Anyone that has been paying attention to the #Gamergate issue swirling around at the moment is aware of two different and at times competing narratives coming from supporters of the cause.  One centres on the displeasure from gamers about the perceived lack of integrity on the part of the media that covers games.  The other relates to a push-back from gamers against a faction dubbed the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) – journalists, commentators and critics that raise issues of gender, race, sexuality, inclusivity etc. while discussing games and gaming culture.

The term SJW is frankly, overused to the point of being comical and applies to different targets depending on the zealousness of the accuser.  That there is no consistent definition of who qualifies as an SJW or much attempt to speak in matters of degree muddles things further.  The talk around the subject of SJWs often devolves into name-calling before it gets anywhere fruitful.

Meanwhile, on the other #GamerGate front, matters are somewhat clearer.  Gamers are fed up with gaming journalism’s lack of ethical standards and inability to examine itself critically (much less accept there is a problem).  Gaming journalists have long been estranged from their readership, but now an overtly belligerent tone has risen to the surface.  Accusations of impropriety are mocked as conspiracy theories.  Too many journalists and gaming commentators have deflected criticism of their integrity as merely a smokescreen for the real underlying message of hate, social backwardness and exclusion on the part of gamers.  The very identity of gamers has been attacked as something shameful; the term deserving to be discarded on the ash-heap of history.

Even the relatively moderate, measured responses to the controversy from some gaming journalists fall short of addressing the issues adequately.  Nasty comments from trolls (many of whom, yes, don’t even read the articles they are slamming) must get tiresome for writers to put up with.  This might explain their frustration, but if the clumsy SJW label isn’t okay to be tossed around indiscriminately, why should bile and vitriol being directed at an entire group of people be excused?  Was “two wrongs make a right” the lesson right after learning the five W’s?

Additionally, it may be “natural” for gaming writers and reviewers to be friendly with people who make games – they do share an enthusiasm for games, clearly, and that could definitely form the basis for friendship.  Those sorts of relationships are not a recipe for unbiased reporting, unfortunately.  It’s unacceptable to fail to disclose these relationships or allow them to influence or even give the appearance of influencing coverage.  The gaming industry is not some special case that is above requirements for ethical conduct.  Journalists who lamely try to palm these points off damage their own credibility which in turn affects the credibility of their whole profession.

And so, as the #Gamergate train rolls on, one frequently sees calls to keep the conversation “on message”.  Another more honest way of putting this would be to say “please stick with the journalistic ethics argument because it is far stronger and less easy to get derailed or high-jacked than complaining about SJWs.”

I have to admit, I sympathise with this viewpoint, and it is one shared by more than a few of my colleagues.  Gaming journalism is broken – to some, like our own JudgeGreg (link), it doesn’t even actually exist, and is merely a misnomer applied to the vaporous non-functioning entity before us that passes for gaming journalism.  Regardless of how you look at it, it needs to be reformed.  If some great calamity befalls gaming journalism as a result of the whole #Gamergate mess and a better version replaces it, then all this bickering would be worth it.  I might be naïve to think that will happen, but one can always hope.  With that in mind, staying “on message” seems like the prudent course.

And yet…the anti-SJW current still persists.  People in support of #Gamergate are undoubtedly aware that it is a more dangerous road to travel.  No matter how gently or eloquently one criticises those who are talking about social issues, you are opening yourself up to potential attack.  The whole subject is a cratered battlefield filled with straw men, landmines and ad-hominem barrages.  Little distinction is made between the psychotics who harass and threaten so-called SJW’s and those who simply have a differing point of view.  Many choose to keep their heads down.

I kept wondering what gives this particular part of the controversy oxygen, and why we’re here at this point.  Now I should clarify, I’m not going to be wasting my time trying to get my head around why maniacs act like maniacs.  I don’t need to understand the thinking of someone who would threaten a gaming commentator or developer for doing or saying something they don’t agree with.  I’m more curious about why people would give an Anita Sarkeesian the time of day, much less get so upset about her viewpoint they end up giving her additional undeserved attention.

I’ve developed a theory of sorts and despite earlier stating that the games journalism argument is a separate matter, there is a connection.

I think what we are seeing with the appearance of and the reaction to the “SJW” agenda is the unintended consequences of the whole games-as-an-art-form debate.

I use the term debate, loosely, as I don’t think it was ever much of a debate.  This is one subject where, for the most part, gamers, journalists and game developers largely ended up agreeing – “of course games are a form of art!” was the cry shouted from every hilltop.  There were a few disagreements along the way, such as a few developers getting big heads and tossing around terms like “artistic integrity” as a way to shield themselves from any criticism of the choices they made.  Apparently they forgot that if you’re going to call something art you’re sort of agreeing that it is worthy of appreciation AND criticism.  More on that later.

I’m going to go on the record as saying I don’t agree with the now generally accepted axiom that games are a form of art.  I believe they are comprised of things that are undeniably art (graphics, music, writing) but to me that doesn’t make them art any-more than a room in a gallery that paintings hang in should be considered itself art, merely by the act of containing them.

I feel that the root of why gaming enthusiasts pushed so strongly for games to be redefined as an art form stems, like so many things in life, from insecurities.  Yes it is true that games are more popular and widespread than ever before.  Those of us in our third or fourth (ugh…) decade of playing games can certainly attest to the positive differences in external perceptions to our hobby.  Yet it still isn’t completely embraced, and certainly still has its vehement detractors.  There remains a stigma on gamers and gaming, and we’re never far away from the next disparaging, ignorant remark from a politician or talking-head in the mainstream media reminding us of that fact.

Enshrining games as an art-form is a way to give it a heightened sense of value.  No one likes to be looked down on for what they do for fun.  If gaming is an art form like literature, then what’s there to be ashamed of for partaking in it?  Gaming developers and journalists, whose very livelihoods revolve around gaming, have an even greater stake in it gaining legitimacy.   It is no surprise to me how all stakeholders involved jumped aboard the games-as-an-art-form bandwagon – everyone wins.  Well, sort of.

The problem with everyone deciding games were art becomes apparent when you look at a few of the negative flow-on effects.  Art is open to interpretation and appreciation.  Any art that can be interpreted and appreciated in different ways can be subject to criticism.  Criticism is, of course, not in of itself a bad thing.  It is a necessary and healthy process that can expand our understanding of art and its subject matter.  But critics are, like the rest of us, human beings, and at times they can’t help themselves from going too far.  Sometimes critics decide that isn’t merely enough to present a perspective on something in the course of criticising it, but rather to present the correct perspective.

Recently, Gearbox Studio’s Mikey Neumann gave the keynote speech at PAX Prime 2014.  One of the highlights was a tidy distillation of what Neumann sees as what people are actually saying when they cross the line into criticising someone for enjoying something they like.

“You’re having fun wrong.”

I’m fairly certain that from the presenter’s perspective as a game developer, the main targets this admonition was levelled at were random jerks on the internet.  However this simple statement is no less profound and useful when applied to the example of gaming journalists and critics of gaming as well.

I’ll drop the more measured approach I’ve been attempting from the start of this article for a moment in the interest of getting through the next point.  There’s no sense dancing around the issue.

By and large, gaming journalists and critics of gaming think they are smarter, better informed and more equipped to appreciate games properly than gamers can.  You’re having fun wrong.

Most gamers treat games as entertainment.  Yes, we get heavily invested in and affected by games.  Yes, the art that is present in games touches people and makes them think…but we’re not in it to change the world or save the whales.  As with the passing consumers of other forms of art, I’d posit that most gamers would simply say “I know what I like” and not feel the need to look much deeper.

Whether they would admit it openly or not, I believe far too many gaming journalists, critics and commentators scoff at this limited view.  Just as gaming itself has been elevated to an art, so too the discourse about it must be elevated to something higher.  Those that don’t agree with or agree enough with this point of view are treated with derision.  I’ve bolded the word “enough” for specific emphasis.  Remember, it isn’t sufficient for you as a gamer to agree with a particular ideology or views on a game or a social issue as it pertains to gaming – you have to agree wholeheartedly.

It’s fine if you want to think of games and criticising games as an intellectual exercise.  It isn’t fine if you want to belittle others (like say, your core audience) for not being as evolved as you are simply because they aren’t onboard with your thinking.  As many have echoed repeatedly on Twitter with regards to #Gamergate, it is not as though gamers are en masse against discussions of diversity, gender, race etc.  The hobby is more inclusive and varied than ever before, and those that resist it becoming so are the exception rather than the rule.

You know what gamers don’t like?  Being spoken down to or preached to.  I found an interesting take on gamers’ reactions in an article at Examiner.com by Alex Mahan:  “Gamers don’t oppose the SJW agenda because they are bigots; they oppose it because it’s annoying.”  I think that hits the nail squarely on the head.  The sheer amount of social justice style coverage in gaming media has gotten tiresome.  I keep hearing snarky remarks such as “when are you going to get back to talking about games?” and I’m certain that comes more from a place of fatigue than hatred.

The pendulum needs to swing back the other way.  Games journalists currently seem to care more about ideology and social issues than they do about the topics they are supposed to be covering.  They need to stop complaining that their audience isn’t what they want it to be and consider if they are in the right careers.  You can’t harangue people into liking or disliking games the precise way you want to.

Of course there is still room to discuss social issues in games.  There always will be.  But the balance is off-kilter.  The numbing sameness of the messages coming from game journalists to most of their colleagues is boring at best and outright worrying at worst.  Gaming journalism shouldn’t be an echo chamber.  Readers aren’t just looking solely to have their own opinions validated, but would it be too much to ask that journalists don’t get snippy when someone points out they claim to be a games journalist and yet barely touch on the subject any longer?

My advice to critics of gaming would also apply equally to gaming journalists.  Stop insulting your audience.  Find better ways to make your arguments without painting with clumsy, broad strokes.  You’re supposed to be well-educated, erudite and able to make a point.  Even when people support your general thesis your methods inevitably end up pissing people off.  Is there not some onus on the presenter to make themselves properly understood?  Why is it acceptable to shift the blame to the audience when they object?  Why must the voices of the reasonable dissenters be invalidated by the purely bellicose?

My advice to sensible gamers would be to continue being civil where others on both sides of the #Gamergate issue have failed to do so.  Secondly, when you see a naked attempt at attracting clicks with some faux controversy, social justice related or otherwise, don’t fall for it.  There are enough real stories to get upset about without needlessly fanning the flames of the non-stories.  Yellow journalism is as alive today as it was at the turn of the century – its spiritual successors are the gaming “news” sites.

So…what have we got for upgrading games to an art form?  For one, very little in the way of wider societal acceptance – no one outside of gaming gives a damn if we all agree mutually it is art.  The primary result is a gaming journalist class that is no longer content with merely being ethically dubious scribblers writing about an entertainment media.  They are now convinced of their own superiority and the need to educate the rest of us Morlocks in basic humanity.

“ Game play? Controls?  Sound? Difficulty?  What do you want from me, a game review?”