was about and just wrote about the harassment the minority was doing spreading misinformation about what gamergate is about.This is the main issue about these attack articles.

I say good on intel for pulling their advertising that article was pretty shitty and offensive.

Both sides suck. This whole fiasco is nothing but a middle-school war of words and he said/she said's. Games bloggers are an embarrassment and always have been. The issue with GamerGate is that they take these blogging fools seriously. It's a joke on both sides of the tape.

That is not automatically a problem. People keep saying this is a problem but fail to mention anything beyond "I didn't like what she wrote".

Yep, that's pretty spineless. "We fully support woman and diversity, we are not picking sides in this debate, but we also agreed after reading the article that our customers who also don't identify with either side could have easily been offended by the content of the article. We are a technology company and gamers are our customers, just as Nike is a shoe company and runners are their customers." How hard would it be to say something like that?

I picked Bioware because they seemed like a logical choice. So if a company without a history of supporting woman announced that they wouldn't be making an appearance at PAX because of the dickwolves thing, that you would call cowardly? That you would say was an example of caving to a stupid internet campaign? It couldn't possibly be because the customers of that company might have been offended by what was said, causing them to cut ties?

And "Intel has never given any indication that they give a shit about press corruption, or gamers' fragile feelings?" Since when does any company want to advertise with someone who is insulting their customers? This has nothing to do with standing up to press corruption or anything else gamergate might care about, and everything to do with cutting ties with someone who is generalizing and insulting your customers.

Thanks for the quotes. I take exception to both, and continue to be baffled by how some people seem to think that calling yourself a "gamer" is any different than calling yourself a "reader" or a "runner," and must mean that you need to "grow up, find another interest, spread your fucking wings a little bit".

I can self-identify as a gamer and still consider that hobby a fairly small portion of my life and my interests. Seriously, how hard is that to understand?

Agreed.

@pepipopa: I think it's really shitty to demonize Patreon. It should be absolutely acceptable for a person to support people that they like.

As one of the many people who considers themselves outside this whole thing, I say both sides ended up losing in this debacle.

That said, one side had a lot more to lose going in. And it wasn't the "gamers."

There's a difference between demonizing Patreon, and suggesting that it might be a conflict of interests for journalists to accept donations from the people that they're writing about. There's nothing wrong with Patreon itself.

Here is the thing though sitting back and just dismissing all of this gamer gate stuff as bullshit is clearly over looking some very shady things. Anita Sarkieesian was caught red handed both stealing other people's art work and video footage. And all signs point to the accusations to Zoe Quinn having some actual merit to them. Does it suck that these people constantly get harassed? Yes, it does. That doesn't however means they should get a free pass from being scrutinized. And lets also not pretend that Leigh Alexander is a saint either. She regularly stirs the pot as does others like Phil Fish, Ben Kuchera and Arthur Gies. And honestly, I can't blame people for being skeptical after a lot of this stuff with Quinn went down.

Shady shit goes down in this industry. I mean for fucks sake the entire existence of this website was largely because Gerstmann did what was right and not give in to companies throwing ad money at them for better review scores. So yes, I can't blame people for being wary of the press being friends with game developers. At least Giantbomb has always been SUPER transparent about this stuff and in turn have passed on doing quite a few reviews of games like Bastion because they were close to the development of it. I won't agree with people being harassed but at the same time there are a number of people that need to come down of their pious high horses and realize that some of the claims being laid out actually have some validity to them.

But also, I kind of don't give a shit either way what goes on as I ignore like 90% of all of the drama surrounding this bullshit because its just that high-school drama bullshit. People taking sides and throwing pot shots at the other side. Nobody is going to come out of this better than they went in because its devolved into and will end up staying an us vs them war. And I honestly can't take either side seriously. So whatever let the high-school kids fight. I'll be over here actually enjoying games instead of turning it into constant twitter drama.

This is an important point, and goes along well with something I suggested the other day.

Remember Night Trap? How about Mass Effect on Fox News?

When the claim was "these woman are being sexualized, and this is offensive to God and decent Americans everywhere" the response was "shut up and stop trying to push your values on me." Now that the argument has changed to "these woman are being sexualized, and this is offensive to women" that response has changed considerably.

Interview with a Law professor who specializes in ethics in journalism - https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4-7RLxrsJ04 He is closely asked about this issue at around 4 minutes in i think it was.

This is not about "YOU PEOPLE THINK SO".Its a fact that what Jenn Frank did was unethical.If you think Gamergate supporters don't hold to scrutiny the people writing beneficial articles also you're really not looking close enough.

Yes, I suppose it would sound like that if someone was all reductive about it.

@spaceinsomniac: But it's not a conflict of interest to write about someone that you appreciate as a creator.

But that doesn't make the suggestion right. If someone appreciates a creator enough to back them on Patreon, they are likely interested in writing about them as well. No conflict is involved, just interest.

I like games, but I think I really hate "gamers".

Here's something worth reading: http://leighalexander.net/list-of-ethical-concerns-in-video-games-partial/

The sarcasm detector is going off the charts! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy5mEcmgwU

Both sides of this are bad, or at least have bad aspects. The amount of people who don't understand what Feminism is or take Feminism to the extreme is sickening. The amount of people personally attacking other people is sickening. A lot of this is sickening. I'm not in the gaming press and I don't generally trust it unless I know the person well enough to trust them, ie giantbomb. I certainly inclined to believe some of this shit happens behind the scenes, I would be more shocked if it didn't. Gaming press is fucked and it is why a large chunk of us value GB so much, we trust them.

@spaceinsomniac said:

It depends on the context. Let's say such a company pulled out of PAX, but did so uncertainly, and without giving any real indication of where they stand on the issue. I'd absolutely call that cowardly, because it would be blatantly obvious that were doing so under pressure, or because there was a perception that they had to in order to save face. On the other hand, if they came out with a clear statement that unambiguously outlined their position and explained why they felt the need to cancel, I'd respect their decision an awful lot more. The same thing goes for Intel — had they been clearer about why the decision was made to nix the Gamasutra ad campaign and actually took some semblance of a position, I wouldn't have called their decision cowardly. I'd still think it's a shitty fucking thing to do, but at least it wouldn't have come across like they'd just buckled under the first sign of pressure without taking a moment to consider the issue.

This is probably part of a longer discussion, but I just don't think some customers are worth going to bat for, and certainly not over something as ulimately harmless as an editorial. So what if some of your customers felt insulted for a brief moment? Is that really worth killing a business relationship and inadvertently aligning yourself with a controversial (I'm trying to be generous with my words!) movement over? Literally no one gave a shit what Intel thought about this whole thing until they actually caved, and it would have cost them nothing to have just ignored the Gamergate crowd from the beginning.

Again, I'm talking about a creator giving money to a journalist, not the other way around. For example, apparently John Drake gave money to Jenn Frank. If she wrote anything about him or a company he was working for after the fact, that's a huge conflict of interest.

But again, I'm only arguing this because there seem to be a large number of people suggesting "Well, what's wrong with that? That's how gaming journalism works," which to me seems ridiculous. Other than a "well of course this is unethical!" type feeling, I'm not all that invested or outraged by any of this.

I feel like I wrote this exact same post in my head and just never had the wherewithal to actually write it. Well done.

I normally start in the same place as you, @milkman, in trying to see all sides to any given situation. I try to stay in that cozy middle ground and sometimes that's the right place. GamerGate is not a middle ground thing. One side is so wrong on so many levels it doesn't really matter what is wrong with the other side. By comparison, they're not easily offending little babies who would rather doxx Zoe Quinn than move on with their lives. It's just ridiculous. The irony to all of this is I feel like I have more love for the medium than any of these self proclaimed "gamers" because I not only love games, but appreciate the people who make them. In that sense, I actually am a gamer, but these assholes tainted that title so long ago that I've just never used the moniker.

Anyway, great post!

Except I'm not. I actually have quite the ornate throne on which I sit and laugh at the plebs below me while they squalor in the mud.

This is a really important point here. Editorials, by their nature, are supposed to make readers think. I'm extremely skeptical of anyone who interprets Leigh Alexander's words as hateful. She characterized the "gamer" identity as a marketing ploy to create a subculture based on buying stuff and the game-buying public largely has either woken up to this or they're people who enjoy video games without fitting neatly into this marketing demographic. Both the games and the audience for games grow and become more diverse, which means the "gamer" as a demographic is losing its relevancy to the businesses who once profited from them and now they've been in the process of moving on for the past several years. What Alexander is saying is that a relatively small minority of a minority who still cleave to an identity which has become obsolete for the vast majority of their fellow consumers are lashing out in ways that range from mere whining on blogs and message boards to using Machiavellian tactics in an attempt to force the industry to behave the way it was fifteen years ago.

You can disagree her views -- though I personally don't know why you should -- or her tone, but what you can't do is make that a "-gate", a scandal. What most people see when you freak out over an editorial is that you are really, really scared of introspection.

Oh, I see. Have you considered that Drake enjoyed Jenn's work and just wanted to support her? I don't know how much he pledged per month, but I'm almost certain that it was not a conspiracy-worthy amount.

Eh no one's gonna read this post anyway because I'm an absolute nobody and I'll probably regret this, so here's a wall of garbage:

I started this whole thing very neutral and reserved. A lot of people were (are) acting crazy, and nothing but muckraking happened. I used to really defend game journalists when it was common to have the attitude of "IGN sucks" or whatever else. I respected and trusted individual people within these publications. That's a lot of the reason I like Giant Bomb so much; their "selves" are front and center, and they focus on doing what they like to do. It's easy to know where to put your expectations.

However, after weeks of following this stuff, I find more and more that many of the writers I respected are now acting absolutely repugnant. "Picking a side" to me doesn't feel right, but I think I fall into a group that a lot of people involved do: I'm so put off by the press side of this that I end up as a sort of de facto supporter of GamerGate. The more I watch people converse about this, the more I see smug inflammatory arrogance from one swath, and exhausted frustration from another. But depending on who you ask, which one is which will differ.

I'm gonna be totally frank. I think it's complete bullshit to label people under such broad brushes. I don't even know that I'd call GamerGate a "movement" so much as an "opportunity", but the thing is that this is a time where people's frustration as consumers and enthusiasts is being heard thanks to a trending hashtag. In the face of this, anyone supporting the hashtag is called any combination of "misogynist neckbeard whiny manbaby pissbaby white cis young heterosexual male", despite the fact that if you chose to hear out almost anyone at all, that is demonstrably false. These are industry professionals doing this-- not only in opinion pieces on their sites, but on their own Twitters and anywhere else they can reach. Writers are crying out about intolerance and poor reactions to differing opinions, but I don't see at all how anything they are doing in this situation is removed from that.

I don't care about people's sex lives. I don't care about dumb videos people make online that they got through Kickstarter. For me, this started when all those gaming sites (in addition to farther-reaching media) simultaneously told me that our entire pastime is obsolete and hateful, because they decided that, rather than the Internet at large being terrible for people's attitudes, it's just gamers. How ironic is it that it was only relatively recently starting to become mainstream and commonly accepted to play video games, when the sites that report on those things turn right back around and apply the same hurtful stereotype people were trying to get away from? If you define "gamer" as anything other than "one who plays games", you're wrong, just flat-out. That includes the "manbaby" demographic so many writers like to attribute to everyone they don't like. Gamers can be anyone. In defense of those articles, the commonly-used reasons are "but then it's not talking about you", or "but 'gamer' is a meaningless word". If "gamer" is a meaningless word, then there should be no reason to denounce it since there's nothing there to "grow out of". You can argue some movements have poisoned names depending on who you ask (modern atheism/feminism for example), but "gamers"? "Gamer" is not a set of beliefs. "Gaming" is a thing you do. "Gamer" is no more indicative of a person than "avid reader" or "moviegoer" is. Yet there are people, in the industry, trying to shape that word as they see fit. That, for me, is when this became personal, and when I became absolutely disgusted by the press I was seeing.

Anyone can be a gamer. Gamers can have an incredibly huge spectrum of beliefs. GamerGaters are gamers. Game journalists are gamers (at least, I would presume and hope so). I think GamerGate is a terrible name. I hate the term "SJW/Social Justice Warrior" and have never used it because I don't believe in being that dismissive of someone. I liked Gone Home (except the cop-out ending), and I didn't play Dragon's Crown because its depiction of women really, really put me off. I loved Beyond Good and Evil. Bayonetta doesn't bother me. I roll my eyes at fanservice in Danganronpa but keep enjoying the games. And even people like me are being dismissed and thrown into that "misogynist, hateful" heap by people who think they know me better than I do; who think they have the authority to tell other people what they should be offended by; who think that they, somehow, consider themselves to be the "sensible" majority and simultaneously the censored minority; who think that GamerGaters are both "an angry majority mob of gamers" and a "meaningless minority thing no one cares about". I normally wouldn't be associating myself with people who think social sensitivity makes you automatically a "SJW". I disagree with a lot of opinions some of the people have when they pop up in the hashtag. Its origins are dubious. There are huge assholes in GamerGate. But you know what? There are a lot of earnest, genuine men and women of whatever persuasion you like involved as well, because this is an opportunity that is actually getting people to acknowledge it. If you had asked me before this started whether I would have defended game journalists or frustrated groups on Twitter/Reddit/chans, my answer would have been journalists then. But it's not anymore, not after I've seen how unprofessionally many of these people conduct themselves. I didn't start on the "side" of GamerGate, but I was sure pushed away from a lot of its opponents. To me, people bringing up criticisms using GamerGate are making more valid arguments than most game sites are making right now. It's kind of hard to consider voicing these concerns and frustrations to be "fringe and based on censorship" when any talk of it is being taken down on most major sites, including 4chan of all places.

It's a situation where I want to stop looking before I make my anxiety issues worse, but I care too much about video games to do that. And, for me, it gets personal when supposed industry professionals do with their audience whatever they feel like. You don't get to turn our hobby into whatever you want. You don't get to call it censorship when consumers send complaints to advertisers after you do everything in your power to dismiss (and hide) their conversations in the first place. Gamers don't want fewer people playing games. They want more. I certainly do, anyway, and I know that's a common sentiment among droves of people on any side. After all, no matter your opinions, you are part of it too. You're gamers; don't pretend you're not, and no one else will either.

You're kind of ignoring the fact that people like Boogie and Jon Tron have been doxxed as well. And you write that as if you believe that the majority of "gamergate" supports anyone being harassed or doxxed. How is that any less of a generalization than when people suggest that feminists are a bunch of insecure man haters?

I'm quite happy with my middle ground, thank you. I'll continue to remain happy that games are becoming more inclusive, that more women are playing games, and that people are making games like Gone Home. At the same time, I'll also do my best to continue avoiding generalization and conflation. I frequently disagree with what I see coming out of gamergate, but I'm still not about to demonize everyone who considers themselves a part of that group.

Have I considered that? Absolutely, and I think it's probably what happened, which is why I don't really care all that much, and why I'm not interested in the conspiracy aspects of the issue. I think it's probably what happened with Zoe as well. I'm not at all suggesting that "there was a payoff" but that things like this should NEVER happen, because they're unprofessional and unethical.

You say that it wasn't a "conspiracy-worth amount." I'm not sure about the amount either, and I don't especially care, but let's change that to an "unethical amount." What is an unethical amount? At what amount of currency does a negligible donation become a conflict of interest? That's the question you have to objectively answer before this sort of thing becomes acceptable, and that is a question without a real answer.

@tonch: I read you.And i agree with 95% of what you have written.You nor other people should stay silent about issues they care about even if your opinion differs from the "majority" whatever the swing or topic might be.

Discussion and argument seem to have become a bad word nowadays.Apathy and the sarcastic tone was cool 5-10 years ago on the internet.It's not bad to actually talk to people nowadays.This "legendary" Toxicity of the internet is less and less as people keep calling out the offenders and they go away or get banned and moderated away from a good discussion.

Edit :About the Dragon's crown Thing On it's face I was also disturbed by the famela looks especially the sorceress.Then somebody explained there have been historical connections between necromancers/users of dark magic and female sex appeal(Kali The indian god of death and such http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali ).My use of english is not great enough to explain the nuance of it but you can look who the director of the game is. He is no fool.I think the tone and look of all the heroes was deliberate and not actually a unnecessary sexuallization of characters.But that's what I think of course.

My opinion isn't particularly noteworthy but I'd just like to chime in and say that I, for one, am ecstatic about this whole affair. It's a stupid, gross, ugly, and other-bad-words fiasco. Fantastic! I think that video game "journalism" is still in its infancy, and that arguments like this are important to the medium's growth as a whole. Do I want to be a part of it? Hell no! Do I think that the insulting, and the belittling, and the hacking are terrible, terrible things? Of course! But I'm glad that it's happening. I'm glad that we get to see different sides of the coin (the coin, at this point, having more than two-sides), and I'm glad that we get to see where a few prominent people in the industry stand. "Strength through adversity", like the old man used to say. So bring the heat! Bring the noise! Just keep me out of it!

Honestly I think spaceinsomniac and marokai often have some of most reasonable positions I see in these types of threads. Not only that you guys manage to remain respectful and polite to everyone as well.

As much as I frequently disagree with you I wholeheartedly back you on this one. This type of self-identification only really becomes silly when it’s all you base your personality on. Terms like ‘gamer’ or ‘film lover’ or whatever as a shorthand to explain your cultural interests are so harmless I can’t believe anyone would ever take against them with language that harsh.