And apparently /v/ has decided to take this to completely trolly level by backing the characters appearance in FYC's campaign "Vivian James Presents - Women in Game Design" a youtube series introducing various women in the Games Industry;
I have a feeling they're really enjoying messing with what everyone expects from them at the moment XD
I think this is their theme song at the moment to be honest;
Honestly, 4Chan is the Mob, the mindless, angry mob with pitchforks and torches as a collective. It kinda warms me heart to see that Mob not putting up with Anita's poop.
I'm just impressed that for whatever reason, the mob is taking the high road. Maybe they're doing it just to mess with everyone's head, but w/e, the high road is the high road XD
This one from Milo Yiannopoulos. This guy wears his politics on his sleeve, jacket, pants and hat, but the article is fairly neutral given his obvious bias. An excerpt:
Instead of addressing allegations of corruption, examining their own prejudices and giving consideration to an industry-wide failure to provide any kind of acceptable service, the games press rounded on its own readers, accusing them of bigotry and misogyny and refusing to acknowledge that the community was sick of being lectured to and guilt-tripped on a daily basis by hypocrites and liars.
A very nice lady by the name of Christina Sommers has made it clear that the author of the above article is already getting harrassed:
Gaming websites are currently posting articles with titles such as "The End of Gamers" "Gamers are Over" and "The Death of an Identity", painting a picture of a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, bigoted community that is wailing with despair as it collapses. But the journalists posting these articles don't understand the situation correctly. Gamers don't oppose the SJW agenda because they are bigots; they oppose it because it's annoying.
It's annoying to hear someone tell you that you must be politically correct at all times. It's annoying to hear someone tell developers what kind of content should and should not be allowed in video games. It's annoying to hear someone give a low score to a game because something in it offended them. It's annoying to hear someone complain about the content in a game, when the game was clearly designed for a different target demographic.
Game developers should be able to develop whatever games they want. If a game developer wants their protagonist to be a white, straight, cis male, that should be okay. If a game developer wants their protagonist to be a black, lesbian, transgendered female, that should be okay, too. If a game developer wants their protagonist to be a busty girl wearing nothing more than dental floss, that should also be okay.
Game developers should be free to develop any kind of game they want, with whatever content they want, with whatever protagonist they want - and that includes straight, white, cis males. No game developer should feel obligated to please every possible minority. No game developer should feel obligated to be 100% politically correct at all times. And no game journalist should feel entitled to slander game developers for developing content that isn't aimed towards them.
I have found the 'Death of Gamers' angle to be utterly baffling. I have no idea why anyone would take that from recent events unless they're really just not paying attention/don't care. That entire series of articles so far from anything approaching reality I have no idea what to make of them. It's like someone took some drugs and just started typing.
IDK. This entire thing has become such a massive and confusing mess, it might be a months or years before we actually get anyone to look back and try to piece together what has really been going on. The games press has been chaos the past few weeks. I don't think anything definitive can really be said about it. It's all too hot and crazy right now to actually draw any objective conclusions.
I've never much liked the phrase SJW simply because back when I joined the interwebs it meant something very different*. Today, you don't see the kind of people that phrase initially referred to around anymore, and I feel like those people poisoned the well for everyone who has followed who just isn't the same kind of person. It just seems to get thrown out these days at anyone who is on the internet and concerns themselves with social issues as if there's something inherently wrong with that, and I don't much like it so I avoid the phrase entirely.
*SJW originated way back in the early 90's (pretty much the beginning of the internet) and it referred to a specific kind of internet troll who would invade chat rooms and message boards and try to force people to talk about social issues (in places with completely different subjects like tech boards) and anyone who refused was called a bigot. This doesn't happen anymore. In my time on Dakka, we've only had 2 such trolls. One was banned in under an hour (a hilarious hour) and the other didn't last a week.
LordofHats wrote: IDK. This entire thing has become such a massive and confusing mess, it might be a months or years before we actually get anyone to look back and try to piece together what has really been going on. The games press has been chaos the past few weeks. I don't think anything definitive can really be said about it. It's all too hot and crazy right now to actually draw any objective conclusions.
Hitman 2:
sold more than 3.7 million copies as of 23 April 2009 and is the best selling Hitman game to date.
We have objective data. If you don't like the trope, don't buy the game. If it doesn't affect the bottom line, the people and press can complain all they want and the developers probably don't care. They might consider it, but they have a formula that makes money, they're going to use it til it stops making money.
*SJW originated way back in the early 90's (pretty much the beginning of the internet) and it referred to a specific kind of internet troll who would invade chat rooms and message boards and try to force people to talk about social issues (in places with completely different subjects like tech boards) and anyone who refused was called a bigot. This doesn't happen anymore. In my time on Dakka, we've only had 2 such trolls. One was banned in under an hour (a hilarious hour) and the other didn't last a week.
One could argue that we still have one or more of such people among our active users. But alas, that would lead off-topic so I'll rather let this one fly.
I know the issues are somewhat connected, but I'm talking about GamerGate and all the madness going on with that, not the criticism of specific titles, so no, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
If you don't like the trope, don't buy the game.
Still failing at critical reading I see.
One could argue that we still have one or more of such people among our active users.
I know who you mean and no. Mel is not the kind of person that term originally referred to.
Imagine you and I are talking about physics. Just physics. Some random question about space time that's completely apolitical. Then some poster (named HomelessBob) jumps in and starts calling us bigots for having our fancy physics conversation when there are real problems in the world. Naturally, you and I say "wtf are you on about" because we're just confused to gak by this random off topic insertion that has nothing to do with what we're talking about and Homeless bob just keeps berating us.
Mel has never done that (like I said, we've only had 2 users in the past 7 years I'd call that kind of troll). Talking about feminism in threads about feminism or bringing up sexism in games in a thread about a game isn't anywhere close to what that term originally referred to. I get that now people use it completely different, but in my head I can't disconnect that old meaning with its newer broader meaning, so I just don't use it at all. And on top of that, I feel like those old 'SJW' trolls have poisoned the well for modern activists, who get treated like trolls despite they're behavior being very different.
First, fix your quotes, you're failing at quoting and seeing the point.
The point is, who cares about the game journalism, they can be in chaos and collapse in on themselves. Is it affecting the bottom line of those making the game? nope
The developers are still making money and they're still making games that sell well.
sirlynchmob wrote: Are you going to fix your post? You're quoting me for something I never said.
No. I'm not.
Don't worry. I find most people actually read the thread they're in. Anyone who can't keep straight who said what just because a name isn't blared over the quote box probably has nothing useful to say anyway EDIT: Actually no, gonna be straight. I'm not going to do it, because I'm amazed you're really throwing a temper tantrum over that. It's too funny to fix.
I don't like the term "SJW" because it's an attack on the person rather than their argument, if you have a problem with someone's opinion tell my why you feel that way by bringing up explanations in your counterargument. Just calling them an SJW tells me nothing about why you feel that way,
There are women in the gaming industry we should support, the actual developers and programmers of gaming, not those who just take attention to a topic.
I think this whole thing is a fascinating revelation about how far the games media has gotten from it's readers. They're out of touch, and if they're backlashing this hard over allegations of corruption... kinda makes you wonder what they're hiding right?
I'd actually connect it to the general disconnect in the industry itself. Developers and Publishers have bought up directly and indirectly various interests in journalism, especially online, and have over years fostered an environment that favors their interests. Given that there's plenty of reason to believe that the industry itself is out of touch with its consumers, and that they've fostered a journalistic environment that favors their interests, it stands to reason that journalism itself in this field has become out of touch.
It's also an issue maybe, that there's no different between games journalism, and other kinds of journalism, but given that journalism in video games is so dependent on its online presence via social media and websites, that they're the ones who have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar before other fields. I know I've read other articles about nepotism in the media, not just game media but other media outlets especially politics, music, and film.
I almost never read video game articles, and when I do, it is usually from Canard PC, a French magazine, because they are really funny. I do not care as much about the content as I care about their writing style. Do people really rely that much on game journalism to make up their mind before buying games? I would have thought by now demo would be the way to decide if you want to buy a game. Are there many AAA titles without demo? If so, that is quite awful.
The colors of her sweater are meant to represent the Piccolo Dick meme/joke produced by /v/;
Daily Dose / Piccolo Dick refers to an animated GIF of the Dragon Ball character Piccolo anally raping Vegeta.
Images related to the gif are often not aimed at representing the GIF, but instead just contain the colors green and purple. The idea of this is to make the combination of the two colors evolve as a trigger in a person’s subconscious that results in him being reminded of the gif each time he sees those colors.
So not only did they produce a female character who is not skimply dressed, but the colors of her sweater are meant to invoke a male on male rape joke
And this is only the second disturbing thing that I encountered on the internet starting this week.
As a side note, I do want to comment on the /v/ thing, Vivian James and 4chan's charity move. As a long time elegan/tg/entleman and /k/ommando I will stand with /v/. This time we hold!
And if giving money to TYFC and attention to real feminists in the industry is one of the ways to do that, while boycotting IGN, Kotaku and their ilk... so be it.
As a side note, I do want to comment on the /v/ thing, Vivian James and 4chan's charity move. As a long time elegan/tg/entleman and /k/ommando I will stand with /v/. This time we hold!
Spoiler:
And if giving money to TYFC and attention to real feminists in the industry is one of the ways to do that, while boycotting IGN, Kotaku and their ilk... so be it.
Yeah, as a /co/mrade Ca/tg/irl, its really only /b/ that is truly 'horrible'.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I almost never read video game articles, and when I do, it is usually from Canard PC, a French magazine, because they are really funny. I do not care as much about the content as I care about their writing style. Do people really rely that much on game journalism to make up their mind before buying games? I would have thought by now demo would be the way to decide if you want to buy a game. Are there many AAA titles without demo? If so, that is quite awful.
There are tons of games without demo's, indie and AAA alike.
As a side note, I do want to comment on the /v/ thing, Vivian James and 4chan's charity move. As a long time elegan/tg/entleman and /k/ommando I will stand with /v/. This time we hold!
Spoiler:
And if giving money to TYFC and attention to real feminists in the industry is one of the ways to do that, while boycotting IGN, Kotaku and their ilk... so be it.
Yeah, as a /co/mrade Ca/tg/irl, its really only /b/ that is truly 'horrible'.
Its like hating on Dakka because of Off Topic.
I'm just kinda shocked it's /v/ this time. Usually getting gak done is /tg/'s bailiwick.
As a side note, I do want to comment on the /v/ thing, Vivian James and 4chan's charity move. As a long time elegan/tg/entleman and /k/ommando I will stand with /v/. This time we hold!
Spoiler:
And if giving money to TYFC and attention to real feminists in the industry is one of the ways to do that, while boycotting IGN, Kotaku and their ilk... so be it.
Yeah, as a /co/mrade Ca/tg/irl, its really only /b/ that is truly 'horrible'.
Its like hating on Dakka because of Off Topic.
I'm just kinda shocked it's /v/ this time. Usually getting gak done is /tg/'s bailiwick.
To be fair, when it comes to video games, a lot of gamers are like New Yorkers; yeah, we are complete and utter donkey-caves to eachother, but when you mess with the collective.....
To be fair, when it comes to video games, a lot of gamers are like New Yorkers; yeah, we are complete and utter donkey-caves to eachother, but when you mess with the collective.....
So...
Just replace 'Jersey' with 'Gamers' and 'South Park' with 'Journalists' XD
As a side note, I do want to comment on the /v/ thing, Vivian James and 4chan's charity move. As a long time elegan/tg/entleman and /k/ommando I will stand with /v/. This time we hold!
Spoiler:
And if giving money to TYFC and attention to real feminists in the industry is one of the ways to do that, while boycotting IGN, Kotaku and their ilk... so be it.
Yeah, as a /co/mrade Ca/tg/irl, its really only /b/ that is truly 'horrible'.
Its like hating on Dakka because of Off Topic.
I'm just kinda shocked it's /v/ this time. Usually getting gak done is /tg/'s bailiwick.
To be fair, when it comes to video games, a lot of gamers are like New Yorkers; yeah, we are complete and utter donkey-caves to eachother, but when you mess with the collective.....
You basically begin a war if you mess with the collective. You cannot think oh this is won't. "Oh darn what have I done."
Its one of the major reasons why I both fear and love the gaming community, because it has the power to change the idea of artists and writers.
Also on further investigation of that gamersnosh website. It's pretty excellent, I am giving them my traffic for the foreseeable future for industry news.
Assuming that post on 4chan is real. It'd be pretty easy to post something that contradicts it completely and no one would really be able to tell.
As far as the term "SJW" goes, like a lot of things in language it's a word that's developed over time. "SJW" doesn't mean someone who supports/fights for the cause or advancement of social equality. No, what an "SJW" is is an extremist, the type of person who obsesses of minutia and acts as a professional offence taker, ready to dogpile/browbeat/abuse and generally harass people for imagined slights.
And none of them are worth getting angry about. These people are not to be feared. They're not even worth getting angry about. They're piteous. They expend so much energy on things that matter so little in the grand scheme of things ("Oh noes! Boob-plate! THE PATRIACHY IS IN FULL FORCE") when there are real social challenges and cultures that devalue women. It's not quite a case of "don't sweat the small stuff", but more a case of directing your energies towards things that matter. Games are, for the most part, trivial. They're no more fostering a generation of misogynistic Neanderthals than they are a generation of violent sociopath numb to graphic violence. We've spent years arguing against the idiots who thought that Rock & Roll music/D&D/video games/Rap music/whatever was going to corrupt the youth, so why should the time of day be given to those arguing that video games are going to "promote rape culture" (and this is one of the major inherent problems with Anita's arguments). We shouldn't. Games are a hobby for most people, and people need to shift there attention to real inequality.
And it looks like this rabbit hole goes even deeper...
Sure, and though I do finding it kinda frustrating when say boob plate comes up on Dakka, people like me, who want female minis sans boob plate are accused of being feminazis and SJWs. In the many threads on "feminist" subjects I participated in before leaving it to Peregrine because he's angrier and has more energy then me, and for the most part on that subjects says what I would any way, ditto Mel when she's around, I don't think any one from team girl power was saying the cheesecake or boob plate had to /go/. Just asking for more options in the way of sensibly dressed female warrior badasses.
In that same vein I'd certainly enjoy a little more variation in my vidya game protagonists. I don't need a caucasian male lead to direct around killing bad guys, making cakes or whatever the game has me doing. Assassin's Creed seems tailor made for opportunities like this, The animus framing device could stick you in the gata of Tomoe Gozen, a 12 century female Samurai who fought in the Genpei war for example, or for a slightly more trite example the historical personage Hua Mulan, or Ching Shih for another Chinese example, the commander of a Chinese pirate fleet with estimates as high as 80,000 sailors, men and women, under her command. For a more European flare there's the easy heroine in La Pucelle d'Orléans (Joan of Arc), or the Celtic warrior queen Boudicca, famous for curb checking the Roman legions back when that was unheard of.
That's not what the other side is arguing here. Even when they're actually trying to make feminist arguments that's not what comes out. There are REAL issues to address in gaming, including feminist issues about how women are portrayed, how female characters are addressed, and there's the IRL issue of getting more women into ALL the sciences period. Not just behind a game programmer's desk. However when groups like The Fine Young Capitalists run programs to do that, they're slandered and attacked (by Zoe Quinn as it happens). None of these people are actually DOING anything, and many of the SJWs who's hearts at least are in the right place are being down right manipulated in this situation to cover people who are essentially dictating from on high to the commoners. What is a morality, corruption and industry issue is trying to be made into a social issue so the industry and journalists can play CYA, to the point that games journalists are now trying to embarrass and insult gamers FOR BEING GAMERS. If that's what happens when someone brings up corruption, if someone brings up issues in house, if this is the backlash we receive from the mainstream gaming media and the indy devs, who demand we silence ourselves and not question any one, instead of addressing criticism, complaints, etc like... you know a group of adults and professionals... as I said up thread it makes you wonder just what they're hiding.
I will say for the Indy Devs I think it's just a case of a clique circling the wagons around one of their own, not actual conspiracy or anything silly like that, but when every criticism of a person is shut down as misogyny we have ourselves a serious problem, and it's not sexism.
Side note. Who is Phil Fish? I think he made a kinda gakky game called Fez... why does he think he's relevant?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Sure, and though I do finding it kinda frustrating when say boob plate comes up on Dakka, people like me, who want female minis sans boob plate are accused of being feminazis and SJWs. In the many threads on "feminist" subjects I participated in before leaving it to Peregrine because he's angrier and has more energy then me, and for the most part on that subjects says what I would any way, ditto Mel when she's around, I don't think any one from team girl power was saying the cheesecake or boob plate had to /go/. Just asking for more options in the way of sensibly dressed female warrior badasses.
Feminists promote equality. Femnazi's browbeat anyone who disagrees with them and attack men simply for being men. SJW's concentrate all their energy on non-issues or issues that they themselves have invented are simply not worth worrying about. They are to social equality what vuvuzelas are to football/soccer.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: In that same vein I'd certainly enjoy a little more variation in my vidya game protagonists. I don't need a caucasian male lead to direct around killing bad guys, making cakes or whatever the game has me doing. Assassin's Creed seems tailor made for opportunities like this, The animus framing device could stick you in the gata of Tomoe Gozen, a 12 century female Samurai who fought in the Genpei war for example, or for a slightly more trite example the historical personage Hua Mulan, or Ching Shih for another Chinese example, the commander of a Chinese pirate fleet with estimates as high as 80,000 sailors, men and women, under her command. For a more European flare there's the easy heroine in La Pucelle d'Orléans (Joan of Arc), or the Celtic warrior queen Boudicca, famous for curb checking the Roman legions back when that was unheard of.
The Assassin's Creed games are perfect for this sort of thing, but at the same time Ubisoft have said they're not doing Rome, Egypt or Japan... which sucks as they could get some great stuff from those games. And Ubisoft's own claims that making one of the four assassins in the next game a female was too difficult/costly fall flat because they're one of the biggest developers/publishers on the planet and they have all the money and the world to make the changes.
There's nothing wrong with wanting protagonists that aren't your standard gruff-talking male with 3-day stubble and a bad attitude (I pretty much always choose female characters in games that give the choice, sometimes for the most trivial of reasons*), but I'd also argue that story informs on characters as much as characters inform on story -and- including things for the sake of diversity is tokenism and doesn't solve any problems. The type of character within a story should naturally fit into that story (like Lara Croft in the recent Tomb Raider game), or be so secondary to the plot that the character's appearance/gender makes no difference (MaleShep/FemShep from the Mass Effect series). Going back to that link I posted above, that artist was talking about the game Divinity: Original Sin. It's a fantastic RPG that I'm enjoying. You start with two characters, and the game defaults to one male and one female. You can make it two males, you can make it two females, and you can change their appearance 'til the cows come home. Me personally? I went with two females - one a paragon of virtue who wants to protect the innocent and smite the wicked, and the other a rogue who will do just about anything if the price is right. The game allows you to have your characters argue and disagree on certain courses of action, meaning you can play out those things. That's good design. That's a positive use of character that flows naturally from the setting. Yet the SJW's got all up in arms because of "boob plate", completely missing what the rest of the game was about. That's why I say SJW's aren't were worrying about because the things they care about are tiny, minor and trivial and not at all relevant to real issues of equality (and inequality).
*There was an old game called Wages of War where you put together a team of Mercs that went on various missions. It was very a X-Com/Jagged Alliance style game. I chose an all female team simply because the single male voice actor (which was used on all the male characters) was annoying as all feth. I said I did it for some trivial reasons.
Yes, he created Fez, and then had a gak fit because he's an amazingly arrogant guy. And I've said this in other threads: Phil Fish is never relevant. Even in topics dedicated to Phil Fish he's still the least important part of the topic.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Sure, and though I do finding it kinda frustrating when say boob plate comes up on Dakka, people like me, who want female minis sans boob plate are accused of being feminazis and SJWs. In the many threads on "feminist" subjects I participated in before leaving it to Peregrine because he's angrier and has more energy then me, and for the most part on that subjects says what I would any way, ditto Mel when she's around, I don't think any one from team girl power was saying the cheesecake or boob plate had to /go/. Just asking for more options in the way of sensibly dressed female warrior badasses.
Feminists promote equality. Femnazi's browbeat anyone who disagrees with them and attack men simply for being men. SJW's concentrate all their energy on non-issues or issues that they themselves have invented are simply not worth worrying about. They are to social equality what vuvuzelas are to football/soccer.
Sadly the original post is gone, but that's what the wayback machine is for.
The goal of equality should always be to increase opportunity. So if you ask me what I want, as a feminist, and as a gamer be it video or table top, I want more opportunity for models and characters dressed like they're actually here to kick ass to shine. I want more stories featuring bad ass women in all walks of life, or any one in any walk of life for that matter. Stories are a vital part of our society and culture, and the more interesting, different stories we're telling, no matter the medium the better. You'll notice none of this means we can't have our cheese cake and eat it too... hell I'm entering a KD Twilight Knight pin up in a painting competition weekend after this coming.
The practicality of "boob plate" is largely irrelevant because I've never seen someone seriously trying to say that it is a valid type of protection, or that it offers any real benefits. But you're talking past the issue here. I'll just quote the article I linked instead:
Our kickstarter campaign for Divinity: Original Sin has gotten quite some criticism on its original poster art. Apparently it was deemed to be sexistic and women unfriendly by the way the female protagonist was portrayed: with a bare belly.
A bare belly was for some enough a trigger to send our company enough hate and threatening mails to persuade my boss to ask me to change the cover. I did, but did so reluctantly. Disagreeing wholeheartedly with the claim of the artwork being sexistic, the better half of me decided to meet "offended-by-design" people somewhere in the middle.
In the world of journalism there are channels that take an aggressive stance against everything they judge even remotely sexistic and in many instances denying the word of opposition by disabling criticism and reactions on their articles or blogs. Also blackmails in the form of "change your game art or we won't publish a single word about you." is a common behavior found among those.
Fact is, there is a strong lobby going on out there which is holding a very aggressive campaign for women in the games industry. Despite that its root is very well hidden it is recruiting a lot of followers including some big names.
Now compare the two pieces (sorry about the size):
This is why SJW's are nuts. Fighting for social equality is a good thing and something worth expending energy on. A campaign to change this picture is not.
To be fair, the top one looks bad ass, where as the bottom one looks cliche.
Still, kind of ridiculous that "Change you're art or we won't publish anything about the game" is there. Not sure why SJW's are so.... pervasive? in the gaming journalism sphere.
Maybe the world is becoming a better place of sunshine, rainbows, and butterflies and gaming is seen as far worse than real life with it's misogyny? I dunno.
Which one you think looks better is just a matter of personal preference. For me I don't really care, because I'm more interested in the game itself and playing it than something so trivial as the box art. And that's the point I'm making. SJW's are not the same as those that fight for social equality because SJW's concentrate on minutia like this cover art.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Which one you think looks better is just a matter of personal preference. For me I don't really care, because I'm more interested in the game itself and playing it than something so trivial as the box art. And that's the point I'm making. SJW's are not the same as those that fight for social equality because SJW's concentrate on minutia like this cover art.
While I'm not going to say you're wrong or I disagree, I will say that gamers for a while have been making fun of female armor in games for a while now; it covers boobs/butt, that's it.
Hopefully with all of this, we get closer to hte top brass in the market and can make our opinions more heard.
He is also missing the point in that boobplate is so omnipresent it is painful. I mean, both Ashiraya's present and previous avatar wear boob-plate, even though she certainly is not a fan of boob-plate, because it is almost impossible to get nice art of a female in armor without boob-plate, and those were the least offenders. It is literally everywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: For me I don't really care, because I'm more interested in the game itself and playing it than something so trivial as the box art.
- Complain about people that care for trivialities.
- Post image on random useless “controversies” that will not affect in any way how video games are made and consumed and that nobody ought to care about.
Oh the sweet, sweet irony.
- Complain about people that care for trivialities. - Post image on random useless “controversies” that will not affect in any way how video games are made and consumed and that nobody ought to care about. Oh the sweet, sweet irony.
Either you're not very clever or you're just not very aware of what's been happening the past two weeks. This is the whole issue. You've got a group of people saying "We need to stop the hate" all the while saying the things they've said in those pictures. To reduce it to once sentence, it'd be like saying this:
"All of you fethers need to stop fething swearing right this fething minute, you feths!"
See how hypocritical that statement is? Now imagine media outlets like Kotaku and their ilk telling everyone how it's bad to harass people whilst at the same time them, the people that support them, and the people that they themselves support are posting constant comments like that?
Or, to put another way Hybrid: Get a clue and open your damned eyes.
This is the whole issue, and it is so damn trivial that I see no reason whatsoever to care about it. Whether those people are trolling or serious, why the hell do you give them any attention? Are they going to have any impact whatsoever on you or the rest of the world with their Twitter messages?
You know I am a gamer, right? I do play video games, I have always play video games, I do even watch video games, I even go to a bar dedicated to people that watch video games. And I do not care about what Joe McRandom says on Twitter about gamers. Why should I give a damn? Will it make me a better Strife player? Will it change the number of games on my Steam account? Will it prevent video game companies to release new awesome video games?
Hence the irony of you telling me that I care about trivialities while making a mountain out of a molehill.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: This is the whole issue, and it is so damn trivial that I see no reason whatsoever to care about it.
You think that corruption within the realms of video-games journalism and indie game development and the way that those within that system swear, abuse and otherwise degrade* anyone who speaks out about it is trivial?
*This week alone we've had people comparing gamers to the Hitler Youth, saying that they had more sympathy for ISIS terrorists, and on a single day last 10 different articles talking about how "gamers" were all reprehensible human beings, misogynist homophobic transphobic sexist scum.
This is the whole issue, and it is so damn trivial that I see no reason whatsoever to care about it. Whether those people are trolling or serious, why the hell do you give them any attention? Are they going to have any impact whatsoever on you or the rest of the world with their Twitter messages?
You know I am a gamer, right? I do play video games, I have always play video games, I do even watch video games, I even go to a bar dedicated to people that watch video games. And I do not care about what Joe McRandom says on Twitter about gamers. Why should I give a damn? Will it make me a better Strife player? Will it change the number of games on my Steam account? Will it prevent video game companies to release new awesome video games?
Hence the irony of you telling me that I care about trivialities while making a mountain out of a molehill.
Mr. Joe Random?
Hahahaha.
These are very well known gaming journalists, Adam Sessler being one of the best journalists out there. I actually expected more out of him.
These are not joe randoms, these are journalists, credible (Well not anymore) writers that have been the industry's elite for years. These are not RANDOM players.
They are degrading the integral part of the gaming community. Because games matter, because games can do better than just us having fun. I see world where kids sit down and play a game and have an emotional field trip, and ponder the philisophies of that game and apply it to their own life.
A game can do more than just cause you to have fun.
Tell me what is the difference between a video game and a book?
A book is not interactive, you can not choose to go here, and move here. For one the book is defined, very literally by its linear path. If you want to learn more about a character or place, you are only given what the author has written.
In a game, its an interactive world, you walk in and you explore, Though there are still borders there is still much more that can be done in that world.
If game devs and game designers are standing behind the journalists, that is a troubling fact indeed, because that side needs to prove itself for being trustworthy. You can't call this just stupid gamers being stupid. They are actual intellectuals who bring out fantastic points, points that have not been seen before.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: This is the whole issue, and it is so damn trivial that I see no reason whatsoever to care about it.
You think that corruption within the realms of video-games journalism and indie game development and the way that those within that system swear, abuse and otherwise degrade* anyone who speaks out about it is trivial?
*This week alone we've had people comparing gamers to the Hitler Youth, saying that they had more sympathy for ISIS terrorists, and on a single day last 10 different articles talking about how "gamers" were all reprehensible human beings, misogynist homophobic transphobic sexist scum.
Yeah. I've seen that, and I was even insulted. Because they forget that a very large part of the population is actually very intelligent.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You think that corruption within the realms of video-games journalism and indie game development and the way that those within that system swear, abuse and otherwise degrade* anyone who speaks out about it is trivial?
Yes. Yes I do. I did not know the name of about every damn people involved in this event beforehand. I do not care about video-game journalists in general because I do not read their articles. I do not care about those people from indie game development because apparently, the only one whose game I have heard of and considered playing was Fez, and here the developer just make me feel sorry for him rather than angry at him. Seriously, he is not causing any harm to me, he is not causing any harm to anybody, he is just angry and spiteful. That is not a pleasant feeling, and I feel sorry for him. The other people are random strangers.
Are the people whose game I play involved? Are the people from S2 involved? Are the people from Ludosity involved? Are the people from Valve involved? Are the people from Klei involved? Are the people from Hanako Games involved? Are the people from Blizzard involved? Are the people from Double Fine involved? Are the people from Team Meat involved? How many other game company, big or small, that made games I play and enjoy do I need to list before you understand why I do not care in the slightest about your triviality?
On the other hand, you think that the fact that on any and almost every representation of female characters the need to be sexy is put above every other considerations as trivial. Good for you, but I do not agree.
Asherian Command wrote: These are very well known gaming journalists, Adam Sessler being one of the best journalists out there. I actually expected more out of him.
Never heard of him. Can you explain quickly why I should care about him? From what I know, even among gamers, only a tiny minority reads game journalists. And basically no non-gamer ever will read his prose. So, why care, really?
Asherian Command wrote: Because games matter, because games can do better than just us having fun.
Do you mean like “Game can carry a message, voluntarily and involuntarily too, and therefore the way character are represented in them do actually matter”? Good, then you need to convince H.B.M.C., he thinks that this is just some triviality. But somehow what Joe McVideoGameJournalist says is extremely important for the future of gaming because reasons that I have not been able to understand.
I am going to tell you that if some very specific literary critic and some writers that I have never heard about in my whole life started getting angry and shouting that readers suck, I would definitely not care either. I would keep on reading the books I like, written by decent people. Because, you know, books, like games, are just a medium, used by many very different people to create many different works that are consumed in very different ways by very different people, and what this tiny tiny portion of people that make games/write books say is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE BIG PICTURE.
Asherian Command wrote: These are very well known gaming journalists, Adam Sessler being one of the best journalists out there. I actually expected more out of him.
Never heard of him. Can you explain quickly why I should care about him? From what I know, even among gamers, only a tiny minority reads game journalists. And basically no non-gamer ever will read his prose. So, why care, really?
Asherian Command wrote: Because games matter, because games can do better than just us having fun.
Do you mean like “Game can carry a message, voluntarily and involuntarily too, and therefore the way character are represented in them do actually matter”? Good, then you need to convince H.B.M.C., he thinks that this is just some triviality. But somehow what Joe McVideoGameJournalist says is extremely important for the future of gaming because reasons that I have not been able to understand.
I am going to tell you that if some very specific literary critic and some writers that I have never heard about in my whole life started getting angry and shouting that readers suck, I would definitely not care either. I would keep on reading the books I like, written by decent people. Because, you know, books, like games, are just a medium, used by many very different people to create many different works that are consumed in very different ways by very different people, and what this tiny tiny portion of people that make games/write books say is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE BIG PICTURE.
Sure. I mean what a character does, say or do, especially depending on their gender really shows how the game devs think about the other gender. ITs a hidden bias they hold.
If a woman is scantly clad, it shows alot of things about the character and mostly definately the game devs. It shows, one major thing. Idiocy and immaturity. It shows that they are still getting over the empowerment fantasy over woman or something like that. IT is kind of dumb. There is no reason you cannot arm your female character in full body armor. It is not really trival. It shows what state the gaming community is. I mean lets take it this way.
What would the character think. Okay she is skanky looking and is showing off her... Ummm.. Personality and she walks into a room. What would the males do? I mean if most woman dressed like that. That would be interesting. I mean artisitically in a world where woman are slaves, and the game is all about female's being slaves to a male lead society, that would be very interesting, and we would have a reason for the woman to be scantly claded. But in all other games. Why the hell do you have woman in anything but bikinis? Where at least 60% and growing of the popluation is now female. If you want to appeal to them, appeal to them, by not cantering to our sexuality. You already fulfill one thing and that's want. We want a game, the game cover tells us alot about the game and what to expect.
Its what you say on the front that matters. Yes, I've heard that BS about don't judge a book by its cover, but it does show the direction the art and designers took in the game.
Can you explain quickly why I should care about him?
Because he is one of the voices that Game Designers and Developers listen to more than the gaming community. And like it or not but he has more sway over video games than you know. Lets say he gave a game a 1 out of 5. A terrible score. Another reviewer would hear from Sessler how bad this game is and give it a similar score and so on and so forth. Now lets just for the purposes of this argument say that game wasn't actually that bad, and was actually quite good. And they mostly put it down because it lacked multiplayer and extra content that most games are expected to have. Would that game necessarily be that bad?
I mean IGN always gives a perfect score to call of duty. And what does that tell us designers and developers.
To make more games like call of duty. To use that system, to be like call of duty. And whenever a game like Spec Ops: The Line comes out, that it pays not to be original, (Because spec ops was panned by IGN, and many games, because it lacked multiplayer components, and 'tight' controls. Mostly because they were comparing it to other games)
Also how things are totally irrelevant to the big picture is actually false.
Remember jack thompson? You know the guy that thought video games were the incarnation of the devil or something like that. Yeah those are the types of people that write so much about video games, and sometimes that voice is heard.
Gaming has had the journalists stand up for gamers everywhere.
We put our trust in these individuals, we believe these people are truthful.
And with that comes a double edge sword. Because in the end if they do something bad, it reflects us an image of ourselves.
This gives us a reason to hate them.
That is what mainly is happening here. People trust these individuals so much, that when a journalist goes down that blackened road.
That it shows to us how stupid we were for trusting them.
What an awful week for the culture that surrounds and influences video games.
Last week, a game designer's personal life was exposed to the internet, and used to justify physical threats to both the developer and her colleagues. The designer was one of many people targeted in an orchestrated harassment effort directed at game developers.
On Friday, harassers hacked game designer Phil Fish's Twitter account and website. Fish, at least briefly, contemplated selling his company and leaving the industry altogether.
On Sunday, a fake bomb threat from a hacker group diverted the flight of Sony Online Entertainment president John Smedley.
That day, the same hacker group claimed responsibility for shutting down Sony's PlayStation Network. According to an official earnings forecast, an attack that shut down the same network in 2011, which lasted for days, cost the company $170 million.
On Monday, prominent media critic, Anita Sarkeesian, posted a video to YouTube that criticized the use of women as background decoration, particularly in violent and sexual ways.
Many of those who shared the post received threats and harassment. The following tweets were directed at game designer Tim Schafer on Tuesday and Wednesday.
@JonTronShow @TimOfLegend can you people just leave my games alone? No women gave a feth about gaming pre 2005 can you feth off please???
— Kamal Noor (@KNoor1997) August 26, 2014
The response directed at Sarkeesian was louder, more aggressive and more dangerous.
Death and rape threats forced Sarkeesian to leave her home for safety. These threats are merely a cross section of the cruel and frightening harassment Sarkeesian has faced in her career.
Yesterday, a SWAT team threw a young man to the ground at gunpoint on a livestream, playing into a plan of online griefers who called 911 with a false report of an active shooter. The Littleton Public School District locked down a number of schools in reaction to the same threat.
Good, positive and kind action happened this week, too. Progress, while not always as loud as repression, is being made in games culture.
Two days ago, GaymerX rebranded as GX: Everyone Games. Its Kickstarter has raised $46,085 at the time of publication for an inclusive video game convention. Sarkeesian's critical videos have helped many developers to reassess how they create games and what they include in them.
And creators outside video games also showed their support for Sarkeesian's work.
This week, it should be clear to this community that games are at a cultural turning point. No longer are games designed, marketed and sold to a niche group of young men. Games are now ubiquitous, their ability to provide a safe space for experimentation and empathic experiences serves a population that, in a time as economically and politically bleak as this one, need them desperately. More games are being created by more people for more people than ever before.
Two groups are at opposite ends of this moment:
One side has folded its arms, slumped its shoulders while pouting like an obstinate child that has learned they are getting a little brother or sister but wants to remain the singular focus of his parents' affection.
The other side has opened its arms, unable to contain its love and compassion, because they understand they are no longer alone.
This week, the obstinate child threw a temper tantrum, and the industry was stuck in the metaphorical grocery store as everyone was forced to suffer through it together. But unlike a child, the people behind these temper tantrums are hurting others. It's time to grow up. Let's not wait until next week to start. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Polygon as an organization.
I am not rooting for either side, both sides have been.
Well.... Not very mannered.
Daniel Floyd @EC_DanielFloyd · Aug 26 Anger and insults are the worst possible way to make someone see a different perspective.
Basically my entire thoughts on the matter.
I am disappointed in the 'social justice crusaders' and those who throw back insults.
Asherian Command wrote: Because he is one of the voices that Game Designers and Developers listen to more than the gaming community. And like it or not but he has more sway over video games than you know. Lets say he gave a game a 1 out of 5. A terrible score. Another reviewer would hear from Sessler how bad this game is and give it a similar score and so on and so forth. Now lets just for the purposes of this argument say that game wasn't actually that bad, and was actually quite good. And they mostly put it down because it lacked multiplayer and extra content that most games are expected to have. Would that game necessarily be that bad?
But would that actually really have a significant effect on the sale of this game? I mean, just release a goddamn demo, people will be able to try it and gauge it themselves, bang, you just shortcut through the journalist. That and mouth-to-hear and Steam promotions and stuff like the awesome Humble Indie Bundle and…
Asherian Command wrote: Remember jack thompson? You know the guy that thought video games were the incarnation of the devil or something like that.
No, but whatever. Was he more successful that the people shouting how D&D is satanism? Because those sure as hell, and quite predictably, have lost. Big time.
Obviously the people shouting in those twitter msgs have some sway if they can get almost all the gaming 'news' sites to pretty much cry out that the gamer is dead/toxic in roughly the same time frame.
Asherian Command wrote: Because he is one of the voices that Game Designers and Developers listen to more than the gaming community. And like it or not but he has more sway over video games than you know. Lets say he gave a game a 1 out of 5. A terrible score. Another reviewer would hear from Sessler how bad this game is and give it a similar score and so on and so forth. Now lets just for the purposes of this argument say that game wasn't actually that bad, and was actually quite good. And they mostly put it down because it lacked multiplayer and extra content that most games are expected to have. Would that game necessarily be that bad?
But would that actually really have a significant effect on the sale of this game? I mean, just release a goddamn demo, people will be able to try it and gauge it themselves, bang, you just shortcut through the journalist. That and mouth-to-hear and Steam promotions and stuff like the awesome Humble Indie Bundle and…
Asherian Command wrote: Remember jack thompson? You know the guy that thought video games were the incarnation of the devil or something like that.
No, but whatever. Was he more successful that the people shouting how D&D is satanism? Because those sure as hell, and quite predictably, have lost. Big time.
Well, the problem is that he does hold sway. He holds a lot of power. There are games like that, I mean I can blame IGN all I want but sales for games have been affected because of the rating they recieved. And a lot of gamers are affected by the scores of a game.
I mean demos do not show what a game could be like. I mean I played the demo of diablo 3. Guess what. It was nothing like the final product. Spec Ops: The Line, samething, the demo was just a demo. A show reel. You can't properly gauge a game by how a demo plays, because that demo might be completely wrong. Its usually constructed for looks and to show off the best parts of the game.
Jack thompson almost brought the downfall of the video games industry. Until the industry stood up for itself.
Asherian Command wrote: There are games like that, I mean I can blame IGN all I want but sales for games have been affected because of the rating they recieved. And a lot of gamers are affected by the scores of a game.
Well, then he does have a bit of influence. Still blown out of proportion, imo.
Asherian Command wrote: Jack thompson almost brought the downfall of the video games industry. Until the industry stood up for itself.
So, he predictably and inevitably failed. Also, I feel like mentioning that I really doubt he had the slightest influence outside of the U.S.A., so one less reason to care about him .
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I regularly read this:
http://www.cad-comic.com/ Which indirectly gives me a lot of information and review on games, but they have not been in any way involve in this whole controversy, right?
I also read that:
http://www.awkwardzombie.com , but no matter how I like it, it is not big enough to influence the sales of any game, I am afraid.
Asherian Command wrote: There are games like that, I mean I can blame IGN all I want but sales for games have been affected because of the rating they recieved. And a lot of gamers are affected by the scores of a game.
Well, then he does have a bit of influence. Still blown out of proportion, imo.
Asherian Command wrote: Jack thompson almost brought the downfall of the video games industry. Until the industry stood up for itself.
So, he predictably and inevitably failed. Also, I feel like mentioning that I really doubt he had the slightest influence outside of the U.S.A., so one less reason to care about him .
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I regularly read this:
http://www.cad-comic.com/ Which indirectly gives me a lot of information and review on games, but they have not been in any way involve in this whole controversy, right?
I also read that:
http://www.awkwardzombie.com , but no matter how I like it, it is not big enough to influence the sales of any game, I am afraid.
Well. Certain people are swayed by the score of a game. I mean I usually don't watch a movie that I've heard sucks.
The same thing for gaming I am afraid.
Except, I play both good and bad games.
People are swayed by scores, because people are herded in like animals sometimes.
Jack Thompson almost brought the downfall of the video games industry.
No. Just no. Jack was a joke from day 1. The only downfall Jack Thompson caused, is Jack Thompson's. Seriously, he doesn't even qualify as a moral guardian. He was too crazy even for them.
We're been through this before. First it was movies (still there btw), then it was rock and roll (still there), television (still there), hip hop (still there), so on and so forth. Nothings ending. Might they result in game makes being a little more self conscious of what they make? Yeah probably. Boo hoo. Like a little less boob plate in games is going to ruin anything.
Just because some idiots are spewing crap like the "end of gramers" doesn't mean you should spew back "end of games industry." Both positions are completely loony. A multi-billion dollar industry, and an identity subscribed to by millions, don't just vanish because someone called them insensitive.
People are swayed by scores, because people are herded in like animals sometimes.
And you don't think that's maybe just a tiny bit their own fault? Game reviews have taken crap for years (literally, its been nearly a decade) for being bought and paid for. It wasn't a secret. It wasn't even hidden in some corner of the internet. It was out there in public sight for a long time and no one paid attention because "nah, Adam Sessler would never do that!" It's like politics. Everyone thinks everyone elses congressmen is the problem but their congressman is just fine.
Jack Thompson almost brought the downfall of the video games industry.
No. Just no. Jack was a joke from day 1. The only downfall Jack Thompson caused, is Jack Thompson's. Seriously, he doesn't even qualify as a moral guardian. He was too crazy even for them.
We're been through this before. First it was movies (still there btw), then it was rock and roll (still there), television (still there), hip hop (still there), so on and so forth. Nothings ending. Might they result in game makes being a little more self conscious of what they make? Yeah probably. Boo hoo. Like a little less boob plate in games is going to ruin anything.
Just because some idiots are spewing crap like the "end of gramers" doesn't mean you should spew back "end of games industry." Both positions are completely loony.
People are swayed by scores, because people are herded in like animals sometimes.
And you don't think that's maybe just a tiny bit their own fault? Game reviews have taken crap for years (literally, its been nearly a decade) for being bought and paid for. It wasn't a secret. It wasn't even hidden in some corner of the internet. It was out there in public sight for a long time and no one paid attention because "nah, Adam Sessler would never do that!" It's like politics. Everyone things everyone elses congressmen is the problem but their congressman is just fine.
Nah. I knew Adam Sessler was bought and paid for. Just his comments on the matter kind of disappointed me.
I am not at all disturbed by game reviews being bought and paid for. I mean they are journalists they need to get their money somewhere.
I am more disturbed by the attacks from both sides. Both sides outcrying the minority and grouping the entire gaming collective. That is what I do not like.
Also On Jack Thompson, I was talking about the very beginning almost did topple the castle. Until you know everyone found out he was crazy. And his supporters left that faster than a live grenade.
Might they result in game makes being a little more self conscious of what they make? Yeah probably. Boo hoo. Like a little less boob plate in games is going to ruin anything.
Are we in agreement? I mean it might ruin teenagers access to certain things and their fantasies of scantly clad women. But I really stopped caring about the teenage population mostly because we are in this mess because of them.
Also on further investigation of that gamersnosh website. It's pretty excellent, I am giving them my traffic for the foreseeable future for industry news.
Also On Jack Thompson, I was talking about the very beginning almost did topple the castle. Until you know everyone found out he was crazy. And his supporters left that faster than a live grenade.
No he didn't. His attempts to take games to court were doomed to failure simply on the grounds that none of them had legal standing (same reason the court kept throwing all of them out until they got tired of it and threw him out of the BAR). Just because a bunch of loons gather around another loon saying they're going to do something doesn't mean it'll actually happen or that they'll ever be close to making it happen.
EDIT: Hell if anything, getting thrown out of the BAR just shows how crazy Thompson was. There are people who commit crimes and don't get thrown out of the BAR.
Also On Jack Thompson, I was talking about the very beginning almost did topple the castle. Until you know everyone found out he was crazy. And his supporters left that faster than a live grenade.
No he didn't. His attempts to take games to court were doomed to failure simply on the grounds that none of them had legal standing (same reason the court kept throwing all of them out until they got tired of it and threw him out of the BAR). Just because a bunch of loons gather around another loon saying they're going to do something doesn't mean it'll actually happen or that they'll ever be close to making it happen.
EDIT: Hell if anything, getting thrown out of the BAR just shows how crazy Thompson was. There are people who commit crimes and don't get thrown out of the BAR.
Are we in agreement?
Maybe?
I remember incorrectly then. I forget who it was. Was it arnold or that one senator that wanted to ban games then.
This should clear things up for anyone still wondering what's going on. Sorry about the format - personally I hate those sites that make lists of 10 whatevers but put each item on a separate page. I'm sure they to it to inflate page views, but whatever, go through each of them, it's informative and cuts out the bull gak.
The best part is, of course, this little bit:
One person condemning gamers was the not-so-relevant Phil Fish, an indie developer who tweeted “Nuke all gamers”. Real mature.
See? I told ya Phil Fish was the least important part of anything he's involved in, even when he's the subject of the sentence in question!
H.B.M.C. wrote: This should clear things up for anyone still wondering what's going on. Sorry about the format - personally I hate those sites that make lists of 10 whatevers but put each item on a separate page. I'm sure they to it to inflate page views, but whatever, go through each of them, it's informative and cuts out the bull gak.
Still an incredibly trivial thing to get all upset about, you know. This whole thing is only marginally more relevant than Phil Fish. And that is saying something, is it not?
no one cares about one individual person. What people are upset about is the implicit corruption that's perceived in the indie and gaming blogger industry and how blatant crony-ism seems to be within it.
But that corruption seems to be quite small in scope. Can you give me a list of the companies involved? Is there one? Two? Have they made any game I heard about before this was blown out of proportion?
Also “blogger industry” made me cringe. What the hell? Blogger industry?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But that corruption seems to be quite small in scope. Can you give me a list of the companies involved? Is there one? Two? Have they made any game I heard about before this was blown out of proportion?
Also “blogger industry” made me cringe. What the hell? Blogger industry?
Blogger Community may be what he meant.
Though there is money to be made in blogging, through ad revenue on high traffic blogs, sponsors and commissioned blog posts/guest posts, so it can be considered an industry.
Just like there's an Industry, or market, for painting and sculpting commissions.
If you don't know anything about the topic at hand, the it's probably best not to make declarative statements when you don't know all (or any of) the facts. It would be better for you to just leave. Unless you wish to get educated that is, in which case stay in the thread and ask as many questions as you can.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But that corruption seems to be quite small in scope. Can you give me a list of the companies involved? Is there one? Two? Have they made any game I heard about before this was blown out of proportion?
Also “blogger industry” made me cringe. What the hell? Blogger industry?
Considering we are talking about Polygon and Kotaku (Two of the bigger review/"community" sites), that means that EA, Activision, Square Enix, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and even Double Fine or Behemoth are all rather swayed by them and their opinion; bad scores hurt sales, and all of them kind of require huge amounts of sales.
If you don't know anything about the topic at hand, the it's probably best not to make declarative statements when you don't know all (or any of) the facts. It would be better for you to just leave. Unless you wish to get educated that is, in which case stay in the thread and ask as many questions as you can.
Tbh at this point I think he's just feigning ignorance as a rhetorical tactic. Why counter your arguments and evidence, if he can claim to have never heard of the issues and people involved, and therefore dismiss them as insignificant?
I'm really hoping Phil Fish leaves the industry for good. That can only improve gaming on the whole.
Also lol at that article above from Polygon saying Anita Sarkeesian's vids have helped devs change how they approach women in gaming. She's made what? Five videos in two years? And they're not particularly well researched or detailed. That rebuttal vid floating around from thunder_foot is excellent at point out her usual pattern of setting up strawmen and other fallacies so she can knock them down. If not outright lying about the subject of question in the name of making more hash about it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'm really hoping Phil Fish leaves the industry for good. That can only improve gaming on the whole.
Also lol at that article above from Polygon saying Anita Sarkeesian's vids have helped devs change how they approach women in gaming. She's made what? Five videos in two years? And they're not particularly well researched or detailed. That rebuttal vid floating around from thunder_foot is excellent at point out her usual pattern of setting up strawmen and other fallacies so she can knock them down. If not outright lying about the subject of question in the name of making more hash about it.
See, it makes me kind of curious that Josh Wedon and Tim Schafer shared it; While Schafer doesn't sexify his female characters, he usually only has one or two per game anyway, with minor roles.
Wedon is in a TOTALLY different media, which makes it weird to me; yes, he writes strong females, but I don't really see him having a stake in this fight....
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'm really hoping Phil Fish leaves the industry for good. That can only improve gaming on the whole.
Also lol at that article above from Polygon saying Anita Sarkeesian's vids have helped devs change how they approach women in gaming. She's made what? Five videos in two years? And they're not particularly well researched or detailed. That rebuttal vid floating around from thunder_foot is excellent at point out her usual pattern of setting up strawmen and other fallacies so she can knock them down. If not outright lying about the subject of question in the name of making more hash about it.
See, it makes me kind of curious that Josh Wedon and Tim Schafer shared it; While Schafer doesn't sexify his female characters, he usually only has one or two per game anyway, with minor roles.
Wedon is in a TOTALLY different media, which makes it weird to me; yes, he writes strong females, but I don't really see him having a stake in this fight....
Probably because he really likes video games.
It was also shared by Extra Credits.
I mean her points are correct in someways, but I don't know if she is captalizing on the issues of womens in games being used as plot devices or not.
Or if she is making people aware of the tropes. Because they are common. Or she is comparing them and saying this is what they think about women. Which I think is the opposite of the truth.
But i find it really funny, the gender that dies most in games. Is Men. Very rarely are woman actually killed in games.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If you don't know anything about the topic at hand, the it's probably best not to make declarative statements when you don't know all (or any of) the facts. It would be better for you to just leave. Unless you wish to get educated that is, in which case stay in the thread and ask as many questions as you can.
Nope, genuinely would have had no clue about who this guy was.
Slarg232 wrote: Considering we are talking about Polygon and Kotaku (Two of the bigger review/"community" sites), that means that EA, Activision, Square Enix, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and even Double Fine or Behemoth are all rather swayed by them and their opinion; bad scores hurt sales, and all of them kind of require huge amounts of sales.
So, do you think that Double Fine, or Blizzard, or some other big game company has paid the people of Polygon or Kotaku to get better review for their games? Proof of that would be quite huge revelations worthy of some controversy.
If you don't know anything about the topic at hand, the it's probably best not to make declarative statements when you don't know all (or any of) the facts. It would be better for you to just leave. Unless you wish to get educated that is, in which case stay in the thread and ask as many questions as you can.
Basically.
But I can say the industry right now is not very happy, my contacts are quite angry at the responses, and do not want to get involved at all.
Slarg232 wrote: Considering we are talking about Polygon and Kotaku (Two of the bigger review/"community" sites), that means that EA, Activision, Square Enix, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and even Double Fine or Behemoth are all rather swayed by them and their opinion; bad scores hurt sales, and all of them kind of require huge amounts of sales.
So, do you think that Double Fine, or Blizzard, or some other big game company has paid the people of Polygon or Kotaku to get better review for their games? Proof of that would be quite huge revelations worthy of some controversy.
Double Fine? I'm biased as hell, but I don't think so. If the laws of nature allowed it, I would have Tim's babies.
As for EA, Activision (Not Blizzard per say) or some of the others, like EA, and quite possibly EA, I wouldn't doubt it.
Slarg232 wrote: Considering we are talking about Polygon and Kotaku (Two of the bigger review/"community" sites), that means that EA, Activision, Square Enix, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and even Double Fine or Behemoth are all rather swayed by them and their opinion; bad scores hurt sales, and all of them kind of require huge amounts of sales.
So, do you think that Double Fine, or Blizzard, or some other big game company has paid the people of Polygon or Kotaku to get better review for their games? Proof of that would be quite huge revelations worthy of some controversy.
Double Fine? I'm biased as hell, but I don't think so. If the laws of nature allowed it, I would have Tim's babies.
As for EA, Activision (Not Blizzard per say) or some of the others, like EA, and quite possibly EA, I wouldn't doubt it.
I wouldn't trust EA with anything.
Considering their marketing campagins and what they do for goodness sakes.
I would not be surprised either. Actually, it would be like wikileaks again, just proofs about things everybody has already guessed, but the simple confirmation would be worth some controversy.
If there is not even confirmation… what are we making a bit fuss out of?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I would not be surprised either. Actually, it would be like wikileaks again, just proofs about things everybody has already guessed, but the simple confirmation would be worth some controversy. If there is not even confirmation… what are we making a bit fuss out of?
Thats not what we are making the big fuss about. Read Hat's discussion on it.
Its the many things in combination that have been happening.
I.E. the journalists attacking gamers as a whole for starters being my biggest beef.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I would not be surprised either. Actually, it would be like wikileaks again, just proofs about things everybody has already guessed, but the simple confirmation would be worth some controversy.
If there is not even confirmation… what are we making a bit fuss out of?
Nothing too aweful bad, just the people who are supposed to be telling us all about the hobby we love are in bed with people who are telling them everyone fething hates us.
Okay, so if I am understanding right, your problem is that your feeling are hurt by people (sorry, very influential people) saying means things against not you personally, but gamers are a group? Is that really your problem?
If so, I totally stand by my point: H.B.M.C. accusing people of caring for trivialities is the crow calling the raven black. Or the other way around, I never remember.
I really consider myself a gamer as much as you do, but I do not care about being called names by video game journalists, especially when the accusation are obviously false.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, so if I am understanding right, your problem is that your feeling are hurt by people (sorry, very influential people) saying means things against not you personally, but gamers are a group? Is that really your problem? If so, I totally stand by my point: H.B.M.C. accusing people of caring for trivialities is the crow calling the raven black. Or the other way around, I never remember. I really consider myself a gamer as much as you do, but I do not care about being called names by video game journalists, especially when the accusation are obviously false.
I think your misunderstanding me and delving into something that is not really my intent.
My point is that calling out the gaming community as childern and attacking them personally. On both fronts is stupid and childish. My problem is that they represent the game industry, they are representing our best interests, and are the 'journalists' in our community.
Like it or not they are.
They are only equivalent until someone actually makes it credible.
I think Totalbiscuit hit the nail on the head when he talked about it.
That is what I am suprised by, I am not angry about it. Just disappointed in the behavior. Like a Mother looking down on her son or daughter for not acting the way they were suppose to.
If you look at it logically should I really be disturbed by this? Of Course not. But it does show the immaturity in the entire game industry, and it shows the world that a small debacile like this could start something so problematic and cause a tear between the community and its representives. Causing friction and problems for the future.
This is a problem that should be addressed, and no amount of time will heal this wound until the information is upfront about it and say exactly why they are doing it. As of right now it seems kind of counter productive to do so. I mean the real controversies will come out to light, but there is so much going on, I have no idea what to think. I will just sit on the sidelines and wait for the storm to settle and pick up the pieces.
Honest question. Why is this such a bigreat deal? Someone fethed someone else for favors. For a game so few played
I think its the vocal minority that blew it out of proportion and 4chan that pushed the truck into the ocean for the sharks you see.
Its an issue that I was well aware, but it seems not many others were of. I had known about it for years.
I knew that it happened, but just didn't have any proof, And well we still don't.
We are only listening to the rumor mill. But the way people have been reacting such as the journalists are the bigger issues.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Honest question. Why is this such a bigreat deal? Someone fethed someone else for favors. For a game so few played
She's not so much the problem, she's just the catalyst;
Basically, it's come to light that a group of people has been influencing the Gaming Journalism.... community? to the point of two (at the least) of the biggest gaming websites have started insulting their entire consumer base, solely because of this group of people.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Honest question. Why is this such a bigreat deal? Someone fethed someone else for favors. For a game so few played
She's not so much the problem, she's just the catalyst;
Basically, it's come to light that a group of people has been influencing the Gaming Journalism.... community? to the point of two (at the least) of the biggest gaming websites have started insulting their entire consumer base, solely because of this group of people.
And if you insult your customer base it builds this distrust between the customer and the industry.
i think that is my main problem with it. Is the insults from both sides.
So, do you think that Double Fine, or Blizzard, or some other big game company has paid the people of Polygon or Kotaku to get better review for their games? Proof of that would be quite huge revelations worthy of some controversy.
I'm getting a deja-vu vibe here.
GameSpot controversy[edit]
A 6/10 score by GameSpot was rumored to be responsible for the firing of editor Jeff Gerstmann.[15] The controversy arose due to heavy and diverse advertisement of the game on the site, leading to suspicion that Eidos Interactive was able to influence GameSpot editorial decisions. Eidos advertisements with GameSpot were substantial and included GameSpot website visitors being able to mix trailers, pick a variation of Kane & Lynch style theme, as well as traditional flash-based web ads. GameSpot denied that Eidos influenced the firing of Gerstmann at the time.[15][19] However, as of March 2012, the non-disclosure agreement that forced Gerstmann to withhold the details of his termination was nullified. Subsequently, Gerstmann claimed in an interview with GiantBomb.Com that the firing was indeed due to threats of Eidos pulling advertising revenue away from GameSpot as a result of Jeff's poor review score.[20]
Not trying to be hostile or anything, but what makes it seem like such a non-issue? I just want to see you're side of it, because I can't try to tell you how it's an issue if I don't know why you don't think it's one
So, do you think that Double Fine, or Blizzard, or some other big game company has paid the people of Polygon or Kotaku to get better review for their games? Proof of that would be quite huge revelations worthy of some controversy.
I'm getting a deja-vu vibe here.
GameSpot controversy[edit]
A 6/10 score by GameSpot was rumored to be responsible for the firing of editor Jeff Gerstmann.[15] The controversy arose due to heavy and diverse advertisement of the game on the site, leading to suspicion that Eidos Interactive was able to influence GameSpot editorial decisions. Eidos advertisements with GameSpot were substantial and included GameSpot website visitors being able to mix trailers, pick a variation of Kane & Lynch style theme, as well as traditional flash-based web ads. GameSpot denied that Eidos influenced the firing of Gerstmann at the time.[15][19] However, as of March 2012, the non-disclosure agreement that forced Gerstmann to withhold the details of his termination was nullified. Subsequently, Gerstmann claimed in an interview with GiantBomb.Com that the firing was indeed due to threats of Eidos pulling advertising revenue away from GameSpot as a result of Jeff's poor review score.[20]
Hahaha.
You know that game was actually quite bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Maybe its just what I see, but who fethed who for favors and kinds words on her game seems like a petty distraction from RL issues.
I don't think that discussion is lingering on that anymore.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Maybe its just what I see, but who fethed who for favors and kinds words on her game seems like a petty distraction from RL issues.
Which part of that is the non-issue? If one swapped out 'fethed' with 'offered money for' or if one swapped out 'game' with 'product', would it have more or less significance?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Maybe its just what I see, but who fethed who for favors and kinds words on her game seems like a petty distraction from RL issues.
It's not an issue.
It became an issue when the person who fethed someone supposedly shut down a charity and then used her "Favors" to keep the publicity of her doing that on the down low.
Asherian Command wrote: My problem is that they represent the game industry, they are representing our best interests, and are the 'journalists' in our community.
Like it or not they are.
I think any representative of actual game company making actual game are more representative of the game industry than journalists.
I still think the representation of female character in most video game is a bigger deal than a bunch of articles calling gamers mean names, and one very specific case of alleged corruption for a bunch of game journalists. I also think it will have more influence on how video games and people who enjoy them are going to be perceived. Apparently, according H.B.M.C., that makes me nuts or something.
Asherian Command wrote: My problem is that they represent the game industry, they are representing our best interests, and are the 'journalists' in our community.
Like it or not they are.
I think any representative of actual game company making actual game are more representative of the game industry than journalists.
I still think the representation of female character in most video game is a bigger deal than a bunch of articles calling gamers mean names, and one very specific case of alleged corruption for a bunch of game journalists. I also think it will have more influence on how video games and people who enjoy them are going to be perceived. Apparently, according H.B.M.C., that makes me nuts or something.
I agree with that. The female bit is an ongoing issue that I think has been addressed. But there is alot of hatred towards women in the game industry. Some still perceive that gaming is an all boys club.
When it is not, now its mostly consisting of females.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I missed that part. If she did, that is horrible
Jury is still out, but it's not exactly been disproven yet.
But one thing lead to another, with the Journalists attacking the Gaming Community and the Gaming Community Not Putting Up With You're Poop, and more and more things are being uncovered daily.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This should clear things up for anyone still wondering what's going on. Sorry about the format - personally I hate those sites that make lists of 10 whatevers but put each item on a separate page. I'm sure they to it to inflate page views, but whatever, go through each of them, it's informative and cuts out the bull gak.
The best part is, of course, this little bit:
One person condemning gamers was the not-so-relevant Phil Fish, an indie developer who tweeted “Nuke all gamers”. Real mature.
See? I told ya Phil Fish was the least important part of anything he's involved in, even when he's the subject of the sentence in question!
See, it makes me kind of curious that Josh Wedon and Tim Schafer shared it; While Schafer doesn't sexify his female characters, he usually only has one or two per game anyway, with minor roles.
Wedon is in a TOTALLY different media, which makes it weird to me; yes, he writes strong females, but I don't really see him having a stake in this fight....
I've no idea about Schafer but in Whedon's case I wouldn't be so sure he's entirely up to date/informed- there is a lot to be up on and he's a pretty busy guy. Whedon supports the kind of bare bones feminism do- that both genders are equal. He not too recently gave a speech about the word feminism and how it needs to morph into something more inclusive. Whedon's stake in this fight is simply that he cares and has a moral compass and is under the belief the people he's defending share that sense of morality.
See, it makes me kind of curious that Josh Wedon and Tim Schafer shared it; While Schafer doesn't sexify his female characters, he usually only has one or two per game anyway, with minor roles.
Wedon is in a TOTALLY different media, which makes it weird to me; yes, he writes strong females, but I don't really see him having a stake in this fight....
I've no idea about Schafer but in Whedon's case I wouldn't be so sure he's entirely up to date/informed- there is a lot to be up on and he's a pretty busy guy. Whedon supports the kind of bare bones feminism do- that both genders are equal. He not too recently gave a speech about the word feminism and how it needs to morph into something more inclusive. Whedon's stake in this fight is simply that he cares and has a moral compass and is under the belief the people he's defending share that sense of morality.
Yeah that seems true enough, the initial optics of the sarkeesian threat incident were pretty black and white and a lot of people/groups who were initially supportive haven't been heard from since. I'm sure if Whedon were to read up on recent developments and see adam baldwin's involvement in the fyc game jam he might start digging a bit. But ya, he's probably too busy workin on avengers 2.
See, it makes me kind of curious that Josh Wedon and Tim Schafer shared it; While Schafer doesn't sexify his female characters, he usually only has one or two per game anyway, with minor roles.
Wedon is in a TOTALLY different media, which makes it weird to me; yes, he writes strong females, but I don't really see him having a stake in this fight....
I've no idea about Schafer but in Whedon's case I wouldn't be so sure he's entirely up to date/informed- there is a lot to be up on and he's a pretty busy guy. Whedon supports the kind of bare bones feminism do- that both genders are equal. He not too recently gave a speech about the word feminism and how it needs to morph into something more inclusive. Whedon's stake in this fight is simply that he cares and has a moral compass and is under the belief the people he's defending share that sense of morality.
The "conversation" that John Scalzi started on Twitter seems to be getting us absolutely nowhere.
The arguments I seem to see over and over is "You're just a mysognistic sexist piece of gak." And "femfreq and Zoe Quinn are ruining both gaming and feminism."
I'm just a little tired of the head in the sand approach people seem to be taking :-\
Alfndrate wrote: The "conversation" that John Scalzi started on Twitter seems to be getting us absolutely nowhere.
The arguments I seem to see over and over is "You're just a mysognistic sexist piece of gak." And "femfreq and Zoe Quinn are ruining both gaming and feminism."
I'm just a little tired of the head in the sand approach people seem to be taking :-\
Thats common sadly in the game industry. They only listen to their own beliefs.
Apparently gamers are no longer just terrorists, but now we are being labeled Nazis, do SJWs realize that this sort of stuff and the blatant ignorance on their part just makes them look like they are insane?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Point of Information: Promotes racism huh? First four guys in that photo aren't white!
Funnily enough that is very popular photo being used by the journalists. All the celebrities thinking their opinion is better. I mean there is currently an Actor doing this....
Yeah that kind of thinking is why we are here.
I mean some people do raise some good points and then he goes on to say....
Will Wheaton: "I don't even know what to say to these people".
That's probably because they're not being abusive, they're not being misogynist, so he can't label them as trolls and dismiss them out of hand. When faced with genuine criticism, he's flabbergasted.
So, if I was to sum up the whole thing, some people want to speak about social issues in gaming, other want to speak about corruption in gaming, those two subjects are not linked in any way, but some people rejoice in mixing them, so actually nobody understand what anybody is saying anymore. Did I get that right? Because that is the vibe I got when reading tweets with the #gamergate hashtag .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, if I was to sum up the whole thing, some people want to speak about social issues in gaming, other want to speak about corruption in gaming, those two subjects are not linked in any way, but some people rejoice in mixing them, so actually nobody understand what anybody is saying anymore. Did I get that right? Because that is the vibe I got when reading tweets with the #gamergate hashtag .
Did I get that right?
No, not at all. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I suggest you go back and read the last 15 pages of discussion detailing how all these issues ARE linked.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, if I was to sum up the whole thing, some people want to speak about social issues in gaming, other want to speak about corruption in gaming, those two subjects are not linked in any way, but some people rejoice in mixing them, so actually nobody understand what anybody is saying anymore. Did I get that right? Because that is the vibe I got when reading tweets with the #gamergate hashtag .
Its what gamers are angry about.
and you are wrong, they are connected. Very much connected.
Okay then, apparently I did not get that right. Am I the only one here?
So, is the idea that the “evil SJW of evilness” are somehow corrupting the video game journalists more than the huge international corporations?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay then, apparently I did not get that right. Am I the only one here?
So, is the idea that the “evil SJW of evilness” are somehow corrupting the video game journalists more than the huge international corporations?
Straw Man. Don't think anyone has said gaming journalists are MORE corrupt than gaming corporations. And you're going off topic anyway, were discussing gaming journalism not corporations like EA
Y'know what, don't take our word for it. Take the word of someone who knows nothing about video games yet can plainly see what's going on (and she's also pretty funny).
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay then, apparently I did not get that right. Am I the only one here?
So, is the idea that the “evil SJW of evilness” are somehow corrupting the video game journalists more than the huge international corporations?
Yes, you seem to be the only one here, and considering that multiple people have explained what the issues are and have linked articles and opinion pieces detailing what the issues are, the fact that you are still claiming ignorance after 15 pages of thread is starting to look like you are just trying to troll at this point...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [Don't think anyone has said gaming journalists are MORE corrupt than gaming corporations. And you're going off topic anyway, were discussing gaming journalism not corporations like EA
I do not think you understood what I said. If your problem is with the game journalists being corrupt, it means you think they are altering their reviews in exchange for favor. Now, I am going to ask you: who is likely to have the more incentive, and the more possibilities, to give them favors? Is it huge corporations investing huge piles of money into video games, or the lonely social activists? I am pretty sure it is the big megacorpos. But apparently your idea is that it is social activists that have somehow managed to corrupt video game journalists, if I understand correctly. Which, really, I am not sure of anymore.
PhantomViper wrote: and considering that multiple people have explained what the issues are and have linked articles and opinion pieces detailing what the issues are, the fact that you are still claiming ignorance after 15 pages of thread is starting to look like you are just trying to troll at this point...
I would say it shows you are very bad at explaining, but that will likely seem arrogant…
Seriously, it should not be so hard to explain with simple sentences, is it?
PhantomViper wrote: and considering that multiple people have explained what the issues are and have linked articles and opinion pieces detailing what the issues are, the fact that you are still claiming ignorance after 15 pages of thread is starting to look like you are just trying to troll at this point...
I would say it shows you are very bad at explaining, but that will likely seem arrogant…
Seriously, it should not be so hard to explain with simple sentences, is it?
If you want the issues explained to you, go back and read t g e last 15 pages of discussion that explained the issues.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [Don't think anyone has said gaming journalists are MORE corrupt than gaming corporations. And you're going off topic anyway, were discussing gaming journalism not corporations like EA
I do not think you understood what I said. If your problem is with the game journalists being corrupt, it means you think they are altering their reviews in exchange for favor. Now, I am going to ask you: who is likely to have the more incentive, and the more possibilities, to give them favors? Is it huge corporations investing huge piles of money into video games, or the lonely social activists? I am pretty sure it is the big megacorpos. But apparently your idea is that it is social activists that have somehow managed to corrupt video game journalists, if I understand correctly. Which, really, I am not sure of anymore.
You're going off topic.
This thread is about corrupt interractions between indie developers (Quinn) and journalists.
Are some big corporations corrupt? Yes.
Do they sometimes use money to manipulate gaming media? Yes.
But that's not what this thread is about. If you want to discuss corporations, start a new thread. Please stop trying to derail this thread.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This thread is about corrupt interractions between indie developers (Quinn) and journalists.
So, this thread is about corruption, not about social issues, right? But then we get tons of talk about misogyny and SJW and stuff like that. Those are not linked to corruption. Except when people try to use one to avoid speaking about the other. Or else, explain how. Hence why I said:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, if I was to sum up the whole thing, some people want to speak about social issues in gaming, other want to speak about corruption in gaming, those two subjects are not linked in any way, but some people rejoice in mixing them, so actually nobody understand what anybody is saying anymore.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This thread is about corrupt interractions between indie developers (Quinn) and journalists.
So, this thread is about corruption, not about social issues, right? But then we get tons of talk about misogyny and SJW and stuff like that. Those are not linked to corruption. Except when people try to use one to avoid speaking about the other. Or else, explain how. Hence why I said:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, if I was to sum up the whole thing, some people want to speak about social issues in gaming, other want to speak about corruption in gaming, those two subjects are not linked in any way, but some people rejoice in mixing them, so actually nobody understand what anybody is saying anymore.
How was that wrong?
Its shared by the journalists, its what is being thrown back as an insult. It is the whole idea that the journalists and game devs have been teaming up and attacking gamers in general. And grouping them into their stupid fantasy that all gamers are white.
Its this whole idea that there is corruption being called out, but all we get is insults thrown back at us.
Its about gamers being tired of being called terrible things because of the minority. Its gamers finally taking a stand and saying. "We are not like that. We are different."
This thread is a combination of the whole issue of Zoe Quinn and what it has caused.
I mean the entire industry is in chaos about this.
This is a major issue. It is the relationship between journalists and the community. This bond that has stood for a very long time.
This all can be traced back to the Mass Effect 3 issue. Where journalists and the community attacked each other and did a similar thing. But this time.
The community has risen up and spoke up and called the journalists out and said that the journalists are biased. They want the journalists to write better, to do something else.
They want the journalists to write not about the specs, but about the games themselves, what the games mean to them, not what the graphics are capable of, What is fun or not. They are tired of this biased ideals.
This whole idea of missing the point of a game.
Giving the same game franchise a perfect score, when it has nothing good to add to the community.
It is this issue that has been boiling for a very long time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Now I just think you're trying to get the thread closed.
Now I just think you cannot explain the relation between that whole misogyny/SJW stuff and the corruption of video game journalists because there is none, and therefore use the pretense that I am trolling not to answer.
It seems the common tactic by SJWs is to try and refocus it back constantly on the sexism, when its more about corruption and agenda pushing by SJWs.
Here's what I know, Ive been playing video games since I was 4 then suddenly when Im 25 ish video games are socially acceptable and suddenly the people called that me a nerd for years are suddenly telling me how I have fun is wrong and sexist. Sorry if we seem hesitant on intentions and give people gak who walk into our house and start telling us what to do.
Asherian Command wrote: Its shared by the journalists, its what is being thrown back as an insult. It is the whole idea that the journalists and game devs have been teaming up and attacking gamers in general. And grouping them into their stupid fantasy that all gamers are white.
So, what about that:
So, if I was to sum up the whole thing, some people want to speak about social issues in gaming, other want to speak about corruption in gaming, those two subjects are not linked in any way, but some journalists rejoice in mixing them, so actually nobody understand what anybody is saying anymore.
Is that better for you? I just changed one word. I put journalists instead of people. Seems to be describing exactly what you were talking about. Yet when I said that, you all piled in on how I was wrong and had understood nothing…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mechanical Crow wrote: Here's what I know, Ive been playing video games since I was 4 then suddenly when Im 25 ish video games are socially acceptable and suddenly the people called that me a nerd for years are suddenly telling me how I have fun is wrong and sexist.
You know many of those people actually play as much games as you do, do you?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Now I just think you cannot explain the relation between that whole misogyny/SJW stuff and the corruption of video game journalists because there is none, and therefore use the pretense that I am trolling not to answer.
One of the links earlier did a good job at explaining the relation between the 2 issues. Basically Quinn's infidelity brought the corruption to light. the game industry is trying to shift the focus to misogyny and SJW stuff to avoid the real issue of addressing the corruption.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Now I just think you cannot explain the relation between that whole misogyny/SJW stuff and the corruption of video game journalists because there is none, and therefore use the pretense that I am trolling not to answer.
I just did.
I just explained it.
it is a reaction from the journalists, to those who are attacking zoe quinn. But then they have grouped up the gamers into it.
And there is signs of it happening. There have been many examples of it.
So, what about that:
So, if I was to sum up the whole thing, some people want to speak about social issues in gaming, other want to speak about corruption in gaming, those two subjects are not linked in any way, but some journalists rejoice in mixing them, so actually nobody understand what anybody is saying anymore.
Is that better for you? I just changed one word. I put journalists instead of people. Seems to be describing exactly what you were talking about. Yet when I said that, you all piled in on how I was wrong and had understood nothing…
I think you are missing the point.
It is a response. Its their defense. This whole sexist argument is coming from the journalists. They are saying that We (The Gamers) are sexist. Because there is a vocal minority who are targeting Zoe Quinn for sleeping with other guys. Which is not the major argument from the community. Its the corruption in games.
And all the industry is thinking is that we are being sexist for Zoe Quinn for sleeping with other people.
For me its the idea behind the game dev sleeping with influential people who could say... Write up a good review on the game. I don't care if you have sex. But if you use it to gain benefits. That is down right corruption of the media.
She could have had sex and work as a stripper, and I would not care. Its just the idea behind the entire thing, the idea that she is using her abilities and stature as a game dev to influence the writing of journalists.
Asherian Command wrote: This all can be traced back to the Mass Effect 3 issue. Where journalists and the community attacked each other and did a similar thing. But this time.
The community has risen up and spoke up and called the journalists out and said that the journalists are biased. They want the journalists to write better, to do something else.
They want the journalists to write not about the specs, but about the games themselves, what the games mean to them, not what the graphics are capable of, What is fun or not. They are tired of this biased ideals.
This whole idea of missing the point of a game.
Giving the same game franchise a perfect score, when it has nothing good to add to the community.
Okay, how the hell is that coherent with
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This thread is about corrupt interractions between indie developers (Quinn) and journalists.
Are some big corporations corrupt? Yes.
Do they sometimes use money to manipulate gaming media? Yes.
But that's not what this thread is about. If you want to discuss corporations, start a new thread. Please stop trying to derail this thread.
On one hand, it is not about corruption of game journalists by big corporation. On the other hand, it is about how game journalists spoke about that game from a big corporation. How the freaking hell am I supposed to understand that? You keep changing what the issue is every time I try to pinpoint it!
Asherian Command wrote: This all can be traced back to the Mass Effect 3 issue. Where journalists and the community attacked each other and did a similar thing. But this time.
The community has risen up and spoke up and called the journalists out and said that the journalists are biased. They want the journalists to write better, to do something else.
They want the journalists to write not about the specs, but about the games themselves, what the games mean to them, not what the graphics are capable of, What is fun or not. They are tired of this biased ideals.
This whole idea of missing the point of a game.
Giving the same game franchise a perfect score, when it has nothing good to add to the community.
Okay, how the hell is that coherent with
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This thread is about corrupt interractions between indie developers (Quinn) and journalists.
Are some big corporations corrupt? Yes.
Do they sometimes use money to manipulate gaming media? Yes.
But that's not what this thread is about. If you want to discuss corporations, start a new thread. Please stop trying to derail this thread.
On one hand, it is not about corruption of game journalists by big corporation. On the other hand, it is about how game journalists spoke about that game from a big corporation. How the freaking hell am I supposed to understand that? You keep changing what the issue is every time I try to pinpoint it!
Well its the current thing we are discussing. I don't think Shadow Captain has been in the debate for a long time.
I mean the whole issue is confusing. And almost mind boggling.
Because the whole issue is basically a trip wire to crazy.
And ever since I am insane, I can sort out the crazy into an understanding of what is going.
The ME3 thing is actually a great point! The gaming media hasn't exactly loved gamers for a long time... Hold The Line was the first crack where we started saying "feth you, we're consumers and we'll be heard on products and IP we support and purchase." only to be called whiny, entitled brats. That was the first time "gamer" was used as an insult
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Now I just think you cannot explain the relation between that whole misogyny/SJW stuff and the corruption of video game journalists because there is none, and therefore use the pretense that I am trolling not to answer.
We already HAVE answered. You're ignoring it and persisting with this straw man. Ergo why we think you are trolling.
sirlynchmob wrote: Basically Quinn's infidelity brought the corruption to light. the game industry is trying to shift the focus to misogyny and SJW stuff to avoid the real issue of addressing the corruption.
So, it is about corruption, but some people (not the game industry, as far as I know no representative of any game company is involved, only journalists) trying to voluntarily confuse the issue by mixing this and social issues while actually those are two separate thing. It is what I just wrote. And everyone told me it was not that.
So, what about that:
So, if I was to sum up the whole thing, some people want to speak about social issues in gaming, other want to speak about corruption in gaming, those two subjects are not linked in any way, but some journalists rejoice in mixing them, so actually nobody understand what anybody is saying anymore.
Is that better for you? I just changed one word. I put journalists instead of people. Seems to be describing exactly what you were talking about. Yet when I said that, you all piled in on how I was wrong and had understood nothing…
I think you are missing the point.
It is a response. Its their defense. This whole sexist argument is coming from the journalists. They are saying that We (The Gamers) are sexist. Because there is a vocal minority who are targeting Zoe Quinn for sleeping with other guys. Which is not the major argument from the community. Its the corruption in games.
Okay, you are saying that I am missing the point just to write the exact damn thing I wrote below as being the real point. Only difference is that you got one more precision about the fact they are are making generalizations about gamers.
You know, really, if you want to bring attention to the corruption, just do not talk about social issues. As long as you keep those separate, as long as there is nothing in your writings that refers in any way to any social issue, the only way to answer you is to talk about corruption. And there, you win, because nobody can defend corruption without looking like an ass. If accusations of sexism is their shield, then just strike them in the back where they cannot use their shield by not making any kind of statement that could be even remotely linked to any social issue.
You know, really, if you want to bring attention to the corruption, just do not talk about social issues. As long as you keep those separate, as long as there is nothing in your writings that refers in any way to any social issue, the only way to answer you is to talk about corruption. And there, you win, because nobody can defend corruption without looking like an ass. If accusations of sexism is their shield, then just strike them in the back where they cannot use their shield by not making any kind of statement that could be even remotely linked to any social issue.
Pft. Like that'll ever happen That would be too concise and too the point.
Asherian Command wrote: Well its the current thing we are discussing. I don't think Shadow Captain has been in the debate for a long time.
Why do I need to quote his post next to yours for you to realize it then? I mean, if you are about to accuse me of trolling because I do not understand but do not react when he says thing that will obviously confuse me because they are false…
That is was what I said. People, including you, derived from it I was trolling and trying to get the thread closed.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: We already HAVE answered. You're ignoring it and persisting with this straw man. Ergo why we think you are trolling.
Apparently you do not even know what the thread is about. That is what Asherian Command said. So, yeah, sure you have answered. Just not really in a fashion coherent with what other have said.
sirlynchmob wrote: Basically Quinn's infidelity brought the corruption to light. the game industry is trying to shift the focus to misogyny and SJW stuff to avoid the real issue of addressing the corruption.
So, it is about corruption, but some people (not the game industry, as far as I know no representative of any game company is involved, only journalists) trying to voluntarily confuse the issue by mixing this and social issues while actually those are two separate thing. It is what I just wrote. And everyone told me it was not that.
So, what about that:
So, if I was to sum up the whole thing, some people want to speak about social issues in gaming, other want to speak about corruption in gaming, those two subjects are not linked in any way, but some journalists rejoice in mixing them, so actually nobody understand what anybody is saying anymore.
Is that better for you? I just changed one word. I put journalists instead of people. Seems to be describing exactly what you were talking about. Yet when I said that, you all piled in on how I was wrong and had understood nothing…
I think you are missing the point.
It is a response. Its their defense. This whole sexist argument is coming from the journalists. They are saying that We (The Gamers) are sexist. Because there is a vocal minority who are targeting Zoe Quinn for sleeping with other guys. Which is not the major argument from the community. Its the corruption in games.
Okay, you are saying that I am missing the point just to write the exact damn thing I wrote below as being the real point. Only difference is that you got one more precision about the fact they are are making generalizations about gamers.
You know, really, if you want to bring attention to the corruption, just do not talk about social issues. As long as you keep those separate, as long as there is nothing in your writings that refers in any way to any social issue, the only way to answer you is to talk about corruption. And there, you win, because nobody can defend corruption without looking like an ass. If accusations of sexism is their shield, then just strike them in the back where they cannot use their shield by not making any kind of statement that could be even remotely linked to any social issue.
Oh you were confusing me then.
And correct. The gamers have been outcrying the corruption and the journalists are lumping us in as sexist pigs.
Wasn't going to do this, but due to it dethreading this I'mma gonna have to;
Don't argue with Hybrid, guys. I tried that with Smite and was fully able to refute his points and he still "Didn't get it". He claimed there were no Black gods, despite the game having Mayan characters. I showed him Xbalanque and Chaac, two Mayan (OP as hell) black gods. He claimed the representation of Chinese Gods were terrible because they didn't have Chinese Eyes (What does that even mean?!?), and that Ra wasn't dark skinned enough; You can read everything here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/610519.page and here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/610363.page.
He's either really young or intentionally being obtuse.
Slarg232 wrote: Wasn't going to do this, but due to it dethreading this I'mma gonna have to;
Don't argue with Hybrid, guys. I tried that with Smite and was fully able to refute his points and he still "Didn't get it". He claimed there were no Black gods, despite the game having Mayan characters. I showed him Xbalanque and Chaac, two Mayan (OP as hell) black gods. He claimed the representation of Chinese Gods were terrible because they didn't have Chinese Eyes (What does that even mean?!?), and that Ra wasn't dark skinned enough; You can read everything here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/610519.page and here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/610363.page.
He's either really young or intentionally being obtuse.
Slarg232 wrote: Wasn't going to do this, but due to it dethreading this I'mma gonna have to;
Don't argue with Hybrid, guys. I tried that with Smite and was fully able to refute his points and he still "Didn't get it".
Nope. You “did not get it”. Or anything. When I explicitly say “League of Legend is very bad, and Smite is worse”, you come up with new arguments for why I am stupid not to see that League of Legend is very bad. You are basically the definition of not getting it.
Apparently. After the whole bloody Lizard Squad debacle (Who have finally been caught) who's goal was to cause dismay and chaos in the gaming community (seriously people are not in the right mind sometimes).
What, I've not 100% sure, but I've got a pretty good idea.
I got Asherian Command to agree with my original assessment of the situation. That is already quite “something”. I am not sure that is the “something” you were referring to, but I am quite happy with that “something”. I am still interested in knowing what other members that called me a troll think the situation actually is, because they seem to continue to believe my assessment was ridiculously off the mark.
Asherian Command wrote: This all can be traced back to the Mass Effect 3 issue. Where journalists and the community attacked each other and did a similar thing. But this time.
The community has risen up and spoke up and called the journalists out and said that the journalists are biased. They want the journalists to write better, to do something else.
They want the journalists to write not about the specs, but about the games themselves, what the games mean to them, not what the graphics are capable of, What is fun or not. They are tired of this biased ideals.
This whole idea of missing the point of a game.
Giving the same game franchise a perfect score, when it has nothing good to add to the community.
Okay, how the hell is that coherent with
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This thread is about corrupt interractions between indie developers (Quinn) and journalists.
Are some big corporations corrupt? Yes.
Do they sometimes use money to manipulate gaming media? Yes.
But that's not what this thread is about. If you want to discuss corporations, start a new thread. Please stop trying to derail this thread.
On one hand, it is not about corruption of game journalists by big corporation. On the other hand, it is about how game journalists spoke about that game from a big corporation. How the freaking hell am I supposed to understand that? You keep changing what the issue is every time I try to pinpoint it!
Because the topic of discussion is corruption in journalism and their relationship with publishers/developers, not the big corporations themselves like EA.
Your original complaint was basically "well, if you think journalists are corrupt why aren't you complaining about corporations? They're even more corrupt!" Or at least that's how I interpreted it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Your original complaint was basically "well, if you think journalists are corrupt why aren't you complaining about corporations? They're even more corrupt!" Or at least that's how I interpreted it.
It was actually “Well, if you think journalists are corrupt why are you complaining about SJW? They are not the one corrupting journalists, or at least they are doing only a tiny, tiny portion of the corrupting compared to corporations."
Talking about SJW only diverts attention from the corruption thing. It does not help fighting corruption, it just make people like Wil Wheaton think this is about social issues and react accordingly. It is totally counterproductive to fighting corruption.
Slarg232 wrote: Wasn't going to do this, but due to it dethreading this I'mma gonna have to;
Don't argue with Hybrid, guys. I tried that with Smite and was fully able to refute his points and he still "Didn't get it". He claimed there were no Black gods, despite the game having Mayan characters. I showed him Xbalanque and Chaac, two Mayan (OP as hell) black gods. He claimed the representation of Chinese Gods were terrible because they didn't have Chinese Eyes (What does that even mean?!?), and that Ra wasn't dark skinned enough; You can read everything here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/610519.page and here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/610363.page.
He's either really young or intentionally being obtuse.
We did, and were told "That's not really an issue".
The people whom tell us what to expect later for games, tell companies how good their games are, and report on what happens in the gaming world are actually biased, give out awards based more on who knows who than how good a game is, and refuse to report on incidents involving their friends. They also seem to be coordinating to try to silence the publics opinion, as they all release articles saying the same message, supress forum activities, and blacklist developers who speak out against them. If you cannot see why that is a problem, that is only on you, as we have explained it multiple times.
You know, with the fact that they've Godwinned the Gamergate, I'd almost be willing to believe the stupid "Bruise myself then cry about it" Quinnspiracy.
Because the topic of discussion is corruption in journalism and their relationship with publishers/developers, not the big corporations themselves like EA.
EA is a publisher...
It's not like Titanfall got all around laurels, despite having even less of a single player campaign than most MPFPS games, even though other FPS games are frequently scored down for having lackluster single player or anything. Hell, when's the last time anyone really reported on all the gak with Origin (aka, a platform so buggy early Steam looks flawless in comparison). Not to mention how the media has been pushing their piracy "it's killing us!" fantasy for years. EDIT: And lest we forget, the Escapist Review of DA2, which pretty much screams from the first sentence "EA Paid us to give this game a perfect score!"
Yeah, major corporations aren't at the very least a related topic to corruption in gaming journalism
LordofHats wrote: Yeah, major corporations aren't at the very least a related topic to corruption in gaming journalism
Nope. SJW are. They hand out tons of dollar to game journalists to corrupt them into giving bad scores to any game that does feature a while male hetero protagonist. This has been so successful on putting a huge pressure on big video game companies that it is pretty hard to find one such protagonist these days. That, or speaking in length about SJW and basically not about major game corporation is counterproductive when it comes to corruption in gaming journalism. You tell me.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: They hand out tons of dollar to game journalists to corrupt them into giving bad scores to any game that does feature a while male hetero protagonist. This has been so successful on putting a huge pressure on big video game companies that it is pretty hard to find one such protagonist these days.
I think Machu posted it once, but there was a really good article about how the games industry (namely marketing departments in the mega publishers) use focus groups and basically have research teams that are organized and paid to produce "self-full-filling prophecy" data. It's not so much that they want to make nothing but games with straight white male protagonists, its that much like Hollywood, they're horribly averse to taking even the slightest risk and have created a system of 'yes men' to tell them what they want to hear.
I doubt most gamers have an issue with female protagonists, but as has been shown in a few cases, the industry has managed to convince itself that unless the name 'Lara Croft' is involved, gamers aren't interested and they point to various games as evidence that this is true (Metroid wtf were they thinking handing this to Team Ninja, and Beyond Good and Evil* as examples).
*Hell I can't think of many examples better than Beyond Good and Evil. One of the most acclaimed games of all time, everyone who played it wanted a sequel, and Ubisoft basically stonewalled the production of another game because "Jade is a chick" as if that has any relevance to the game's less than desired sales.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: They hand out tons of dollar to game journalists to corrupt them into giving bad scores to any game that does feature a while male hetero protagonist. This has been so successful on putting a huge pressure on big video game companies that it is pretty hard to find one such protagonist these days.
I think Machu posted it once, but there was a really good article about how the games industry (namely marketing departments in the mega publishers) use focus groups and basically have research teams that are organized and paid to produce "self-full-filling prophecy" data. It's not so much that they want to make nothing but games with straight white male protagonists, its that much like Hollywood, they're horribly averse to taking even the slightest risk and have created a system of 'yes men' to tell them what they want to hear.
I doubt most gamers have an issue with female protagonists, but as has been shown in a few cases, the industry has managed to convince itself that unless the name 'Lara Croft' is involved, gamers aren't interested and they point to various games as evidence that this is true (Metroid wtf were they thinking handing this to Team Ninja, and Beyond Good and Evil* as examples).
*Hell I can't think of many examples better than Beyond Good and Evil. One of the most acclaimed games of all time, everyone who played it wanted a sequel, and Ubisoft basically stonewalled the production of another game because "Jade is a chick" as if that has any relevance to the game's less than desired sales.
Well they were just handled poorly. The games weren't interesting. Because well... The female character just didn't feel real. The character felt flat, and not three dimensional.
LordofHats wrote: Yeah, major corporations aren't at the very least a related topic to corruption in gaming journalism
Nope. SJW are. They hand out tons of dollar to game journalists to corrupt them into giving bad scores to any game that does feature a while male hetero protagonist. This has been so successful on putting a huge pressure on big video game companies that it is pretty hard to find one such protagonist these days.
That, or speaking in length about SJW and basically not about major game corporation is counterproductive when it comes to corruption in gaming journalism. You tell me.
The gamers aren't the ones talking about social issues, its the media that are talking about it in what appears to be a concerted effort to divert attention from the corruption case, then out of the woodwork come all the SJW types to join the bandwagon and label all gamers as misogynistic Neanderthals. How haven't you understood this already?
People do not care about the protagonist's gender if the game is well-made.
How many good games with strictly female protagonists are out there right now? Discount all RPG games with a customizable character as despite most players, by a large margin, still make male characters in said games (i.e.: Dragon Age, Mass Effect), the protagonist does not have a gender, he is given one by the player. Most games I can think of are older, like Beyond Good and Evil. Borderlands 2 is a very good example yet no exclusive woman either.
Appealing to the biggest market is the most logical solution and as long as most gamers are male by a large shot, it will stay to be that way.
H.B.M.C. wrote: A lot of people did, which is why people have been clamouring for a new one.
It was a great game, I wouldn't know why. But it would be hard to do it right sadly. As most reboots or sequels are usually terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: People do not care about the protagonist's gender if the game is well-made.
How many good games with strictly female protagonists are out there right now? Discount all RPG games with a customizable character as despite most players, by a large margin, still make male characters in said games, the protagonist does not have a gender, he is given one by the player. Most games I can think of are older, like Beyond Good and Evil. Borderlands 2 is a very good example yet no exclusive woman either.
Appealing to the biggest market is the most logical solution and as long as most gamers are male by a large shot, it will stay to be that way.
Tis my fear as well. Assuming it ever gets made, if it bombs then it just reinforces preconceived notions in the industry about lots of things. Adventures games, female protagonists, artsy games, etc. One failure could have drastic consequences. Imagine what would have become of the Marvel Movieverse if the Avengers flat out bombed? Whole thing would have bottomed up and nobody would have ever tried again.
LordofHats wrote: I doubt most gamers have an issue with female protagonists
I doubt it either. My point was not that gamers are horrible human beings, it was that the influence attributed by some members here by SJW on video game companies was… vastly overrated.
Not all of them. A bunch of them are. Either because it is something they feel strongly about or just because they feel the need to answer the journalists accusations.
PhantomViper wrote: then out of the woodwork come all the SJW types to join the bandwagon and label all gamers as misogynistic Neanderthals.
Yeah. Those nasty evil SJW. Were you not all angry at abusive generalizations a few seconds ago?
PhantomViper wrote: The gamers aren't the ones talking about social issues, its the media that are talking about it in what appears to be a concerted effort to divert attention from the corruption case, then out of the woodwork come all the SJW types to join the bandwagon and label all gamers as misogynistic Neanderthals. How haven't you understood this already?
It's basically the world's biggest strawman (currently). It's a side issue that certain groups are trying to push as the main issue in order to demonize anyone who dissents.
If you didn't, I'd have to press the doomsday button
EDIT: Good news though is that it took a decade, but apparently Beyond Good and Evil 2 is finally go
Yuck. Itchy!
I do look forward to the new one. I might have to dig out an old copy of the first in preparation. I'll have to see if it's on GOG when I get home from work.
Sigvatr wrote: How many good games with strictly female protagonists are out there right now?
I could name a few, but I am biased, and those are usually indie, or at least relatively low-budget games. I guess the two big budget examples that I can think of are Portal, and Mirror's Edge. I have not played Mirror's Edge myself, but I heard it was very good. I am a huge fan of American McGee's Alice.
In relation to that males make up the majority of the population.
According to a latest survey.
Women make up the majority of the gaming scene now.
Urgh. I cringe whenever I read this :/
It's a great example of extremely poor research. Women make up the most part if you think that everyone who plays Bubble Witch on his mobile phone 1-2 times a week is a gamer. I refer to the main market of actual video games where men are so far ahead in numbers it ain't oretty anymore. It's important to make that distinction because the mobile and the core market use a completely different marketing system.
Rule of thumb: if you see someone quoting the ESA as a main source, said person did not actually thoroughly read the study
In relation to that males make up the majority of the population.
According to a latest survey.
Women make up the majority of the gaming scene now.
Urgh. I cringe whenever I read this :/
It's a great example of extremely poor research. Women make up the most part if you think that everyone who plays Bubble Witch on his mobile phone 1-2 times a week is a gamer. I refer to the main market of actual video games where men are so far ahead in numbers it ain't oretty anymore. It's important to make that distinction because the mobile and the core market use a completely different marketing system.
Rule of thumb: if you see someone quoting the ESA as a main source, said person did not actually thoroughly read the study
I consider, Gamer a large variety,
I am not sub categorizing any more.
AS the stereotype for gamer is a teenager white boy.
I have been spending a bunch of time on Strife these days. I guess the two most active members on the forum are both women. Also when playing with voice chat, I heard some female voices. Also pre-voice change teenage boys, with can sometime be confused with female voice . Not yet the majority, but definitely present.
Also, people only mistake me for a woman on the phone, never on voice chat.
Careful with that "statistic". It tends to miss quite a few details, specifically in the breakdown of games and just how much mobile phone games come into it. You look at the big video games (the big sellers on consoles), and the numbers are still overwhelmingly male.
It basically is the same as calling someone a "football player" if he plays football 1-2 times a year. Or calling someone a "runner" if he goes running once every month. Or calling someone a cook because he cooks dinner once a week. Or...you get my point
All links, you linked, however, also use the ESA data so they don't add anything to the table. When using articles, make sure the actual information source differs.
It is fine to use your very own definition when talking about it, but on a scientific level, it's extremely poor work to use a definition that is as broad as the ESA did. Granted, they do that on purpose as they are biased, but the study bears no scientific value on this question.
Sigvatr wrote: It basically is the same as calling someone a "football player" if he plays football 1-2 times a year. Or calling someone a "runner" if he goes running once every month. Or calling someone a cook because he cooks dinner once a week. Or...you get my point
All links, you linked, however, also use the ESA data so they don't add anything to the table. When using articles, make sure the actual information source differs.
It is fine to use your very own definition when talking about it, but on a scientific level, it's extremely poor work to use a definition that is as broad as the ESA did. Granted, they do that on purpose as they are biased, but the study bears no scientific value on this question.
I merely define gamer as one who plays video games.
I mean the last few years the demographic has changed.
I've edited my post above to include a link to a brief 2-3 minute section of the Co-Optional Podcast (not the latest one, the one before that) where they discuss that "data". I love Dodger's response to it. HA!
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've edited my post above to include a link to a brief 2-3 minute section of the Co-Optional Podcast (not the latest one, the one before that) where they discuss that "data". I love Dodger's response to it. HA!
It was good but I wanted to hear the dogs opinion. Something about the way the dog holds that squeeky toy says that the dog has a very insightful opinion
I meant that in relation to white teenagers, woman are probably larger in the demographic. Because the population of gamers is more diverse than just white.
Sigvatr wrote: It basically is the same as calling someone a "football player" if he plays football 1-2 times a year. Or calling someone a "runner" if he goes running once every month. Or calling someone a cook because he cooks dinner once a week. Or...you get my point
All links, you linked, however, also use the ESA data so they don't add anything to the table. When using articles, make sure the actual information source differs.
It is fine to use your very own definition when talking about it, but on a scientific level, it's extremely poor work to use a definition that is as broad as the ESA did. Granted, they do that on purpose as they are biased, but the study bears no scientific value on this question.
I sometimes ride my 15 year old rusty mountain bike to work. Does that make me a mountain biker?
Sigvatr wrote: How many good games with strictly female protagonists are out there right now?
I could name a few, but I am biased, and those are usually indie, or at least relatively low-budget games. I guess the two big budget examples that I can think of are Portal, and Mirror's Edge. I have not played Mirror's Edge myself, but I heard it was very good. I am a huge fan of American McGee's Alice.
Remember Me and the latest trying to suck less variants of Tomb Raider come to mind as well. Samus is still around even if Ninja Theory completely screwed up her last game. FemShep was probably one of the best female protagonists in gaming history even if she did have to share top billing for her franchise, but she's still the "default" Shepard to me. A lot of RPGs have strong female characters in a variety of roles, though it's pretty common to keep your main character gender fluid. See Skyrim, Mass Effect and Dragon Age for obvious examples of that. The games are out there, but I'm all for more strictly female protagonists and female stories. I listed some legendary female warriors on the other page. You bet your donkey I'd be in line at midnight for a game about Tomoe Gozen, or a Black Flag clone that would let you conquer the seas surrounding China as Ching Shih till the Imperial government pays you off to disband your fleet.
Sigvatr wrote: How many good games with strictly female protagonists are out there right now?
I could name a few, but I am biased, and those are usually indie, or at least relatively low-budget games. I guess the two big budget examples that I can think of are Portal, and Mirror's Edge. I have not played Mirror's Edge myself, but I heard it was very good. I am a huge fan of American McGee's Alice.
Remember Me and the latest trying to suck less variants of Tomb Raider come to mind as well. Samus is still around even if Ninja Theory completely screwed up her last game. FemShep was probably one of the best female protagonists in gaming history even if she did have to share top billing for her franchise, but she's still the "default" Shepard to me. A lot of RPGs have strong female characters in a variety of roles, though it's pretty common to keep your main character gender fluid. See Skyrim, Mass Effect and Dragon Age for obvious examples of that. The games are out there, but I'm all for more strictly female protagonists and female stories. I listed some legendary female warriors on the other page. You bet your donkey I'd be in line at midnight for a game about Tomoe Gozen, or a Black Flag clone that would let you conquer the seas surrounding China as Ching Shih till the Imperial government pays you off to disband your fleet.
I think currently there is just this overselling sexual hype going on in the industry. Which is quite sad really. I mean its not that hard. Just dress them so we feel comfortable around them.
I merely define gamer as one who plays video games.
That's my point. You use the broadest possible definition there is. Which is fine to you, personally. It is horrendously wrong, however, on a scientific level and if the ESA states to present statistics on video games, everyone who ever took a single semester in economics / empirical science would be ashamed of himself
I merely define gamer as one who plays video games.
That's my point. You use the broadest possible definition there is. Which is fine to you, personally. It is horrendously wrong, however, on a scientific level and if the ESA states to present statistics on video games, everyone who ever took a single semester in economics / empirical science would be ashamed of himself
I am a gamer designer. My duty is to entertain and cater to the largest possible audience. OF course I will use the broadest definition. But that does not mean I will exclude any types of games and say. Thats not a game and this is a game.
But anyway we are off topic.
The entire discussion I think is summed up as. Journalists need to learn how to react to their consumer base. How to be unbiased in their reviews. Signing better agreements that say yes we will advertise but it will not influence the games we review. (I.E The Last of Us, Call of Duty, those games were basically paid for to be reviewed and given good advertisement)
I think games need to move on from just being fun. And to entertain. To cater to a wider audience. To have meaning to their stories. To give us a point, to have more than just good guy wins the day, this hero fantasy sorta needs to end. I want games that do more than just empower. I want disempowerment, i don't want to escape, i want to be given examples of how to live, how to do things, I want to change myself for the better. Look up to heroes, that struggle with what they do.
Gaming is slowly moving in that direction, with games like the walking dead, spec ops, mass effect 3 (Believe it or not), and many other disempowerment games.
I mean the market needs to grow, because fun games will always come out and will always be more fun.
LordofHats wrote: I doubt most gamers have an issue with female protagonists
I doubt it either. My point was not that gamers are horrible human beings, it was that the influence attributed by some members here by SJW on video game companies was… vastly overrated.
Not all of them. A bunch of them are. Either because it is something they feel strongly about or just because they feel the need to answer the journalists accusations.
PhantomViper wrote: then out of the woodwork come all the SJW types to join the bandwagon and label all gamers as misogynistic Neanderthals.
Yeah. Those nasty evil SJW. Were you not all angry at abusive generalizations a few seconds ago?
Angry? Why do you think I'm angry? I couldn't care less about any side of this mess, I was just trying to explain to you that the only comments regarding social issues that you see from the gamers side is when they are trying to defend themselves from accusation thrown at them by the game media and the SJW types.
I'm mostly just entertained by all the internet drama that this is generating.
"Of the players that completed Mass Effect 3, 18% did so as Female Shepard."
It's quite easy to decry 18% as a pretty darn poor stat, or not significant.
On the other hand... Anyone want to send me a 1/5th of their paycheck every month? - I didn't think so. :p
Additionally, it's been 2 years since Mass Effect 3 was released, which had already gained lots of good talk about Femshep so I'm very interested to find out how the stats go for Dragon Age 3. - Assuming they get a good voice actress, I imagine it will be a lot closer to 30% now.
I merely define gamer as one who plays video games.
That's my point. You use the broadest possible definition there is. Which is fine to you, personally. It is horrendously wrong, however, on a scientific level and if the ESA states to present statistics on video games, everyone who ever took a single semester in economics / empirical science would be ashamed of himself
what I find horrendously wrong is that if you play enough video games like League of Legends, you become a professional athlete. Athletes, really? Gamer is such an all encompassing term it really means anyone who plays games, that's its definition. But when people research gamers they need the break down between all the types of games.
"Of the players that completed Mass Effect 3, 18% did so as Female Shepard."
It's quite easy to decry 18% as a pretty darn poor stat, or not significant.
On the other hand... Anyone want to send me a 1/5th of their paycheck every month? - I didn't think so. :p
Additionally, it's been 2 years since Mass Effect 3 was released, which had already gained lots of good talk about Femshep so I'm very interested to find out how the stats go for Dragon Age 3. - Assuming they get a good voice actress, I imagine it will be a lot closer to 30% now.
And WTF does that prove anyway? If the game gives me a choice, I pick female, and name the character Steve, or Fred, and then give it the manliest voice I can find, because I have a strange sense of humor.
I mean, I'm just under 6 feet tall, and sometimes play dwarves. "Oh my x% of people completed a game playing a dwarf, that amount of the demographic must be short and bearded based upon this!"
I merely define gamer as one who plays video games.
That's my point. You use the broadest possible definition there is. Which is fine to you, personally. It is horrendously wrong, however, on a scientific level and if the ESA states to present statistics on video games, everyone who ever took a single semester in economics / empirical science would be ashamed of himself
what I find horrendously wrong is that if you play enough video games like League of Legends, you become a professional athlete. Athletes, really?
That statement is horrendously wrong.
You don't just play a lot of a game to become a pro gamer. Or are you saying that people who play a lot of soccer or basketball are automatically professional? Professional gamers spend more time practicing then any sport out there, often doing 12 hours a day. They do this for far less money (all but the very top have to scrape by on sponsorships for the team). They often have to go to events to represent sponsors too.
Please try to at least think before making silly statements.
BTW, the reason they allowed eSports pro's to be labeled as athletes is so they could get an Atheletes VISA for going to international tournaments.
Soladrin wrote: [
Yeah, 18% is like almost the same as 0 right? Industry could easily go without that 18%.
That implies that the aforementioned 18% wouldn't play the game were there an absence of a male/female choice. Speaking for some minute fraction of that percentage who has no problem playing female characters and has chosen to do so, it's not a dealbreaker for me. I can't speak for the rest of that group of people.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: 18% of the total playthroughs of ME3 probably comes up with a VERY large number...
As long as those were all distinct players, and that it didn't just count the number of playthroughs. Many people have completed multiple ME playthroughs, so it would be interesting to see how many of that 18% were unique players.
18% of 1.5 Million copies is still 270,000 playthroughs. Even if you cut the number in half to qualify for multiple playthroughs , that's 135,000 individual people playing as Femshep.
Sure, Cutting it in half is a bad statistic, but not every secondary playthrough would have been Femshep. In the first game I myself had 1 Fem and 2 Dudesheps.
I love it when people just outright ignore the fact that a percentage is just a lower key for an outright number.
I assure you, I understand the concept of percentages just fine. No need to climb the high horse..
The argument I was trying to make is that it was not many for multiple reasons. Some have already been touched on. Multiple playthroughs is a big one, another big consideration you need to make is that you HAVE to make a choice. You can't choose neither. Suppose you're ambivalent to the choice and pick at random.
I'm just saying that the real number of people for whom the ability to play a female character was a dealbreaker is probably not a large number of people, or at least not as large as expected.
I love it when people just outright ignore the fact that a percentage is just a lower key for an outright number.
I assure you, I understand the concept of percentages just fine. No need to climb the high horse..
The argument I was trying to make is that it was not many for multiple reasons. Some have already been touched on. Multiple playthroughs is a big one, another big consideration you need to make is that you HAVE to make a choice. You can't choose neither. Suppose you're ambivalent to the choice and pick at random.
I'm just saying that the real number of people for whom the ability to play a female character was a dealbreaker is probably not a large number of people, or at least not as large as expected.
To be fair, how many people play using Colorblind settings in games?
Not very many, but it's nice for those who need/want them (Though why you would want Colorblind mode when you're not colorblind is beyond me).
To be fair, how many people play using Colorblind settings in games?
Not very many, but it's nice for those who need/want them (Though why you would want Colorblind mode when you're not colorblind is beyond me).
Interesting point, and I wish they were available more often, but I can say feeling absolutely certain about it that the amount of effort that goes into any colorblind mode color palette swaps is microscopic compared to the amount of effort required to put a female character into any of the ME games.
That's the part that interests me specifically, really: Effort invested versus the number of users. For the amount of effort that went into ME, I don't honestly know if 18% (assuming the other factors I mentioned were 0% of that 18%) was actually worth it. I don't know how much of the development effort actually was spent on that feature.
To be fair, how many people play using Colorblind settings in games?
Not very many, but it's nice for those who need/want them (Though why you would want Colorblind mode when you're not colorblind is beyond me).
Interesting point, and I wish they were available more often, but I can say feeling absolutely certain about it that the amount of effort that goes into any colorblind mode color palette swaps is microscopic compared to the amount of effort required to put a female character into any of the ME games.
That's the part that interests me specifically, really: Effort invested versus the number of users. For the amount of effort that went into ME, I don't honestly know if 18% (assuming the other factors I mentioned were 0% of that 18%) was actually worth it. I don't know how much of the development effort actually was spent on that feature.
To be fair, as much as everyone hates the fact that most wimminz in games share the same body type, that does make it where if you can "afford" one woman, you can afford almost all of them.
To be fair, how many people play using Colorblind settings in games?
Not very many, but it's nice for those who need/want them (Though why you would want Colorblind mode when you're not colorblind is beyond me).
Interesting point, and I wish they were available more often, but I can say feeling absolutely certain about it that the amount of effort that goes into any colorblind mode color palette swaps is microscopic compared to the amount of effort required to put a female character into any of the ME games.
That's the part that interests me specifically, really: Effort invested versus the number of users. For the amount of effort that went into ME, I don't honestly know if 18% (assuming the other factors I mentioned were 0% of that 18%) was actually worth it. I don't know how much of the development effort actually was spent on that feature.
I think I can use one of my other points that I have made where a game designers duty is to ensure he is catering the largest possible audience. And if they implement a certain thing that makes a certain minority go wild, but its a feature none the less with the game.
That means we got a possible customer base and a few purchases.
The thing is, is that it wouldn't of been a big difference if there had been a fem-shepherd, but it in someway did boost sales, it catered to more people. Same reason why people play COD games over a single player only game. They want to play with their friends its a notable feature and thus increases the amount of purchases.
Just looking at the people who signed it, you have a handful of people from Epic, some from NCSoft, one or two from Microsoft, and (I only got to 200 or so names) about 125 Independent Developers.
I'm not arguing that femshep was a mistake, or that they should have just removed that option with just a black hole where that effort was spent. You have a certain amount of hours allocated to a project, and you use them. I'm wondering if there weren't other parts of the game that could have been improved at the cost of that feature such that it would have been a better game. I.E. Did it boost sales the most out of any of the possible things they could have spent that effort on? That's not something that the 18% figure can really give you, I guess.
I don't really like the "catering the largest possible audience" concept. I think there's more to it than that, otherwise that Pumpkin Online game would be the most successful game ever.
I always play as a female character in any game that offers it, especially ones with a more rpg element. Femshep made ME much more enjoyable for me than maleshep (my wife played through a couple of times as maleshep so I know how it plays going through as a male PC).
Games with a female PC are always of interest to me... generally because they tend to be games with an actual story
Also, loved Beyond Good and Evil... looking forward to the second one
Do you guys think if we as a collective basically Dart Boarded a Dev and spammed their Twitter with that link listed a while back that explains the outrage that would do any good?
To be completely honest, I doubt they'd care and use it to help out their platform of how we're horrible. Because we come with facts.
The corruption inherent in the system is pretty damn strong when one side is playing relatively nice and the other's resorted to name calling because they need some way to demonize the community.
Polygon, kotaku et al are banished from my facebook feed, and I made damn sure to tell facebook why when it asked. Why read a site that's content discussing gamers in the way they do? I think these sites will lose readers over this whole thing and I'm sure self identifying feminists with addictions to playing candy crush will like totally make up the difference. Before you know it these sites will have editorial boards telling you who to vote for.
Don't forget to report death threats and hatespeech from authors and developers to the companies they work for. A few dev's backpedaled hard upon discovering that "Oh hey, the things I say can hurt my job position!"
I keep looking at the hate on gamergate, from that tumblr. I keep checking with twitter thinking "no this has to be a over reaction" but it isn't.
How on earth can someone feel like you can tell people to literally feth off or get mudered and be "on the right side of history". Its seriously mind boggling for me
Crablezworth wrote: I thought this was an interesting image. Even the horse doesn't look too happy lol
Spoiler:
Whenever "White Knights" are brought up, I visualize a Knight in gleaming White armour...stained from head to toe in blood, foaming at the mouth and frantically searching for a new foe to slay like a World Eater / Khorne Berzerker.
The whole thing is pretty shameful. What makes it worse for me is that there are valid points from either side of this canyon, but you can hardly see them from the braying and screaming from the worst elements of both sides. Then lay in the internet echo chamber, and the fact that the news stories on this thing focus on those loud people with nothing of value to say and it is just embarrassing.
Well, if the whole thing is to be believed, the news stories and those who write them kind of have a reason to focus on the vitriol instead of the good the other side is doing.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Who is this wonderful Dorito Pope, and does he come in Cool Ranch flavor?
Dorito Pope, aka Geoff Keighley, was a gaming journalist who was behind the DoritoGate scandal in 2012. Basically he was hyping up for Halo 4, and the product placement in his video (for Doritos and Mountain Dew) was so utterly intense that everyone quickly forgot about Halo 4 and could only focus on the product placement. The interview was parodied in this video;
I thought this was entertaining. Basically it's hyperbole given form, but basically thunderf00t used the same cherry picking/commentary to show what a terrible misogynist joss whedon must surely be.
Again, please don't take this as an attack on joss whedon, it's not, it merely highlights that you can take anything out of context. The example from cabin in the woods, the women shown dancing has been fed chemical cocktail as well as a bunch of pheromones which cause her to act the way she does, the whole movie is basically poking fun at tropes in horror movies. This is highlighted when the skeptical character points out one of the characters is acting like a jock, all alpha male, when in reality he's a sociology major.
This thread is just 20 pages of "My god, bias exists in journalism!"
Geoff Keighley seems like a nice guy. I'm not really sure what your problem is?
Watching EVO 2014 we were inundated with "Baha Blast" comments but who actually cares? EVO ran and was enjoyable to watch despite that. Product placement is kind of what it takes for these things to run and it's been the same with films for years.
Geoff Keighley seems like a nice guy. I'm not really sure what your problem is?
He's not a bad guy (and this was stated over and over at the time). Rather the controversy was about how his interview wasn't even about Halo 4 but about buying Doritos and Mountain Dew, which wasn't Keighley's decision to make.
Product placement is kind of what it takes for these things to run and it's been the same with films for years.
Might want to rewatch that interview. It's more like Halo 4 was product placement, and ad is really for Doritos and Mountain Dew.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Who is this wonderful Dorito Pope, and does he come in Cool Ranch flavor?
Dorito Pope, aka Geoff Keighley, was a gaming journalist who was behind the DoritoGate scandal in 2012. Basically he was hyping up for Halo 4, and the product placement in his video (for Doritos and Mountain Dew) was so utterly intense that everyone quickly forgot about Halo 4 and could only focus on the product placement. The interview was parodied in this video;
I know. His eyes are just dead, his face is a permanent scowl, and his voice sounds so depressed. Watching that video it's like he's screaming "for the love of all that is holy I'm sorry, I'M SO SORRY!"
soundwave591 wrote: I keep looking at the hate on gamergate, from that tumblr. I keep checking with twitter thinking "no this has to be a over reaction" but it isn't.
How on earth can someone feel like you can tell people to literally feth off or get mudered and be "on the right side of history". Its seriously mind boggling for me
An overdeveloped sense of self righteous indignation does terrible things to people. You really wanna lose your faith in humanity? Read the negative comments on #notashield, shocking how minority voices get dismissed or insulted (uncle toms, house n****rs, whores and a host of lovely other non-PC terms that if a gamer dared use they'd be set ablaze by news media, but apparently being a white girl who didn't get hugged enough as a child makes it okay) when they don't toe the new party line. It's fething creepy. Joe McCarthy would be proud.
Hell the gaming press LITERALLY said games aren't supposed to be fun. While I go chew a tree into some tasteful wooden furniture, I'm going to let the guys at Niche Gamer field that.
http://nichegamer.net/2014/08/so-why-shouldnt-gaming-be-fun/
Side note: If like me you are finishing the exodus from the mainstream gaming websites (Kotaku, IGN, Polygon, The Escapist, et al) that for a lot of us began when they started calling all gamers entitled donkey caves during the ME3 ending thing.... Niche Gamer and gamesnosh are cool.
Wait, they're saying game's aren't supposed to be fun?
Well. They've done it. Just when I thought I'd seen the dumbest humanity could offer, they outdid me. Here I thought no one could ever top my car made entirely of tatter tots thrown out by the Sonic across the street.
IDK. I read his logic and it's completely bonkers. How is 'fun' a trick of the mind, but 'edifying' or 'progressive' isn't? I mean at the point we degrade one of the most basic of human emotions (joy) to a trick of the mind, what isn't a trick of the mind and why should any trick of the mind matter more than another?
That's just stupid... Really. Seriously didn't think anything would top the 'death of gamers' stuff that seemed to just appear out of nowhere, but reading that rant was just bizarre. It's like he took every complaint about the game industry under the sun (including corruption no less) and said it's all gamers fault.
I think this entire thing has become a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off, but that tops it by far.
Video game journalism is dead.
It is just another form of entertainment.
At least if you come across someone with similar game tastes, that may be a "report" worth hearing.
These people only become important if we pay attention to them, like they matter.
Make this silliness stop, don't give them your time, clicks, views and especially money.
You ignore them, they go away like some mythical creature.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What is this stuff about the ending of Mass Effect 3 that has been mentioned a bunch of time?
When ME3 first released, it received rave reviews from critics, while many fans complained about the game, namely it's ending. It developed into this huge stink about 'false advertising' and 'EA lied to us.' Several critics and reviewers at the time referred to gamers as 'entitled brats' at the time.
Honestly, in that situation I agreed with them. Yeah, the ending sucked. Boo hoo. Get over it. ME2 was dreadful what were you expecting? *raises the blast shields*
LordofHats wrote: When ME3 first released, it received rave reviews from critics, while many fans complained about the game, namely it's ending. It developed into this huge stink about 'false advertising' and 'EA lied to us.' Several critics and reviewers at the time referred to gamers as 'entitled brats' at the time.
daedalus wrote: Truly Tux Racer was the greatest game of any generation.
How come ON. I have 69 games in Steam, and basically twice that number that I could download from Humble Bundle. And I am playing Strife quite a lot these days. There ARE so good FLOSS games, but really, should you not quote Frogatto instead? That game was very good!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What is this stuff about the ending of Mass Effect 3 that has been mentioned a bunch of time?
When ME3 first released, it received rave reviews from critics, while many fans complained about the game, namely it's ending. It developed into this huge stink about 'false advertising' and 'EA lied to us.' Several critics and reviewers at the time referred to gamers as 'entitled brats' at the time.
Honestly, in that situation I agreed with them. Yeah, the ending sucked. Boo hoo. Get over it. ME2 was dreadful what were you expecting? *raises the blast shields*
I honestly which the developers had stuck to their guns, kept the ending, and said "this is what we felt appropriate". I felt the DLC endings were a cop out, and I knew a lot of people who hated the DLC endings anyway. If you make something, you should stick with your vision, not bow down to everyone's whims. I know a lot of that probably came from EA trying to 180 the disaster, but if the original ending was the developer's vision, then he should be able to stick with it.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What is this stuff about the ending of Mass Effect 3 that has been mentioned a bunch of time?
When ME3 first released, it received rave reviews from critics, while many fans complained about the game, namely it's ending. It developed into this huge stink about 'false advertising' and 'EA lied to us.' Several critics and reviewers at the time referred to gamers as 'entitled brats' at the time.
Honestly, in that situation I agreed with them. Yeah, the ending sucked. Boo hoo. Get over it. ME2 was dreadful what were you expecting? *raises the blast shields*
I think we discussed this on the mass effect 3 thread.
Indeed, ME3 was entitled brats. But one thing I've learned is, people who play one game don't represent people who play another (Or all gamers in general.
EDIT: Actually no, gonna be straight. I'm not going to do it, because I'm amazed you're really throwing a temper tantrum over that. It's too funny to fix.
(by 
