The International Game Developers Association’s board of directors recently released a statement demanding that the gaming industry “stand together” against the use of personal attacks and aggressive online behaviors in the gaming community.
“Over the last several weeks, game developers and affiliates have been the subject of harassment and ‘doxxing’ attacks, including threats and posting of home addresses,” the statement read. “While we support diverse viewpoints and health debate on the issues within our industry, we condemn personal attacks such as these which are not only morally reprehensible, but also illegal in many countries. We call on the entire game community to stand together against this abhorrent behaviour.”
I know what the International Game Developers Association’s board is, but the most difficult challenge coming their way will be the question of “So what?” While it’s somewhat callous to frame a complex issue that way, that’s the question this sort of condemnation will face:
“So what if a bunch of developers came together and wiggled their fingers at the people making these claims?”
“So what if they’re saying we need to come together and stop this?”
“So what if they’re saying this behavior is abhorrent?”
And these statements will likely be followed by another: “It won’t change anything.”
Reason is limited in the face of faceless irrationality. People are going to respond negatively, and while it seems like it’s hit a breaking, tipping, perhaps changing point, there’s no way to know for sure. What the condemnation lacks is an action plan, a way for developers to come together and create an institutional or normative network that ultimately undermines this sort of behavior. What sort of form that action plan takes, I don’t know. There’re smarter and more cogent minds than mine that will likely figure it out.
Perhaps I’m passing the buck, as callous and lazy as it is. However, it’s nevertheless something that…well, requires considerable policy formulation. It’s a complex issue, and that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be some sort of response to it, but it’s ultimately fruitless to expect that such a condemnation will lead to change. The ones who resort to violent threats are precisely the ones who aren’t going to be affected by people arguing with them rationally, nor will they see these condemnations as authoritative misgivings.
Instead, they’re going to react to it by reading those words as if they were dripped in condescension and either laugh at it, ignore it or respond with fire. Those arguing of grand conspiracies in an industry rife with low pay, long hours, and an incredibly wide network of corruption and ineptitude alike aren’t going to be looking at the issue beyond how it affects them.
And, well, on one hand, I can’t really blame them. The internet has always had a somewhat troubled relationship with social dynamics, and videogames, having been birthed from nerdy awkwardness, has never really adjusted to social networks as large as the internet. Though Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Youtube have made huge strides in increased communication, it’s also led to a magnification of cliques, echo chambers, and inter-group politics.
Online activity is a drug, loading people with immense doses of egotism and narcissism with none of the downsides of acting like that in real life. Hell, my own article is partly a narcissistic rant, a vain hope that someone will take my words seriously. It’s a natural by-product of having a cheap soapbox.
But on the other hand, the internet is also a soapbox that can be moved from place to place, and when you’re comfortable ranting in a space that fits you, it’s hard to break that mold. Your ontology of the community you’re a part of is influenced by those who support you and those who detest you, and that’s how you form your identity.
And regarding these threats, there’s really no answer to that at the moment. Even after Amanda Todd’s suicide, bullying online is still a relevant thing. While it’s easy for many to say “ignore it” or “grow a pair” or any of the other unhelpful and denial-laden arguments that get thrown about during these types of debates, there’s no denying that that these behaviors do have a very real, very tragic effect; saying someone should just ignore it doesn’t work - the moment the abuse has been seen, the effect has already happened. And when you can’t check your email or twitter without being exposed to it, it can’t be ignored or brushed aside. It might be easy enough to ignore one abusive comment, but how about a hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? Now how about having to deal with that every single day? Not just online - having to explain to friends and loved ones why they’ve been getting threats for simply knowing you. Explaining to your parents why their son/ daughter is suddenly the subject of countless memes on google image search.
People take their lives over this issue. In light of the recent attacks on Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, it seems like the gaming community in general has had some difficulties reconciling its myriad parts.
I’ll be upfront: I’m not a fan of Anita Sarkeesian’s work. I think she’s somewhat overreaching in her analysis, her brand of feminism is quite limited, her attempted deconstruction of both ludic and symbolic elements in games are a bit presumptive, and she really screwed over a lot of people in her delayed Kickstarter. On top of controversies regarding her flip-flopping identity and alleged plagiarism, she strikes me as opportunistic. I get why people don’t like her.
Likewise, I’m not entirely sure what to make of the Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish situations, but I can confidently say that anyone who attempts to marginalize or manipulate others to do what they want is incredibly unbecoming. Though the rumors don’t look convincing, I’m certain there’s nuggets of truth in there somewhere; but I’m not in possession of all the facts - and what business is it of mine, anyway? Does it matter to me if someone I haven’t met may or may not have cheated on their partner? Does it make their work any more or any less valid? If I watch a film, my enjoyment of it isn’t dictated by the fact that the lead actor or director may have a drug problem in the past, or had cheated on their spouse, or any of the other things that happen routinely in modern life, regrettable as they sometimes are.
But here’s the thing: even if this is all true, that everything these people are accused of was 100 percent, unequivocally true, that doesn’t mean we should resort to violence or threats of violence. We shouldn’t resort to name calling, threats, or taunts. It’s childish and unproductive, and as the IGDA statement has shown, it creates more enemies and alienates those who could have been allies.
It’s also somewhat counterproductive to the nature of videogames as an inclusive cultural fabric. Though the term “gamer” is something of an amorphous title, its roots are nevertheless firmly situated in isolationism and alienation. The identity of a gamer has oftentimes been equated with a nerd, and the desire to play games equated with playing with toys.
Why are we bullying when our identity is partly formed from the yonder years of being bullied?
The use of these threats harms our images, our goals, and our intents - it’s not framed as “one gamer gets crazy and threatens,” but “Sarkeesian receives threats from gamers,” and that’s an incredibly vital distinction. If the violently vocal gamers around her never made a game where you could punch her in the face or made death threats, she would have never bolstered enough material to bash gaming communities in her Ted Talk.
But she did, and she did that Talk with full ammunition of the vast vitriol of our community. Frankly speaking, that’s our fault. Not hers. We did this. We handed her a loaded gun. We don’t have the luxury of worrying about non-gamers forming terrible opinions of our communities, not when our own communities are littered with infighting over consoles and genre ideology.
We should have been evaluating it maturely, on the grounds of her argument, not fueling it with immature vileness.
How can games be art if its appraisers consist of irrational script-kiddies with god complexes? How can the gaming community do good if its varying groups are jockeying for relevancy and importance? How can we stand as a unified group that speaks on issues - mature issues - and have a say in policy formulation for the future of gaming if it’s so easy, so damn easy, to divide and conquer us through fanboyism and internecine social warfare?
And it’s because of these reasons and questions that it makes me leery of IGDA’s condemnation. I don’t think it will be effective, but I could be wrong. I hope I’m wrong.
To end on a high note, there is a lot of good work being done out because of gamers. There’s a lot of people arguing for reason and diplomacy rather than lobbing death threats, and it’s astounding to see that work being done. We hear of charities like Child’s Play and Special Effect, and the loving support that many indie developers get from gamers, and as much filth gets sent to the abused, there is also a lot of good being done; you just need to know where to find it.
All we need to do is make sure our good deeds outweigh those of our bad ones.
Joe Yang
Latest posts by Joe Yang (see all)
- Silent Hills shouldn’t need episodes - September 19, 2024
- Fable 3 Retrospective Review - September 17, 2024
- A Musing: Formalism and the Metrics of Reviewing - September 12, 2024
