GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[evil_ash_xero]

That "leveled up" line was....my God, that was awful.

Honestly though, I kind of like it! Insane? Maybe.

But I'm hoping that the good "work" of FF, and SJW Journalists, and parading around Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian talking about Misogyny at every fucking turn (with absolutely NO counterpoint), will show neutral gamers, that these people are bad for our hobby as a whole. They are AGAINST us. And them acting like they hate the episode too, is freaking ridiculous.

They are not just attacking the games, and the devs. They are attacking the fans as well.

"WE" don't fit into their idea of their rainbow colored, PC universe of gaming. That was a big wish, when they wanted "Gamers" dead. They don't like us at all. And we're the core audience.

My God...these times are trying.

[Mischief Maker]

Gamergate has failed.

So I'm reading through articles and reviews of Hand of Fate, a demo-less game expensive enough for me to need to research before buying blind, and many of them are voluntarily disclosing if they backed the kickstarter or not. But the one question I want answered, "is the combat system any good?" always gets the same damn trite response "It's like Arkham Asylum." Okay, is it as well-balanced as Arkham? Better? Worse? Some player reviews say it lacks precision, does that mean bad hitboxes, or does it mean less aim assist? I've watched a couple let's plays, but I have yet to see one by someone who doesn't totally suck at games.

...and as much as I feel for unfairly ignored indie developers, as a consumer I realize that I'm still massively unsatisfied. At the core of reviewing is the conceit that the reviewer is a person with some special level of expertise who can not only tell you if a book/play/movie/videogame is worth your time and money, but why. Once upon a time Nintendo Power had little reviewer bios with tidbits that implied some level of expertise like "beat Zelda without a sword," but nowadays you get Yahtzee playing a higher-level brawler, snarking that he doesn't have time to learn the controls, then bitching that the game is too hard because his strategy of random button mashing failed to pay off. No matter how honest about their personal life, or how much they distance themselves from advertiser pressure, if reviewers suck at games their opinion is worthless.

I know I've reposted this video a zillion times, but it's about the only example I can find of a review that meets the standard I'm asking for:

http://youtu.be/cnQO-3JTqso

[Obscura]

Gamergate has failed.

So I'm reading through articles and reviews of Hand of Fate, a demo-less game expensive enough for me to need to research before buying blind, and many of them are voluntarily disclosing if they backed the kickstarter or not. But the one question I want answered, "is the combat system any good?" always gets the same damn trite response "It's like Arkham Asylum."

Pretty sure that's just a polite way of saying "no".

...and as much as I feel for unfairly ignored indie developers, as a consumer I realize that I'm still massively unsatisfied. At the core of reviewing is the conceit that the reviewer is a person with some special level of expertise who can not only tell you if a book/play/movie/videogame is worth your time and money, but why. Once upon a time Nintendo Power had little reviewer bios with tidbits that implied some level of expertise like "beat Zelda without a sword," but nowadays you get Yahtzee playing a higher-level brawler, snarking that he doesn't have time to learn the controls, then bitching that the game is too hard because his strategy of random button mashing failed to pay off. No matter how honest about their personal life, or how much they distance themselves from advertiser pressure, if reviewers suck at games their opinion is worthless.

I know I've reposted this video a zillion times, but it's about the only example I can find of a review that meets the standard I'm asking for:

http://youtu.be/cnQO-3JTqso

What did you expect? A lot of prominent game critics don't actually like videogames as much as their target audience(see: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... php?page=3 ), and anyone who has spent a few weeks with a level editor understands more about the design of modern games than the average "journalist".

The move towards "MUH FEELS!" style coverage isn't really derived from political motivation; it comes from the fact that they literally cannot offer any other kind of criticism without being called out as being full of shit by their readers, most of whom are far more knowledgeable about games than they are.

[louisg]

Honestly, I cannot remember a time when videogame reviews weren't mostly just full of shit (as anyone who was a shmups fan around 1995-2000 can attest to ). They're either basically rephrased press releases or they're the nonsense you guys are complaining about. The only movement that can fix that is if someone wants to create a successful videogame review site that centers around game mechanics and other deeper details.

Frankly, I don't mind that some people have politically correct views on games. I think sometimes good points are raised, and at the same time some of it is absolutely silly and narrow-minded. I just don't personally seek out reviews with those viewpoints, but in my mind it's not a problem that they exist. The real issue seems to be 1.) sites like Metacritic and dumb numbered scoring systems and 2.) that game sales are more and more centralized, to the point that if "outlet X" decides not to distribute a game that it's a huge blow to that game creator.

I still think game *fans* have an unprecedented amount of power through sites like Kickstarter. To me, it's great that we have games for all kinds of different audiences, and I want to see that continue, even though I'm mostly just likely to back tightly-designed retro-style games like Drift Stage rather than experimental art games. I'm mostly inclined to believe a lot of the friction has to do with two disconnected spheres of people who are being disparaging towards each others' choices in games (and doing a *lot* of "hitting below the belt" too).

[Mischief Maker]

Lemme clarify something, I certainly wasn't saying that reviewers were better in the good old days, ESPECIALLY Nintendo Power reviewers. Even as a kid I could tell they were shills and the only reason I got a subscription in the first place was they sent me a free copy of Dragon Warrior.

But they did see the need to at least look like experts! Nowadays they seem to take pride in their stubborn refusal to learn how to play a game properly.

Gamergate did affect a change: reviewers now disclose potential conflicts of interest. I'm saying that wasn't really a helpful change from a consumer's standpoint. Then again, what could we expect from a movement spearheaded by non-gamers?

[louisg]

Gamergate did affect a change: reviewers now disclose potential conflicts of interest. I'm saying that wasn't really a helpful change from a consumer's standpoint. Then again, what could we expect from a movement spearheaded by non-gamers?

That seems mainly important in the arena of the (very unprofessional) indie scene. Too bad conflict-of-interest doesn't include crap like ad dollars and gifts

[Bananamatic]

i'll just drop this here

[Ed Oscuro]

Then again, what could we expect from a movement spearheaded by non-gamers?

This. Isn't it a bit off-topic to suggest the movement failed when it never was about gaming in the first place? If we want good games again, we can't rely on casuls to deliver that message.

i'll just drop this here

They shouldn't have said anything. It's a very fine line between giving a good defense and looking apologetic. If I was in that position, I'd let the reviews and word of mouth do the talking - assuming those can be relied on to be positive.

[Squire Grooktook]

I saw lots of GamerGate threads on fighting game forums and whatnot. I'm not sure its accurate to pull a no true scotsman and say it failed because they weren't "real" gamers or weren't "hardcore" enough.

[Ed Oscuro]

True, but I'm playing along with MM's argument there - that it failed due to the standards of people who weren't really involved.

You know, though, not even looking for GamerGate stuff I find some really shockingly bad stuff:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09 ... -reformed/
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Shadow ... 67801.html

etc.

What isn't so obvious from the way the "GamerGate" tag has been dragged and tagged all around town is that there have been some actually big stories and moves in the right direction, like the XB1M13 promotion centered around Machinima and the Xbox One, which possibly has sparked an FTC investigation.

Sometimes I think "boy, what if I had pushed harder and gotten myself a gaming journo gig?" Mostly, I just shudder. Even where I was at the time I would have started, without a degree, I probably still would have been far ahead of a lot of these journos, but I am quite sure that I still would have easily fallen afoul of something or other - you know how I like to say my piece sometimes - and that's against entire conventions of sharks (the expected PR flaks sure, but also many fellow "journalists" or "editors" most likely) who don't have any ethics and would have used my principles as a weakness to exploit, assuming I managed to see my way through, which again I'm not sure would have happened. Maybe I woulda slept around and started calling some random woman a "colleague" too?

And people say "why do people expect games should only be $10?" That's still a lot better than the industry valuation of what they see as entirely disposable commodities - not a penny for their thoughts.

[evil_ash_xero]

You know, the Calgary Con thing has depressed me. Where HBR got kicked out, I was happy to see a lot of backlash to the Twitter drama queens, that used to be the only ones who spoke up. Which I'm happy about. But what's saddening me, is a lot of comic writers are fine with this. I'm a comic fan too, it's depressing.

Like I mentioned earlier, the Suey Park thing, was a great example. When Colbert got attacked by her, people like "us" were like "it's a joke...if you take away all his offensive remarks, it ruins the character". And we defended him. Literally. All the major players in GG have old vids defending Colbert. But then Colbert puts Anita on his show.

Then you have Joss Whedon...I still wonder has Joss seen this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvDg8VeGWJs
Anita and others like her, call GGs or anti-SJWs misogynist, racist, whatever. And these creators just nod their heads. Does he agree that his show was misogynistic? Was she right?
I've never heard him address it.

I know that most of the comic writers that are coming out as for the banning of Honey Badger Radio at Calgary Con are left-leaning. Which I am too. Like Mark Waid is getting into it. And it's the same kind of tactics these folks always have. You'll try to talk about it, even politely, and they ban you. I'll give him credit for talking about it some, but he just bans everyone now. Ron Marz is disappointing in this respect. He basically just tries to piss off GG, and flaunts that he will ban anyone who has something to do with it. How childish is that?
Kurt Busiek makes me the most sad. He seems to support his colleagues, but I have spoken to him on forums, and he is a reasonable man. I don't think he would act childish like this, or just ban left and right without having something rude said to him.
I told him that if his run on Conan had come out now, the SJWs would have a fucking field day with it (not in those words). I mean, there was an alternate cover that had nudity. This is keeping in theme with the old fantasy barbarian genre.
But now, this is all bad. Bad bad bad. Ban it.
In the end though, I still respect Waid and Busiek as a writers, and they're probably good people too. Marz...eh..I dunno. He's being a dick. And all I've read of his is Scion. I liked it, but he also wrote and worked on that Green Lantern story that turned Hal into a maniac killer, and then that 90s kid took over for him. Wasn't a fan.

I agree with Maher, that this seems like a battle between liberals, and progressive liberals. Despite anti-GGs trying to paint out GG to be some kind of far right movement, it's mainly moderate liberals.
It's like we're eating each other alive or something. I just think if you go too far in either direction, and start banning people from cons, censoring things, changing things due to a minority of people having a fit on Twitter...it's a bad thing.

Anyway, here's a recent thought by Maher, that I completely agree with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFeDFva6tcg

[Mischief Maker]

As much as I'm pro gamergate, let's not lose perspective here.

We all love our video games and funny books, but when the right dips its toes into censoring talk about climate change in WI and FL, it's a reminder that as fashionable as fascist tactics are getting for some parts of the left, the right are the real professionals at this kind of thing.

[evil_ash_xero]

Oh, I know what the Right does.

The Left is just getting out of hand. The Right really isn't out of hand right now (in this country).
Well, they are, in terms of starting wars, and gun control. But the public supports it, so what can you do?
What the far Left is doing has more to do with Entertainment, and things like that, where they rule the roost. Now, they are making some annoying little monsters in today's Colleges. I fear for the future.
Oh, and (however you lean), they are really letting everyone in, in Europe. But some may like that (I don't, for the record).

But really, if anyone tries to push their moral values down everyone's throats, I'm going to be pissed about it. I'm just surprised this is what Progessives have come to.

Boy, do they hate some geeks.

Trust me, it's weird to have to fight against Liberals, since I am one. It's like WTF?

But, it must happen. I feel like GG is on the right side. The anti-GGs don't really have anything that has to do with...you know, reality, that they can convince me with.
You can only say harassment of women, so many times, before it loses it's effect. Especially when you don't really see much come of said harassment. Anita and Brianna make a living off of the controversy.
Quinn...I feel bad for her, honestly, but that's one person.
It's silly to paint all of GG as wrong, because of a few examples. Especially when it happens on the other side as well.
And I have a lot of GGs on my Twitter, and I never see misogynistic stuff. It's just a smokescreen.

I mean, damn, that one artist/writer from HBR got banned FOR LIFE, from the Calgary Cons. Little harsh, don't you think?
Now, that's real world consequences. Not the threat of one.

[BIL]

IDGAF about any of this shit, but this make me ROFL HARD IRL!

MOVIEBUB = SHAWEET SCHADENFREUDE ;-; (he a fat loser, BAAAHAHAHA)

[evil_ash_xero]

Yeah, that's been one of the nice parts about this whole thing. The biggest offenders (except those at Kotaku), have been removed from sites, demoted, etc. Even the great Leigh Alexander lost her position. You know, of "I AM Games Journalism".

Those were sweet victories.

[BIL]

Oh she did? Bahaha, nice. What a godawful piece of work she was.

edit: totally recommend Moviebob's "SMB3 Brick By Brick" btw. It's horrifying, and hilarious.

[evil_ash_xero]

Oh she did? Bahaha, nice. What a godawful piece of work she was.

Not only that, she went on to her Twitter, to beg for cash from her followers.

Kotaku will never change, because they're owned by Gawker...and that is Gawker's entire thing. So, they would never fire someone for doing what their whole schtick is.
But the rest of 'em...they've been having troubles.

It's satisfying.

However, I can only say we "won", when developers stop listening to Twitter lynch mobs, and changing their products. Then we've won, to my satisfaction.
We'll NEVER win the PR war. We don't even get a chance from the media.

[evil_ash_xero]

I'm not sure how that gets laid on SJWs door. Did the SJW force a majority of gay-positive content, or are the devs just bad at scenario design and/or unimaginative? I imagine there's a distinction between a game "being ruined by SJWs" and the game's dev team failing to deliver on its potential while showing a liberal bias.

Oh, the SJWs are absolutely pushing this agenda. And they have become a part of the game journalism establishment, to the point where they push that agenda HARD. And the publishers feel pressure to do things to pacify them.

It happens. The only thing that seems to be slowing it down, is the backlash from GG....love it or hate it.

If a developer genuinely wants to make a game that features tons of their own political and social views...that's fine.
But seriously, do you see when a game company or comic company puts out an image or whatever, that isn't liked by SJWs? They freak out on Twitter, and the companies cave in and change it.

It's nuts, because it's not even their audience. I think they THINK they are. But they're really not. They're just activists.

[Ed Oscuro]

Oh, I know what the Right does.

The Left is just getting out of hand. The Right really isn't out of hand right now (in this country).

"Yeah, no" in three sentences, because apparently you didn't really agree with MM.

I can't find a reference to it now, but an NPR interview touched on (at least) GamerGate yesterday. The discussion is still basically where industries (including comics) have to say "yeah, we have to find more audiences than just the same aging white guys that always bought comics" and yet this doesn't come at the cost of shutting out those readers. I mean, things come and go all the time, just for "BUSINESS REASONS," kowtowing to minority pressure groups has never been a major killer of genres, and it still isn't.

So, I dunno, having right-wingers dredging up things that were done in the name of science 8 years ago to score political points at the expense of scientifically run government responsible to the people - I think that is way more concerning than that there might hypothetically be an advertising campaign or maybe even a game which has its content changed slightly.

It's nuts, because it's not even their audience. I think they THINK they are. But they're really not. They're just activists.

So you know this now? You know that activists don't do normal people things like reading comics or playing games?

[evil_ash_xero]

Oh, I know what the Right does.

The Left is just getting out of hand. The Right really isn't out of hand right now (in this country).

"Yeah, no" in three sentences, because apparently you didn't really agree with MM.

I can't find a reference to it now, but an NPR interview touched on (at least) GamerGate yesterday. The discussion is still basically where industries (including comics) have to say "yeah, we have to find more audiences than just the same aging white guys that always bought comics" and yet this doesn't come at the cost of shutting out those readers. I mean, things come and go all the time, just for "BUSINESS REASONS," kowtowing to minority pressure groups has never been a major killer of genres, and it still isn't.

So, I dunno, having right-wingers dredging up things that were done in the name of science 8 years ago to score political points at the expense of scientifically run government responsible to the people - I think that is way more concerning than that there might hypothetically be an advertising campaign or maybe even a game which has its content changed slightly.

It's nuts, because it's not even their audience. I think they THINK they are. But they're really not. They're just activists.

So you know this now? You know that activists don't do normal people things like reading comics or playing games?

Ed, you fool! You'll kill us all!

Seriously though, look at some of the numbers. Anita Sarkeesian has like 250,000 followers on Twitter, or something like that. She made over 400,000 dollars in 2014, from donations primarily. You'd think she'd have a lot of reach? But she has a Steam "recommendation" section, and it only has like 7000 members. Also, she pushed a game hard, a few weeks ago. It didn't change it's sales by like 1 percent or something.

So, no, I have never believed they were really gamers, or comic book readers, for the most part. I'm sure some do. But I think it's a small number. Hey, I could be wrong, but ain't buyin' it, for now.

Now, this is for the activist types. There are the "won over" (like anyone who hasn't been banned at NeoGAF for saying something 'out of line') who ARE gamers. But they just kind of nod and agree, and give money. They don't really push this shit constantly.

Hell, Anita doesn't really play games. I do not believe that the Twitter SJW Lynch Mob are actual gamers/comic readers/etc. They are college activist types, and Tumblr freaks who just look for stuff to be offended by, and go for it when they see it.

They certainly didn't hurt GTAV's numbers. Despite getting it banned in Australia's Target.

I think they are fakes. Yes.

Some insane information could come out tomorrow and blow my mind, but right now...this is what I have thought since this started.


And one of the true ironies is the theory that the way games are now are alienating women. However, they will be the first to spout that almost half of all gamers are women. So, more gamers are women now, than ever before, but the industry is excluding them? Ummm....Okay?
Are they just wanting more women to buy Call of Duty, or something?

And that damsel in distress trope, that Anita started her series out on...When I have mentioned that to ANY girl I know...they just kind of roll their eyes.
That's what "normal" women think about these opinions. From my experience.

Talk about the wage gap, or things that actually matter, and then they get fired up. Not this hogwash.

[Ed Oscuro]

You have to look at these things like polling numbers.

- Looking at numbers related to one high-profile personality will just tell you about that flashpoint. It doesn't tell us about other people in that discussion.
- People who join Steam groups are *in general* probably going to be much more active in online game politics than other people, including other people on Steam and people who play games (don't forget the console players).

There are lots of people who play games but don't call themselves "PC master race" (yes, I know that's a different topic, but it's a good example of the tone) and don't get involved in the drama. We already know this from topics about gamers in general vs. "review / news" outlets like Kotaku and IGN - it's enough of a gap that we can basically say that Kotaku and IGN are irrelevant for the average gamer. I don't think it's totally unfair to say that there are also a lot of people who are anti-GamerGate but also play games.

Of course there are some people whose only motive is "creating change" or just stirring up shit, and (since this isn't Wikipedia) you're certainly welcome to call a spade a spade. But you shouldn't believe that people involved in this are just interested in seeing the world burn. Likewise, I don't see any reason to believe that people involved in gaming politics but who don't play games are on the anti-GamerGate side. There's probably quite a few people on the "GamerGate" side who don't play games and see it as an extension of their online fights for mandom and 1st amendment rights, or whatever. DYEL, bro?

We can look at other examples. The feminist movement really got started with the breakup of the original lesbian movements in the early '70s. They've been critiquing mass media ever since that time. Did this lead to no more novels or comics back then? No, it hasn't. Instead it led to opening up media to totally new ideas. If somebody is dedicated, they of course can write 60s style Hard SF or whatever, but if anything the extra voices have made everybody need to step their games up.

[evil_ash_xero]

I'm half asleep, so I can't fully grasp what your comment is about.

But yeah, there are non gamers on both sides. I just believe that the SJWs don't represent the majority of gamers' opinions. And the problem I have with them, is that they are influencing companies to change this and that. It should be the market, or the creators to decide.

These people are very vocal, but I don't think there are tons of SJW gamers. From the forums I go to, I just don't see it. Like I said, if that was the case, GTAV's sales would have been hurt by all the bru ha ha, that the SJW type journalists had with it.
Dragon's Crown did well, for a game of it's type, and is Vanillaware's best selling game. So, all the blah blah about the Sorceress' tits really didn't hurt the game at all, now did it.

I mean, I could go on and on. Look at all the top selling games. Do you really think thousands of SJWs are playing Call of Duty or Assassins' Creed?

Like I said, I could always be proven wrong, but I'd be quite surprised.

And LOTS of women play games. But, on average, they are social type games and whatnot. These SJW Journalists and activists are trying to change games, that aren't appealing to women anyway, to have things in them that they perceive would get them into it.
I don't see this happening. And it's going to piss off the target audience. So, what's the point? There are all kinds of games, for all kinds of people. Why do we have to shoehorn this into that game, and take that out of this game? Just so some people will shut up on Twitter?

As for me, I just see them getting out of control, and I don't like this kind of censorship, banning, bullying, and whatnot. So, I gotsta fight it. In the best way I can. By sitting on my ass, and writing e-mails, and getting on Twitter. lol
OH, and turning my Ad Block off on sites that are pro-GG.

I do get pretty riled up about it though, in all seriousness.

And I'll tell you this, the sites, forums, and people that are anti, really like to ban and block. And that just makes us more angry.
It feels really personal. And they do this to a LOT of people.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

I think I won Gamergate the second I dropped all the shittiest gaming sites permanently. If I wasn't addicted to internet drama, I probably wouldn't know this was happening.

I will buy Afterlife Empire.

I think people are wising up to SJW nonesense, as 'Sad Puppies' recently proved. Before, the phantom 'basement dwelling virgin' was too tempting of a target and people are always eager to stick up for the 'poor white girl' no matter the circumstances. The 'privilege stack' probably does have some useful application somewhere but right now it's being used as a shield for one's own bigotry along with concepts such as "punching up" (apparently the mainstream press attacking wizards and 15 year old boys is "punching up". Muslim extremists were "punching down" when they executed Charlie Hebdo). This is where #notyourshield has been doing the most positive work.

Sad to imagine that this kind of thought will still go mostly unchallenged by the time my boy is born

[BareKnuckleRoo]

This is a really interesting perspective from a female writer on why Anita Sarkeesian's writings are disastrously misguided:

Why Feminist Frequency almost made me quit writing about video games

It's a five part article that's well worth the read. I'm rather disappointed it hasn't gotten more attention.

[Rob]

Video games are fun.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm half asleep, so I can't fully grasp what your comment is about.

I like to share ideas but sometimes (often?) it veers into looking like elitist dictation. It's not my intention to make you think this is all really hard to figure out. Mentioning polling (political science) was a bit misleading, since it's really about critical thinking.

All I've been doing is something like playing Devil's Advocate - when you say that anti-GG folk are just meddlers, you're saying that they have no right to do it (this in of itself is an open question), and you also said you know they don't have any interest in the medium other than as a political platform (which, actually, is an idea I think that the space of gaming is definitely big enough to encompass - people have used film and comics like that, and I just read the other day that "some people have built careers in comics around the idea that they hate comics").

It's helpful to think "are there ways these things I found be true, without supporting my beliefs about them?" Not every thing I wrote in response to your claims needs to be true, but it's worth considering if you're ready to say this to somebody's face - whether you have that much confidence it is. Likewise it's always a good idea to think if you are applying the same criticism to your own side - it helps keep us honest and not be hypocrites.

Even with all that said, I don't see how that ultimately matters. I've no doubt that there are a bunch of people with more money than brains, or more interest in drama than games, but most people still like games, as games, and that is the norm. Ten years ago I felt like it was worth criticizing Killer7 for what I felt was a rather too myopic Japanese criticism of US policy (the silly nuclear story), or the anti-war FPS "Iron Storm" for putting its own moral lesson in the way of fun - but at the same time I had respect for the idea that different stories certainly needed to be told and heard (especially in the Bush Administration years). I also feel pretty sure that a lot of other players of the game didn't care about that story at all, and just wanted to shut their brains off. There are always going to be groups of people who aren't willing to come to the middle ground on issues like these.

So there's that ongoing debate about whether gamers can be counted on to be mature and actually pay attention to what developers expect of them. Whether developers expect players to rise to the level of challenges, or to react to thought-provoking storylines, there are many people who will proudly fail those expectations. I don't think it's a bad thing that developers keep trying. Likewise, I don't think it's a bad thing that some people have identified gaming as a cultural battleground for our times.

This is a really interesting perspective from a female writer on why Anita Sarkeesian's writings are disastrously misguided:

Why Feminist Frequency almost made me quit writing about video games

Thanks for this. I just started in, and already I've got one question:

It's telling to me that young women are currently exploring the world for the first time as adults accompanied by so much anger but are blaming the anger of men for their problems. The most misunderstood element of first world feminism is that a lot of it involves unlearning the damaging lessons women have been taught about women.

How much of it is unlearning bad lessons, and how much of it is simply women who are experiencing anger because that's what young people do?

[Skykid]

Reading the last couple of pages I realise I don't really know anything about Gamergate because I don't know any of these journalists and because I don't really follow games journalism.

But it's interesting to read mad Twitter rampages from people being self-important because they're a games journalist (like that was a position that ever had real credibility) and often, a woman, and therefore entitled to surf the whole thing like some kind of suffragette movement.

It's pretty embarrassing shit really, but I'll be damned if it ain't great popcorn material.

Any other loonies like Brianna Wu or Leigh Alexander I can learn about?

[Bananamatic]

Arthur Chu is my favourite

[BIL]

Moviebub represent. BUY HE BOOK PLS

But the climactic reveal of SMB3 is burned – no, seared – into my memory the way JFK’s assassination was for my parents’ generation… or the way 9/11 would be for mine a scant 12 years from then…

In my memories, the Great Console Wars dragged on like my own private Vietnam, and it didn’t help that I was still constantly in trouble at school and in and out of therapy at the time for anger, attention and authority issues.

For me, this was it. How much sense did it make to be trying to work out the bigger relationships between the characters and the broader scope of their world? […] Why should I put so much of myself into this… when Mario’s masters couldn’t even keep his origins straight?

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Try srhbutts' twitter feed.