Games bring people together. This is something that many of our ilk (gamers) seem to have forgotten. When I was a kid in the 70s we came together over handheld games with little blips playing various kinds of sportsball games. We came together to show each other what we could do, to teach each other the rules of the actual games so that we could better understand why the blips on the screen were doing what they were doing, to challenge each other, and to trade games so that we could master different sportsball games without (unsuccessfully) pleading with our parents to buy us all of the handhelds.
As we got old and our handheld blippy games became home console 8-blippy games we came together in the houses of whoever owned the console that housed the blocky boxers, spaceships, or apes and plumbers that we wanted to play with on that day. And once there we came together on the couch, on the floor, or at the kitchen table in front of big tube televisions that now seem ridiculous in their definition (or lack thee of). We came together over lunch tables, recess time, and anywhere else we could to strategize and share our stories of achievement. Achievements that didn’t pop up on our screens, but were only recognized officially when we mailed in actual pictures of our hi-scores to get coveted jacket patches that we could once again come together over the envelope upon it’s arrival and share the unmitigated excitement that accompanied it.
With the advent of the internet games brought people together over BBSes, listservs, Multi-User Domains (Object Oriented) and later over online co-op and multiplayer. Think back to plugging your Dreamcast into your phone jack and dialing up for the first time. It was earth shattering, ground breaking, and it gave us a chance to come together over console games without being in the same room.
Gamers have been coming together over games since the beginning of games, but somewhere along the way we forgot that. Gaming became less of a community space and more of a chance for excluding Other folks. Oddly enough the folks who were being excluded have been there all along. Girls, minorities, queer folks…you name it. We’ve been here. But now we’re not welcome? Some say it’s because we want to destroy games. Believe it when I say that destroying games is the last thing that we want to do. We’re not new to games or new to thinking critically about games or wanting characters that look or behave differently/like us. The difference is that we are finally being heard. We have been coming together to talk about how great it would be to have a female/Black/Hispanic/Queer protagonist in a game since most of us first started playing games. It’s just that now is the first time that technology and social media have given us the voice to ask out loud in a tone that can actually be heard.
But this doesn’t mean that other voices must be silenced because new voices are entering the arena. What it offers us is a chance for a cacophony of voices to come together and learn to harmonize over the bass line of drums to form a new kind of music. What at first seems discordant can turn out to be just the tune that we need to build a games community and industry that will once again allow gamers to come together over a medium that they all know and love. Let’s continue to work to “come together” over the xenophobia that threatens to destroy our community.
11 thoughts on “Come Together Right Now…”
How was anyone being excluded? Anybody could buy, develop, and sell games.
I wasn’t talking about exclusion of developers. The post actually focuses on gamers and the coming together of contradictory voices and opinions to reach consensus for the good of the community….thus, the come together reference and the mention of my memories of the moments when gamers came together as a community.
I’m sort of forcing or encouraging (I know there’s a difference, but) a coming together of gamers in my classes this term. We are reading McGonigal’s Reality is Broken in all my writing classes, and I’ve encouraged students to bring their devices to class to share/compare narratives.
In the days of yore, we “did” literacy narratives. I just thought it was time to start sharing (and “doing”) gaming narratives in frosh comp.
So … thank you!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on now. If you’re gonna argue, at least pick something that isn’t couched in willful ignorance. The community has been doing nothing but excluding for years. That excellent feature on Polygon not long ago, about the shift in marketing that helped create the modern white/male-centric community packaged everything neatly, but you see it everywhere, not least in these very discussions. We see it in what happens to many female developers, journalists, simple gamers. We see a backlash when people ask for a queer protagonist. When we wonder about tokenism. It’s so embedded in the loudest strata of the community. If you really don’t see it, it’s simply because your eyes are closed. You certainly haven’t been paying attention here.
I’m a black gamer who’s never felt excluded. The gamer community is very diverse as recent events revealed. If anything the marketing moved toward the bro gamer attitude, which is still annoying, but hardly supporting a white male gamer community.
And thanks for the clarification on it being gamers, Dr.B; but I did mention that group as well. There’s nothing really stopping you from playing and talking about games.
In the FGC I am of a VERY minority group that believes fighting games could do well to expand its scope to build a new playerbase. At places like SRK; you WILL get your thread closed, be flagged and receive a warning, or banned – simply for defending what you believe about the genre. That right there is exclusion. But nothing is stopping me from going that route and supporting who speaks my language.
“We see it in what happens to many female developers, journalists, simple gamers.”
What exactly happens? I know female gamers have good reasons to have gender neutral tags and no mic, but even that settles down in recent years.
“We see a backlash when people ask for a queer protagonist.”
Note; are they asking for a queer protagonists or are they asking for an established antagonists to be gender swapped? Because I can tell you right now I don’t care is a queer one was made, but I would care if an established character was messed with. The general gamer base feels the same.
“If you really don’t see it, it’s simply because your eyes are closed. You certainly haven’t been paying attention here.”
Yeah I’ve been paying attention. And I like to think I’m a sympathetic guy. I can make a list of why I think gamers are incredibly annoying and have much room to advance as a culture but the ‘white male centric, anti-women/gay’ thing was more than myth busted by the #notyourshield campaign.
I don’t think it’s good for art or media to reach a consensus when these are subjective forms of expression there shouldn’t be some convergence to universal maxims about how presentations are supposed to be. It will simply make the narrative diffuse and unfocused like the new StarWars movies that tried to accommodate juveniles while also trying to maintain political intrigue which became a muddled mess, or Micheal Bay movies that are driven toward the appealing to masses.
By trying to appeal the vast array of demographics media will just be watering down or mutilating their narratives as they have to detour during expositions in an effort to check off all the boxes in the list of individual demographics. This will simply become an exercise in whoever checks the most boxes wins. When this happens games will cease being games and instead become some self-detonating concept in that essential criteria of games like uncertainty, and fun are compromised to endure the burden of political campaigns promoting one spectrum of political philosophy.
This intrusion creates jarring breaks in narrative that lack authenticity when you realize that this media has altered its course toward affirming quotas and elements meant to satiate everybody are grafted artificially into the presentation till everything feels as inauthentic as a summer Hollywood blockbuster.
Let games evolve, branch and divaricate and serve specific interests rather than trying to become everything to everyone.
And as far as the Kumbaya stuff is concerned both sides of the line of engagement are still weapons free. I don’t see a peace accord anywhere in the immanent future and i personally wouldn’t support one at this juncture as I think certain things have to CHANGE with the journalistic element in this equation.
I’m not sure either of us will agree with the nexus of the inferno regardless I don’t support death threats to journalists and developers but i do support the exodus from some of the more abusive gaming journalistic outlets.
Let’s do what the internet is already doing and branch into networks that support specific tastes, special interests, rather than consolidating, loosing coherence, loosing focus.
It is afterall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85sIJcC8zbs, and i wish to decide what media i will and will not support.
I’d love to continue this conversation via Billy Joel songs; sadly we’re reaching the end of my Joel catalog and I don’t really feel like either “Uptown Girl” or “River of Dreams” applies as a response. Just two points I want to make.
First, I think historically we’ve seen that the whole “separate but equal” thing doesn’t really work. Whether we’re taking that literally/historically or we’re talking about the splintering interest groups into echo chambers of their own thoughts and ideas. Certainly everyone wants to have people that share their values and beliefs around them, but I’ve seen way too much negativity come out of this splintering to think it’s something we want to encourage.
Second, if you’re so adamant that you only want to frequent media venues that cater to your specific tastes and interests, why are you here? Don’t get me wrong- I’m not at all asking you to leave. But, based on what you’ve said above and the fact that we clearly disagree on a number of points, it seems like your own philosophy would tell you to go somewhere else, somewhere that did give you articles and posts that aligned with your interests.
I don’t think Dr. b is saying we all have to agree with each other (though I could be mistaken). I think what she’s saying is that, regardless of what disagreements we may have, we stop being so vicious to each other and come together as a community of people with a shared interest. Given how you keep saying you’re against trolls and aggressive responses to disagreements, it would seem to me that this would be something you’d be in favor of?
“First, I think historically we’ve seen that the whole “separate but equal” thing doesn’t really work.”
I’m not talking about separate by equal; I’m not talking about civil rights. I’m talking about two worldviews that do not seem to mix. I’m talking about the battered wife that goes home to an abusive husband and our recommendations to her; leave. Don’t stay in a relationship that is corrosive and don’t support somebody that is hurting you.
“Whether we’re taking that literally/historically or we’re talking about the splintering interest groups into echo chambers of their own thoughts and ideas.”
Well then we have a more serious problem with politics because if you look for political websites on the internet you will see a massive dovetail from the general topic of politics to sites that harbor extreme collectivist though to radical market oriented thinkers to those that are so extreme on the traditionalist angle that they want to ban contraception. What I’m saying is that the problem of confirmation bias is already here; heuristics are necessary for migrating political landscapes in general as there is way too much information to process and time itself is finite so economizing even ones freedom to read or watch is necessary.
This brand of radical egalitarian feminism that has crept into games journalism as of late is something I will not support but I can see why the STATIS-QUO might be supported by somebody with a radical feminist agenda. Regardless I’m calling for CHANGE, not by trying to change your opinion, but by saying that the larger sites that have castigated me with incendiary titles on their articles will no longer be recipients of my support – I’ve had it with particular entities and particular writers. I log into a site to learn about the value of a game as a game, if it should be purchased not to fulfill another person’s political ideals, I am not a tool for social justice and it offends me to be thought of as something that can be reprogrammed to facilitate this a person’s individual political agenda.
“ Certainly everyone wants to have people that share their values and beliefs around them, but I’ve seen way too much negativity come out of this splintering to think it’s something we want to encourage.”
No the negatively emerged because many who don’t fall in line with the political agenda are tired of the slurs like Neck-beard or basement dweller. Only a masochist is going to stick around for additional servings. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you are a games journalist and you wish to abuse those that consume media output you generate, condemn them as troglodytes, and take their intelligence and agency for granted by trying to program them through shame, coordinated political article release, and verbal abuse into becoming something more acceptable by feminist standards then retaliation is a matter of asserting one’s freedom to know fall into submission to another’s will, I won’t be somebody’s puppet.
Note: I am not talking about the writers of this site as all here, other than a commenter, have been civil.
I think what she’s saying is that, regardless of what disagreements we may have, we stop being so vicious to each other and come together as a community of people with a shared interest. Given how you keep saying you’re against trolls and aggressive responses to disagreements, it would seem to me that this would be something you’d be in favor of?
Trolls yes, threatening statements that border on legal assault, death and rape threats or promises to commit battery yes I condemn that but I WOULD characterize my response as aggressive toward those that propagate antagonistic political/social theories and I think that aggression is warranted as I’m asserting my freedom to not listen to them. The reason why I am asserting to you that I am supporting this consumer revolt is the opposition (Not NYMG) has used invective and engaged in defamation, or libel. When defamation is used the conversation is over as far as I’m concerned and the problem is clearly we need to find voices that are not pushing heavy political agendas that will leave writers sour and imbued with hatred toward their own readers.
As far as community is concerned too many people apply the concept of community over larger and larger dimensions of society and I don’t think it’s a useful concept. Community has become a nebulous word to imply unified interests when there really are conflicting interests imbedded within the alleged community. Communities tend to share common values and I think as far as gamers are concerned that is no longer the case, some people want games, others want games to carry political messages to foster some emergent moral state of affairs about how we interact. Let’s take that concept even further to the whole PC masterrace vs console gamers or those that prefer simulation over arcade. To call gamers a community is to simplify their tastes and what they value but if one thing has united many it’s their opposition to being manipulated by an undercurrent of corruption and in my case as well the continual effort to manage me with a steady does of shame, verbal abuse and political rhetoric.
Furthermore let’s assume for the moment we are a community. The acquisition and loss of social capital is to be expected and many of these writers squandered their social capital through perceived incestuous relationships and poor journalistic integrity so the response to bring down the current paradigm is reasonable.
“Second, if you’re so adamant that you only want to frequent media venues that cater to your specific tastes and interests, why are you here? Don’t get me wrong- I’m not at all asking you to leave. But, based on what you’ve said above and the fact that we clearly disagree on a number of points, it seems like your own philosophy would tell you to go somewhere else, somewhere that did give you articles and posts that aligned with your interests.”
Finally and most importantly
Yes good question and I suppose my previous answer wasn’t sufficient so I will spend more time here. I have stepped onto your property and in doing so I have abandoned any right I have of telling you how to run your operation, what you can discuss, what I can discus or if I can even stay. If you wish to discuss politics and feminism I have 2 choices, leave or listen. By being here I have abdicated any right I have to hear what I want to hear. This is implicit in that my presence here is a rather definitive acceptance that I will abide by your rules , your tastes and your agenda here despite knowing that we are in opposition.
How do I square that seemingly conflictive stance with my hostility toward larger gaming journalistic sites that I have accused of various things? First of all I am NOT here for journalism or to be informed about specific products, I am here to specifically discuss this issue of #Gamergate, social justice, desert philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_(philosophy) , and In doing so expect to be bombarded with the very thing I don’t want in games journalism, politics. I am here for a totally different purpose than my rationale that directs me to a website to learn about a game. I am no longer seeking to know if I should buy this or that, this is political for me now; it is no longer about consumer advocacy but about me asserting my independence from others.
I am also here because I WANT media venues that caters to my tastes and interests and the message I seem to be getting here is “no stop, integrate” “do not dare segregate” “we have issues and concerns and we want to make sure you hear them.” “you owe us, you are obligated, we are entitled to your attention”
My interest at this point is asserting my, as well as others, freedom to separate from entities like that are pushing radical agendas, or have engaged in perceived verbal abuse of their consumers and corruption. I haven’t quite heard yet why I have this obligation to keep supporting these entities like gamasutra or polygon. There seems to be an almost implied assertion that there should be no consumer retaliation against these sites, I can’t say that definitively because a lot of what has been said is rather vague.
So to lay down Billy Joel again I think the most appropriate portions of here are:
I don’t care what you say anymore, this is my life
Go ahead with your own life and leave me alone
and
And you can speak your mind
But not on MY time (emphases mine)
To ensure you don’t think I am talking about NYMG, I am speaking specifically about larger games journalism sites. I want to reiterate, my presence here, is essentially implicit acknowledgement that I am going to hear about feminism and egalitarian issues. My presence here It is acceptance to yield to your authority regarding the format of the media HERE. I freely chose to be here to discuss politics and sociology. I am not here looking for seeking consumer advocacy for various market products.
Honestly I came here from a Gamasutra link and wanted to learn more about this site’s views. I want to reply and see where the differences lie.
Basically everything the game journalists refused to do. I referenced this in a past comment on another article. If only they would be so curious as to where we stand.
You guys are pretty chill, though. And in fact there’s been a few convos with feminists that turned out well enough. In my personal experience, it only seems to get ugly when the corruption/integrity side of things get introduced.
I can disagree with a train of thought or opinion about female/ethnic representations in games, but whenever I bring a website’s actions into view or question Sarkeesian’s activities and falsehoods – it strangely goes south from there.
On this site I wanted to focus on the ideals of the matter.