# 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:** 62
**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, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1222 "2014-10-30T22:41:24Z")
> [@Weedy](#): > > 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. The rules of \*Train \*say “Train is over when it ends.” Yeah, there’s nothing stopping you from just getting up and walking away. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has done just that. But getting up and walking away from a game in progress is a violation of the social contract. Good players don’t just get up and walk away, they stay and finish the game. Being a quitter is being a bad player. So … maybe being a bad player is the only way a decent person can play _Train_. On the other hand … it’s easy to get up and walk away from a board game. It would have been much harder to walk away from a job on the Deutsche Reichsbahn in 1943. So maybe quitting \*Train \*is letting yourself off the hook too easily. Instead of walking away being the best move, maybe walking away is just a cheap out. Maybe the best move is to see the game through and do what you can to subvert it. Of course, subverting a board game is also easy. You’re not risking your life the way the way you’d have had to to stop the trains from running to the camps. So maybe breaking the game is also a cheap out … . There’s no clear winning strategy to _Train_. And even if you refuse to play, you’ve still made a move. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1223 "2014-10-31T00:59:44Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > 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! I was playing Civ V the other day, and a much weaker neighbor kept sending missionaries into my territory and converting my citizens to his religion. Finally, I got fed up, and declared war on him. “When this war is over,” I declared to myself, “There won’t be a single living Jew on the planet!” Sid fucking Meier turned me into Hitler. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2014, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1224 "2014-10-31T10:39:04Z")
The problem is, this “Train” game being described is clearly intentionally misleading and designed to make people feel bad. Both of these are immoral. So it does not make a good case for non-fun games needing to exist. And I say this as someone who has made it clear that I have no problems with games that aren’t fun. I do have a problem with people who find it “interesting” to fuck with other people’s emotions. I mean, we have a term for this sort of thing. It’s called trolling. And trolling is the one type of art I’d be perfectly fine completely getting rid of. You want to give someone an “experience,” it needs to be one they opt into. ---
**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 31, 2014, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1225 "2014-10-31T10:52:13Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The problem is, this “Train” game being described is clearly intentionally misleading and designed to make people feel bad. Both of these are immoral. So it does not make a good case for non-fun games needing to exist. > > And I say this as someone who has made it clear that I have no problems with games that aren’t fun. I do have a problem with people who find it “interesting” to fuck with other people’s emotions. > > I mean, we have a term for this sort of thing. It’s called trolling. And trolling is the one type of art I’d be perfectly fine completely getting rid of. > > You want to give someone an “experience,” it needs to be one they opt into. Nonsense. I’ve read reviews of the game; it’s designed to explore how a game’s mechanics can lead to a particular experience. I doubt that many people who have played Train thought they were going in for a regular game (ferchrissakes, there’s only one copy of it, the board is on a broken pane of glass, there’s a vintage typewriter holding the cards, and if you look closely, the shift symbol on the 5 key is the SS symbol). Instead, people went into it for the experience. That’s nothing like trolling, any more than a movie with a twist is trolling. As for breaking the rules, two examples were in the review I read: 1. One player started hiding the game pieces under the table, saying that he was helping them escape; 2. Another player unilaterally declared that no, the train was NOT going to Auschwitz, it was going to Denmark. And that’s part of the experience. Are you willing to violate the social contract in order to change the narrative? In the game, the violation of the social contract is trivial, the consequences for doing so are trivial, but the rewards for doing so are also trivial. In what the game models, it was all life and death. Nobody but nobody thinks all games should be like this. Personally I never want to play Train. But I love that people are making games like this. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2014, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1226 "2014-10-31T12:26:13Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The problem is, this “Train” game being described is clearly intentionally misleading and designed to make people feel bad. Both of these are immoral. So it does not make a good case for non-fun games needing to exist. > > And I say this as someone who has made it clear that I have no problems with games that aren’t fun. I do have a problem with people who find it “interesting” to fuck with other people’s emotions. > > I mean, we have a term for this sort of thing. It’s called trolling. And trolling is the one type of art I’d be perfectly fine completely getting rid of. > > You want to give someone an “experience,” it needs to be one they opt into. Ok, I promise you that I won’t put a gun to your head and force you to play Train. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2014, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1227 "2014-10-31T12:32:31Z")
I have a friend who made a great tabletop RPG called Dog Eat Dog. In it, most of the players play Pacific Islanders, and one plays an unnamed colonial power. The colonial power distributes or takes resources and can more or less make all the rules. The islanders can play along, or they can rebel-- a tactic that hurts them as much as the power. I haven’t described the rules very well, but they are simple and elegant in codifying a power imbalance. It’s an interesting game, and quite a mind trip. The emotional reaction when playing it is visceral and lingers. I think what makes it really clever is it address both colonization, but also the strange power dynamics of role playing games in general. ---
**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 31, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1228 "2014-10-31T13:22:10Z")
Yeah, that was linked to either earlier in this thread or in the other one that Jophiel made. Now, Dog Eat Dog I would play because the disturbing aspects are new mechanics introduced as the progresses and the enormity (in the pedantic sense) of what happens is only really available at the end when everyone realizes that whether they ‘won’ or ‘lost’, the natives had been truly fucked from the beginning. That’s an interesting experience. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1229 "2014-10-31T13:48:09Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > I have a friend who made a great tabletop RPG called Dog Eat Dog. In it, most of the players play Pacific Islanders, and one plays an unnamed colonial power. The colonial power distributes or takes resources and can more or less make all the rules. The islanders can play along, or they can rebel-- a tactic that hurts them as much as the power. I haven’t described the rules very well, but they are simple and elegant in codifying a power imbalance. > > It’s an interesting game, and quite a mind trip. The emotional reaction when playing it is visceral and lingers. I think what makes it really clever is it address both colonization, but also the strange power dynamics of role playing games in general. [Relevant link](http://rpggeek.com/rpg/18123/dog-eat-dog). Looks like the game got some buzz… eta oops ninja’d, but I’ll leave it for anyone else that missed the first link. ---
**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 31, 2014, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1230 "2014-10-31T13:55:41Z")
Yeah, I read about Dog eat Dog yesterday based on this thread, and it’s another of those games that I love that they’re made, I love thinking about it, and I know that I’ve got plenty of angst in my life already without playing a game like that, thank you very much. ---
**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 31, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1231 "2014-10-31T15:07:20Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Nonsense. I’ve read reviews of the game; it’s designed to explore how a game’s mechanics can lead to a particular experience. I doubt that many people who have played Train thought they were going in for a regular game Well, both **The Hamster King** and **zweisamkeit** said that a number of players didn’t know until mid-game. Which, from the description, seems improbable but then they saw people playing it and I didn’t so I’ll take them at their word. I have to admit that the various board games listed here would get a response from me somewhere between “Sucks to be you, little wooden peg-people; I’ve got points to score” and “So this game gives a historical experience of the colonization and subjugation of those lands? Neat. Set me up to take as many of you imperialists down in my futile resistance as possible.” I don’t know that I’d experience any deal of pathos from them. I might just disassociate myself from my pixels and game pieces more than the average person though. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1232 "2014-11-01T19:23:21Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The problem is, this “Train” game being described is clearly intentionally misleading and designed to make people feel bad. Both of these are immoral. So it does not make a good case for non-fun games needing to exist. Things that are designed to make you feel bad are immoral? I never realized Elie Weisel was such a dick. ---
**Author:** ![Sciency](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Sciency](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sciency)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2014, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1233 "2014-11-02T22:10:10Z")
We see the same thing happened to other medias now happening to video games. Anything that becomes too popular must suck at some point because it has to please everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1234 "2014-11-02T22:26:13Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > 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. I disagree. A good part of the reason why The Walking Dead is so effective is **because** it’s interactive, and makes you do things. The narrative wouldn’t be as effective if it didn’t make you actually aim the gun at Duck, or whatever else. Maybe you want to split this into two categories: “game” and “interactive storytelling experience” or whatever, but what it did is not something that would have been done as effectively with a movie or a book. As for exploiting the sympathy for a little girl, I mean, the entire game is wrapped up in themes about parenthood, surrogate parenthood, and life. Clementine is part of that, but it’s simplistic to say all it did was exploit sympathy for a little girl. Especially since in Season 2, IMO the better season, you play as that little girl and by all counts she’s a strong, intelligent person who is no more a victim than anyone else in the game. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1235 "2014-11-03T00:42:37Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Well, both **The Hamster King** and **zweisamkeit** said that a number of players didn’t know until mid-game. Which, from the description, seems improbable but then they saw people playing it and I didn’t so I’ll take them at their word. I absolutely believe that people were surprised by the reveal–that’s not what I said. I said that they probably didn’t think they were in for a regular game experience. The gameboard and its one-of-a-kind nature almost certainly indicated that it would be an unusual game experience. I would think it a little hinky to sit down with someone and say, “Hey, wanna play a little Team Fortress with a new mod I found? Cool, fun!” and then five minutes in, Surprise, you’re killing concentration camp escapees! Not cool. But I don’t think that’s what was going on here. Folks almost certainly knew the game was something other than a normal beer-and-pretzels experience. They didn’t know exactly what it’d be, but they weren’t expecting (or shouldn’t have been expecting) light entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2014, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1236 "2014-11-03T00:47:28Z")
> [@Sciency](#): > > We see the same thing happened to other medias now happening to video games. Anything that becomes too popular must suck at some point because it has to please everyone. Thank you for coming out from under your bridge to post this brilliant analysis. I encourage you to enhance your thesis in depth. Suggested title: In Defense of Assholes. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1237 "2014-11-03T01:09:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Things that are designed to make you feel bad are immoral? > > I never realized Elie Weisel was such a dick. If making you feel bad is his purpose, then yes. However, from what I read about him, he is a political activist, which heavily implies the purpose of his works were to inform people, and ultimately make the world a better and happier place. If he did it because he felt bad, and he wants everyone else to feel bad due to hatred of the world, then yeah, fuck him. But I doubt that’s true, seeing as you think it’s weird to call him a dick. This board game, as described, exists because a guy wants to see what it’s like to make people feel bad and watch how they react. He not only doesn’t get their consent, as any ethical experimenter would do, but supposedly lies about the premise of the game just to mislead people. I realize that there have been later posts arguing against these points, but that’s not what I had to work with when I made my statement. I do not believe the ethic that you should not decrease the net happiness of the world is controversial. People will argue about what happiness means, but the basic idea is pretty standard. Why do you not do X? Because X will hurt others and/or yourself. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1238 "2014-11-03T01:17:41Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Thank you for coming out from under your bridge to post this brilliant analysis. > > I encourage you to enhance your thesis in depth. Suggested title: In Defense of Assholes. I don’t think he’s all that wrong, really. Things that become mainstream tend to lose a lot of their original edge. It’s why in the gaming industry you have to go to the independent developers to find most new and exciting innovations. If art is what you are looking for, mainstream stuff does tend to suck. Sure, “it’s popular, so it sucks” is a ridiculous stereotype, but it didn’t come from nowhere. There is a kernel of truth to it. ADDENDUM TO MY PREVIOUS POST: With the new information, I do not see the game as trolling anymore. If you know going in that what you are getting is not a “fun” game, and that it is about the experience, then you have consent. That means these people realize they may become unhappy and are prepared to deal with it. Remember, I’m all for the idea that games do not have to be fun. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1239 "2014-11-03T01:37:27Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This board game, as described, exists because a guy wants to see what it’s like to make people feel bad and watch how they react. The designer is a woman, and that’s the least of the inaccuracies of what you said. You know what I did before I commented on the game? I looked it up on Google and read about it. Try that next time. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1240 "2014-11-03T02:26:42Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t think he’s all that wrong, really. Things that become mainstream tend to lose a lot of their original edge. It’s an overgeneralization and a defense of poor practices. Mainstream media can be overly broad and general and not very interesting. Who cares? That doesn’t mean mind blowing, interesting stuff still can’t exist in parallel. Nor does it excuse, in part or in whole, the behavior of assholes. So, no, video games going “too popular” doesn’t mean it all sucks now. It’s a passive aggressive defense of assholes being assholes under the cover of supporting some kind of fucked up notion of true art. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2014, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596/1241 "2014-11-03T08:06:58Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …bullshit. You’ve alleged collusion. You’ve provided no evidence of collusion. > > I’ve read your cites. Not just the headlines, but the the actual cites. Some highlights: > > [We Might Be Witnessing The 'Death of An Identity'](http://kotaku.com/we-might-be-witnessing-the-death-of-an-identity-1628203079) > > So the Luke Plunkett story references two of the earlier stories. > > What about the others? > > [http://www.vice.com/read/this-guys-embarrassing-relationship-drama-is-killing-the-gamer-identity-828](http://www.vice.com/read/this-guys-embarrassing-relationship-drama-is-killing-the-gamer-identity-828) > > That was Mike Pearl. You might be starting to pick up a pattern. > > [http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DevinWilson/20140828/224450/A\_Guide\_to\_Ending\_quotGamersquot.php](http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DevinWilson/20140828/224450/A_Guide_to_Ending_quotGamersquot.php) > > That was Devin Wilson. > > [Gaming Is Leaving "Gamers" Behind](http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/gaming-is-leaving-gamers-behind#2rof1us) > > That was Joseph Bernstein. > > Casey Johnston doesn’t directly reference the other articles. But her point is clear in the opening sentence: > > Did you notice that wasn’t a blanket attack on all gamers? It was specific commentary on a specific type of gamer. > > [The death of the “gamers” and the women who “killed” them - Ars Technica](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-death-of-the-gamers-and-the-women-who-killed-them/) > > So the bulk of the articles you cited are really commentary based on the articles written by Dan Golding and Leigh Alexander. And if you read the two articles (you have read them, haven’t you?) they aren’t making the exact same point. > > Your cites actually show your assertions are false. Collusion was not required for these articles to have been written. So the burden of proof falls back to you. If you actually read the articles you cited, you would see that they were all in some way inspired by the Golding or the Alexander article, or both. And that the Golding and the Alexander articles are sufficiently different that no collusion would have been required for either to get written. > > As for your other points: reading this thread will show you that you are wrong. But in case that is too hard, here is a link to another forum with appropriate cites: > > [http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134397896&postcount=12285](http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134397896&postcount=12285) > > Now back to my questions, and now I’ve read your cites more closely, I can ask you a more specific question. > > Golding’s article is harsher in tone than Leigh Alexanders. Yet Alexander has been subject to vitriolic attacks, and I’ve never heard of Golding before. So why are they treated so differently? > > Are you ready to admit that everything you have said is objectively wrong? …just going back to this post I made earlier in this thread: Dan Golding has come out with a follow up article. > **[Some things I should've said](https://dangolding.tumblr.com/post/101639865598/some-things-i-shouldve-said)** > > Here’s a bunch of things I’ve wanted to say about the fallout from this piece but have largely thought weren’t worth stooping to address. I now feel like it’s important to have a record of this stuff… > [@](#): > > Pretty much all the ‘gamers are dead’ articles (not to mention a huge amount of mainstream press subsequent to gamergate’s eruption) cite either Leigh Alexander or I, who posted similar articles within the space of a few hours. Most of them cite us both. But Alexander has been a target of harassment, and with a few pitiful exceptions, I haven’t. Wonder why that might be? Golding confirms my speculation: with a few pitiful exceptions he hasn’t been a target of harassment. Yet Alexander, who wrote a less vitriolic article than Golding, has been the target of a substantial amount of harassment. Both articles were written at nearly the same time on the same topic. So the question goes back to the people claiming collusion: why was Alexander targeted but not Golding? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596.md?page=61) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gamergate/697596.md?page=63)