Wait, wait, wait. You just wrote:

"Just for you to know, the "stereotypical" gamer is neither dead nor in its way out."

Now you are saying a stereotypical gamer doesn't exist. I'm not sure you can say that a stereotypical gamer is not dead or on its way out but also does not exist... I don't think that makes any sense unless you're making the more existential point that something which never existed cannot be dead or on its way out... but I don't think you were.

I can't speak for the people who wrote those articles. I can only give my interpretation, which could be wrong, and which comes from my history of playing video games for over 30 years and seeing how the audience has changed over that time.

I read those articles as saying the stereotypical gamer is dead, the one you describe as "inferior and uncultured, as unworthy". I personally wouldn't make those value judgments, I think they are unfair.

Speaking primarily about the Leigh Alexander article (which interestingly, doesn't say gamers are dead) I read that article as saying the stereotype of a gamer described in the article as an "angry young men" is no longer the stereotypical gamer. I would go further and say that the stereotype that people who play games are white, male, teenagers who are socially awkward, can't talk to girls, hate sport, don't go outside, cannot interact socially no longer applies. The stereotype is over. Gamers are now much broader than that (which might seem obvious, but not necessarily if you have been involved in gaming for a long time and the change has been quite gradual - and its clear a lot of people in the industry still haven't realised it).

The interesting thing for me was that the quote a lot of people were so upset about was "These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience". I read that and thought, fair enough, those people aren't my audience either, not for once thinking that was directed at me. I found it interesting that others read that and thought "yup, she's definitely describing me there, how dare she!" and then basically agreed that they weren't her audience (not always, but sometimes in an obtuse shitslingy, wailing, internet-arguing way). :)

I will explain it to you. there are two forms of refer to the sterotypical gamer. First, the gamer that plays mainstream games and is not interested in artsy hipster tytles, using this as the stereotypical gamer, then that means the stereotypical gamer is still the norm. Second, if the stereotypical gamer is described as a socially inept basement dweller, then it does not exist. that is what I am trying to say. The mainstream gamer is the same it was twenty years ago, interested in DOOM and Halo more than in Gone Home and Depression Quest. And that is not going to change just because a bunch of journo bullies say so.

Umm what is all this shit about ''changing'' and ''transforming'' and ''not a boys club anymore''? There is no such thing as an average gamer. The only average there is is ones created by the mainstream media who looks only at players of WoW or CoD. Ie, the two stereotypes Leionardo mentioned were both created by the mainstream media; and both grossly underepresent what gamers are. What about players of RTS and TBS games? They're very numerous but no one says anything about them. I'm telling the truth here when saying the mainstream media cooked up this stereotypical gamer and then the journalists and a very large portion of the gaming community believed it.

There was never such a thing as a boys club nerdy introvert gamers thing. I can guarantee that even in the 70s, at least someone girls picked up Super Mario (if it was out at the time ofc, I don't know) or pacman. But the sociological environment was less conductive at both making it noticed that there were females in gaming and sensationalizing it. In effect, the mainstream media created the stereotypical gamer; and when journalists who believed in that poorly researched ''theory'' put 2 and 2 together, they got 5 ofc. They addressed the majority of gamers as the steryotipical gamer and then proclaimed them dead, or dying. They were always believing the assumption of that stereotypical gamer was; and addressed all gamers that way, which isn't gonna end well because real gamers are different from that. Then when they couldn't deal with the fact that what they thought wasn't the truth, they got angry and wrote the articles ;D

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more... For a non native speaker I think Leonardo managed to explain why he was not in any logical contradiction regarding the two meanings of stereotypical gamer he was using :) I can't imagine you missed he had put one of the meanings inside " " so honeslty, seems to me you were a bit disingenuous there.

But whatever. I'm not much for callout culture, though in this case it's basic reciprocity. My turn to play gotcha with you then ;) So you yourself are pretty much saying she (they) built up a strawman and shot it in the head (attn: hyperbolic analogy). Let's leave aside ethical judgements of whether that is journalism or not and ask instead the following:

Why do you assume the reaction to that is / was due to identification with the strawman rather than objecting to perceived motives of the writer(s)?

Seems to me, you basically find your own blindered assumption amusing *. Is there a name for that in english? Maybe inside jokes... or group stereotypes... how exclusionary and groupthinkily regressive of you... anyone else laughing with you?

* why the smiley otherwise? the devil is so often in the details heh... note I'm not saying you were amused maliciously, I see it as rather due to perceived intelectual superiority, which actually disturbs me, since it's based on a false premise, per my bolded sentence

Nailed it.
(I think I had a vaguely similar 'rant' post a while back on this thread.)
.. yeah, those are mainstream as fuck.
Like, the whole idea of 'mainstream' is it appeals to core and non-core demographics.

Which, at this point, one should generally feel obligated to acknowledge that 'gamers' as a whole only really have a split between 'people that think they are Hardcore' (ie: those with a mistaken belief that they are the primary demographic for games in general) and 'people that just want to play games and have fun' (ie: filthy casuals), and anything beyond that is just personal preference as to which particular niches they prefer to play.

About the truth - public discussion about general topic tends to be too vague to allow judging the statements as "true" or "false". Any debate about society is made of opinions and interpretations based on loosely defined terms (and as a result perhaps half of those debates ends in fights over "true meaning" of the words, instead of beginning with agreement about definitions; what a sad sight).
Only answer to well put, clear and narrow question can be right or wrong. For example, the question "most important city in India?" - potential source of heated debate without definite answer. "Capital of the Republic of India?" - New Delhi is correct answer, anything else is not.
I'm very reserved about calling my assumptions "clearly true" or "proven fact". Doesn't mean I don't see them valid!

About stereotypes - they are generalizations based mainly on most prominent or notable traits attributed to the
members of certain group by outsiders. No reason to be mad about them if they are "inaccurate". There is usually (not always) some truth in them, but they are only touching the surface at best so they are not the whole truth. There is nothing especially bad (or good) about using stereotypes. The problem is some people mistakes those simplified models for accurate description of every member of the group (and if they ever travel to Edinburgh, they would be puzzled, disappointed or outright shocked that not every man in the city wears a kilt and play bagpipes :-)).

Those is actually good reasons (putting everything else aside) to be strongly against Anita Sarkeesian's circle: not only they are stating* there are some objectively "right" and "wrong" social norms and they can always tell them apart, they pretty much insist that all the other people should follow their judgement "for their own good".
Totalitarian mindset in the nutshell.
----
* presumed they are sincere about their motives, which I personally don't believe, but that's another question

Indeed. Although I do believe there is a right way that is not too extreme, Anita is certainly not that. She and MacIntosh seem to take their words as objective facts, and cry harassment when someone proves they are not. Although the absolute truth may be difficult to find; the truth of statements vary and one can only go with the closest one. A truth cannot be dis-proven. Anita's ''theories'' can. Hence, Anita's theories aren't truth. Ofc; I've found some interpretations of the same thing to be more probable to be true than others. Like Dark Souls II lore interpretations. Anyhow, not as philosophically gifted as you so great points!

I remember my sister and I played Contra when she was 8 and I was 10. She liked it even more than I did. She is quite good at certain genres, better than I.

Was going to write a long rebutal to to the entire post and examine in depth Leigh's entire aritcle. Then remembered Leigh is finished in games media. The site she is on is a joke. TotalBiscuit probably gets more views on one video than they do on an entire month for all their articles.

Anyway I'll keep this short. If that was really what she meant, which I don't believe for a second, why was the narrative when all this drama started that it was just white males trying to drive women out of the industry? The aritcle matches the narrative, angry white males .... privilige.... misogyny... patriarchy etc.....

For those of you not watching the drama around E3, the SJW's suffered a few defeats. Femfreq complained about voilence agaisnt demons in DOOM and got some push back. Best tweet was Hey Fremfreq Jack Thompson stole the password to your twitter. They also complained about the "mechanical aparheid" tagline in Dues Ex, by calling Eidos (?) Montreal a white company full of white people. The black french developer involved with the game was pissed and basically tweeted for them to shove it. More and more people are losing the fear of being accused of being called a sexist etc... for disputing the sjw narrative. People are beginning to realize that they are a vocal minority and that they can be ignored or belittled with few consequences.

And amd might have given a hint of not entirely disliking gg

I heard rumors that say AMD's vp retweeted it. If that is true, AMD is going to beat Intel in sales for gaming rigs.

Although I consider myself a true patriot of AMD; they refused to send review copies of processors to a site which had been giving them negative coverage. So even if they're not a social justice groupthink herd follower; this only makes it even for me.
Linky : http://www.overclock.net/t/1561037/kg-amd-withdraw-kitguru-fury-x-sample-over-negative-content
But it takes guts to respect the consumer these days. So kudos if in fact AMD does support GG!

Oh no, I'm not philosophical, just a history buff. By learning about history, you notice some patterns. But since people in this discussion thread takes the GG thing seriously, I am serious too, that's all.
You just wrote down almost exactly one of my personal ethical beliefs: "the right way in anything is the one not too extreme." Avoid extremes, aim for the balanced, moderated approach. I see even vices as overgrown virtues that came out of control.

Back to the topic.
My point was that I don't even bother to refute every and each antiGG's argument, because it is not worth it. The "factual" accusations about sexism, racism, violence and so on in games (including last news from E3) boils down to "It is wrong in the gameworld because it would be unacceptable for us in the real world". This premise is in my opinion faulty on at least three levels:
1. allowing only the expressions that appease them is direct threat for freedom of speech - something too dear to me to be given up easily
2. it seems they are not aware of the difference between fiction and reality - how could I discuss seriously with them?
3. if they really can not bear the fact that the things they don't like exist in the real world, they probably need to learn how to cope with reality; seriously. World was not tailored to be comfortable place; sometimes is even horribly cruel and unfair, but THIS fact cannot be changed; we must live with it.

If the basic premise is "off" it's irrelevant how accurate are the folowing arguments. If for example Deus Ex developer team was actually completely white, would it make the complaint about "mechanical apartheid" less ridiculous? Discussing those claims for factual accuracy is playing by their rules; it seems like we silently accept that "white people would definitely mistreat non-whites, every time" as proven truth.


Bonus points for AMD people for showing wit, something that is seriously missing in the whole affair.