Forget Law & Order: SVU. I'm Proud to be a Gamer

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit had some serious gall recently. In their attempt at scripting a fictitious narrative regarding harassment within the gaming community, the show's writers concocted one of the most disgusting and misleading portrayals of gamers I have ever seen. To say that I was angry would be an understatement. To say that I can now look at that episode as a lazy attempt from a bunch of outsiders who were seeking to profit off of a hot button subject and have no clue what it's like to be a gamer or for that matter be a part of the industry would be highly accurate. Law & Order: SVU and the many news outlets that cover the ongoing cyber battles amidst the craziness of both GamerGate and harassment have only proven to me how determined outsiders are to cause more drama and further ostracize the gaming community. They don't publicize these specials to bring awareness. They do it for profit at the expense of gamers and the industry. But you know what? Despite the adversity, the name calling, and the degrading depictions that are seen every year that is aimed at gamers from the media, I am not afraid to say that I'm proud to be a gamer.

Ever since I got a Sega Genesis at the age of seven, I never stopped gaming. It quickly became one of my core hobbies that has spanned generation after generation of gaming. I raced through Green Hill Zone and defeated Death Adder. I beat my rival to become a Pokemon Champion and heralded a new age of peace in Hyrule. I put an end to Ripto's takeover of Avalar and survived the outbreak in Raccoon City. I defied Ares and rebuilt the strength of the Grove Street Families in Los Santos. I got my story at Willamette Mall and took BLU team's intelligence in 2Fort. All of this was done across multiple platforms and generations, but I never once shunned anyone from trying out games. I never once told someone that they didn't belong. I don't know how that obscene drivel from the writers of Law & Order was passed, but I know that their depiction of gamers do not represent both myself and the greater population of the gaming community.

Here's the gist of the episode: a female member of the gaming industry is harassed, attacked, and groped in the women's restroom at a gaming convention by two spiteful white male gamers. The situation escalates when they are arrested and a different set of white male gamers exhibit sexist actions against the primary female developer. Such actions include making threatening videos, Swatting, and doxxing the developer. Keep in mind that all of these situations were played up to outrageous levels, but what's probably more painful aside from the horrid writing was how gamers were presented in this episode.

The writers depicted the suspects as mentally unstable white males who couldn't tell the difference between a game and reality. They showed that these individuals had incredible technical prowess given what they pulled off in the episode. They had it so that they slandered the female gender as much as possible. Did they make these characters three-dimensional by explaining why they did what they did? Not necessarily. They just didn't like women being involved in video games. So, it's an old stereotype that is why these young men committed such heinous crimes. These were not antagonists worth writing. They were cardboard cartoon versions of gamers. Did the writers stop there, though? Nope. Probably one of the most insulting aspects of the episode was how they made it so that the antagonists were on par with terrorists. The presentation of how hateful these gamers were is eerily similar to ISIS. They dressed in masks, spread hateful messages, and had a banner in the background to symbolize their unity. This was an offensive showcase no matter how you look at it.

This slap in the face is exactly why gamers get so defensive. Any writer who thinks they can deliver a healthy form of commentary worth their salt are seriously setting their expectations too high of themselves when they have no first hand experience with the subject in the first place. This whole episode shows just how ignorant and blind some people are to the plight that goes on whether you're a gamer or a commentator on gaming. A simple comment could land you in hot water because it's interpreted in the wrong way. I'm sure that if I posted on Twitter that I'm excited for the new God of War game, I'd get labelled as a misogynist. Well, they would be wrong because I love women. I've loved women throughout my entire life. The earliest crush I had was in first grade. I would be the first to tell you that women being gamers or game developers is a fantastic thing.

Gaming has always been inclusive. It doesn't matter what your race, gender, sexual orientation, height, or weight is. The only qualification for getting into gaming is just doing exactly that. Just play the damn games! Detractors like Brianna Wu would have you believe that gamers are the stereotypical straight white males defending their territory from intruding girls; however, when someone comes along with a well-thought out counter argument to that claim, they scream sexism and block you. How is any progress going to be made when the opposing side is demonizing gamers while keeping their hands over their ears so as to refute the slightest rebuttal?

It is simply appalling when things like this happen. It makes it even more difficult to stomach when you have years upon years of participation in a hobby only for some random critic to say that what you're taking part in makes you a horrible person. I say forget that! Who are they judge us based on what we have as a hobby? They would sooner group us all up like cattle to categorize us than get to know us as people. They could care less about the good gaming has done for people who felt alone because of peer pressure and needed an outlet. They would scoff at the strides made in the industry with technology and careers. They would make it seem like diversity is nonexistent when in reality there is more diversity in gaming than ever before. It is awesome to be a gamer!

The narcissistic among the naysayers would tell you otherwise. Gamers are over. Gamers are misogynists. Gamers are geeky, basement dwelling, trolls who would sooner see their houses burn to the ground than allow women and minorities the chance to get in on their high end club. That is the picture some people in the media and people like Leigh Alexander want you to believe in. Ha, give me a break. I know who I am.

I don't go out of my way to belittle people. I don't look for trouble. I just like watching television shows and movies, playing video games, browsing the internet, listening to rock and metal music, and reading comic books. Those are my entertainment outlets. A few of those I hope to break out into one day in the future to contribute my own projects that I hope people will enjoy. The cynical out there would say that that is wrong. Why? Because I have goals to go into industries that you're trying to push agendas onto? You cannot push anyone who have dream careers around. A gamer who has the desire to get into the gaming industry has the right to do so. They are proud to be gamers and just want the chance to follow that passion.

No matter what the media or some outsider says about gaming, just know that you know who you are. Their labels don't mean squat to you. If you want to pursue a career in gaming, go for it. Given the context of what Law & Order did, if you're a female looking to get into gaming, don't let anything stop you. If you have the determination, talent, and skill for it, then do it. For every gamer out there, be proud that you're a part of something that is as expansive as the video game industry. While we all have our qualms and concerns about it, we shouldn't let others tell us that all of us are the problem. Stand up for yourself and show how open-minded gamers truly are. I know I will. I'm HonestDragon and I'm proud to be a gamer.

P.S. To the "creative" minds behind Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. I was an avid viewer of your show for many years. Given the slanderous and downright despicable characterization of gamers, consider this message as an official boycott of your show. Congrats.

(Credit for the image goes to E-Mann on deviantart)

http://e-mann.deviantart.co...

[ginganinja]

Erm.. so, you wrote this blog because you disagree with the stereotype that gamers are basement-dwelling sociopaths with limited social skills.
You do realise that the Leigh Alexander article you alluded to was arguing the same point. That gamers are a diverse bunch and it's not in the interests of those making games to focus so heavily on the outdated steretype.

[DragonKnight]

Right, THAT'S what she was saying. She wasn't at all saying that gaming culture has become toxic, that the term gamer is toxic, and that developers should stop catering to the audience that has carried the industry for 40+ years. No, she was saying that gaming is diverse and she was so eloquent and accommodating what with calling gamers "obtuse s*** slingers" and "hyper wailing consumers."

Oh and let's not forget how she apologized for people mistaking her words and assured everyone that gaming culture is totally inclusive right? Oh, that didn't happen did it? Hmmm.

Call me crazy but I don't see developers focusing on outdated stereotypes. I see gender idealogues trying to convince the world that developers are, all while games with excellent stories about diverse characters are being released and appealing to all kinds of people.

But no, only white boys still buy games, and that's who devs are making games for. That stat about the majority of gamers being near middle aged adult men? Complete lie. Everyone knows that people who don't have an income to buy their own games are the ones keeping the industry afloat. Leigh Alexander wishes that devs would stop making games for 12 year old boys because she understands that they have been the backbone of the industry for 40+ years and they're the ones going to Gamestop, shopping online on Amazon, and spending the billions of dollars buying games. That needs to stop, we need to get adults buying games. It has to happen now, or else gaming is doomed. And it has to be adult women because that's the only way gaming stands a chance right?

Please.

[ginganinja]

What she was saying is there's a noisy minority of 'gamers' who are giving the majority a bad name, and that the term 'gamer' is being sullied by them. So that when people hear someone describe themselves as one, they associate the term with the obnoxious behaviour you see in comments sections of gaming sites or in online multiplayer games. Or, of kids who resort to doxxing, ddosing, swatting, etc, when things don't go there way.
What she is saying, admittedly in rather an aggresive manner, is let's look past those guys and concentrate more on the good things.

She doesn't say anywhere in that blog that devs shouldn't make this or that type of game. She IS saying that gaming is already diverse and devs/publishers ought to bear that in mind. She IS saying that it's a problem that needs dealing with otherwise people outside the industry, (for example.. writers on some tv drama) will just follow the lazy stereotype of 'obtuse sh*t slingers' representing the majority of gamers.

[DragonKnight]

@ginganinja: That's not at all what she's saying. You know when people write, the format they choose, the words they use, the entire tone of the piece they are writing contributes to what exactly was said. Then you look at her actions after the writing, the conferences she's had because of the writing, and you can see the big picture. You then go back to the writing and see clearly what the author actually meant. Leigh Alexander has a clear picture of not only what she thinks a gamer should be, but what she demands a gamer needs to be.

Now you say "So that when people hear someone describe themselves as one, they associate the term with the obnoxious behaviour you see in comments sections of gaming sites or in online multiplayer games."

But you ignore that people like Leigh Alexander CREATE that image. They take things like gamers complaining about the ending of Mass Effect 3 and overblow it to "gamers are entitled babies." Who do you know that isn't a gamer, that isn't an idealogue, that associates gamers in the way Leigh Alexander associates gamers? I'd wager none. Partly because you'd have to be a gamer to even know or see who Leigh Alexander is in the first place, and partly because non-gamers wouldn't at all be interested in the first place. They'd need someone who has a particular narrative they want to put across to feed that opinion into their mind and form a new opinion for them.

Case in point, LAO: SVU wanted to put forth the narrative that Brianna Wu has been pushing. There's evidence to back this up as NBC registered the redchannit domain name immediately after her interview with them and she has friends with connections to the channel. Now let's say that a fan of the show isn't a gamer at all. They watch that episode, now they think gamers are evil because Brianna Wu thinks gamers are evil. It has nothing to do with knowing anything about gaming or gamers, it has to do with ignorance meeting a narrative that frames an opinion. People like Leigh Alexander frame that narrative that goes on to frame that opinion. Don't believe me? Ask Jason Schreier what he thought of that episode despite the fact that Kotaku pushed Leigh Alexander's narrative about gamers. He was disgusted by it but by your logic he shouldn't be.

You see Leigh Alexander creates what she thinks gamers are now, then she insults that demographic telling developers that they shouldn't cater to the identity she has invented. No person who has no interest in gaming avoids gamers because they're gamers. They'd have no context in which to do that unless that context was given to them. I don't think anyone on sites like this one are going around telling non-gamers to avoid gaming because gamers suck, it'd be insulting ourselves. Leigh Alexander only cares about like-minded individuals, admits to having a ridiculous agenda, and has been derisive, antagonistic, and sarcastic from the get go and you expect ANYONE to actually believe she wasn't making a hit piece and is in fact speaking good of the gaming industry and the larger demographic? Why don't you ask her her opinion on hospitality staff? You're going to try and say she's only talking about a minority of waiters when she's clearly and vocally insulted the hospitality industry in general?

Ask a gamer what the term gamer means. I'd wager 9 times out of 10 a gamer will tell you that the term simply means someone who games for more than just a pastime. Why should anyone accept the definition of a term from someone who literally insults the term over people who would actually be in the demographic of said term?

[ginganinja]

It's 'fanboys' in comment sections demeaning anyone's opinion other than their own.
It's 'kids' doling out racist, sexist, every other -ist abuse at others online.
It's groups getting in the news for 'hacking' sites and getting planes grounded with bomb threats.
It's groups hiding behind guy fawkes masks trying to make themselves look edgy and threatening.
It's people getting dogs' abuse and death threats purely for having an opinion.
Those are the things that were/are making news in the mainstream media and tarring the image of gaming.

Not the opinions, blogs and videos of about half a dozen women of minimal influence in a multi-billion dollar industry.

Or to address your last paragraph, it isn't what gamers believe the term gamer means that is the issue.

[DragonKnight]

@ginganinja: Ok before I go over every one of your examples explain to you several different things, one question needs to be asked. Do you seriously think that your examples are actually what gamers are and that conversely everyone else, such as everyone on this site, aren't gamers they're "players" of games?

Now to your examples.

"It's 'fanboys' in comment sections demeaning anyone's opinion other than their own."

Happens in any topic in any hobby, science, form of education, politics, etc... If you're trying to say that this is what gamers are, then you have to say that this is what politicians are, this is what journalists are, this is what audiophiles are, etc..

Plus, only other gamers are exposed to this because these interactions only exist where other gamers congregate. It doesn't exist in your doctor's office so then the only way people associate this with gaming is when people involved with gaming paint that narrative for others.

"It's 'kids' doling out racist, sexist, every other -ist abuse at others online."

Again, not limited to gaming and if you want to talk about it in the context of gaming then again, the only way people would avoid gamers because of this is if a gamer with a particular narrative to push would frame these examples in a particular way and then expose non-gamers to it, a.k.a. Leigh Alexander.

"It's groups getting in the news for 'hacking' sites and getting planes grounded with bomb threats."

I feel like I should just have focused on the first example and posted "rinse and repeat." Next you're going to claim that SVU's portrayal of gamers as being identical and synoymous with both Anonymous and ISIS is an accurate description that everyone believes and have believed so regardless of people like Brianna Wu trying to further that narrative for their own gains.

"It's groups hiding behind guy fawkes masks trying to make themselves look edgy and threatening."

Called it. You think Anonymous and gamers are the same thing. Frickin' sad how you just let people form your opinions for you.

"It's people getting dogs' abuse and death threats purely for having an opinion."

Or people getting knives mailed to them with a letter that says "kill yourself" for the same?

[DragonKnight]

"Those are the things that were/are making news in the mainstream media and tarring the image of gaming."

Guess why? Because of non-gamers. Not because of gamers, but because of people who have a narrative to push, who either create the conditions for antagonism, or cherry pick and over-exaggerate isolated incidents as though they are the norm in order to move forward with their perpetual welfare, I mean Patreon, funding. People who have serious personality flaws, various complexes, and the need to frame the world to the way they want it to be. You never see the charity drives that gamers support, the games that gamers help to bring to fruition, the communities that create friendships between gamers. Why? Because people like Leigh Alexander have no interest in reporting on those things, nor does mainstream media. Leigh has an agenda to push, MSM knows that bad news brings more ratings. It isn't gamers giving themselves a bad name, it's non-gamers doing that. Just as it has been since the time of the Atari and the insistence that games cause Satanism, or Mortal Kombat glorifies violence, or Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty are murder simulators that train gamers to kill. All of these things were parroted by non-gamers, designed to speak to non-gamers and paint gamers in a negative light for very different reasons.

For MSM, gaming is an enemy that takes away their ratings and money. For people like Leigh Alexander, gamers are people who will not quitely go into the night and let her run rough shod throughout the industry unchallenged, and you can clearly see she hates being challenged.

"Not the opinions, blogs and videos of about half a dozen women of minimal influence in a multi-billion dollar industry."

The ignorance of this comment is astounding. The opinions of those women have landed them on NBC, ABC, CBC, New York Times, etc.. They have yet to have a major influence in the direction of game development, yet. But if you think they aren't having an influence in the court of public opinion, you don't read much on the subject then. Every instance of change, good or bad, always starts so small it appears to be of no consequence. Rosa Parks refused to move from her seat on a bus. One small act, yet look at how it's remembered.

"Or to address your last paragraph, it isn't what gamers believe the term gamer means that is the issue."

No, the issue is that Leigh Alexander insults millions of gamers and you think she's talking about some non-existent sub group that only she can see and she tries to spread to the non-gamer populace as being what keeps people away from gaming. Non-gamers aren't exposed to this by anyone but people like Anita Sarkeesian, or Leigh Alexander so it's not gamers making their own reputation, it's loud mouthed people inventing a reputation for gamers. Leigh Alexander is doing more damage for what being a gamer means than any gamer ever has.

[ginganinja]

"Do you seriously think that your examples are actually what gamers are and that conversely everyone else, such as everyone on this site, aren't gamers they're "players" of games?"

NO! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! I know gamers can be a varied bunch. You know gamers can be a varied bunch. Leigh Alexander knows gamers can be a varied bunch.
The public who has little direct connection to gaming, however, sees all the bad press and believes the stereotype, believes that the character displayed on SVU is more typical than not.
The ENTIRE POINT of Leigh Alexanders article was that the industry needs to focus on improving the image of gamers to reflect what is actually going on, rather than concentrating on the few bad apples.

That similar things happen in other walks of life, is irrelevant. We're talking about the image gamers and gaming have.
If you were to talk about politicians, you could quite easily find people willing to believe they're all corrupt, lying, sleazy, etc. based on what they've read. Is that a fair reflection of them as a whole? I doubt it.

[DragonKnight]

I'm trying to tell you that LEIGH ALEXANDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVENTING AND SPREADING THOSE STEREOTYPES!

The average gamer is an adult male in their 30s and 40s. Leigh is perpetuating the idea that the industry is not catering to those people and is instead catering to 12 year old boys. She knows that's B.S., everyone does, but SHE is spreading FUD as though it's fact. She insulted the gaming demographic by lying about some supposed prevalence of a toxic culture of gamers. She's spreading this information herself. Not gamers. HER. She invents this garbage and says the identity of gamer needs to die because no one wants to associate with a group of people SHE invented and SHE spreads around.

What's so hard to understand that SHE is the problem, as are the colleagues she has that are just like her, a.k.a. Polyon, Kotaku, et al?

She is the one doing the disservice, she is the one insulting gamers, she is the one inventing this alleged group of toxic gamers that supposedly give gaming a bad name. Not you, not me, her.

[lex-1020]

The important point here is that regardless of what Ms. Alexander did or didn't say, or what was implied or not, there is a large problem with the gaming "community". That problem is, as ginganinja said "there's a noisy minority of 'gamers' who are giving the majority a bad name, and that the term 'gamer' is being sullied by them." More than the actions of one critic, who granted has been very outspoken in her beliefs on gaming, the actions of the overly vocal part of the gaming community created the problem of "GamerGate" and the stereotype that gamers are violent, narcissistic, misogynistic, children. While this belief is perpetrated by a few, relative to the population of gamers, it is extremely obvious. Youtube comments, and Youtube in general, are a perfect example of how the general world comes to view gamers in this light. Look at the comments of any video posted by IGN or Gamespot and you will see 90% of the comments are either hating on the video, hating on the game, hating on the commentator in the video, or aggressive arguing. Even the content of the videos themselves sometimes generates the feeling of "GamerGate". I am ashamed to admit that I subscribed and enjoyed Dj Keemstar's videos when I was younger and even more ashamed to admit that I just recently came to realize how by supporting videos like Derakner's (both of these commentators simply troll people to make them rage in games) only falsely brought the idea that gamers are violent to the forefront.

The problem of "GamerGate" doesn't end there though. Even here on N4G we are not immune to this nature. In fact DragonKnight you seem to spew it more than most. Time and again I see you aggressively attack and belittle, albeit with words, someone on here who disagrees with your opinion. Even in this thread where you claim that mixelon would naturally agree with Leigh Alexander. Why? Because they have a picture of a female as their avatar? I fail to see why you would assume they'd agree with Ms. Alexander by default. Perhaps there was something I was missing so I went through and checked many of the comments made by mixelon and saw nothing to indicate that they'd immediately agree with Ms. Alexander. But I digress my intention was not to lambaste you for your comments. It was to explain that there is a problem stemming from an overly vocal minority of gamers, yourself included, who perpetrate the stereotype leading to the events of "GamerGate" and ultimately this episode of "Law and Order: SVU".

[DragonKnight]

@lex: Paragraph 1 - "there is a large problem with the gaming "community".

No, there isn't. You yourself say that there is a minority of people acting this way yes? Then it is not a large problem, it is a pronounced problem being exacerbated by people like Leigh Alexander, Kotaku, Polygon, etc.. and seemingly you, that exaggerates the actions of what you've already admitted to being the few and says it taints the many. No, it doesn't. Again, you can mention any site on the internet you want to, but who is looking up IGN or Gamespot news? Gamers. Who is going on youtube to look up gaming videos? Gamers. Who is saying that gamers are vitriolic, obtuse s*** slingers and hyper-wailing consumers? Not gamers.

Now let's talk about how immensely wrong you are about GamerGate. I don't know why I'm wasting my time since it's clear what side of the fence you're on, but this...

"the actions of the overly vocal part of the gaming community created the problem of "GamerGate" and the stereotype that gamers are violent, narcissistic, misogynistic, children."

Not only shows a complete ignorance of all facts, but at the very same time portrays a parroting of the very same kind of people that paint the gaming community in the kind of negative light that you have a problem with. Who was it that called GamerGate, a movement for ethics in all things game related, misogynistic while countless thousands of women support it? People like Leigh Alexander. Who was it that called GamerGate a violent movement while absolutely no physical harm has occurred to anyone because of GamerGate? People like Brianna Wu. Gamers are not spreading this message, they are not reinforcing it, it's all people like Leigh Alexander, Brianna Wu, and others with clear ideological agendas to push, and coincidentally Patreon accounts. Now then, moving on to your next paragraph.

2. "Time and again I see you aggressively attack and belittle, albeit with words, someone on here who disagrees with your opinion. Even in this thread where you claim that mixelon would naturally agree with Leigh Alexander. Why? Because they have a picture of a female as their avatar? I fail to see why you would assume they'd agree with Ms. Alexander by default."

This is why you never assume. See a person who doesn't see only what they want to see to support whatever point they are trying to make would know that mixelon and I have had interactions before. Interactions based in gender ideology and it's place in gaming. This means a history has formed, and that history is the basis for my saying what I did to mixelon. But see, if that was information that you cared about, then you wouldn't have limited the scope of your research to only looking through some of mixelon's comments.

A problem's scope is only as big as the reaction the most offended person chooses to make it. Offense is a choice, and given the actions and reactions of some of the biggest detractors of GamerGate, the fact that they willingly ignore so much vital information, and choose to espouse their hateful narrative about what gaming and gamers are makes me even question if they actually believe the stuff they are saying, or know that they can get away with saying it and fool the ignorant with their words.

I maintain that people like Leigh Alexander are the problem with the industry, not idiots who before people like her came around the rest of the world knew they were idiots and relegated them to the idiot corner while everyone else simply talked about the things they enjoyed or didn't enjoy.

**EDIT** @mixelon: No not over mine, over gamers.

[ginganinja]

She's responsible for inventing the stereotype ?!
So, even though, as you've already stated, it's an old stereotype, even though gamers have had a PR problem since the 80s, the root cause can be traced to a blog entry on a specialist industry site by someone unheard of by the general public less than six months ago ?

It seems the fundamental point you keep missing is that LA never accused ALL gamers of being toxic or whatever. She accused a small subset, and that they are spoiling the image of the rest of us.
That's why I don't feel threatened by what she said. Because they don't represent me as a gamer, and if we can reduce its pervasiveness then maybe things like the SVU episode will become less viable because the public perception of gamers will be much more favourable.

[lex-1020]

@DragonKnight A problem can be large or small irregardless of how many people support it. A small group of people can create a very big problem. That problem I eluded to was the fact that gamers are not being taken seriously by any news or media outlet not specializing in gaming.

"Now let's talk about how immensely wrong you are about GamerGate. I don't know why I'm wasting my time since it's clear what side of the fence you're on, but this..." You fail to see that this is the exact attitude that creates the "GamerGate" dilemma. The dilemma of GamerGate, Gamers being branded as toxic and volatile, has been around long before Ms. Alexander pointed to it. The fact is that most adults do not take their news from IGN and Gamespot, as you pointed out, but rather from the "Professional news sources". And what are those news sources telling them? That gamers are violent, narcissistic, belligerent, children. Why are they telling them this? Again because there is an over vocal minority reinforcing the idea.

"See a person who doesn't see only what they want to see to support whatever point they are trying to make would know that mixelon and I have had interactions before." I, as you can see by my profile, do not visit this site daily and I almost never read the comment sections because of the bile that's there 90% of the time so no I'm not seeing only what I want to see. I am seeing what is here. Which is all a rational person is going to see. Someone like Ms. Alexander isn't going to go through every comment you and mixelon have made to see if you've had rows before. They're simply going to see you assuming she's on one side of the fence without basis.

"A problem's scope is only as big as the reaction the most offended person chooses to make it. Offense is a choice, and given the actions and reactions of some of the biggest detractors of GamerGate, the fact that they willingly ignore so much vital information, and choose to espouse their hateful narrative about what gaming and gamers are makes me even question if they actually believe the stuff they are saying, or know that they can get away with saying it and fool the ignorant with their words.

I maintain that people like Leigh Alexander are the problem with the industry, not idiots who before people like her came around the rest of the world knew they were idiots and relegated them to the idiot corner while everyone else simply talked about the things they enjoyed or didn't enjoy."

I agree with you here, but at the same time that Leigh Alexander is a problem with the industry if the over vocal minority, such as yourself, didn't spew bile at every opportunity there wouldn't be much for people like Leigh Alexander to complain about would there?

[mixelon]

Yeah, I came away thinking it read a lot more like what you've written here than DK's version.

Interesting that.

[DragonKnight]

Who'd be surprised that you take Leigh Alexander's side?

[mixelon]

Over yours? Well.. Yeah. Everyone would (hopefully) think that, thankfully.

[HonestDragon]

If I might chime in, I will clarify something. I also notice that some of you are at the limit with bubbles, so I will keep this brief.

The entire reason why I used both Leigh Alexander and Brianna Wu as examples in this blog is because the general consensus that I have seen floating around various circles on the internet is that SVU got this idea about the general problems through people like them. Leight's "gamers are over" rant did raise a few good points; however, her final execution that reveled in insulting the overall populace of gamers is what got her in trouble.

She could have written the piece in an entirely different way and not throw around insults, but she didn't. She generalized and plastered gamers with insults. She is also notorious for her outbursts (some racist ones), so she wouldn't be someone I would immediately consider as a good representative of critiquing game culture (industry or participants involved).

[DefenderOfDoom2]

It seems like the evil corporations are just trying to divert attention away from them .