> Like all geek culture, [video game] culture is little more than the consumption of media as a means of identity formation.
Already in the first paragraph I'm not so sure about the premise of this article... I don't connect with people who play video games just because they play video games, but because of a shared experience, language, and shared understanding that comes about from playing specific video games. Part of that involves the creation of ideas external to the immediate content of the video game itself, and it's often something that the creators of the game did not at all intend to be a central identifying feature. The cultural connections with someone are stronger with immediate shared experiences, which makes them decidedly personal. I can provide plenty of examples of this phenomenon.
But even if you want to play devil's advocate and agree with the claim, it must necessarily extend to almost all "culture," be it art, news, food, music, movies. The vast majority of people in any culture are consumers of the fruits of that culture. This article makes it seem like an inherently bad thing, or a reason to belittle the culture. But the logical conclusion of the idea is ludicrous, because culture is an unambiguously good feature of human society.
This isn't to defend misogynistic gamers (who I sincerely hope are an increasingly small fraction of gamers that just happen to be extremely vocal on the internet), but just to disagree with the unreasonable train of logic used in the article.
I make games for a living and love the art form. I regard games as trivial and a waste of time/resources however I just happen to be genuinely passionate about them and can actually manage to eke out a living making them (Unlike with music, my other passion)
Anyway I have always found references to a 'gamer culture' or other such 'cultures' to be .. nonsensical? Or, like these 'fandoms', like the my little pony fandom etc. I think these kind of fandom people will imagine some kind of 'culture' around anything and its usually really bad quality stuff, eg terrible anime, terrible derivative multiplayer games, really bad juvenile comics, crappy collectible card games etc. Basically societies slightly less mainstream cultural crap. I have no idea why this seems to be the case.
As far as I'm concerned I have always just really liked playing games, I consider myself somewhat of a connoisseur of the art form (As I would for most other media, music, film,comics,cartoons,) that does not make me a member of any particlar culture or sect imo. I also like to watch films but I dont consider myseld a 'filmer'
I think you maybe have some points, about the fact that video games aren't simply passive consumption, but involve active creation on the part of the 'consumer', in several ways.
But. But. I want to draw attention to your assumption that all forms of culture are about 'consumption' -- there used to be forms of culture that did not involve money exchanging hands, and that were about shared creation, not about a presenter and an audience. Say, people getting together to play music and sing songs themselves. The fact that many of us can't anymore barely even conceive of 'culture' except as a purchased commodity is telling.
It may be true that in 21st century U.S, "the vast majority of people in any culture are consumers of the fruits of that culture," but it is simply not true that ALL culture MUST be that way. One can critisize that mode of culture without thinking 'culture' is a bad thing.
Look, the culture exists, maybe not for you. The true test is:
If a criticism of your favorite video game makes you angry, you have a problem. Hell criticize any game I play, any operating system I use, any hardware I use, its all good. But this is not true for all people.
Also the article rings very well with abuses seen in the video game industry. Why is it that working at a wall street firm making 200-300k a year while working ~ 10-12 hr shifts is seen as horrible, exploitative work, while working for a video game firm making 100-150k a year while working 12-14 hr shifts is seen as glorious work making stuff you love?
Hell, I can work at a "normal" development job (I do) working 8 hrs a day, and have the rest of my day dedicated to enjoying myself (which can include playing games, making games, making hardware, hacking hardware, human interaction, family life, you pick it).
>This isn't to defend misogynistic gamers (who I sincerely hope are an increasingly small fraction of gamers that just happen to be extremely vocal on the internet.
It's in the industry, too. It's not just a vocal minority.
it must necessarily extend to almost all "culture," be it art, news, food, music, movies
It does extend to a large swath of culture that has become nothing more than means for signalling. Maybe it has always been like that and art is simply more accessible now so more people engage in this affiliation by taste.
You're right to say that this critique of culture should, logically, apply to all, but the writer goes back on his premise a few paragraphs in and instead says this:
> Gamer identity is tainted, root and branch, by its embrace of consumption as a way of life.
I actually think we're in a gaming renaissance. The gaming world has never been more diverse, more inclusive, and more creatively challenging than ever before. It's pretty amazing. And arguably less corporate, given the number of amazing independent games out there at the moment. And democratic, given the openness of the platforms and distribution systems.
I mean, there are dud games. And cash-grab games. And misogynistic games. And misogynistic gamers. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
I think that's true, and actually what's triggered a series of current backlashes. "Gamer culture" is no longer one thing and people make lots of different kinds of games, targeted to many different audiences with different values and interests. One backlash that triggers is from people who feel a need to defend "gamer" as some kind of turf being invaded, with community norms that can't be violated (people who make "casual games", "games about queerness", or any range of other things outside a norm of hardcore+fun are "not real gamers"). Some people observing the turf-defenders of "gamerness" conclude those people are unsavory, and take this as an indication that gamer culture is unsavory.
I see some possible ways that could play out, but I'm not sure how it will. Gamer could expand, or people doing other-than-traditional things could just dissociate themselves from gamers and label their stuff something else. I personally am wary of wading into gamer culture, because I see a lot of 4chan-type people with a lot of time on their hands harassing people who they find objectionable, including some people I know. So I prefer to label my game-ish stuff as something other than "games", and culturally target it at other audiences (like technologists, or interactive-art fans), so I can hopefully avoid attracting the attention of the more toxic parts of the gamer community. In that sense I'm kind of pragmatically aligned on the "end of gamer" side maybe.
I don't get it. Is literature tainted, root and branch, because for much of the last 150 years it too was driven by consumption? Should we avoid Dickens, because he published in for-profit serials that carried advertising?
There's a difference between the culture of literature and the culture of gaming. I think it boils down to the difference between reviews and criticism. Games, for the most part, get reviewed. Reviews are functional and focused on consumption. A review seeks to answer a few questions about its subject: Does it work as intended? Is it entertaining? Is it a good value?
Books, on the other hand, sometimes are subject to criticism. Criticism explores, interprets, and analyzes. It asks "why" and "how" questions. The best criticism expands and changes its subject. Literature as a culture has its roots in both original work and criticism. Almost as soon as there were works to read, there was literary criticism. (The Talmud springs to mind as an early example.) Certainly, most readers and many critics are more interested in reviews than criticism, but the feedback from criticism has been fundamental to the development of literature.
This balance makes literary culture much different from gamer culture. Even with games aspire to be art, the reviews go like this:
The game explores themes of identity and abandonment. Who are we and how are we separate from each other? It might be art. The controls are a bit laggy and the game is only two hours long, which isn't great value for $10. I give it an 8 out of 10.
I've read a few game reviews that go farther but these are few and far between. Maybe the recent controversies will start us down a new path.
I feel like it has been for the past year, it is exhausting. I think there is a real term for it but at first I was in shock, and now I'm tired of hearing it, being lumped in the same category with folks doing some nasty evil stuff. I just want to play with my trains, shoot friends in CoD and explore wild fantasy worlds. I don't support the harassment or abuse of any person, I feel sorry for these people who are under attack. I don't have an answer on how to stop it, or improve the landscape. Is it even possible to stop some people from being vile? How do you say 'No, you can't think those things, you can't talk like that.' and have an impact on someone who feels completely secure and self-righteous from their position?
I don't want to feel guilt for being a man who likes video games.
It's a kneejerk response to the massive backlash that ensued out of the recent Zoe Quinn scandal and the debate on journalistic ethics in video game media that erupted as a result. It's actually been boiling for a long time, but Quinn was the last straw.
Censorship and silence didn't work, as the Streisand effect snowballed this into something far larger than it would have been otherwise. Now this is an attempt to divert attention away.
It's a curious thing, gaming journalism. It is perhaps the most puerile form of "journalism" there is. It would be insulting to even call it journalism, it's blogging, plain and simple. Video game media is also the only one I know of that insults its target demographic so frequently, in an attempt to look socially progressive.
I play a decent bit of video games, and used to play a LOT more, by some standards I might be called a gamer still. I've defiantly seen some of what you mention, however, I've also seen some of the best communities of people.
I play WoW, and the guild I play with has a relatively good mix of nationality and gender, and I've never once heard someone berate or look down upon our female players.
I agree. This article seems to be aimed at frat houses playing GTA. In fact, I betcha you could replace the word "gamers" in this article with anything and it would still work. In my gaming experiences, fellow gamers (even hyper competitive ones) are for the most part intelligent, inclusive, nice people. If anything, this article is a gross over-generalization of a population.
First, the word "misogyny" doesn't simply mean "hatred of women". You can't simply take the greek roots of a word and shuck off the context it's acquired over millennia of use.
Second, to objectify a person is to rob them of part of their humanity, or sometimes even of their agency. It's a casually contemptuous way to treat people. Only on a nerd message board is the connection to the concept of misogyny hard to follow.
I very much think, in a first impression, that the author of this piece hasn't put much thought in his words beyond an urge to throw more of them in the fire. See this list:
- I'm a rock music enthusiast, I buy every CD from X band.
- I really enjoy novels, I read every book by X author
- I'm a cinema lover, I watch every film from X director
- I'm a gaming fanatic, I get every game from X studio
- I'm really into X's art, I buy all his pieces
Which one is not like the others? None. They are all forms of media consumption preference. All of them are used by people to describe and define themselves. They are all actively used and exploited by the industries for profit.
And, of course, all of them have more or less acceptable idiosyncrasies of all kinds (what outfit is acceptable for this music style, what is the proper way of interpreting this art form, what knowledge is expected from you when loving this films, you name it).
Why is someone describing himself as a "gamer" any worse than somebody describing himself to be a "romantic comedy film lover"?
It's a little surreal reading about gamers. I am geek, through and through, and I have always enjoyed video games, but I don't seem to belong to gamer culture, as far as the internet is concerned.
What happened to the social aspect of gaming? Why have all the arcades faded away? There are a few around, I guess, but it doesn't seem the same. I have always played games WITH people and in COMPETITION with people. Playing is, for me, about sharing.
Maybe I'm not a gamer. Maybe the term "gamer" is too loaded to be redeemed at this point. But there is a culture of games and gaming that can (and does in some places, however few) exist without the baggage attached to the term.
DISCLAIMER: I admit, I'm not into the same type of games that constantly get talked about; I don't play CoD, I've never really played much GTA, and most modern AAA games don't hold my attention very long (partly because I'm terrible at FPS games and other mainstream offerings).
There's a bit of a revival of interest in that style of gameplay (in-person, with a focus on the social-interaction aspect). The most common current term for it, afaik, is "local multiplayer".
> Of all the strands of geek culture, gamers have always seemed to be the group most likely to explode in anger at challenges to their subculture.
Of all the strands of geek culture I only dislike the social engineers like the author, who instead of focusing on technology try to analyze, criticize, categorize, and influence how other people behave.
The generalization of the 'gamer culture' as portrayed by this article and the negative premise based upon this generalization is misguided at best.
Replace every instance of 'gamer/gaming' in the article with 'religious extremist' and presto ... you have a new article!
Just because a few 'zealots' act out in such extreme behavior, doesn't make 'gamers/gaming' a bunch of slack jawed neanderthal brutes ... same for 'Religion/Politics..'
This guy turns "GamerGate" into a diatribe on corporate America. What? The recent terrible aftermath of all this "GamerGate" stuff is a direct cause of big companies leveraging geek and gamer culture to sell stuff? How does that make any sense? It's not the big gaming companies that drove Anita out of her house. How is this even related?
This article is terrible. I love videogames and spend way more time talking about games and playing them than the average person. Thus, I'm a "gamer". Anything else is just overthinking.
>Tainted by its misogyny and embrace of consumption as a way of life, gamer culture isn’t worth saving.
Any article on 'gaming' that plays around with the word 'misogyny' in the first 10 lines is usually an article I don't like to read. But that is a whole 'nother story.
>But to define oneself by media consumption is not just unhealthy, it’s vacuous.
>But to define oneself by X consumption is not just unhealthy, it’s vacuous.
Don't we all define oneself by what we consume?
We consume food which shapes (defines) our bodies. We lift weights so we can shape, mold, sculpt and define our own bodies as we please. Is it unhealthy to label yourself a fashionista because you have a keen interest in fashion (consume fashion media), have a blog about it and love to buy new clothing?
You consume food; how many times has somebody asked you to tell them about yourself and you say, "Well, I like to eat food...I'd say I do it at least three times a day, maybe four if I get a bit hungry at night? I'm a big fan of lunch but I've really been exploring some new territory in breakfast lately and I've been getting to some pretty crazy stuff. I'll tell you, it's pretty wild".
Oh, you don't do that? So maybe it's possible to consume something on a regular basis without letting it define your personality.
This article has no content. Apparently journalism today is spewing sentences that on the surface look that they make sense, to enrage people. You need to get them angry before they had enough time to think about what they just read and realize there's nothing there. When they do get angry, they share and spread and bring pageviews and ad-dolars.
Mission accomplished, congratulations. Your news outlet just got a bit richer.
What a horrible article by a horrible journalist. Its Disgusting how the "gamer" stereotype is used in the same sense as hatespeech would use "them blacks".
First it was feminist agenda to transform gaming into something that fit their narrow world view, but since that failed pretty hard and even the most brain washed white knights are starting to see through their ruse especially in the light of the scandal around the depression quest.
Now as a last resort all these same people are trying to paint the word "gamer" as something bad and undesirable.
I'm not really surprised if they come up with a new term that they try to define with their agenda, gamers just have to be smart enough to see through their bullshit.
The "scandal around depression quest" is a bunch of lurid sexism, nothing more [1]. And "white knight" is a term invented by Redditors and not used by intelligent people. It may surprise you that plenty of men don't think of ourselves as part of some kind of "team man" fraternity where we have to stick up for "our side", and can't object to harassment of women, just as women also do.
[+] [-] j2kun|11 years ago|reply
Already in the first paragraph I'm not so sure about the premise of this article... I don't connect with people who play video games just because they play video games, but because of a shared experience, language, and shared understanding that comes about from playing specific video games. Part of that involves the creation of ideas external to the immediate content of the video game itself, and it's often something that the creators of the game did not at all intend to be a central identifying feature. The cultural connections with someone are stronger with immediate shared experiences, which makes them decidedly personal. I can provide plenty of examples of this phenomenon.
But even if you want to play devil's advocate and agree with the claim, it must necessarily extend to almost all "culture," be it art, news, food, music, movies. The vast majority of people in any culture are consumers of the fruits of that culture. This article makes it seem like an inherently bad thing, or a reason to belittle the culture. But the logical conclusion of the idea is ludicrous, because culture is an unambiguously good feature of human society.
This isn't to defend misogynistic gamers (who I sincerely hope are an increasingly small fraction of gamers that just happen to be extremely vocal on the internet), but just to disagree with the unreasonable train of logic used in the article.
[+] [-] everyone|11 years ago|reply
I make games for a living and love the art form. I regard games as trivial and a waste of time/resources however I just happen to be genuinely passionate about them and can actually manage to eke out a living making them (Unlike with music, my other passion)
Anyway I have always found references to a 'gamer culture' or other such 'cultures' to be .. nonsensical? Or, like these 'fandoms', like the my little pony fandom etc. I think these kind of fandom people will imagine some kind of 'culture' around anything and its usually really bad quality stuff, eg terrible anime, terrible derivative multiplayer games, really bad juvenile comics, crappy collectible card games etc. Basically societies slightly less mainstream cultural crap. I have no idea why this seems to be the case.
As far as I'm concerned I have always just really liked playing games, I consider myself somewhat of a connoisseur of the art form (As I would for most other media, music, film,comics,cartoons,) that does not make me a member of any particlar culture or sect imo. I also like to watch films but I dont consider myseld a 'filmer'
[+] [-] jrochkind1|11 years ago|reply
But. But. I want to draw attention to your assumption that all forms of culture are about 'consumption' -- there used to be forms of culture that did not involve money exchanging hands, and that were about shared creation, not about a presenter and an audience. Say, people getting together to play music and sing songs themselves. The fact that many of us can't anymore barely even conceive of 'culture' except as a purchased commodity is telling.
It may be true that in 21st century U.S, "the vast majority of people in any culture are consumers of the fruits of that culture," but it is simply not true that ALL culture MUST be that way. One can critisize that mode of culture without thinking 'culture' is a bad thing.
[+] [-] Justsignedup|11 years ago|reply
If a criticism of your favorite video game makes you angry, you have a problem. Hell criticize any game I play, any operating system I use, any hardware I use, its all good. But this is not true for all people.
Also the article rings very well with abuses seen in the video game industry. Why is it that working at a wall street firm making 200-300k a year while working ~ 10-12 hr shifts is seen as horrible, exploitative work, while working for a video game firm making 100-150k a year while working 12-14 hr shifts is seen as glorious work making stuff you love?
Hell, I can work at a "normal" development job (I do) working 8 hrs a day, and have the rest of my day dedicated to enjoying myself (which can include playing games, making games, making hardware, hacking hardware, human interaction, family life, you pick it).
[+] [-] fmdud|11 years ago|reply
It's in the industry, too. It's not just a vocal minority.
[+] [-] spindritf|11 years ago|reply
It does extend to a large swath of culture that has become nothing more than means for signalling. Maybe it has always been like that and art is simply more accessible now so more people engage in this affiliation by taste.
[+] [-] laughingbovine|11 years ago|reply
> Gamer identity is tainted, root and branch, by its embrace of consumption as a way of life.
[+] [-] dinglefuk|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chasing|11 years ago|reply
I mean, there are dud games. And cash-grab games. And misogynistic games. And misogynistic gamers. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
[+] [-] _delirium|11 years ago|reply
I see some possible ways that could play out, but I'm not sure how it will. Gamer could expand, or people doing other-than-traditional things could just dissociate themselves from gamers and label their stuff something else. I personally am wary of wading into gamer culture, because I see a lot of 4chan-type people with a lot of time on their hands harassing people who they find objectionable, including some people I know. So I prefer to label my game-ish stuff as something other than "games", and culturally target it at other audiences (like technologists, or interactive-art fans), so I can hopefully avoid attracting the attention of the more toxic parts of the gamer community. In that sense I'm kind of pragmatically aligned on the "end of gamer" side maybe.
[+] [-] tptacek|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtbigwoo|11 years ago|reply
Books, on the other hand, sometimes are subject to criticism. Criticism explores, interprets, and analyzes. It asks "why" and "how" questions. The best criticism expands and changes its subject. Literature as a culture has its roots in both original work and criticism. Almost as soon as there were works to read, there was literary criticism. (The Talmud springs to mind as an early example.) Certainly, most readers and many critics are more interested in reviews than criticism, but the feedback from criticism has been fundamental to the development of literature.
This balance makes literary culture much different from gamer culture. Even with games aspire to be art, the reviews go like this:
The game explores themes of identity and abandonment. Who are we and how are we separate from each other? It might be art. The controls are a bit laggy and the game is only two hours long, which isn't great value for $10. I give it an 8 out of 10.
I've read a few game reviews that go farther but these are few and far between. Maybe the recent controversies will start us down a new path.
EDIT: I wish HN had a preview button.
[+] [-] hippiehippo|11 years ago|reply
"Gamers are over" - Gamasutra
"The death of the 'gamers'" - Ars Technica
"Death of an identity" - Kotaku
"killing the gamer identity" - Vice
and so on
[+] [-] elarkin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sosuke|11 years ago|reply
I don't want to feel guilt for being a man who likes video games.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vlunkr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vezzy-fnord|11 years ago|reply
Censorship and silence didn't work, as the Streisand effect snowballed this into something far larger than it would have been otherwise. Now this is an attempt to divert attention away.
It's a curious thing, gaming journalism. It is perhaps the most puerile form of "journalism" there is. It would be insulting to even call it journalism, it's blogging, plain and simple. Video game media is also the only one I know of that insults its target demographic so frequently, in an attempt to look socially progressive.
[+] [-] nixpulvis|11 years ago|reply
I play WoW, and the guild I play with has a relatively good mix of nationality and gender, and I've never once heard someone berate or look down upon our female players.
I think as with most things, there is a spectrum.
[+] [-] anvildoc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GFK_of_xmaspast|11 years ago|reply
Were you actually paying attention?
[+] [-] nsxwolf|11 years ago|reply
Can I get some examples of truly misogynistic video games? I can't think of any except for "Custer's Revenge" on the Atari 2600. [1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer's_Revenge
[+] [-] tptacek|11 years ago|reply
Second, to objectify a person is to rob them of part of their humanity, or sometimes even of their agency. It's a casually contemptuous way to treat people. Only on a nerd message board is the connection to the concept of misogyny hard to follow.
[+] [-] j2kun|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iLoch|11 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapeLay
[+] [-] MartinCron|11 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynophobia
[+] [-] adlpz|11 years ago|reply
- I'm a rock music enthusiast, I buy every CD from X band. - I really enjoy novels, I read every book by X author - I'm a cinema lover, I watch every film from X director - I'm a gaming fanatic, I get every game from X studio - I'm really into X's art, I buy all his pieces
Which one is not like the others? None. They are all forms of media consumption preference. All of them are used by people to describe and define themselves. They are all actively used and exploited by the industries for profit.
And, of course, all of them have more or less acceptable idiosyncrasies of all kinds (what outfit is acceptable for this music style, what is the proper way of interpreting this art form, what knowledge is expected from you when loving this films, you name it).
Why is someone describing himself as a "gamer" any worse than somebody describing himself to be a "romantic comedy film lover"?
[+] [-] adwf|11 years ago|reply
Sounds like the article is conflating gamers with "internet assholes", who can come from almost any group that exists online.
[+] [-] Marcus316|11 years ago|reply
What happened to the social aspect of gaming? Why have all the arcades faded away? There are a few around, I guess, but it doesn't seem the same. I have always played games WITH people and in COMPETITION with people. Playing is, for me, about sharing.
Maybe I'm not a gamer. Maybe the term "gamer" is too loaded to be redeemed at this point. But there is a culture of games and gaming that can (and does in some places, however few) exist without the baggage attached to the term.
DISCLAIMER: I admit, I'm not into the same type of games that constantly get talked about; I don't play CoD, I've never really played much GTA, and most modern AAA games don't hold my attention very long (partly because I'm terrible at FPS games and other mainstream offerings).
[+] [-] _delirium|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a2273493|11 years ago|reply
Of all the strands of geek culture I only dislike the social engineers like the author, who instead of focusing on technology try to analyze, criticize, categorize, and influence how other people behave.
[+] [-] kelvin0|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laughingbovine|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielrpa|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rainymood|11 years ago|reply
Any article on 'gaming' that plays around with the word 'misogyny' in the first 10 lines is usually an article I don't like to read. But that is a whole 'nother story.
>But to define oneself by media consumption is not just unhealthy, it’s vacuous.
>But to define oneself by X consumption is not just unhealthy, it’s vacuous.
Don't we all define oneself by what we consume?
We consume food which shapes (defines) our bodies. We lift weights so we can shape, mold, sculpt and define our own bodies as we please. Is it unhealthy to label yourself a fashionista because you have a keen interest in fashion (consume fashion media), have a blog about it and love to buy new clothing?
[+] [-] CocaKoala|11 years ago|reply
Oh, you don't do that? So maybe it's possible to consume something on a regular basis without letting it define your personality.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|11 years ago|reply
Mission accomplished, congratulations. Your news outlet just got a bit richer.
The world just got a bit worse.
[+] [-] MrDosu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thisjepisje|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Morphling|11 years ago|reply
Now as a last resort all these same people are trying to paint the word "gamer" as something bad and undesirable.
I'm not really surprised if they come up with a new term that they try to define with their agenda, gamers just have to be smart enough to see through their bullshit.
[+] [-] _delirium|11 years ago|reply
[1] a bit more discussion, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8267425