Response to #GamerGate

Todd VanDerWerff writes a piece on #GamerGate, a movement that took Twitter by storm this past summer. He writes this article to the general audience, trying to inform people not as immersed or not immersed at all in the video-gaming world what #GamerGate really means. He works on providing the source of the #GamerGate, the goals of supporters of #GamerGate, and the bigger issues that this movement brings up.

#GamerGate is derived from the backlash of a public break up between video game creator Zoe Quinn and her now programmer ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni. Gjoni wrote several pieces about Quinn, released her public information, and ultimately accused her of cheating on him with video game journalist Nathan Grayson. It was the latter that really sparked the cause of #GamerGate.

After this very public ordeal occurred, many #GamerGate supporters began to challenge the ethics of videogame journalism. VanDerWerff highlights this as one of the main topics of #GamerGate. He expresses that Gamer Gaters feel as though journalists are letting their relationships with video game creators influence their work causing them to report on games that are not worth it as well as reporting on things that are not video games but pertain to the gaming world. However, VanDerWerff brought up a good point that there is disconnect between “what those who read gaming media believe journalism to be and what it actually is.” Gamer Gaters want video game journalism to solely focus on the games and specifically games at are relevant to the masses while in journalism, the reporters are meant to report on that as well as issues pertaining to their broader field such as the bigger issues in the gaming world.

VanDerWerff brings forth these issues that #GamerGate supporters have, mainly about video game journalism. However, he also shows the inconsistencies. These supporters want video games to be seen as an art and want them to be solely reported on. On the other hand, evolution is necessary for video games to reach their full artistic prime which means the that the journalism has to evolve as well as the type of games that are created. The supporters are angered by “social justice warriors” who are advocating for more diversity in games in a field that becoming more diverse but that also hinders any evolutionary progress. VanDerWerff goals were to share these inconsistencies of #GamerGate movement and why is won’t really succeed as well as point the overarching question that has been brought up by all of this which is “what games should be and who they should be for”?

I thoroughly enjoyed this article although at times I was lost as to what Gamer Gaters were fighting for and wanted to achieve as well as why this led to the harassment of women in the gaming industry. I really appreciated the author’s highlighting of the inconsistencies in the movement. I felt as though it showed that not many of the supporters of #GamerGate even know what they were fighting against or for because for many of the things they wanted, they were fighting against the things that would inherently get them that such as more diversity and representation in video games.

It surprised me that those who advocate for more diversity and representation in video games anger #GamerGate supporters. I do not know much about video games. I do not really play them, but in a field that is growing in the number of female gamers and game creators, it would only seem right to evolve with the times and appeal to everyone. However, by pushing against this, it is like they are trying to exclude a whole group from the gaming world and identify them as not “real” gamers. They cannot achieve games of more artistic credibility if they want the same types of games that appeal to the same type of people to be made. The games have to change with the demographics – all the demographics. It just puzzles me, because what do they have to lose if more games were made with female representation or LGBT representation?