And Then There Was GamerGate
Welcome to the latest internet controversy, starring misogynists, high-profile video game websites, and female gamers.
Imagine for a moment that you are a gamer. You love video games (not obsessively, but enough to be very knowledgeable about the industry). A new game that you have been following throughout its development process is released. Naturally, you go to a gaming website like IGN to check out the reviews to see if it’s surprisingly worth buying or not. Everything you have read during the production process makes it sound awful. But, what’s this? These reviews can’t be right! They say it’s a fantastic game with great gameplay, amazing graphics, and a story rivaling those of Oscar-nominated films. They go so far as to call it a contender for Game of the Year.
In short, it’s complete full of lies, and thousands of other players agree with you.
What happened?
If you ask supporters of the GamerGate movement, they’ll tell you it’s probable that the reviewer was in some way influenced by the developer of the game in question. They might have been offered something, like money or gifts. That would certainly convince many reviewers to reconsider their initial reactions.
Or, if you’re independent video game developer Zoe Quinn, GamerGate supporters will accuse you of being in a relationship with a reviewer and influencing them through that relationship.
That sort of influence has become the central controversy of GamerGate. On one side stand the supporters of GamerGate, who argue that they merely want honesty to return to Video Game Journalism. On the other side stand the opponents of GamerGate, who argue that many of those supporting GamerGate are misogynists who want nothing more than an excuse to harass women who are heavily involved in the video game industry or critical of the way women are portrayed in video games.
Hold on a second, then just what the heck is GamerGate?
That would be the million dollar question. Is it a legitimate attempt to expose corruption in journalism or is it just a way for misogynists to attack notable women in the gaming industry?
GamerGate does, at least, have a fairly concrete starting point: Zoe Quinn, developer of the text-based game Depression Quest, was (falsely, it turned out) accused by her ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni of offering sexual favors so that her game would get better press. This, of course, upset a lot of people who look for honesty in journalism. For one thing, it leads to an obvious conflict of interests. It also damages the reputation of the developer, who could lose potential customers by doing such a thing.
But the story didn't end there, and soon Quinn herself stepped forward saying that she was being harassed and outright threatened online because of the accusations. This triggered a wave of support for Quinn, with many defending her from attacks that were perceived as misogynistic. Soon the hashtag “GamerGate” was born on Twitter to discuss the , and the controversy began to grow.
Great, now which side is right?
While there is strong evidence for both sides of the argument, on the whole it seems that GamerGate is being heavily used as a vehicle for misogynistic attacks on women in the video game industry.
The case for the opposition
One major event used as an example in favor of those against GamerGate came when feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a speech after threats were made against her and the school where she was to give the speech. Sarkeesian had long been a target of criticism from gamers who felt her complaints about female portrayal in video games went too far. GamerGate, however, has greatly increased the criticism and harassment she has received.
Being that this is a major example of the common argument that GamerGate is being used as an excuse for sexism, it definitely lends support to that argument. Many have also pointed out that the primary targets of twitter posts with the hashtag are women, not the journalists or websites that the movement claims to be against.
The case for the supporters
This is not, of course, to say that there is no legitimate complaint from those who support GamerGate as a vehicle for combating corrupt journalism.
Consider, for example, the accusations that many level against the review website, IGN. In recent years, IGN has been accused of accepting money and gifts as a form of bribery from companies such as Electronic Arts (EA). While IGN admits they accept gifts, they argue that their reviewing process is entirely professional. Many do not see it that way, arguing that the mere fact that they are accepting the gifts is a conflict of interests and therefore destroys their journalistic integrity.
Additionally, many women have started coming to the defense of GamerGate on Twitter with yet another hashtag: NotYourShield. This new hashtag is meant to declare that there are women also seeking ethical fixes in game journalism and that GamerGate was not a vehicle for sexism (though others argue that this hashtag started from false Twitter accounts created by those already involved in GamerGate).
Verdict
There are good arguments from both sides of the issue, but ultimately it comes down to what GamerGate is used for more. Right now, the opposition appears to be right: GamerGate is being used as an excuse for sexism.
All right! Enough! Tell me how this relates to media so I can get back to enjoying my games!
Ultimately, GamerGate goes beyond video games in terms of importance. It is also a key controversy in the areas of journalism and the internet in general.
For journalism, it obviously raises questions about journalistic integrity, especially in this relatively new field of video game reviewing. How much should developers be allowed to do for reviewers? Is providing a “professional” environment too much? Should reviewers be allowed to receive free memorabilia from developers? At what point should gaming sites and developers be told that they have crossed the line from professional courtesy to conflict of interests?
For the internet, the major issue raised is one that has been repeatedly scrutinized. How much does the internet allow things such as sexism or racism or other negative behaviors to spread? Does the anonymity provided by many sites bring out the darker side of many people who normally would not voice such views? Does the internet (through techniques such as doxing) allow new avenues to personally attack others that have never been available before? Is there a way to control such behavior?
GamerGate reaches far beyond mere questions of how women interact with and are portrayed by the video game industry. It brings together many issues that have, until now, been considered separate problems. Both sides have professed good ideas, now it remains to be seen if they can ever eventually work together.
