# Gamergate **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 5, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596 "2014-09-05T17:43:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 61
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1202 "2014-10-29T21:28:52Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > But no one is arguing that games should never be fun. People are saying that fun shouldn’t be the ONLY consideration when judging the worth of a game. Like a work in any other medium. And if a hardcore gamer can decide that “objective” fun is the only relevant criterion for judging a game, then other reviewers are free to choose whatever criteria they think are important. What’s astonishing to me is the idea that X group of true Scotsmen hold a privilege to set the terms of discussion for everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1203 "2014-10-29T22:02:51Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > But no one is arguing that games should never be fun. People are saying that fun shouldn’t be the ONLY consideration when judging the worth of a game. There are other ways for games to be interesting, and insisting that every game experience MUST have an element of fun is (as I said above) a really narrow aesthetic. It discourages designers from exploring other ways to play. To be clearer, here was the statement [from the article](http://archive.today/2t93l) “A Guide to Ending ‘Gamers’”: > [@](#): > > **We stop upholding “fun” as the universal, ultimate criterion for a game’s relevance.** > It’s a meaningless ideal at best and a poisonous priority at worst. Fun is a neurological trick. Plenty of categorically unhealthy things are “fun”. Let’s try for something more. Many of the alternatives will have similarly fuzzy definitions, but let’s aspire to qualities like “edifying”, “healing”, “pro-social”, or even “enlightening”. I encourage you to decide upon your own alternatives to “fun” in games (while avoiding terms like “cool” and “awesome” and any other word that simply caters to existing, unexamined biases). This, incidentally, is also where I disagree with the people who want to stay with a strict definition of “fun”. Maybe you don’t think being scared or nervous counts as “fun” in a strict literal sense but the author here isn’t looking for _Alien: Isolation_ as the socially conscious alternative to _Grand Theft Auto_. Anyway, I’m still toying with trying to make this a Games forum discussion so I’ll let my thoughts rest there until then. Or someone else start it and you can listen to me prattle on. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1204 "2014-10-29T23:19:07Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Are you shitting me? Rivers of internet ink have been spilled on how and why video games are bad as a story telling medium and trying to figure out different ways to make them better, or arguing whether it should be done at all. I don’t mind some story, but I feel AAA games for years now have been in a self imposed straitjacket. Once you’re sacrificing gameplay for story you’ve done something wrong. One of the most egregious examples is how they butchered Metroid. Indie games to the rescue. > [@](#): > > Spec Ops: The Line. I’d agree Spec Ops: The Line isn’t fun. It’s yet another slow, cover based military shooter where you’re a dude with a rifle shooting other dumb dudes with rifles. So it’s a bad game. Critics praise it for its “edgy” story cribbed from Apocalypse Now. I mean yeah, it’s clever how it’s hanging a giant lampshade on the propagandist nature of the military shooter genre, and I dig surreal reality bending hallucinations as much as the next guy, but why does that make it a good _game_? Doom, Quake, Counter-Strike – those are good shooters that stand the test of time. I can only imagine the horror if they suffered from modern game design. Oh wait, they made Doom 3. Actually compared to other modern FPS games Doom 3 is a masterpiece, but that’s a whole other discussion. > [@](#): > > Games have incredible power as a storytelling medium precisely _because_ of player agency. Which is why when they go to tell the story they take agency and interaction away with cinemas, text dumps, dialogue, QTEs, and so on. Games are good with exploration and immersion. Yeah, let’s go over that next hill, I bet there’s cool shit over there I can hit with my sword. That’s one of many reasons Zelda 1 blew up. Or Skyrim. > [@](#): > > The fact that some people bitch about a game’s story doesn’t mean “Games shouldn’t tell stories”, it means “Writing stories for games is hard and we really need to get better at it”. Do we need to? Many of the best games ever have no more than an excuse story and are all the better for it. Carmack made an analogy to stories in porn. Sure, you can try and theoretically make it better, but it’s kinda missing the point of the medium. I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I think there’s a kernel of truth to it. According to wiki, here are the top 5 games all time in terms of sales: 1. Tetris 2. Wii Sports 3. Minecraft 4. Super Mario Brothers 1 5. Mario Kart Wii Some people have argued that sandbox games like Minecraft have emergent story and that’s the future. To me that’s like saying legos has a story. Point is no one’s playing Minecraft for the pre-packaged narrative about human nature or some deep philosophy. > [@](#): > > Because when you examine some of the games built around their story and their world, you can name not just some of the greatest games of the 21st century, but some of the greatest storytelling experiences of the 21st century. The Walking Dead. Spec Ops. Bioshock. Bioshock Infinite. Papers, Please (seriously - the gameplay in this game sucks, but the environment and the story makes literally sorting paperwork in a shed incredibly engaging). Half Life. Half Life 2. Portal. Portal 2. Bastion. Cave Story. Psychonauts. I could probably keep going, but I think I’ve made the point. The only one of these I’d say has a good story (and not just a “good story for a video game”) is The Walking Dead (better than the show even), but they had to sacrifice nearly all game elements to do it. It’s a good example of how what makes good games and good stories are at war. It’s also kinda cheap, abusing the easy sympathy for a little girl. A lot of these games you list are actually fun games. A lot do settings well, or cool characters (Portal, HL) which fools people into thinking they have a good story. Video games are \*awesome \*at setting and mood. That’s why they do horror so well. I played Papers for maybe 10 minutes. That was about as exciting as data entry. I never got why people say Half Life has a good story. It’s pretty thin gruel. Aliens are trying to kill you! The G-man is watching. Space fetus outta nowhere! It’s a great linear theme park ride, and it’s immersive to watch the scientists freak out and die in horrible ways or the aliens slaughter the army, but story? Plot? Narrative? Character arcs? Wut? It also breaks the supposed rules of why games have good stories. You’re rail roaded. There’s hardly any agency or choice or interaction with the story’s outcome. Very fun though. One game I might be a hypocrite on is Chrono Trigger, which I adore. I don’t even think it really has a good story, objectively. Lots of standard fantasy tropes. The characters are cardboard cutouts, though they have a lot of charm and chemistry together. But it’s a scientific fact that time travel is awesome…even if it’s just a veneer. Maybe I’m fooled by the music. Then again, its gameplay is \*much \*less annoying than most JRPGs (along with Mario RPG). I think a lot of the battles are pretty fun and I like how the spells have a space component which adds strategy, though they’re not exactly challenging either. Maybe a case of the whole being better than the parts, or maybe I fantasize about playing a mute mop with no personality. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1205 "2014-10-29T23:41:38Z")
Planescape: Torment had a great story. Yes, the wall-of-text thing was infuriating, but the storyline behind the main character was some excellent fantasy storytelling–and you had significant choice about how you responded to the story, in what direction you took it. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1206 "2014-10-29T23:53:06Z")
As promised (or threatened, heh) I started a [Games forum thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17857032#post17857032) on this if people are interested. Hoping to make a clean start for the topic, which I think might be interesting, and avoid the baggage of the greater debate in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1207 "2014-10-30T00:17:27Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > _[Train](http://www.wired.com/2013/12/brenda-romero/)_, by Brenda Romero. Most people find it intensely uncomfortable to play. Talk about niche. But OK, what makes it not fun? Just because you’re a Nazi planning genocide? I mean, is the game itself shitty or what? Would Mario stop being fun if he was fighting for white power? > [@](#): > > Most testers chose to stop playing Train after the big reveal. Some tried to liberate the game pieces. Many cried. …seriously? I laughed. I’m trying to think of depressing movies. Schindler’s List, say. Turn that into a game. You’re Schindler and you have to rescue as many Jews as possible. There’s competing resources, you have to infiltrate German society and seek allies and make really hard choices and you’re not sure what’s the obvious way. You have to sacrifice some to save others and you can’t get caught by the authorities or reveal yourself to spies. Maybe get to know the victims first so there’s some emotional punch if you lose them. But that sounds like it’d be pretty awesome actually. How about a game where you’re a brutal dictator and the victory condition is eliminating your rivals, or some religious sect? But you can’t be so overt you get invaded or spark a counter-revolution. Maybe you can start as a rebel, sow chaos, take over, and then be an asshole. That game’s probably been made already. I know people love to mistreat their citizens in god games. That’s the thing with games, they trivialize this sorta thing and make it fun. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1208 "2014-10-30T00:46:16Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Talk about niche. But OK, what makes it not fun? Just because you’re a Nazi planning genocide? I mean, is the game itself shitty or what? Yes, it’s deliberately shitty. The rules have intentional holes in them, which invite players to negotiate over what constitutes a legal move or not. It’s also possible as a player to sabotage the game – locking up progress through endlessly drawing cards and other mechanics. What’s interesting about \*Train \*is how uneasy this sort of sabotage feels. Even though its a game that deserves to be broken, the implied social contract of playing as a group exerts pressure on players not to break it. It’s a game about complicity and how even a trivial betrayal of group consensus feels unsettling. What’s particularly interesting about Train is that these effects emerge in the act of playing. It’s not an interpretation you get by looking at the game and thinking about it. It’s something that comes from interacting with its rules in a group setting. > [@](#): > > That’s the thing with games, they trivialize this sorta thing and make it fun. You can trivialize any work of art and make it into something amusing. Some things only work if you try to meet them halfway. ---
**Author:** ![Weedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/weedy/32/301_2.png) [@Weedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weedy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1209 "2014-10-30T01:37:21Z")
A game that encourages people to rules lawyer sounds like a bad game to me. How can the game ‘deserve to be broken’? No Jews, gypsies or homosexuals are actually harmed by moving pieces around a board. Marshmallow’s Schindler’s List game could be pretty fun, in a depressing kind of way. ---
**Author:** ![Fair\_Rarity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fair_rarity/32/153_2.png) [@Fair\_Rarity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fair_Rarity)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1210 "2014-10-30T02:12:24Z")
Sarkeesian’s going to be on Colbert tonight, fyi everybody. I usually watch it the next day on hulu but I think I might watch it as it airs so when I wake up to the inevitable twitter shitstorm, I have better context. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1211 "2014-10-30T13:45:19Z")
> [@Weedy](#): > > A game that encourages people to rules lawyer sounds like a bad game to me. How can the game ‘deserve to be broken’? No Jews, gypsies or homosexuals are actually harmed by moving pieces around a board. Because having fun with a game about the Holocaust is a shitty thing to do. Yes, it is bad game if your criteria for “good game” means “a tight system of rules that offers interesting challenges as you move toward a well-defined goal”. But game like that about the Holocaust would be FUN, which means that playing it would be creepy. Here’s a related example. There’s a really good boardgame _Letters from Whitechapel_ about the Jack the Ripper murders. However one player has to play as Jack and it’s a creepy experience even though the game abstracts away the murders. It’s a little hard to play \*Letters \*just as a fun chase game, because the subject matter colors the experience. My whole point in bringing up \*Train \*was to give an example of a game that is not fun to play but that nevertheless works as a powerful and moving experience. Yes, you could redesign \*Train \*to be fun, but that would miss the point. It works as an experience because it isn’t fun. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1212 "2014-10-30T15:12:45Z")
> [@Weedy](#): > > A game that encourages people to rules lawyer sounds like a bad game to me. Conversely, I know people for whom “A game that encourages rules lawyering and loophole finding” would be right up their alley. Doesn’t matter if you’re carting around concentration camp prisoners or crates of oranges, if you can force your opponent into infinite card draws, they’d be in heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Double\_Foolscap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@Double\_Foolscap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Double_Foolscap)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1213 "2014-10-30T17:18:34Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Because having fun with a game about the Holocaust is a shitty thing to do. > > Yes, it is bad game if your criteria for “good game” means “a tight system of rules that offers interesting challenges as you move toward a well-defined goal”. But game like that about the Holocaust would be FUN, which means that playing it would be creepy. > > Here’s a related example. There’s a really good boardgame _Letters from Whitechapel_ about the Jack the Ripper murders. However one player has to play as Jack and it’s a creepy experience even though the game abstracts away the murders. It’s a little hard to play \*Letters \*just as a fun chase game, because the subject matter colors the experience. > > My whole point in bringing up \*Train \*was to give an example of a game that is not fun to play but that nevertheless works as a powerful and moving experience. Yes, you could redesign \*Train \*to be fun, but that would miss the point. It works as an experience because it isn’t fun. Shut Up and Sit Down recently published a review of a game called [Dog Eat Dog](http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/review-dog-eat-dog/). Sample quote: > [@](#): > > It works like this. Your group sits down and decides, firstly, where you will set your colonisation tale. In one game we set it on the island of Avarua in the late 1700s. It is a place and time we may have known little about but we still managed (I think) to create a story that is true to the spirit of the game. An earlier game saw us setting it on a distant planet, peopled with small, aquatic natives and visited by the hard-skinned, heavily smoking citizens of another world. (Personally, I imagined these occupiers as Krogans from the Mass Effect video games with Marlboro Lights in their big jaws, but that may have just been me.) As different as these settings were, both games felt true to me as far as the message of the game goes. And that is down to the impeccably smart design of the ‘game’ itself. > > One person will act as the colonising forces - all of them - while all other players are individual natives (or can stand in as ‘NPC’ natives). Everyone takes turns coming up with a descriptor for both parties. “I think the natives are… prodigious weavers!” or “Maybe the colonisers are, like, super tall!” Once the characteristics of the both sides are decided, you need to decide who among you will play the colonising forces. That’s when you get to drop this question on your friends, this absolute brute. > > “Okay, who here is the richest person?” > > That’s right, the richest player at the table is the coloniser. This is DED’s first masterstroke of discomfort - a stuttering bombshell from the most socially awkward B-52. The game does not go into anymore detail. It does not give you any definition of what ‘richest’ is, which leads to a lot of muttering, guffaws, uncomfortable disclosures, raised eyebrows and general embarrassment. Eventually, it is somehow decided that one person is richer than the others. In class-obsessed England, where it is just plain rude to talk about income, expenditure, debt and property ownership (haha, property ownership), this is as about appealing as sticking a barbeque skewer in your ear. But press on, please, press on. Because this game is going to teach you things. ---
**Author:** ![zweisamkeit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zweisamkeit/32/4360_2.png) [@zweisamkeit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zweisamkeit)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1214 "2014-10-30T17:56:14Z")
> [@Weedy](#): > > A game that encourages people to rules lawyer sounds like a bad game to me. How can the game ‘deserve to be broken’? No Jews, gypsies or homosexuals are actually harmed by moving pieces around a board. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this game. There are people who love rules lawyering, as **Jophiel** mentioned, but that’s not why the game is (intentionally, remember) created to invite lots of said rules lawyering. People argue about rules for lots of reasons, such as: they like nitpicking, they want to solidify the rules everyone is basing gameplay upon, they want a rule to benefit them, they want a rule to screw over the others, etc. So when players find out what the game is based on\*, they see that all of their spirited and passionate rules lawyering… Was to be the most successful at _genocide_. Their gameplay and goal – the entire time – was to murder as many human beings as they could, and to murder more human beings than their fellow players. Yes, it’s just symbolic; no one was actually murdering people based on their game session. But I think it’s similar to the Milgram Experiment (which tested how willing participants were to obey an authority figure, even when it was something they felt was wrong). _Obviously_ it doesn’t imply that everyone who played the game without reservations would willingly murder others in a real life situation – instead it’s supposed to encourage serious reflection on your actions in general and why you choose to do what you do and the implications thereof. To promote critical thinking instead of just blindly obeying _or just going along with everyone else because it’s the least inconvenient option_. - though I’m surprised that people didn’t figure it out right away. Then again, I’m armchair-quarterbacking here since I read about the game and its purpose first. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1215 "2014-10-30T18:03:53Z")
I know there was an awkward silence when somebody in the group I was playing\* Puerto Rico \*with noted that, even though the game has no pretension to be any sort of social commentary, the “colonists” tokens we were bringing every turn from Europe on ever larger boats (the number of tokens is directly tied with player expansion) were a deep brown color… and often ended up working in the fields… ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1216 "2014-10-30T18:08:35Z")
> [@zweisamkeit](#): > > So when players find out what the game is based on\*, they see that all of their spirited and passionate rules lawyering… Was to be the most successful at _genocide_. Their gameplay and goal – the entire time – was to murder as many human beings as they could, and to murder more human beings than their fellow players. No, their goal was to follow the rules set down by the game most ably. That the game halfway through adjusts the color to a particularly gruesome historical reality is interesting but personally, I don’t find it particularly shocking. Chess is war, but nobody’s freaking out about taking someone’s infantry regiment with their cavalry. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1217 "2014-10-30T18:24:41Z")
> [@zweisamkeit](#): > > - though I’m surprised that people didn’t figure it out right away. Then again, I’m armchair-quarterbacking here since I read about the game and its purpose first. I “got” it as soon as Brenda described the board to me. Railroad cars and yellow pawns was enough. However, I’ve now watched it played probably half a dozen times and most people don’t get it right away. Or if they get it, they don’t anticipate how it will actually feel to go through the motions of playing. One of the things about \*Train \*is that it’s not a conceptual game. It’s not an art piece to look at and ponder. It’s an experience that exists through interaction with other players in the context of a particular rule set. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1218 "2014-10-30T20:25:56Z")
> [@zweisamkeit](#): > > So when players find out what the game is based on\*, they see that all of their spirited and passionate rules lawyering… Was to be the most successful at _genocide_. Their gameplay and goal – the entire time – was to murder as many human beings as they could, and to murder more human beings than their fellow players. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > No, their goal was to follow the rules set down by the game most ably. That the game halfway through adjusts the color to a particularly gruesome historical reality is interesting but personally, I don’t find it particularly shocking. > > Chess is war, but nobody’s freaking out about taking someone’s infantry regiment with their cavalry. What sprang to mind for me was bombarding enemy cities in _Civilization II_ because a rival Civ had pissed me off. I wasn’t even going to conquer their cities and take their populations, I would just sit there and bomb the shit out of them until every man, woman, beast and child was dead and their culture was just a faded memory. Then I’d look at the Civ Power Chart and laugh at that memory. Take that, Zulus! ---
**Author:** ![Weedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/weedy/32/301_2.png) [@Weedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weedy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1219 "2014-10-30T21:31:08Z")
> [@zweisamkeit](#): > > I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this game. There are people who love rules lawyering, as **Jophiel** mentioned, but that’s not why the game is (intentionally, remember) created to invite lots of said rules lawyering. People argue about rules for lots of reasons, such as: they like nitpicking, they want to solidify the rules everyone is basing gameplay upon, they want a rule to benefit them, they want a rule to screw over the others, etc. > > So when players find out what the game is based on\*, they see that all of their spirited and passionate rules lawyering… Was to be the most successful at _genocide_. Their gameplay and goal – the entire time – was to murder as many human beings as they could, and to murder more human beings than their fellow players. > > Yes, it’s just symbolic; no one was actually murdering people based on their game session. But I think it’s similar to the Milgram Experiment (which tested how willing participants were to obey an authority figure, even when it was something they felt was wrong). _Obviously_ it doesn’t imply that everyone who played the game without reservations would willingly murder others in a real life situation – instead it’s supposed to encourage serious reflection on your actions in general and why you choose to do what you do and the implications thereof. To promote critical thinking instead of just blindly obeying _or just going along with everyone else because it’s the least inconvenient option_. > > - though I’m surprised that people didn’t figure it out right away. Then again, I’m armchair-quarterbacking here since I read about the game and its purpose first. I get that part. If I were playing the game I would definitely be upset that my beautifully efficient railways were actually being used for genocide. That would shock me, and it might be interesting to play, once. I maybe didn’t understand the part where Hamster King talks about ‘breaking the game’ or sabotaging the social contract. I took that to mean that once people find out what is happening they start using rules arguments, or infinite card draws, to slow down the game, and prevent other players from sending people off to the camps. That seems ridiculous to me. If you don’t like the game, stop playing (I wouldn’t play this game, once I knew you were playing as a Nazi). If other people still want to play, well, whatever. They are not actually hurting anyone. ETA: to bring this back towards the topic, I think this is how gamergaters see ‘Social Justice Warriors’. They are people who want to stop other people from ‘harmless fun’, because it doesn’t suit their ideas of what’s proper. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1220 "2014-10-30T21:38:56Z")
> [@Weedy](#): > > ETA: to bring this back towards the topic, I think this is how gamergaters see ‘Social Justice Warriors’. They are people who want to stop other people from ‘harmless fun’, because it doesn’t suit their ideas of what’s proper. [As always, there is an XKCD for everything.](http://xkcd.com/359/) ---
**Author:** ![Weedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/weedy/32/301_2.png) [@Weedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weedy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1221 "2014-10-30T21:43:13Z")
> [@Weedy](#): > > ETA: to bring this back towards the topic, I think this is how gamergaters see ‘Social Justice Warriors’. They are people who want to stop other people from ‘harmless fun’, because it doesn’t suit their ideas of what’s proper. Actually, this probably isn’t true, or is only part of the story. GGers also think SJWs are using their piety as a cover for sneaky manipulation, and are really just in it to make money or get laid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596.md?page=60) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596.md?page=62)