Choosing not to take a side is a political choice, and it's a tacit endorsement of the side that wants to preserve the status quo.
How are some of y'all not getting that yet?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Escapist getting relaunched, "leaving politics at the door"
- Thread starter KoolAid
- Start date
Choosing not to take a side is a political choice, and it's a tacit endorsement of the side that wants to preserve the status quo.
How are some of y'all not getting that yet?
i get it, i just don't agree with it
if i wanna write a story and i make the protagonist female, one side will tell how bold and progressive i am to give mroe representation to women, while the other part would call me part of the feminist agenda that wants to take diminish the presence of the white male or something
on the other hand if i decide to give an ethnicity other than caucasian to the villain of the story, one side will say that i'm supporting the idea that foreigners are bad people while the other side will probably championit in some other ways.
meanwhile i may just have wrote a story with a female protagonist and an,i dunno, hispanic villain because that's how i have envisioned my story.
what the internet does it's just a us vs them all out war where everything is strumentalized to be used as a weapon in a war..that's why you get preposteous things like "the last star wars is bad because of sjw agenda" or "X media is bad because it perpetuates the status quo"
it's just stealing someone else's voice to further your cause, while i think everyone is entitled to keep his own voice for himselkf and use it as he sees fit, or don't use it at all.
buuut that's a discussion i've seen ten thousands time on the internet, so let's just agree to disagree..or how you put it, let's just say that i don't get it.
This honestly reads like you don't approve that things people create are subject to any kind of criticism.
You can criticize, what you can't do is assign to them a "pro" or "against" label outside of the actual will of the creator.
just like "oh you put a woman as the main character of star wars, that's a feminist agenda thing" (talking a lot about star wars since it's the thing i see people debate around the most lately, go figure) it's preposterous, so it's the "let's eliminate princess peach because her existence send the message that women are just objects seen a the prize for the male protagonist"
not every character/thing is a statement,and shouldn't be forcibly turned into one just because this is a war and we need ammo.
I know you're already banned but this is complete bullshit. Every single man on this planet is exposed to and embodies toxic masculinity to a certain extent. I guess we're all fucking dorks and trolls! I mean, you're not wrong.
Maybe you should read up on the concept instead of misinterpreting it completely, eh? You seem incredibly smart so it shouldn't be too hard for you.
This rejection of politics and subjectivity is demonstrative of this narrowed, withered cultural experience of "hardcore" gamers.
What I don't understand though is the demented ownership of a medium that intellectually crippled them. It's like all of these rabble rousers know they're fucked up and trapped in this perpetual adolescence but don't know what to do about it.
What I don't understand though is the demented ownership of a medium that intellectually crippled them. It's like all of these rabble rousers know they're fucked up and trapped in this perpetual adolescence but don't know what to do about it.
Really?
I think this pretty heavily implies that reviews should be without a subjective discussion of underlying themes of a political nature. But that is just what I took away from your post, so *shrugs* I may be wrong on that.
One issue with this is that, within franchises, mechanics change little - Bioshock 1 and Bioshock Infinite are, mechanically, much the same, as are CoD games. And, when they do vary, actually a lot of time is spent discussing the differing mechanics, as when CS:S players and reviewers transitioned into CS:GO. So the upshot of this is that you'd have a lot of reviews which are very dry, without giving much criticism of the "flavour" of the game.
Except for some people they are, because the world (both in terms of story, and aesthetics) draws them in more. A clear example of this would be the representation of women in Overwatch - mechanically, Mercy, Tracer or Mel could just as easily be men, but because they're women (and not just wholly male-gaze created women), players are drawn to Overwatch over CS, or Halo, or whatever. Because the aesthetics represent them.
Mmmm... Important to note this point from the FAQ:
Last edited:
Question: Yes or no, is including a gay character in your hypothetical story a political statement or not?
Also, your stories aren't written in a void my dude. Sorry to burst your bubble but your potential story is subject to criticism involving 'hot' button issues. I mean 'Saving the princess' is a tired trope and some people are going to point out the potential sexism in there even if you just wanted to make a story about saving the princess. Thems the breaks living in a society where minority issues and complaints are more prominent.
But this isn't new. Grave of the Fireflies was praised by everyone in the West as a powerful anti-war film. The creators on the other hand didn't mean it like that. Art can go beyond it's creators intentions. I'm sure smarter posters can word this better so I'll leave it at that.
Also no one is going to give a damn about a novel containing a woman as the main character and a Hispanic villian in 2018. I mean not unless you make the villian stereotypical and outlandishly Hispanic or something. Games are way behind the writing scene. Not that there isn't bullshit there too but there are more female protagonists than ever in novels. There was a huge movie franchise or two built from those books LOL.
I don't know about smarter but what you're talking about is called death of the author and is exactly what you said - the idea that authorial intent, or even facts about their life are irrelevant to an appraisal of or interpretation of their work.
short answer no.
long answer, if one wants to make it a political statement he/she can, but he/she doesn't need to be forced to make it one...it's his/her character,it's his/her work, it's his/her choice to make it a political statement or not. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
well there were people arguing against ganondorf because it's a non white villain as recently as last year..so i'm not sure we are past the "give a damn" phase...everything is good as long as it gives you ammo apparently
anyway, i already know the argument far and wide, the whole "not in the vacuum" the different interpretation of art..that's nothing new to me.
i just don't agree with it and see it just as an instrumentalization of other people's voice to further our own political/moral/whatever agenda
and what's worse it usually goes against said agenda because it dilutes the whole discussion about the matter by making people that are not into those matters that much but also not against care even less because of all the false positives...take PETA for example..i don't think anyone i know would condone violence against animals...yet the association is the bottom of a thousand jokes because in the attempt to raise awareness they started aiming indiscriminately (like when they went for the tanuki suit in mario 3) and people tstarted taking their very serious protests less seriously because of that.
what's the solution then? what's the perfect formula...well there's none...there's no one size-fit-all solution other than using common sense and choosing what battles are worth fighting for if you wanna win the war..isn't generalization basically the fundation of all the racism, and misoginy? the incapacity to understand that gender and race carry no other attributes than themselves?
instead nowdays the mindset is "fight all the battles",no matter how insignificant and misguided, because "everything is political" and "everything has an agenda"..and what's worst it's that this approach leaves the side open to manipulation from third parties that march under someone else's banner for pure profit
Last edited:
User Banned (1 Day): Vilifying Journalism
This is a good post. It inspired some new ideas for me that I'd like to expand on.
I am interested in the juxtaposition between simple acts like grinding in a game and more complex and engaging acts like furthering a narrative. How being fully invested in the former while not caring much for the latter can put you on the "wrong side" of some people.
Using Super Mario Bros as my first example I think it is often assumed that the player is playing the game because they actually want to rescue the princess and that's what keeps them coming back. If you asked "what is Super Mario Bros about" then the answer could be "it's about rescuing a princess". The player may say "well I want to rescue the princess so lets-a go" (and that's why you're the hero we need right now).
However the player may not consider the princess at all. Maybe the reason for playing Mario is not to rescue the princess but to kill time on a Saturday afternoon or to relax after a hard day at work. It could be both too but whatever it is the player will know what they want from the game.
You CAN get what you get from the game and being happy with that BUT expressing that sentiment? Tut tut tut. There are many people who want to tell you what you should be getting from the game (and why that's a good thing).
In a game like Breath of the Wild there can be stretches of several hours where I am not engaging with the story of the game or even the themes presented. I'm just messing around. Achieving nothing more than relaxing myself. The game may be political but I am playing it in an apolitical fashion.
None of this means that the games are not "political". Sure there are narratives and hidden layers and if one was asked to write and essay on Mario or Zelda for high school homework then I'm sure they'd be able to do that. However, the relationship between the game and the player can be more complex than that.
Does a player who ignores the political context of a game automatically get less out of the game? I would argue no. Speedrunners get something out of Breath of the Wild just the same as someone writing a lengthy political analysis of the game gets something too (maybe it's the game we need in Trump's America).
Now, a person might read lengthy articles breaking down the politics of a certain game and may also think "jeez these articles are trash". I frequently do. You might even think "actually I just play that game for fun" and would prefer to read articles without the shoehorning of political commentary.
Here is the "gotcha" though. Being "apolitical" is in and of itself a political stance. I'm sure everyone has heard the old argument that "Atheism is a religion"?
So if you are "apolitical" then guess what? THAT'S POLITICAL.
I bet you're still thinking "but dude when I play Elder Scrolls Online I just like to roam the world and level up and see what's going on" but you're just putting your head in the sand to ignore the realities of the modern world (and that's a problem).
You see in the real world, just like in an MMO, other people are trying to prove that they have more knowledge of the game than you. They are out to prove that they are better than you. Better than anyone.
What's the best way to show that? Well, we could shame you for not thinking deeply enough about the game. You're just playing Mario at the surface level. You jump and run and enjoy the music. Oh, how droll.
>> I << on the other hand understand the toxic message that Mario sends to society at large. The Damsel in Distress. The gender stereotyping. The overt display of toxic masculinity. Please listen to my lecture about how tropes in video games harm women in the real world. Actually forget the "please". If you don't want to listen, or you don't want to agree, then you are just burying your head in the sand. Maybe you are one of those gamers?
After all, if you're just playing Mario for the fun of it and nothing more then isn't that just tacit approval of the real evils in society?
We play games for fun or to relax. These people though? These people are better than us.
These people are combing through the historical records to prove that if you thought there were only white people in Bohemia in 1403 then you are wrong! That medieval RPG you are playing? It's, like, sooooo problematic!
You want to read articles that are all about the games and don't come across like they were written by a passive aggressive Social Studies major? If the answer is yes then maybe you're secretly one of those Gamergate supporters, huh?
I know, I know. You never harassed anyone. I get it. Still, doesn't doing nothing mean you are complicit?
So they sneer at your desire to just play FarCry 5 and have a fun time after work. They deride your desire to read articles about FarCry 5 that aren't utter tripe from so-called "journalists" whining about the games politics.
The Division isn't FUN, my friend, it's PROBLEMATIC! (and here are 10 reasons why, number 8 will SHOCK you)
Like you, I thought "well I'm not interested in politics". WRONG ANSWER!
You see everything is political and if you aren't interested in politics then that's just tacit approval of all the bad things in this world.
"No seriously, I'm just not into politics". GOTCHA! That's an alt-right... um... what's that term we would started using about a month ago... insta... intro.. incel! Incel. That's an alt-right, incel, dog-whistle buddy. Go straight to jail!
You're just passing the time with your electronic toys while the world burns. You're part of the problem.
OR maybe reaching the next level really is apolitical. Maybe looking at the sights and listening to the sounds is apolitical too.
Sometimes a jump is just a jump. A record time is just a record time. Beating the next boss is just your plan for a Friday evening and nothing more.
Or maybe you just support Gamergate. :p
Last edited:
Even basic elements of gameplay has underlying ideas about human values that they package, promote, or attempt to take benefit from.
Consider how many games are built around rewarding the player. Does the game take the instant gratification approach, throwing as many rewards as it can to the player? Or does it give the player hard work to achieve before they get the reward? There are some cultures where one is more difficult than the other.
Or consider the role of enemies in a game. Is the purpose of the game to defeat an enemy, or are the enemies there to distract us from our goal? For some people, it can actually be frustrated if they don't destroy every enemy because they feel as that's the proper thing to do.
Does the game deliberately craft things or does it want you to exercise your creativity?
Does the game tell you where to go or does it leave you to discover the way yourself?
Consider how many games are built around rewarding the player. Does the game take the instant gratification approach, throwing as many rewards as it can to the player? Or does it give the player hard work to achieve before they get the reward? There are some cultures where one is more difficult than the other.
Or consider the role of enemies in a game. Is the purpose of the game to defeat an enemy, or are the enemies there to distract us from our goal? For some people, it can actually be frustrated if they don't destroy every enemy because they feel as that's the proper thing to do.
Does the game deliberately craft things or does it want you to exercise your creativity?
Does the game tell you where to go or does it leave you to discover the way yourself?
Andy Mac (and others). It strikes me that there's maybe some confusion in how people approach criticism and reviews? Some relevant links
Criticism vs reviews: sometimes, it's OK to care only about how a game plays
Louder than Words
Don't Confuse Reviews with True Criticism
Choice quote from that last link:
You (and others) are absolutely welcome to appreciate games how you like, but critics can and do serve an important purpose in evaluating and critiquing work that others can and do mindlessly consume. Because a good critic can draw from life, politics, art and music, and place a piece of entertainment in a wider context, both contemporary and historical.
(apologies if this is condescending, not meant to be)
Criticism vs reviews: sometimes, it's OK to care only about how a game plays
Louder than Words
Don't Confuse Reviews with True Criticism
Choice quote from that last link:
You (and others) are absolutely welcome to appreciate games how you like, but critics can and do serve an important purpose in evaluating and critiquing work that others can and do mindlessly consume. Because a good critic can draw from life, politics, art and music, and place a piece of entertainment in a wider context, both contemporary and historical.
(apologies if this is condescending, not meant to be)
Thanks.
No, not condescending at all. I see your points.
Honestly, what "grinds my gears" is more the idea that people are not good people because they have a different perspective.
I think it's valid to say "I don't want politicized content". I really do.
The reaction to that seems wholly inappropriate. Snide allusions to "support" of certain groups is never far away when someone says "you know what I just like the games and I don't like politics".
I would loosely agree that EVERYTHING is political because in every case political interpretations are entirely possible.
Unfortunately a side effect of this is that bad interpretations are commonplace.
I totally agree that a good critic CAN draw from life, politics, art and music, and place a piece of entertainment in a wider context, both contemporary and historical. However, when it comes to gaming, we have a distinct lack of good critics and an abundance of awful critics who seem to think they themselves are above criticism.
With that in mind, "I do not want to read these garbage politically motivated articles" is not that much of a crazy stance to take.
It's sad to see the accusations fly when I think the points made are just fine.
What this REALLY means is they're going to leave politics that challenge people at the door. Otherwise, the implicit political messages inherent in everything will go unremarked upon. Not only does this do a disservice to video games as an art form, it's not even changing anything, it's just being less aware about the politics they're promoting.
But who's surprised? The Escapist has ALWAYS been nothing more than something to back up the status quo. Jim Sterling's content was the closest they ever had to legitimate art critique that acknowledged the underlying politics in games, and he infamously quit working there years ago.
But who's surprised? The Escapist has ALWAYS been nothing more than something to back up the status quo. Jim Sterling's content was the closest they ever had to legitimate art critique that acknowledged the underlying politics in games, and he infamously quit working there years ago.
It is, however, a grossly irresponsible stance to take. Stating that one wouldn't want (or could somehow avoid) politics in their articles is an open admittance that the status quo is fine, when we live in a world of near constant injustices, no matter who you are.
Yes, you got it all figured out. The people complaining that Peach has been a damsel in distress rescued by a male hero for decades, are only doing it to feel superior to you. Even the women doing so. It's all about you and how they want to belittle you.
I think both The Escapist and you are conflating electoral politics with the broader definition of the word, which is just how people interact with each other in a society. I don't expect anyone to comment on the former unless they've done some research and have something to say. But ignoring the latter is ignoring everything that makes art interesting. It's intentionally handicapping your critique. It's the equivalent of an art critic talking exclusively about what color paint the artist used, and what the frame looks like, and whether or not the painting is pretty. It's deeply insulting to the medium.
I mean, talking about use of color and framing can certainly be important, but as you say, the context is how you present a critique.
Like, what would an apolitical review even look like? Just the tech specs of the game? This is what I have a genuinely hard time comprehending. Language and allegory exist in tandem and there's no way to separate them out.
Can't really leave politics at the door in a hetero-male-dominated, bulwarked in misogyny industry though, can you? Ostriching won't help anyone. Politics and humanities intersect on every possible level these days.
I never said I want all politics out of all my life. I just want less of it in video games. Hey, I'm not forcing people into it. It's just my thing. I applaud that all of you are so into videogame politics. This all thing started with me saying "hey, all give this site a chance." Jesus
People aren't giving it a chance because the former direction of this site was pro-hate group and their reaction about that was to spout a bunch of bullshit about "both sides" followed by said hate group's favorite dogwhistle.
Hmmmmmmmmm it's almost like he's been trying to court a certain hate group this entire time. Almost as if using certain phrases like "leaving politics at the door" is a dog whistle of some sort?
I know you're deservedly banned already, but the idea that critics think they're all above criticism is fucking laughable. People get roasted by other critics for their bad takes all the time, even among friends. Some of it even goes too far.
So the thought that critics are some elite group that think they're superior to you and untouchable just because they're writing criticism, well, it's ridiculously wrong. And it's also some GG level conspiracy theory, honestly.
Not everything is about you. If you don't care about certain aspects of video game criticism that's totally fine. They are not out to get you and you don't have to be involved in the field.
It is also fine to disagree. People can have a problem with something and you don't and you can move on. Atleast you've heard someone's opinion. At best a well reasoned one.
Maybe it says more about you than criticism that you see an article about The Divison and feel personally attacked like that. And I don't mean it in a "you're a Gamer Gater" kind of way, but in a personal confidence and self-reflection kind of way.
Wow, so it WAS a dog whistle.
The Escapist will continue to have GG as its audience. Unbelievable.
Good luck making money out of that.
Translates to: "A lot of people want me to say harassment is bad, but I'm a coward who knows that gamergate is probably going to be a large part of my audience".
Bob Chipman literally lost his job because of him being vocal about politics (namely with him being opposed to Gamergate), be it with games, movies or whatever other topics he chose to cover on "The Big Picture". His last episode was about the right-wing reaction to American Sniper:
No disrespect to Jim Sterling (big fan of his work) but let's not pretend like he was the only one with something meaningful to say on the Escapist.
Because that would be getting political and taking a stance!
Russ keeps talking like people are getting the message wrong but he refuses to clarify on anything, all while wondering why no one will interview him as if pinning the blame on other journalists.
The whole thing was a dog whistle from the very start.
Yikes... looking at those tweets, it's clear that not only was he dogwhistling to GG people, but he's also feeding into their hatred of journalists who try to tackle complex issues.
Shit, man. This anti-journalist rhetoric and sentiment on the right these days really scares me. I mean, those journalists were killed in that shooting in Maryland not that long ago and these people keep going on vilifying journalism. FFS, journalism has a long and complicated history and it hasn't always been perfect, but it's always arguably been integral to the functioning of a democracy.
I forget what the exact source was, but it came up in another thread posted not long ago that was discussing GG. Some analysis of the whole thing made a good point: like a lot of people on the extreme right, they project their bullshit onto their opponents. They say they're for ethics in journalism, but what they really want is vapid, empty coverage that never presents topics that would make them uncomfortable (so nothing even slightly controversial) and encourages one to remain in a never-ending adolescence where they can shut out the rest of the world.
Shit, man. This anti-journalist rhetoric and sentiment on the right these days really scares me. I mean, those journalists were killed in that shooting in Maryland not that long ago and these people keep going on vilifying journalism. FFS, journalism has a long and complicated history and it hasn't always been perfect, but it's always arguably been integral to the functioning of a democracy.
I forget what the exact source was, but it came up in another thread posted not long ago that was discussing GG. Some analysis of the whole thing made a good point: like a lot of people on the extreme right, they project their bullshit onto their opponents. They say they're for ethics in journalism, but what they really want is vapid, empty coverage that never presents topics that would make them uncomfortable (so nothing even slightly controversial) and encourages one to remain in a never-ending adolescence where they can shut out the rest of the world.
It's kind of difficult for them to not be when everyone is attacking them. Including yourself.
Danny O'Dwyer, what the hell are you doing congratulating this fucking tool?
ugh, Danny is complicit in this bullshit by fucking encouraging this behavior.
Eh, from the whole exchange it doesn't seem like he's encouraging it.
Last edited:
Agreed. He also has recently been vocal about changing his perspective on these types of things, and admiting that he misread many controversies in the past.
A gaming site that ignores politics? So they can aim for the high status of being one of dozens reviews on Metacritic that people scroll through.
Seriously is gaming really lacking in apolitical stuff? It's not like Gamespot or IGN are seriously politcal. They're just not a safe haven for the scum of earth.
Seriously is gaming really lacking in apolitical stuff? It's not like Gamespot or IGN are seriously politcal. They're just not a safe haven for the scum of earth.
He could just come out and say "Some believe that my "leaving politics at the door" remark was a dogwhistle to GamerGate. It wasn't. I absolutely and unequivocally denounce GG, and its supporters actions, as based on misogyny and disingenuous arguments and bad faith actions." As it is, this statement is still true, and appropriate:
(Source)
(Source)
Well they're free to be whatever gaming site they want, and plenty of gaming sites have become more political over the last few years that they could probably find an audience. Personally would just like to see more sites nearly exclusively cover indie games, as all of them spend so much time on big titles or existing franchises.
Only thing that tends to annoy me are when sites complain that a game isn't political enough, as though a developer is supposed to care as much as they do on X issue, and not caring means they're being toothless. Political commentary isn't actually that common in the products of most mediums, and I feel like now people are projecting that politics should just because they've taken a bigger interest since our last election cycle. Most content is going to be fluff entertainment, and there is value in that...especially for games where that fluff includes dexterity-based challenge.
They do, though I think it's fair to say other parts of the political spectrum are also doing the same thing. The degrees to which each group are doing that can differ, but the increased partisanship in politics, and the way social media insulates people into their echo chambers showcases a general increase in tribalism that's not helpful in getting anything done. Just promotes people to engage in generalizations, personal attacks (to people you barely know online) and hyperbole against people that disagree with them.
Only thing that tends to annoy me are when sites complain that a game isn't political enough, as though a developer is supposed to care as much as they do on X issue, and not caring means they're being toothless. Political commentary isn't actually that common in the products of most mediums, and I feel like now people are projecting that politics should just because they've taken a bigger interest since our last election cycle. Most content is going to be fluff entertainment, and there is value in that...especially for games where that fluff includes dexterity-based challenge.
They do, though I think it's fair to say other parts of the political spectrum are also doing the same thing. The degrees to which each group are doing that can differ, but the increased partisanship in politics, and the way social media insulates people into their echo chambers showcases a general increase in tribalism that's not helpful in getting anything done. Just promotes people to engage in generalizations, personal attacks (to people you barely know online) and hyperbole against people that disagree with them.
The concept of "no politics" in gaming areas is honestly fine. There are plenty of outlets that do contain politics, every place doesn't exactly require it.
That's all Russ has been doing for days is making passive aggressive snipes at his colleagues criticizing him despite many of them directly asking to clarify his statements. Instead, what he's done is declare that he, "Used his words with precision," and claim that everyone saying 'leave politics at the door' stance means he's aiming for being apolitical is misrepresenting him despite not clarifying what he thinks the difference is.
Also, he's made not one but two vaguely "both sides," statements since this controversy started. The more recent one on Twitter that's been quoted here, and then the one I haven't seen brought up as much from the press release itself.
It was right-wing. The Escapist was not taken over by both left and right-wing extremists. They were GGers. They were right-wingers. It IS interesting that he refused to acknowledge that and went for "extremism on both sides is bad," in an instance where the extremism was very clearly one-sided.
So he's been dog whistling his heart out.
Now he has a flood of new right-wingers following him and patting him on the back because he called to them with his dog whistling and his refusal to take a stance - a fact that only benefits them. He has the audacity to now take offense that these right-wingers think he's their buddy now when people have been telling him this is what he courted and criticized his vague language from moment one.
This whole thing is a bad look on so many levels.
Not taking a political stance is a political stance. It is a tacit endorsement of the status quo, and that's exactly what GGers, the alt right, right-wingers, conservatives - whatever you want to call them - want.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Apolitical. See above.
Also, he's made not one but two vaguely "both sides," statements since this controversy started. The more recent one on Twitter that's been quoted here, and then the one I haven't seen brought up as much from the press release itself.
It was right-wing. The Escapist was not taken over by both left and right-wing extremists. They were GGers. They were right-wingers. It IS interesting that he refused to acknowledge that and went for "extremism on both sides is bad," in an instance where the extremism was very clearly one-sided.
So he's been dog whistling his heart out.
Now he has a flood of new right-wingers following him and patting him on the back because he called to them with his dog whistling and his refusal to take a stance - a fact that only benefits them. He has the audacity to now take offense that these right-wingers think he's their buddy now when people have been telling him this is what he courted and criticized his vague language from moment one.
This whole thing is a bad look on so many levels.
Not taking a political stance is a political stance. It is a tacit endorsement of the status quo, and that's exactly what GGers, the alt right, right-wingers, conservatives - whatever you want to call them - want.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Apolitical. See above.