When women, in conversations online, point out the ridiculously tiny percentage of video games that feature women as protagonists, they tend to get flooded with responses from indignant gamebros telling them that if they don’t like the games out there, they should just make their own.
The gamebros mean their comments to be conversation-enders. Just as Vivian James, #GamerGate’s imaginary girlfriend, tells game critics to “shut up and play,” these guys are telling critics of the retrograde gender politics in gaming to “shut up and make games.”
It never occurs to them that some of the women they smugly tell this to … might already be doing this.
One of the more entertaining aspects of following the Twitter account of much-harassed game developer Brianna Wu — known in #GamerGate circles as Literally Who 3 — is watching clueless gamebros try this “argument” on her.
LOVE IT when men tell me, "Don't like how women are represented? Make your own games!" Lol. http://t.co/LlkDLnmOVs pic.twitter.com/n0BgqwvH2B
— Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) October 26, 2014
The whole thread is here if you’d like to see what an unpleasant fellow this Simon Wood really is.
Oh, but there’s more:
It never ends:
Of course, some of her, er, critics seem to realize that she already makes games. But somehow this doesn’t keep them from yelling at her to make games anyway.
@iMatthewCM @Swispy @SmegmaKing @Spacekatgal fuck the trolls. If you have a bitch fit about gender/races in a game, go make one twats
— Timothy Sleeper (@Sleeper83091) October 26, 2014
https://twitter.com/mchugepants/status/524445877398544384
Others demand that she start making GOOD GAMES.
https://twitter.com/BABPEEGTWO/status/525769579595718656
(Huh. Seems like a decent number of people think the game she just releaased is good.)
And this demanding GamerGater wants to know why she doesn’t make MORE games.
Oh. That.
This guy apparently thinks that instead of criticizing the game industry, Wu should be personally training a new generation of girls to make games.
@Spacekatgal Just because they are mostly designed by men doesnt women cant enjoy them and if they don't, teach women so they can make games
— Dragonslay3r94 (@Dragonslay3r94) October 22, 2014
It must be hard to find time to make games with all these dudes yelling at her to make games. And then yelling at her more when she does.
Hrm, I don’t really know what to make of that post. At first I thought it was supposed to be ‘digging-at-GG’s-notions-of-SJWs’ kind of funny and failing miserably. But yeah, now looks more like a crap gotcha attempt.
I thought Anita’s appearance on Colbert’s show was fantastic. I’m not surprised they’re frothing, Kootie. Also, for a bunch of self-described nerds, they seem so very stupid. Satire? Spoof? A gamerbro does not know what these things are.
Thus Spake ZaraNickNameNick:
Oh yes. Ohhh yes. For that matter, I’ve seen gamergrotz denounce Adobe’s condemnation of them as OMG CENSORSHIP, while praising Intel’s withdrawal from Gamasutra as yet another Trumph Of The Free Market™.
I see “FREE SPEECH!” abused so much by reactionaries, would-be theocrats, and other smug gitz on the internet that I’m seriously tempted to put up a website correcting common misconceptions about it. For example:Free speech does not imply anybody is required to give you a platform or a megaphone. Any given blog is perfectly entitled to delete comments at will, for any reason or for no reason. The blog owner has zero legal or constitutional obligation to provide a forum for you. Likewise, a corporation is not “censoring” you by refusing to endorse your positions.
Free speech does not require others to listen. A person who blocks you from her Facebook page because she’s tired of arguing with you is not taking away your free speech.
Free speech does not mean nobody is allowed to criticize the things you say. You are not being silenced, oppressed, or persecuted when somebody else replies with “You’re wrong, and here’s why…”
aebars,
I like that you pointed out that women aren’t shooting men for rejecting them or even harassing and terrorizing them. Women aren’t threatening to blow schools up over Youtube videos. You definitely grasp the different axes of power and the disparity in reaction between the different sides of this issue. GG is all about people whose privilege is being threatened trying to keep minorities in their place by being as furious, cruel, irrational and threatening as they can be. This isn’t about games at all. This is about a much broader fight. That said, I don’t think that game would be fun at all. Games are for fun. Thinking about this shit is not fun. 🙁
Which is why I treasure everyone here who can make me laugh at it anyway.
sparky | October 29, 2014 at 2:24 pm
They don’t have to be – but, different games for different interests? If they can’t play nicely together then let them play separately.
For many they are not, but for some they apparently are. Let those “some” play their games while the rest play other games, the games that, according to this article, are being developed by women in a more socially conscious manner.
andiexist | October 29, 2014 at 11:50 am
…it means games that conform to feminists’ expectations.
According to the article more are being developed as we “speak.”
They do, however, provide you with an alternative.
Ugh | October 29, 2014 at 11:53 am
I can name none. (Although, if I were to search far and wide on the internet I might find at least one.)
It does seem, though, that at least some feminists advocate modifying existing games to conform to their expectations; and, I am suggesting that women (feminist?) developers, as mentioned in this article, can continue developing games that conform to feminists’ expectations while the dudebro game playing community can be left alone to play games that may not conform to feminists’ expectations. This would alleviate the impetus to engage in confrontational conflict, as each faction in the conflict would get his or her own way.
booburry | October 29, 2014 at 12:57 pm
A “feminist game”… (The term I used was actually “feminist friendly game.”) A feminist friendly game is one that conforms to feminists’ expectations.
I am not advocating “leaving you out.” Instead, I am suggesting a way to separate the warring factions in a way that allows each to get what they are looking for.
If by “civil rights games” you mean games that conform to the expectations of civil rights activists, then yes (but I would refer to them as “civil rights friendly games.
I would hope that if my suggestion were implemented, each faction would have the world revolve around them – at least that corner of the world that each occupies.
=
Estwald:
Are you seriously arguing that there should be some sexism in video games because some people like that sort of thing? Do you also think there should be some racism in video games and some homophobia in video games because some people like that sort of thing?
I’d just like to give out a quick go fuck yourself for having the clueless temerity to equate “each side of the conflict”. This would be discussion rather than a “conflict” if the majority of GGers weren’t reactionary anti-intellectual asshats and irredeemable Internet trolls.
The video game industry is commercial enterprise that sells units to a consumer market with various demographics, not a culture war with separate ideological factions. I’m sorry if you are unfamiliar with the role of critics and commentators have played in popular media for over a century but that’s not my problem.
@Estwald:
This bit of crap stood out for me, from all the other shite you wrote. I have emphasized the problem word. The only bit of game you could purport to “own” is the bit that sits on your CD/DVD/harddrive – but then if you read any of the EULAs, which tend to include parts like the manufacturer may change the game at any time (in there primarily so that game patches can be implemented without legal hassles) you will see that what you actually “own” is a nebulous concept.
Now, I would concede you had a point if women kept coming around and booting you off your device, or physically stealing your games, in order to play. That really wouldn’t be fair, as you wouldn’t have access to “your” game. However, others playing games does not prevent you – on the basis of your sociodemographics – from playing that same game. For example, if you’re playing on a server-based game and the server is full, you are placed in a priority queue to login, and you don’t keep going to the back of the line if you are a heterosexual white man.
So the concepts that are being discussed have nothing to do with “your” games. You didn’t write the plot, voice the characters, write, play, and implement the music, design the characters, and so forth.
These are not *your* games.
And games should be developed in a socially conscious manner, like taking on staff so they have proper working conditions instead of being treated like low paid independent contractors who can be let go at will. But I don’t think you’re talking about that type of social consciousness either.
No one is stopping you playing the games you enjoy. However, you’re trying to stop us – a huge market force – getting games that we enjoy playing. Like, for example, having the option of a female character to play. And yes, all games will be ruined if there’s female characters who actually have protective body armour rather than iron bikinis. FFS my female paladin when I played WoW wore a metal breastplate, and the boobs in it moved when she did on the login screen. Yes, bouncy metal breastplates. /rolls eyes
You’re not being reasonable. You’re using polite language to couch the fact that you’re a completely unreasonable person who doesn’t want to see gaming become more inclusive in its characters and plots.
Wait. What? Bouncy metal breastplate. I just can’t
It seems I offended some people with my post about a hypothetical flash game. Well, apologies, I didn’t mean to. I was, as Misha said, trying to satirize what gamergaters think about SJWs. Such a game would be created by someone opposed to gamergaters, in an attempt piss them off, for the personal amusement of people opposed to them.
And a practical example of why this type of shite is important: real world effects
http://flowingdata.com/2014/10/30/decline-of-women-in-computer-science/
Estwald:
Separate but equal?
It seems that my suggestion is unpopular among the participants in this conversation. May I remind everyone that it is merely a suggestion intended to help resolve a conflict of interests. You are, of course, always free to ignore or reject a suggestion if you don’t like it.
pallygirl | October 30, 2014 at 2:56 pm
Please let me rephrase to clarify the statement (at the expense of word economy). I have emphasized the changes: For many they are not, but for some they apparently are. Let those “some” play games that appeal to them while the rest play other games that appeal to them, the games that, according to this article, are being developed by women in a more socially conscious manner.
That is correct, since I have never actually played a game on line (probably should have said so from the beginning). Well…actually I did once play a game of chess on line. I am not a “gamer” per se; I don’t have a horse in this race. Instead, I am an observer of human interaction. I have a casual interest in video games; I have moderate aptitude and spend too little time playing to develop my abilities to their full potential. The handful of games that I enjoy playing are on CD Rom, which precludes the manufacturer “changing the game at any time.” For the record, I refuse to read any EULA that is more than one page, or the font is too small, or is not written in plain English.
My interest in video games has become even more “casual” of late since most of them either won’t install on my new computer, or will install but won’t initialize, or will initialize but won’t run. I can’t replace them because no one seems to be selling off line computer games. I even went and looked at games designed for game systems, but found none of them appealing. What I want to know is: when are the manufacturers going to produce some games that conform to my expectations. Furthermore, I am a minority of one, and I am not represented as a character in any game whatsoever.
I do appreciate some of the information that you provided in regards the the structure of the on line gaming world, particularly this:
which tells me that I won’t be getting involved in on line gaming any time soon; I have no interest in waiting in a line to play a game.
Yes, someone is, the people who won’t manufacture or sell “my” games.
I have offered a suggestion that, if implemented, would allow you to play the games that you enjoy while others play games that they enjoy, and would allow you to play separately from a faction of players who you obviously do not like very much. That constitutes “trying to stop you from playing?”
I like options. In fact, isn’t that the jist of my suggestion – options?
…or, speaking of options, a choice of protective body armor or iron bikinis.
Thank you.
Offering a suggestion that could result in greater inclusiveness means I don’t want to see gaming become more inclusive?
sparky | October 30, 2014 at 11:49 am
I am not saying there should be any particular kind of content. What kinds artistic content others appreciate is none of my business.
If I were to ignore the dictionary and define “sexism” according to how I generally see it used in context, it would have the following definition: Sexism – Failure to conform to feminists’ expectations. I recognize no obligation to conform to feminists’ expectations.
I have no opinion as to what content should be included in any game. If I don’t like it I will ignore it. Who determines what is racist? For instance, some claim that Mark Twain’s novel “Huckleberry Finn” is racist; others do not. Who gets the final say?
brooked | October 30, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Thank you. I accept your gift and will use it wisely.
OK… there is no conflict.
I thought I saw one.
Sorry. I must have been mistaken.
It’s hard to tell by looking these days.
Critics and commentators in the arts usually critique and comment, often with the purpose of informing patrons as to the critic’s opinion of the quality of the work. Critics generally do not advocate that the artist revise the work to conform to the critic’s expectations.
NelC (@NelC) | October 31, 2014 at 9:03 am
…a phrase originally invoked by U.S. states whose education systems practiced enforced segregation by race. Nowhere have I suggested any form of segregation that would be enforced by some authority. Instead, it would occur as a self-selection based on personal preferences in entertainment content.
Let’s pretend there is a household with a number of residents. It is Sunday afternoon. This evening the Superbowl is being played. At the same time, the final game of a tied World Series is being played (I know, the World Series and the Superbowl don’t actually occur at the same time, but we’re pretending). Some of the residents want to watch the Superbowl; others would prefer the World Series game. Fortunately, the residence happens to have two rooms. Each has plenty of comfortable seating and each has a large screen television set. I’m sure you can surmise the appropriate resolution for this issue. Separate but equal, indeed.
=
Here’s the problem, Estwald. We play the same video games you do, and we have no intention to leave all the stuff we love for asshats who REQUIRE their games to be disrespectful of people who aren’t them.
Thus Spake ZaraEstwald
Oh, Nobly Born: The time has come for thee to muse upon thy lack of perspective, and find thereby enlightenment. At this moment, know thou thyself; and abide in that state.
Chee-rice-st, Estwald
What a load of crap. You’re so fucking entitled, clueless and scared that somebody will take your sexist caricatures away and your boner will be sad. Of course, that boner is so much more important than the people negatively effected by the sexist shit you get off on.
I cannot believe you expect anyone here’s time. Here is all that needs to be said to you:
You’re ignorant and you are being a sexist shitbag. You do not have a valid point. Stop. Shut up. Listen and learn.
Otherwise, piss off and go play with your make believe boobies.
Estwald,
You have now spent days arguing against a point nobody has made. Nobody who opposes gg has said dude bro fps games with scantily clad women should be banned. People are only asking for inclusivity.
The two sides are the ones who harass and make threats and the ones who oppose harassment and threats. There can be no plea to moderation. Either harassment and threats are okay or they aren’t. It’s a black and white issue.
And by the way, your statement that critics don’t argue that the makers of movies or music should change their art is absurd. Critics lament the state of the industry they talk about all the damn time.
@Estwald
You said yourself you’re not a gamer. Well, I am, since many years back. And let me tell you, every damn game that has a forum, is FULL of fanbois demanding it should be changed this or that way to cater to them (personally, I might add), or that the latest update is teh DOOM. Why you seem to think women/girls/feminists (which people like you use interchangably for some reason) are not allowed to voice opinions on what are much more serious issues than wether or not someone’s fave class has been nerfed or not, I just can’t fathom.
A lot of the GG shitheads were in diapers or not even born when I first started gaming. They do NOT have some sort of superior claim to games simply because cis!penis. Hell to the no!
Sea Lion said
Fantastic. Please advise how I can cause you to dislike this comment thread, so that you may commence ignoring it posthaste.
Also, for anyone who may be feeling fed up and cold-prickly about gaming right now, I highly recommend watching Many A True Nerd’s playthroughs on YouTube. He is making me feel happy about gaming again 🙂 Start with his Fallout 3: Kill Everything run, it’s hilarious and wonderful.
@Estwald,
The ongoing grimness of Gamergate, its origins, and the very context of the post in which you’re commenting in, seems to have gone entirely over your head. You’ve minimized the problem as ‘two factions who won’t stop fighting’, which is laughable, and offered the trite solution of ‘why can’t they just ignore each other and game at opposite ends of the room’, a solution so completely lacking in any understanding of context that it couldn’t fail more to address the problem if it tried.
Are you aware that Anita Sarkheesian’s Tropes in Video Games series has already suggested it might be a good idea if there were a few more games that were more varied, inclusive and had more multi-dimensional representations for those who want to play them? That she even stressed that it’s both ok to want games with slightly more variety and to enjoy the games currently lacking this? She was harassed, doxxed, received death and rape threats on an almost daily basis, was forced to leave her home after threats were made to her partner and family members by name and recently had to cancel a talk at Utah State University after a terrorist threat that claimed there would be “the deadliest school shooting in American history” if she didn’t cancel.
So in short: too late, Estwald. It’s already been suggested that more games should be developed with those inclusive ‘feminist expectations’ alongside games that currently lack them. The problem is that one ‘side’ thought it would be acceptable to threaten to kill members of the ‘other’ for daring to suggest this.
I’m going onto the character clothing point because this is really pissing me off. In World of Warcraft – I can’t speak to other games because I’ve not had my characters wear exactly the same outfit – on female characters, the revealingness of the costume varies depending on the race. So, for example, a cloth caster costume will look very revealing on a female human or female dranei or female elf (night or blood) character, but if worn on a female tauren or female dwarf, it won’t be at all revealing.
So the developers haven’t just resized the costumes for female characters, they have redone the entire look depending on whether the race has been programmed to be “sexy” or not. The races that are “sexy” get “sexy” versions of gear.
People – multiple – had to agree to this visualisation idea and then people – multiple – had to program it into the game.
Tracy | November 1, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Ignore me.
Lea | November 1, 2014 at 11:50 am
Not sure how boners are relevant to the topic of this conversation, or why you are as preoccupied with them as you seem to be.
I have better things to do, but thanks for the advice.
In return, I have some advice for you: You should develop some insults that are original and creative; the ones you are using are old and stale.
I’ll leave you with a question to ponder: Whose character is exposed in your comment, mine or yours?
pawsjones | November 1, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Did I say that? Who are “people like me?” Where do I use those words interchangebly?
Pocket Nerd | November 1, 2014 at 11:43 am
Not sure if this is intended as “mockery” (which after all, is the stated theme for this blog); if so, I will say that it is way more original and creative than Lea’s.
vaiyt | November 1, 2014 at 11:38 am
Doubtful, since I don’t actually play games on line.
Seems you and the gamebros have a conflict of interests. The only way to resolve it would be a pitched battle until one side is crushed and the winner takes all. I’ll take a seat, watch and enjoy the action.
On the other hand…
…would it be technically feasible to use game patches to easily and inexpensively create different versions of the same game? Then you could play the game with people whose company you enjoy and whose values you share, and avoid playing with a bunch of people that you don’t like very much and whose values are averse to yours.
weirwoodtreehugger | November 1, 2014 at 12:21 pm
…actually, only a couple of hours or so, spread out over a period of days.
What content constitutes “inclusivity?” What measures will be taken to achieve it? How will it change the overall character of content and gameplay?
Then battle on; fight the good fight. Crush your opponent; winner takes all. I’ll be watching from the grandstand.
Misha | November 1, 2014 at 1:34 pm
I take it that you do not find my suggestion to be useful – fair enough.
I thought I saw two factions.
It looked like they were fighting.
Sorry. I must have been mistaken.
And these are the people with whom you are determined to play games?
So, why do the participants in this conversation consider it to be controversial when I offer it as a suggestion, but not when Ms. Sarkheesian offers it?
Too late? The article states that there is a least one woman who is actually following Ms. Sarkheesian’s advice and developing the kind of games she suggests.
Now I’m getting confused. If there are not two factions fighting, then how can one side act collectively to threaten the other side when there are no sides in the first place.
=
This is the kind of guy who’d see one kid walk up and randomly punch another kid and then ask both kids why they’re fighting.
Wow quite the teel deer. Didn’t read it. Though I will give points for paragraphs and use of commenter’s actual names.
Still not really sure why we’re supposed to care about zir opinion. But since there’s a sea lion in the thread…
http://web.stanford.edu/~siegelr/galapagos/galapagos2010/IMG_9833%20sea%20lion%20resize.jpg