Life, The Universe And Gaming: What About A Gaming Committee?

Or a Board of Gaming, amirite?

Previously on Life, The Universe And Gaming, we discussed the concept of gamer representation. If you were paying any kind of attention, the more pertinent issue was actually that of misrepresentation.

We as gamers have been misrepresented for far too long, especially in the media. Call of Duty has been blamed for school shootings and terrorism, Grand Theft Auto for pretty much everything including homophobia, violence, and rape culture, and of course Mario for drug usage. Seriously.

Recently though, the misrepresentation has taken a drastically different step, with people who reside inside our gaming industry being the ones who so horrendously misrepresent us, creating large problems where there were arguably smaller ones. People like Jonathan ‘#FullMcIntosh’ McIntosh and Brianna ‘Banana’ Wu who blatantly misrepresent situations for personal gain, and really, it’s all become very political… the great irony of all of it is, these two were amongst the champions of anti-#GamerGate. Remember that?

But since it seems gaming is bound for more political grounds–and the Zeitgeist, as we know, goes on despite our best wishes–it is pertinent that we discuss it, so let’s take a quick stroll back to #GamerGate and discuss why it didn’t really catch on with everyone. Make no mistake, it is still a thing and there is a massive group of gamers–male, female, of all races, sexual preferences and other forms of diversity–who continue to pressure big websites into performing ethically (oddly you’ll not hear as much about the harassment side of it any more, almost as if that was blown universally out of proportion at first), and as such sites are slowly but surely conforming to this practice. Now we get sites declaring developer relations, or explaining how they got their hands on early copies of reviews, and so on.

It has been working.

Despite all this, a lot of those who were against #GamerGate from the very start argued that it would never reach its target because it was still just a chaotic ‘pseudo-movement’ of people who couldn’t all agree on what they wanted, without much in the way of a concrete written manifesto and no leadership to speak of. Besides, perhaps, the more famous supporters of #GamerGate in the community. This is unfortunately true, and despite the best intentions of #GamerGate a lot of people immediately dismiss it as a band of babbling buffoons who are trying to bully their way to male superiority. Not so.

This was a troubling one for me, because I don’t personally subscribe to the idea of angry gamers on the internet. Indeed it just reeked of entitlement and aggression when I first saw the #GamerGate hashtag doing the rounds on Twitter. Now most people are very much over it obviously, but when I see some #GamerGaters doing the hashtag and I see their conviction, not just at proving that they’re working towards something (and not just dismissing ad nauseum) but also doing their best to disprove the accusations of harassment laid against them, I can’t help but empathise.

After all, isn’t that the theme of being a gamer?

To emphasise: Isn’t that what being a gamer has always been about?

And then I got to thinking, after a conversation with a friend last year in which it was suggested that maybe what we need is a middle ground between the industry and gamers themselves. Thus far the way it has worked is roughly as follows: Publishers finance and distribute games made by developers, who then sell to the public. The gaming media (not strictly ‘journalists’ but that’s up to you guys to decide) will create critique and discussion, or if you’re one of the more PR-friendly sites, free marketing, for these games. It is then up to the public to either consume this media and make informed decisions, or not. A lot of people choose not to.

Why? Well, for a lot of people it’s just a case of not knowing where to go to find out what they need to. Others simply don’t think of it, or are ignorant of what’s out there, and that’s fine too. But ultimately these gamers end up getting burned whenever publishers get greedy and put out broken games, blatant cash-ins, or outright lies. The media can’t help these people¹ so naturally they are left to fend for themselves, and that’s a crying shame because how would you feel if you paid money for Ride to Hell: Retribution because you just didn’t know what a complete pile of shit it was? Or De– *ahem*

So what about a committee (let’s call them a governing body since we’re getting so political²) with the sole purpose of representing us as gamers? This committee would be created by gamers, for gamers; it would consist entirely of gamers, with the representatives selected based entirely on their ability to cater for, and speak on behalf of all gamers. Who would be worthy of such a committee, you might ask? Well straight off the bat, I can think of three people. We needn’t have a ‘president’ or governor but rather it can just be a team of individuals, all with gaming’s best interests in mind. Let’s just go with my three possible choices, and let’s see what you guys think, or who else you can think of.

Total Biscuit — Some may dislike him, and really I think they more dislike his community than anything, but if this gaming governing body were to have a ‘president’ of a sort, it would have to be Total Biscuit. He might not always have entirely agreeable opinions but nobody cares more about the gaming industry than him. Nobody. He is never afraid to tackle shoddy publisher practices and will call out anyone he believes is guilty of anti-consumer practices in the gaming industry. Total Biscuit is the man gamers turn to first, when they have a problem with the state of gaming. Naturally, many gaming industry members despise him. Why is that, I wonder?

Jim Sterling — I’ve been talking about Jim Sterling for years and years; it’s funny that he’s so well-known now and a few years ago when I was raving about how great he is for the gaming industry, people scoffed and told me he was a gigantic dick and why would I ever be a fan of him. Now everyone clamours for his thoughts and gets behind anything he says. It’s almost as if nobody was paying attention to me, as per usual. Nonetheless, his Jimquisition show has been a beacon for consumer advice for a good few years now and nobody shies from a fight like Jim Sterling. Consider that Konami has had him blacklisted for years now, because of statements he made about their business practices. While his #GamerGate opinions confounded me, I will never not take the man’s gaming advice to heart.

Boogie2988 — This is a man who challenged an ‘angry feminist’ type on Twitter, someone vehemently anti-#GamerGate, and by the end of it, had that person saying that Boogie was actually a pretty decent guy. If that doesn’t speak volumes of the man, then I don’t really know how better to phrase it. Despite his… questionable Francis character (never really caught on with me) he’s been one of those guys who really cares about the human element of gaming, and wants to see gamers enjoying gaming without getting ripped off in the process. Who better to bring a humanising element to the entire thing?

Some special mention must also go to Sickboy from Gaming Anarchist who works tirelessly to defend gamers against the allegations they are faced with each day, and funnily enough, earned my respect by challenging Microsoft with their Xbox One, in a time when I was vehemently defending the same thing. Story for another day.

Perhaps you think there should be some female ‘representation’ on that list, but what I offer is just a suggestion. By all means let me know who else you’d like on this hypothetical committee.

So what would this group do for us as gamers? Well they would act as that middle man between the gaming industry and gamers themselves. They would approve or disprove of certain practices and protect the rights of gaming consumers, without them needing to visit media sites (that might lie to them) in order to make informed decisions. They would be the shield that guards the realm of gamers from the controversial and eyebrow-raising practices of this gaming industry we all participate in.

Why? Because the gaming industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and when that much money is involved you can be damn sure that the sharks come for blood–coincidentally also why ‘ethics in games journalism’ in such a big deal, in case you didn’t know–so why should we simply float there and await, when we can do our best to arm ourselves? Why can’t we have representatives who stand up on our collective behalf and say, “No! Enough is enough!” And not people who leverage gamers for personal gain without showing any interest in actual discussion or debate, but people who actively serve gamers for the betterment of all.

Or am I just too much of an idealist?

¹ — As media, it should be our job to cater to our readers. Not to call them names, or blatantly attack them. And certainly not to market games to them. But speaking frankly and directly to readers doesn’t yield as much views as quick Cracked-style check-list articles with clickbait titles and a healthy dose of controversy. And why cater to readers when you can suck up to distributors for future benefits including invites to big gaming events and preference when review copies come around? Come now, be better than that. Your community deserves better than that.

² — It infuriates me that there are people in this industry who get political and leverage real issues present in the gaming community, for personal gain. People like Brianna Wu who basically say things like “vote for my game on Steam Greenlight if you don’t support #GamerGate” which is admittedly a great marketing ploy but a disgusting way to take advantage of people while shaming others. Why do people like her ever get support from sympathisers? Are they blind to her hypocrisies, or just so adamantly against something that they’re okay with supporting hypocrites?

The post Life, The Universe And Gaming: What About A Gaming Committee? appeared first on #egmr.