Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sining wrote:
This really has nothing to do with the thread. And it doesn't even have anything to do with his argument. Guys, why are you even bothering with Peregrine, a person who self-admittedly said he only posts when he's certain he's right? I mean, do you think he's going to suddenly change his mind? Or even be open to other peoples opinions that don't coincide with his?

I have said this before, but:

Why is this even relevant?

The other side of the debate (Asherian, HBMC etc) are not exactly the type to change their minds, either, but curiously this is not something you adress.

Or perhaps you can give me some examples of their concessions ITT.

At this point, none of you are going to convince one another. You all have very defined opinions.

The ones you are trying to convince are the thread's passive observers.

I actually think my sig quote applies.

 Peregrine wrote:

Games as a "freely flourishing art form"? Someone doesn't seem to understand that games are a for-profit business built around milking the cash cow as efficiently as possible, not great works of art made by poor persecuted artists who just want to let their voices be heard.

Yeah, because art hasn't been made to milk for cash these last bunch of years? "Art" is just as much of a cash cow as those games.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The other side of the debate (Asherian, HBMC etc) are not exactly the type to change their minds, either, but curiously this is not something you adress.

Or perhaps you can give me some examples of their concessions ITT.

How about this from me admitting I was wrong?

Ahh oops, the whole "won't teleport" spread into "won't use flyers" to me I guess.

I'd like to find more of me being wrong but... it *is* pretty rare ; p

 Yonan wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The other side of the debate (Asherian, HBMC etc) are not exactly the type to change their minds, either, but curiously this is not something you adress.

Or perhaps you can give me some examples of their concessions ITT.

How about this from me admitting I was wrong?

Ahh oops, the whole "won't teleport" spread into "won't use flyers" to me I guess.

I'd like to find more of me being wrong but... it *is* pretty rare ; p

You have found one example of one person in your side of the argument making a tiny concession.

It's not really my point to start a contest of who makes more concessions. My point was the sig reference.

 Ashiraya wrote:


I have said this before, but:

Why is this even relevant?

The other side of the debate (Asherian, HBMC etc) are not exactly the type to change their minds, either, but curiously this is not something you adress.

Or perhaps you can give me some examples of their concessions ITT.

At this point, none of you are going to convince one another. You all have very defined opinions.

The ones you are trying to convince are the thread's passive observers.

I actually think my sig quote applies.

Curiously neither Asherian, HBMC have ever said that they only post when they're convinced they're right. -_-

 Ashiraya wrote:
You have found one example of one person in your side of the argument making a tiny concession.

It's not really my point to start a contest of who makes more concessions. My point was the sig reference.

You asked for examples of people on the pro-gg side giving concessions when they're wrong. I gave you one of mine - given that I'm on the pro-gg side - that came to mind. Do you expect me to have memorised every post everyone on dakka has made?

No, he expects you to concede to his point.

Must someone see the need to make concessions every now and then for their arguments to be valid?

If no, I ask why this was even brought up.

If yes, I think you're focusing on the wrong part of the arguments.

Must you ask rhetorical questions that don't have anything to do with this issue at all? Maybe start a general philosophy thread or something

Sining wrote:
Must you ask rhetorical questions that don't have anything to do with this issue at all? Maybe start a general philosophy thread or something

You tell me, you begun dismissing Peregrine with the justification that he is unlikely to change his mind. I question this.

 Yonan wrote:
How about this from me admitting I was wrong?

But… it is not even related in any way to this discussion. I have had way bigger change of mind!

Sining wrote:
Must you ask rhetorical questions that don't have anything to do with this issue at all? Maybe start a general philosophy thread or something

You know, for someone who claims to dislike going off-topic, you sure like playing moderator. Ashiraya's rethorical question was completely on-topic because it highlighted a problem with your argument.

Gamergate side doesn't make concessions? Did you see this on the previous page?

 Yonan wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm waiting for the third group to arise out of both sides and notices either side isn't innocent or inherently right.

We've acknowledged that:
1. Trolls exist fanning the flames against both sides.
2. Pro-GG starting out of the Quinnspiracy thing was not ideal as it's not what GG is about but makes it seem like it's about being anti-feminism or anti-female.
3. There are many individuals on our side, and since we've been repeatedly censored and have no gaming media publishing our side, that makes some people go further than they should to try to get their voice heard.

Neither side is innocent, but one side is *far* more wrong when you add up collusion amongst journalists to present a unified anti-gamer viewpoint (proven with gamejournolist), collusion to censor the topic on most popular discussion forums (proven with banned mods on reddit, 4chan and gamejournolist requests for the same and so on) which combine to a vast disparity in the strength of our voices which greatly helps sell their side of the story primarily by silencing ours. Zoe Quinn was possibly doxxed (possibly faked) - it got huge gaming media coverage. Boogie, Baldwin and several others were doxxed... media silence. People have been fired and others have had attempts to get them fired because they spoke out for gamergate... media silence. We're relying on outside coverage to get our voice heard.

That looks suspiciously like concessions to me... followed by a very relevant comparison about the *real* evil doers ; p

I don't think you get the point, Yonan.

The question was not who made most concessions. That was just a sidetrack really.

The point was that Peregrine doesn't really have to make any concessions for his arguments to be valid. It's okay to say it would be nice if he would make concession posts instead of going silent (if that is what he does) but it does not affect the validity of the arguments themselves. On the previous page, Sining asserted that they were indeed affected, which is an assertion I question.

I don't necessarily agree with this article, although it does raise some interesting points. What's more interesting though are the comments (what???), where someone has come in with some very interesting discussion from the games developer point of view. Worth a read.

Sining wrote:
Curiously neither Asherian, HBMC have ever said that they only post when they're convinced they're right. -_-

The base assumption is that I'm always right, and that nothing I ever say is wrong.

Everyone: The sky is now a deep green, and constantly speaks to us all in German.

And because I'm always right about everything, that is now the truth. Now excuse me, Herr Himmel wants to talk some more.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't think you get the point, Yonan.

The question was not who made most concessions. That was just a sidetrack really.

The point was that Peregrine doesn't really have to make any concessions for his arguments to be valid. It's okay to say it would be nice if he would make concession posts instead of going silent (if that is what he does) but it does not affect the validity of the arguments themselves. On the previous page, Sining asserted that they were indeed affected, which is an assertion I question.

Could you please... stop? Most of us were responding to Pregrine flat out stating he doesn't post unless he knows he's right. This implies that he think's he's always right and thus any argument with him falls on deaf ears.
None of us have made any such statements.

So, the question wasn't who made most concessions, and it's just a sidetrack really... then why did you ask it? I'm sorry but you ask for something and at the first sign of someone giving you even the tiniest amount proof you immediately try to back out.

All you've been doing so far is playing I-want-to-be-a-moderator and dragging things further off topic by constantly questioning people on things that are already off topic to begin with.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Sining wrote:
Must you ask rhetorical questions that don't have anything to do with this issue at all? Maybe start a general philosophy thread or something

You tell me, you begun dismissing Peregrine with the justification that he is unlikely to change his mind. I question this.

 Peregrine wrote:


See, you're just missing the obvious explanation her: I never back down because I only post when I already know I'm right. And, in this case, I'm right.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Sining wrote:
Must you ask rhetorical questions that don't have anything to do with this issue at all? Maybe start a general philosophy thread or something

You tell me, you begun dismissing Peregrine with the justification that he is unlikely to change his mind. I question this.

 Peregrine wrote:


See, you're just missing the obvious explanation her: I never back down because I only post when I already know I'm right. And, in this case, I'm right.

Yep, he is unlikely to change his mind. But I criticised that this was used as a justification to dismiss him.

@Soladrin: As said, it's not him you're trying to convince. It's the readers. You won't convince him anyway, just like he won't convince you. You all have immovable opinions already.

If you consider the sidetrack a problem, I apologise - the point was that whether he decides to make concessions or no, you can just as easily have the discussion anyway.

I am not playing I-want-to-be-a-moderator, but I do question the trend of calling criticism of X side of the argument 'off-topic'. It isn't. Peregrine made on-topic arguments, Sining criticised them, I point out the flaws in Sining's criticism. That is all.

Uh hello please point out where I criticised his arguments in my last post. I said there was no point arguing with him. If you're going to start spouting rhetoric, please make sure you have the right notion first

Sining wrote:
Uh hello please point out where I criticised his arguments in my last post. I said there was no point arguing with him. If you're going to start spouting rhetoric, please make sure you have the right notion first

Ask yourself this: Why is there no point in arguing with him?

Yep, he is unlikely to change his mind. But I criticised that this was used as a justification to dismiss him

I think the reason I dismiss him quickly is that he often talks and yet nothing helps the discussion it is brought back.

I personally hate it when someone cherry picks my discussion and ignores my good points and takes it 180 degrees to somewhere else I did not intend.

Also Apparently I am always right according to some of you.

I'll be right back while I talk to the walls and watch the greatest movie ever. The Room.

I am not playing I-want-to-be-a-moderator, but I do question the trend of calling criticism of X side of the argument 'off-topic'. It isn't. Peregrine made on-topic arguments, Sining criticised them, I point out the flaws in Sining's criticism. That is all.

Except his discussion of the subject has been quite ill thought out.

He has not provided legitimate criticism, He has only attacked the one side. And refused to see any but his own opinion in this.

I have conceded many times in this thread. I change my opinions, because I am bloody human being and thats what we do.

It doesn't make me indecisive or a fool.

Ah Ah ah!

You know its true. Games an art form. As it is defined by the supreme court of the united states of america.

They hold all the rights to be called an art form.

Ask yourself this: Why is there no point in arguing with him?

Because he has nothing but been rude and rash, and never accepts he is wrong. And only pushes his agenda down peoples throats?

Even if it is completely wrong?

Also your getting us off point.

Stop. Get back to the discussion, or else leave the thread.

Do not play mister moderator. It is not your job or your position.

We are playing quite fair in this regard we do listen to people. Even if they are like peregrine, I do listen to him, but his points are usually offbeat and are not as well thought out.

Hybrid has certain points that are correct and do benefit the discussion.

Remaining on the topic of sexism is stupid and pointless as I have said many times and I have said it is related but it is not the deepest issue in GamerGate.

Now I respectively ask of everyone on this thread to get back on topic.

If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, television, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"

Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.

I had prepared a large post in response to this 'playing-moderator' accusation, among other things...

...But for now, since you so nicely requested a switch of topic, I won't post it even though I maintain my stance.

Instead, I say this.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We believe that misogyny does exist, is toxic, and that trivializing its true gravity by throwing the term around as a ready-made decoy to stonewall any constructive dialogue is intellectually dishonest and immoral.

This is exactly what I am concerned about, in addition to the issues with throwing sexists a bone I mentioned a few pages back.

 CorporateLogo wrote:
If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, television, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"

Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I've never thought of games as an art form nor do I think they need to be considered one. Calling it an art form just seems so pretentious

 CorporateLogo wrote:
If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, television, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"

Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.

umm that is not usually done by people who play video games.

The people outside the industry are usually the ones who do that. Who dismiss games for being games.

Most designers do not do that.

Most reviewers are just unprofessional

When ever someone says. "Video Games aren't art."
I die a little inside, because a lot of labor goes into making a game. Probably more so than a movie or a book.

I think corporate I think you forget that there is a push right now to have a lot of games being political. WE want games to be the intermediary it can do something other mediums cannot and that is being interactive. We are involved in the process of the game.

There are some that don't want politics in their games. I see no problem with it. I just don't think certain things should be talked about in a certain fashion (I.E. Depression Quest being an example of a way not to do it)

I think talking about it is a good idea. Nor have I ever said that it is a bad thing. But if games are pushing a propagandist point of view I will call it out on that.

It is a problem though when game reviewers think something is a metaphor when sometimes it is not and take it out of context.

I think there has been praise of certain games.

But pushing your own agenda that is not well researched is a crime and unneeded propaganda.

In short, I think video games art and you can make a point with a game. You can use it to teach and to drive an opinion.

But that does not mean you should use it as propaganda

Sining wrote:

 CorporateLogo wrote:
If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, television, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"

Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I've never thought of games as an art form nor do I think they need to be considered one. Calling it an art form just seems so pretentious

It depends on the game. Some definitely are art, with deeper themes meanings and philosophical messages(off the top of my head and one that I've played recently is Walking Dead Season 2 - though there are probably better examples), others like Call of Duty are just meant to be entertainment.

Which is exactly the same as books, movies and television. For every Schindlers List, or Anne Frank's Diary, you have a Transformers movie or an Expendables movie.

Sining wrote:

 CorporateLogo wrote:
If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, televaision, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"

Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I've never thought of games as an art form nor do I think they need to be considered one. Calling it an art form just seems so pretentious

Thats where i respectively disagree.

What constitutes a game not being an art form?

Because it is interactive or that it is called a game?

Or is it because it is seen as mildly childish?

And yet these people who create these games are not toymakers. They are adults whose job it is to make something that someone can experience through action.

That is far more powerful in my opinion than any other type of art form.

I think I agree with certain journalists on certain issues, but I disagree with them on several thoughts.

I do agree games are an art.

I disagree that they should spread a particular agenda such as a feminist point of view in an ill thought out manner.

Games can do things other mediums can't.

But i don't think video games should be called video games anymore interactive digital experiences probably is the closet term I can see to it being like that.

When does a game stop being a game and becomes something more?


I do say that I say all games are art. Some games could be considered bad art, and some could be considered good art.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't necessarily agree with this article, although it does raise some interesting points.

It is kind of true. I mean it certainly helps polarizing people. Even if we do get a bit heated here, it seems tame compared to what people apparently say on Twitter. But then again, there is the whole absence of a moderation team there that plays a role.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Ah Ah ah!

You know its true. Games an art form. As it is defined by the supreme court of the united states of america.

Not the part I am laughing at. Also I do not care about the supreme court of the US, they are not the center of the world .

Sining wrote:
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I've never thought of games as an art form nor do I think they need to be considered one. Calling it an art form just seems so pretentious

Movies are an art. That means Twillight too. Literature is an art. That means Twilight too. Just downgrade your definition of art .
And beside, even if reducing games to their visual and musical aspect, why would a brilliant painting with a very beautiful music not be considered art because a computer is involved?

Movies are an art. That means Twillight too. Literature is an art. That means Twilight too. Just downgrade your definition of art .
And beside, even if reducing games to their visual and musical aspect, why would a brilliant painting with a very beautiful music not be considered art because a computer is involved?

There are two types of art.

Good and bad Art.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Movies are an art. That means Twillight too. Literature is an art. That means Twilight too. Just downgrade your definition of art .

Yes, yes it is.

So is this :



And this :




Art does not have to be likeable, nor comprehensible.