Games are sexists because people are sexists. That's the entire "argument". Gamers, SOME gamers, aren't sexists because they're gamers, those people are sexist because they're people. Or, rather, a subset of all people.
It's an extremely simple thing a lot of people just don't understand. If you take 5 black balls out of a bowl with 95 white balls, chances are, you might end up getting a black ball.
Sigvatr wrote: Games are sexists because people are sexists. That's the entire "argument". Gamers, SOME gamers, aren't sexists because they're gamers, those people are sexist because they're people. Or, rather, a subset of all people.
It's an extremely simple thing a lot of people just don't understand. If you take 5 black balls out of a bowl with 95 white balls, chances are, you might end up getting a black ball.
Not really rocket science.
Yes yes. But I think we can blame the minority of idiots who go around harassing for that.
They should stick to the comedy and not get involved in the drama.
I disagreed with it so much. She needs to seriously stop feeding the fire.
Well she is leading the charge at bribing people to give her death threats to pollute the #gamergate hashtag. These are pretty desperate and dishonest tactics. Remember her good friend is Maya Kramer, so she definitely is being helped by SilverString Media to spin this story into everything that its not.
https://twitter.com/wonderella/status/504773282541748225 Everyone keeps quoting some Twitter stuff, and Wonderella is the only person worth following on Twitter, and she only made one comment on something somehow vaguely related to Gamergate, so here you go!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: https://twitter.com/wonderella/status/504773282541748225
Everyone keeps quoting some Twitter stuff, and Wonderella is the only person worth following on Twitter, and she only made one comment on something somehow vaguely related to Gamergate, so here you go!
I said at the beginning of this thread not to post twitter things -.-
So... SJW's running a several year long campaign of hatred and harassment, apparently including a former senior editor of Kotaku and his wife.
When can we expect Kotaku to report on this hate campaign?
A few hours from now.
There were some people who are currently blaming gamers for certain things happening like these women leaving the industry.
I know some people who have left, and I know why, they hate the media, and then the media uses them as ammo against gamers. Then they quote each other on the issue and still can't persuade us with facts.
And yet we have been showing them the connections through their own websites of the bias, and then we keep showing them over and over that they are very corrupt.
Spoiler:
daemonpro A Personal Statement from an Indie Dev on why #GamerGate Is Important Well, the past few weeks have been pretty crazy, haven’t they? I’ve been trying to put together this statement for months - even before Gamergate started up. The need for this statement has only increased as the weeks have gone on so I’m glad for finally getting the opportunity to talk about it publically and get it off my chest.
My name is Christopher Arnold. I am an aspiring indie developer. My company, Crowned Daemon Studios, is currently working on its first game, ”Freak”. I don’t have a vast body of experience in the industry, so I can’t attest to any major corruptions in the indie scene. What I can definitely attest to is an extremely toxic, overly critical environment prohibiting fledgling developers from making games about personal issues and that this environment is being actively encouraged by gaming journalists and critics.
One of the difficult things in writing this statement is me being able to articulate my feelings on why the current atmosphere of viciously enforced political correctness is stifling developers without turning it into a giant advertisement for ”Freak”. At this moment we do not have any screenshots or gameplay footage and we are still working on a demo, so any inadvertent advertising of the game in this statement feels cheap (for reasons I will touch on later). Rest assured, I am not making this statement in order to sell our game. I talk about the game here because it gives context. Now let’s get to the actual point.
This is Tinker.
He is the main playable character in our game. In the opening scene he is attacked by a group of zombies, bitten and then seemingly dies only to come back to life with his humanity intact. Not quite zombie, not quite human, he has to wander back to his home through an unforgiving wilderness in hopes that the medical personnel there can figure out how he ‘survived’.
Tinker and I are alike in a lot of ways. Like me, he has an innate love of tinkering around with things (hence his nickname). He’s withdrawn, moody and has difficulty dealing with people. Also like me, he is autistic.
The process of writing for Tinker has required me to call upon my own experiences with autism, as well as the experiences of other members of the development team who are either autistic themselves or who knew people that are. While I would not say that the game itself is inherently about autism, it does inform Tinker’s story arc, so it is a crucial aspect of the story.
Throughout the entire process of working on the game to its current state, I have not once been afraid of trolls who will make fun of the game for touching on the issue of autism, or harass myself and the other team members of Crowned Daemon Studios for being autistic. What I have been afraid of has been the reactions from the social justice-minded members of the gaming community and mass media, be they positive OR negative. But to explain why I have to explain my own experiences with autism.
I’ve always felt like I’m a burden - on my family, on my friends, on the people around me. My inability to just act normally has caused the people around me no shortage of grief. Even though they hide it, ignore it, or say it doesn’t matter I know it eats away at them. I know they still love me and care for me but that doesn’t change the fact that for the longest time I’ve taken more than I’ve given back.
People have judged me and treated me differently because of my condition but not in the way you might think. I’ve been given preferential treatment my entire life. People have walked on eggshells around me, afraid of calling me out for when I’ve done something wrong for fear of being insensitive (I won’t name names or point to specific examples because I don’t want anyone to feel like I’m blaming them). I understand that these people who have given me this treatment do so for the best of intentions but it isn’t helping me to become more of a well-adjusted person. It’s enabling me to continue justifying my inexcusable behavior. It’s important to me that my game succeeds based on its own merits. I am more than my diagnosis. My failures are mine alone and I will face them as they come. I will not have my condition be used as a shield from criticism, be it against myself or my work.
I never intended to use the subject matter to elevate my game over others. When I started writing up the plot for the game I was very depressed. While I won’t say that I’m ‘over’ any of it, I will say that writing this character has helped me come to understand it better. While I would like for my game to ultimately help other people with autism (or people who know someone who does) to come to a better understanding of the condition, this isn’t going to be ‘Autism Quest’. It’s a game with a character who reflects my life experiences. It likewise is not a game about autism but rather a game that involves a character with autism - an important difference which I would like to emphasize. Nor am I going to be writing a representation of all autistic people everywhere. That would be as inherently impossible and problematic as writing a character who’s meant to represent every member of any demographic.
In the past few weeks I’ve seen lots of people come forward and talk about how important gaming is to them. For me gaming has always been my link to other people. My first gaming memory was playing “Chex Quest” with my dad (I was about 5, so he controlled the movement and lined me up to take the shots). Most of the console gaming I ever did growing up was at friend’s houses. All of the people currently on the design team for “Freak” were friends I met through gaming. Gaming, and the culture around it, has been more than an escape for me. It has been the most effective way for me to find other like-minded people and bond with them. I want everyone to be able to engage with this culture like I have, and believe that this can be done without demonizing anyone.
Those in the gaming mass media think they’re doing people like me a favor, but they’re not. They’re smothering me and others like me. I know now there is no way they will hold my game truly accountable for any flaws it might ultimately have because they’ll think that any dismissal or criticism of the game as a whole will be a direct attack on autistic people, and it quite clearly is not. When people do dog pile on games that cover issues like this (I won’t name names but I’m sure you can fill in the blanks), it’s because of how the subject matter is approached, not that it was approached at all. The flaws of these games have been in their inability to truly connect with the people who play them, not that they had the audacity to attempt something new. If I had come forward before this, I would have been made a pet of the ‘social justice gaming crowd’, a person they could throw around to show how diverse and righteous they are, all while shielding themselves from criticism. I would be given preferential treatment just like I always have. It never ends.
I shouldn’t have to worry if my game is getting positive press because the journalists wanted to use my condition as a way to elevate themselves and their pet causes. I shouldn’t have to worry if my game got the praise it did for simply being a game with a good topic rather than by being a good game, period. But here I am, worried anyway, and whether or not my fears are ultimately justified it says volumes about the game industry at this point that I should have these fears at all.
But what about developers who aren’t writing about their own experiences? What about people writing about characters who have a different race, gender, or sexuality than them? For people like them it’s probably even worse, and I’ve experienced that as well.
For instance: this is Hannah.
Hannah is a member of an emerging power in the post-zombie world called ‘The Fellowship’. Their mission is to rid the world of the infected and provide safe transit for civilians through the wilderness. Like the other members of the Fellowship, Hannah is a skilled fighter, tracker, and scavenger. She is also a lapsed Muslim consumed with guilt over some of the things she had to do to survive during the fall of civilization who hopes that she can redeem herself and become closer to God again through her actions in The Fellowship.
Hannah is just one of eleven other characters besides Tinker that will be playable for a portion of the game. We’ve talked about some of these characters to various people in order to get feedback, and while so far it’s been positive, there have been some recurring remarks that are indicative of how discouraging and toxic gaming culture is to those who want to attempt something different. Remarks like “make sure you do your research” and “make sure it’s not offensive”, while seemingly innocent reminders to people that if they’re going to talk about important issues that they should be well-informed on them first, come across to developers as presumptuous attacks (whether they’re intended or not). It’s always an uphill battle to prove that we’ve done our research, which is inevitably a lost cause since there have been multiple instances of games being historically or culturally accurate (“Six Days in Fallujah”, to name just one) that still draw ire from critics anyway. Developers already feel pressure even approaching these topics. Getting responses that basically amount to “don’t screw up” won’t make them feel encouraged. Considering that what offends people is purely subjective, a far better response would be to volunteer to help the developer. Offer to talk with them about your experiences, give them suggestions on biographies, documentaries, or books that could give them help on the topic. Be encouraging and helpful. Help lighten the load, don’t make it heavier.
I don’t want to go into specific examples regarding websites I’ve seen approaching topics wrong or even individual people. Suffice it to say that seeing a new game get ravaged for supposed sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. seemingly every week makes me feel less inclined to want to write characters like Tinker, Hannah, or the many others who will be playable in our game. To these people and publications, all I have to ask is: is this what you want? Do you want people to be too afraid to make inclusive art? Because whether that was your intent or not, it’s what’s actually happening. It’s hard enough investing all your money and time into making a studio, working for years on a game that will eventually be judged by both critics and consumers without then also having to be worried that those same critics will sensationalize your game in order to make a few more big articles.
To those who have allowed Gamergate to get to where it is now, you have my undying thanks. For the past year while writing “Freak”, I’ve known deep down that journalists would never really care about me or my game. They just wanted to use me, and others like me. None of that will stop me. I’ll keep making “Freak”, not for the sake of the cynical, exploitative gaming press. I’m doing it for you, the gamers, whether you can relate to the experiences of Tinker and myself or not. Art is about sharing our experiences with all those who will lend their ears. It’s about being true to ourselves and lending our voices. You take away that voice, and we have nothing.
I know it’s been a long struggle. Gamergate’s been going for almost a month. All I can say is, for the sake of this industry, for the sake of quality journalism and criticism and for the sake of developers like myself and the others who have either spoken out or stayed silent: do not give up. Ever. Even if Gamergate is winding down (and I don’t think it is), carry what you’ve learned here with you. Help those who are willing to stand up for you, be it whole websites or singular content creators on YouTube. You deserve to be represented by good, honest people who will give their all for you.
Everyone in gaming deserves to be heard. I do believe that games can have a wider variety of characters, stories, and settings. But above everything else, I believe that these games should be made by people who want to do it. The passion and the burning need to tell a story must be there or else none of it will matter. So let me say it now, to everyone who is championing for a more diverse industry: it starts with you. If you feel your voice needs to be heard, than speak up in a way that will carry: by making the games you want to see made. Their success will say more than a thousand angry emails, blog posts, or YouTube video essays. I mean, if some autistic kid who’s never made a game can get his friends together to make one that talks about his experiences, than why can’t you?
I thank you all for taking the time to read this novella (manifesto? Is that what they’re called these days?). To other developers who may be reading this now, know that you don’t have to suffer alone. We’re all in this together now. Making this industry better is in our hands. Let’s make it into one we’re proud to call our own.
Soladrin wrote: I do wonder how the anti-gamergate people will be responding to this. If it turns into harassment it will simply be proving the opposite sides point.
Don't you see Soladrin she is a Misgoynist! Look how she says those women are hipsters!
How men. *Gasp* Act like men! And Like boobs. *GASP*
Soladrin wrote: I do wonder how the anti-gamergate people will be responding to this. If it turns into harassment it will simply be proving the opposite sides point.
Don't you see Soladrin she is a Misgoynist! Look how she says those women are hipsters!
How men. *Gasp* Act like men! And Like boobs. *GASP*
How could I be so foolish?! It's so obvious, she must hate women even more then we do!!!
Soladrin wrote: I do wonder how the anti-gamergate people will be responding to this. If it turns into harassment it will simply be proving the opposite sides point.
Don't you see Soladrin she is a Misgoynist! Look how she says those women are hipsters!
How men. *Gasp* Act like men! And Like boobs. *GASP*
How could I be so foolish?! It's so obvious, she must hate women even more then we do!!!
Clearly! She is not a real feminist! She's a pretender!
Oh dear I better stop I think my sarcastic remarks might cause the shipwreckers that are known as the lonely tumblr feminists to attack me with rage.
Soladrin wrote: I do wonder how the anti-gamergate people will be responding to this. If it turns into harassment it will simply be proving the opposite sides point.
Don't you see Soladrin she is a Misgoynist! Look how she says those women are hipsters!
How men. *Gasp* Act like men! And Like boobs. *GASP*
How could I be so foolish?! It's so obvious, she must hate women even more then we do!!!
Here's the crazy part, most of the comments are positive and I haven't found one where they are calling her a traitor yet. Most of them are laughing about "Hipsters with culture studies degrees" (really though look up on google the number of posts of "what do I do with my social studies degree?").
Soladrin wrote: I do wonder how the anti-gamergate people will be responding to this. If it turns into harassment it will simply be proving the opposite sides point.
Don't you see Soladrin she is a Misgoynist! Look how she says those women are hipsters!
How men. *Gasp* Act like men! And Like boobs. *GASP*
How could I be so foolish?! It's so obvious, she must hate women even more then we do!!!
Here's the crazy part, most of the comments are positive and I haven't found one where they are calling her a traitor yet. Most of them are laughing about "Hipsters with culture studies degrees" (really though look up on google the number of posts of "what do I do with my social studies degree?".
I think the best one is the quote
"Male gamers seem to prefer male action heroes and sexy female characters. Could that be because they are... male!?""
I think we can all laugh at that and agree. Even the die hard gamer knows that my guilty pleasures are to have a sexy female protagonists.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Which is apart of escapism fantasy. That's why games and comics and most of nerd culture exists.
And the problem with this statement is that it assumes that games and comics and nerd culture are escapism fantasy for men. I don't see how anyone can deny that gaming has a sexism problem when self-identified gamers like you will proudly declare that there is a problem.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Which is apart of escapism fantasy. That's why games and comics and most of nerd culture exists.
And the problem with this statement is that it assumes that games and comics and nerd culture are escapism fantasy for men. I don't see how anyone can deny that gaming has a sexism problem when self-identified gamers like you will proudly declare that there is a problem.
Its been dominated by men for a very long time. Its not to say that woman have not be involved in it. But it has be dominated mostly by men.
It can change but it doesn't mean that is necessarily a bad thing, we can still have that escapism, you just don't have to have a stance saying. "Kill all the males because all men are bad and evil."
It can still occur.
There is nothing wrong with that escapism, we just need to grow and become more and accept more people into the culture.
Asherian Command wrote: Its been dominated by men for a very long time. Its not to say that woman have not be involved in it. But it has be dominated mostly by men.
Yes, and we should consider that a problem and ask ourselves why women are such a minority. We shouldn't just declare "well, this is a guy thing" and accept a policy that sexist attitudes are ok as long as they keep the "core market" happy.
you just don't have to have a stance saying. "Kill all the males because all men are bad and evil."
Nobody is saying anything even remotely close to this.
Asherian Command wrote: Its been dominated by men for a very long time. Its not to say that woman have not be involved in it. But it has be dominated mostly by men.
Yes, and we should consider that a problem and ask ourselves why women are such a minority. We shouldn't just declare "well, this is a guy thing" and accept a policy that sexist attitudes are ok as long as they keep the "core market" happy.
you just don't have to have a stance saying. "Kill all the males because all men are bad and evil."
Nobody is saying anything even remotely close to this.
Because women have a different game preferential, they are mostly in the casual games market with the likes of Bejeweled and such, while there are some different as a result it has slowly skewed in a manner so that the market has gone towards males.
You wouldn't exactly show top designer high heels towards a male market for example, unless suddenly you are now going to recommend that there should be.
Asherian Command wrote: Its been dominated by men for a very long time. Its not to say that woman have not be involved in it. But it has be dominated mostly by men.
Yes, and we should consider that a problem and ask ourselves why women are such a minority. We shouldn't just declare "well, this is a guy thing" and accept a policy that sexist attitudes are ok as long as they keep the "core market" happy.
you just don't have to have a stance saying. "Kill all the males because all men are bad and evil."
Nobody is saying anything even remotely close to this.
I don't think thats what I am saying and you have taken me out of context.
Read the whole thing.
I said it is time to mature, and it will mature as time goes on.
And about wanting males to die, they want the gamers to not be the target audience. They think gamers are dead and attack us alot because we play video games. And call us sexist pigs.
They want the male run industry to die.
Which funnily enough the culture is multi-cultured based.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Stop while you're ahead this is already being discussed in the other thread and doesn't have much to do with #gamergate.
Good point!
But it is a very similar issue sadly :/
They walk a very fine line.
It is, but it is very easy to fall into the circular arguments that just get back to call us all misogynists again. Its really all they are interested in it seems. Text book projection, and cognitive dissonance.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Stop while you're ahead this is already being discussed in the other thread and doesn't have much to do with #gamergate.
Good point!
But it is a very similar issue sadly :/
They walk a very fine line.
It is, but it is very easy to fall into the circular arguments that just get back to call us all misogynists again. Its really all they are interested in it seems. Text book projection, and cognitive dissonance.
Damn it you are right.
But i think its interesting.
But I think gamergate is winding down as the media starts to listen more and more on the issue.
But I think gamergate is winding down as the media starts to listen more and more on the issue.
I think its more that the media articles are being used against them, like the "gamers are dread" thing and how that was connected to silverstring media (which they admit on their website they put forward). Its that all sorts of things are being uncovered and the more that they say the more people dig and the more that is being found.
Silence is equivalent of hiding under your parents coats and hoping it all blows over. Kotaku has been banning people left right and center still on their facebook that say anything about this.
It seems we are waiting for the next event. Silverstring is probably hard at work. It seems though that they are really trying to combat the Sarkeesian effect Doct (articles being presented by silver string shows corruption as it is bias news and helping their friends).
Yeah I found thunderf00t pretty reasonable, I'm not a big fan of internetaristocrat but I'm surpised thunderf00t's twitter was suspended, that's unfortunate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mechanical Crow wrote: Stop while you're ahead this is already being discussed in the other thread and doesn't have much to do with #gamergate.
Crablezworth wrote: Yeah I found thunderf00t pretty reasonable, I'm not a big fan of internetaristocrat but I'm surpised thunderf00t's twitter was suspended, that's unfortunate.
Internet Aristocrat has certain issues that just make it sound sort of rude and not as well meaning as Mundane Matt but the three of them have been quite vocal.
But matt is taking a breaking because he is exhausted and on vacation.
Which honestly I am too. Might take a "Me" Day for a bit.
Sigvatr wrote: Aristocrat has the Bioware problem - bad endings. He makes very good and valid points...and then utterly loses himself in bland insults.
So, I've only been on the outskirts of this entire thing, but what is "GamersGate" exactly, now?
Is it shining a light on "sexism"? Is it rooting out social injustice in actual game development? Is it media bias and/or tarnished credibility due to collusion or coercion?
To someone who's spent more time just playing the "boops" and the "beeps" versus being on reddit for this, it just seems like something amorphous and shapeless. Like the video Mechanical Crow posted, I have no idea why the man is upset. Is it because he's always been subjugated by his peers for standing up for women or is it about standing out against "scratch for scores" style reviews and articles?
TheKbob wrote: So, I've only been on the outskirts of this entire thing, but what is "GamersGate" exactly, now?
Is it shining a light on "sexism"? Is it rooting out social injustice in actual game development? Is it media bias and/or tarnished credibility due to collusion or coercion?
To someone who's spent more time just playing the "boops" and the "beeps" versus being on reddit for this, it just seems like something amorphous and shapeless. Like the video Mechanical Crow posted, I have no idea why the man is upset. Is it because he's always been subjugated by his peers for standing up for women or is it about standing out against "scratch for scores" style reviews and articles?
That goes to Polygon? Not that I got to Kotaku or the Gawker sites (maybe Lifehacker or Deadspin for Foodpsin...).
I more meant, you know, the media making science issues into debate or covering stupid stuff, like what celebrity ate what for breakfast, versus world events?
TheKbob wrote: That goes to Polygon? Not that I got to Kotaku or the Gawker sites (maybe Lifehacker or Deadspin for Foodpsin...).
I more meant, you know, the media making science issues into debate or covering stupid stuff, like what celebrity ate what for breakfast, versus world events?
No this is only for game journalists. O.o wow you didn't read the OP.
No this is only for game journalists. O.o wow you didn't read the OP.
And my point is "so, what?" Get mad about real media bias and not whether Destiny gets a 6 or a 9 from IGN?
Oh my god. READ THE OP BEFORE YOU POST!
So you want me to basically roll over and say yep I can do anything. I can't make a small change for the better.
You know how narrow minded that is?
Do you know Gamers are winning this fight?
Do you know the journalists are getting hit hard by this massive boycott?
You would know if you actually read all the articles we have posted! Do not come in and comment before you have actually read up on the issue, don't argue with people unless you know what you are talking about in this issue. This is a very complicated issue. You cannot ignore certain bits of information.
No this is only for game journalists. O.o wow you didn't read the OP.
And my point is "so, what?" Get mad about real media bias and not whether Destiny gets a 6 or a 9 from IGN?
That's kinda like the
"There's kids with cancer, why do you care about this?"
Sort of fallacy isn't it.
I've met some pretty crappy people on twitter though they have been quite bad.
Can someone do me a favor and look for journalists in the media claiming to represent gamers.
Please. It would help me against this idiot who thinks he's intelligent because I am tired and really don't want to argue.
Anyone? Please? He keeps attacking me with stupid questions he knows the answers to. And keeps swearing at me, doesn't use any wording past 6 letters. or 4.
Really? Because I don't see any kind of long-term victory here. Some gamers (not all, obviously, since I am a gamer and I am not on your side) are making a lot of noise, but I fail to see any changes being made in response to that noise. The corrupt journalism system still exists, and any legitimate message is being lost in the flood of "SJWs suck" nonsense. In fact, I'd argue that this "fight" is doing more harm than good by making into a character judgement on a small number of individuals and ignoring the context of the system they're a part of. You might trash the reputation of one person, but that's not the same as winning the fight.
(Unless of course the goal of the fight is to punish someone you don't like, not to improve the quality of journalism. But I don't think you want to admit that.)
Do you know the journalists are getting hit hard by this massive boycott?
Proof of this? And could you also explain how this is doing so much more than every previous bit of outrage over bad journalism?
Asherian Command wrote: Though I disagree with thunderf00t having him suspended I think was not the right path for antia.
Can't say I have any sympathy for him. He's an obnoxious who spends way too much time whining and crying about how much feminism sucks, and any credibility he once had is long gone. I suspect anything he had to say on this issue had much more to do with his anti-feminist crusade than any real interest in gaming.
Sorry, but by posting anything from that site you've thoroughly destroyed your own credibility. And, just like you'd expect from a right-wing nutcase (and dishonest ) like Breitbart that article spends more time whining about how much feminism and SJWs suck than addressing any legitimate issues.
Really? Because I don't see any kind of long-term victory here. Some gamers (not all, obviously, since I am a gamer and I am not on your side) are making a lot of noise, but I fail to see any changes being made in response to that noise. The corrupt journalism system still exists, and any legitimate message is being lost in the flood of "SJWs suck" nonsense. In fact, I'd argue that this "fight" is doing more harm than good by making into a character judgement on a small number of individuals and ignoring the context of the system they're a part of. You might trash the reputation of one person, but that's not the same as winning the fight.
(Unless of course the goal of the fight is to punish someone you don't like, not to improve the quality of journalism. But I don't think you want to admit that.)
Do you know the journalists are getting hit hard by this massive boycott?
Proof of this? And could you also explain how this is doing so much more than every previous bit of outrage over bad journalism?
Asherian Command wrote: Though I disagree with thunderf00t having him suspended I think was not the right path for antia.
Can't say I have any sympathy for him. He's an obnoxious who spends way too much time whining and crying about how much feminism sucks, and any credibility he once had is long gone. I suspect anything he had to say on this issue had much more to do with his anti-feminist crusade than any real interest in gaming.
Sorry, but by posting anything from that site you've thoroughly destroyed your own credibility. And, just like you'd expect from a right-wing nutcase (and dishonest ) like Breitbart that article spends more time whining about how much feminism and SJWs suck than addressing any legitimate issues.
You know I can retort and say that the same could be said about the other side, left wing nuts who think we need to bow before women and kiss their feet, because they are far superior, and that gamers are dead. And that their political agenda is the only right agenda.
Proof I posted it a while ago. Gamarsutra has lost quite a bit of daily viewership.
What I am seeing is a general move to ethical journalism. Whether you have either a. not seen them. B. ignored them. or c. you know, but you are merely here to start an argument or look for a fight.
Asherian Command wrote: You know I can retort and say that the same could be said about the other side, left wing nuts who think we need to bow before women and kiss their feet, because they are far superior
Nobody is saying this.
and that gamers are dead.
They sure seem to be. What I see is an angry mob desperately flailing around for anything to stop their increasing irrelevance, and if I was a game publisher I'd be giving serious thought to their market value compared to aiming for a more mainstream audience.
Proof I posted it a while ago. Gamarsutra has lost quite a bit of daily viewership.
Do you understand the difference between a temporary (so far) drop in daily views on one site and long-term change across the entire gaming journalism industry?
Asherian Command wrote: You know I can retort and say that the same could be said about the other side, left wing nuts who think we need to bow before women and kiss their feet, because they are far superior
Nobody is saying this.
and that gamers are dead.
They sure seem to be. What I see is an angry mob desperately flailing around for anything to stop their increasing irrelevance, and if I was a game publisher I'd be giving serious thought to their market value compared to aiming for a more mainstream audience.
Proof I posted it a while ago. Gamarsutra has lost quite a bit of daily viewership.
Do you understand the difference between a temporary (so far) drop in daily views on one site and long-term change across the entire gaming journalism industry?
Okay I can't believe I am saying this but....
Are you even a real human being?
Can you really say that?
Do you see games journalists being raped and killed?
I am so vastly interested in your opinion in how wrong it is.
How you keep asserting, but you keep attacking gamers in the same post. Its freaking incredible.
We have professionals on one hand that call themselves professionals who then go down into petty insults and start attacking an entire community for no reason other than a bunch of bag eggs, and you are claiming that we are the angry mob.
{video of a woman who admits she never plays games telling us all about her opinions about games}
I'm shocked that a representative of a right-wing organization would publish a video complaining about how feminism is ruining everything, complete with straw man arguments and conservative cliches about how "real" feminism is not this left-wing stuff they hate. Shocked!
Sorry, but by posting anything from that site you've thoroughly destroyed your own credibility. And, just like you'd expect from a right-wing nutcase (and dishonest ) like Breitbart that article spends more time whining about how much feminism and SJWs suck than addressing any legitimate issues.
Did you read the comments? Oh man, those were the most delightful mix of Poe's Law exemplars I think I have ever noticed. They actually got painful after a while.
{video of a woman who admits she never plays games telling us all about her opinions about games}
I'm shocked that a representative of a right-wing organization would publish a video complaining about how feminism is ruining everything, complete with straw man arguments and conservative cliches about how "real" feminism is not this left-wing stuff they hate. Shocked!
And your arguments aren't strawmanning?
Did you just not call gamers dead a few minutes ago?
You think that is a great way to go around.
Hey man Gamers are dead?
"Yeah you person who plays games. Yeah you are dead. Also your worse than ISIS!" *Smiles and winks at the camera before setting the building on fire*
Yeah the greatest idea Peregrine. Disable your entire credibility by attacking a large multicultured community with invalid criticism. Congratulations.
I think gamers everywhere love to be called an angry mob, and misgoynists! Oh boy! I can't wait to tell people! *Skips off into the sunset*
(If you can't tell this is sarcasm I have lost all hope in humanity.)
You really need to work on your communication skills. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this.
We have professionals on one hand that call themselves professionals who then go down into petty insults and start attacking an entire community for no reason other than a bunch of bag eggs, and you are claiming that we are the angry mob.
You are the angry mob. Even if you set aside the death threats and other abuse I see nothing but directionless anger, without any constructive solutions being offered. You don't like certain people, and you want everyone to know how much they suck. But other than that, what's left? Some incoherent rants about how SJWs are ruining everything? Demands for anyone you disagree with to get out of your thread? This is nothing more than another situation where the internet has a pet cause for a short time, makes a bunch of noise, and then forgets the whole thing once they find something else to be outraged about.
Err, lol? Nothing in that article is even remotely close to "we need to bow before women and kiss their feet, because they are far superior". Could you please stop inventing straw man arguments and stick to what people are actually saying?
You really need to work on your communication skills. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this.
We have professionals on one hand that call themselves professionals who then go down into petty insults and start attacking an entire community for no reason other than a bunch of bag eggs, and you are claiming that we are the angry mob.
You are the angry mob. Even if you set aside the death threats and other abuse I see nothing but directionless anger, without any constructive solutions being offered. You don't like certain people, and you want everyone to know how much they suck. But other than that, what's left? Some incoherent rants about how SJWs are ruining everything? Demands for anyone you disagree with to get out of your thread? This is nothing more than another situation where the internet has a pet cause for a short time, makes a bunch of noise, and then forgets the whole thing once they find something else to be outraged about.
Err, lol? Nothing in that article is even remotely close to "we need to bow before women and kiss their feet, because they are far superior". Could you please stop inventing straw man arguments and stick to what people are actually saying?
As I have said before you first.
We are not an angry mob. Check not your shield, they are outraged yes, but you could say the same about the civil rights movement that it was an angry mob by your stupid definition.
Asherian Command wrote: "Yeah you person who plays games. Yeah you are dead. Also your worse than ISIS!" *Smiles and winks at the camera before setting the building on fire*
Again with the straw man arguments. Nobody is saying that gamers are worse than ISIS, or even remotely close to that level of evil.
Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between "gamers" (in the context of "gamers are dead") and "people who play games". Perhaps you should try to understand the "gamers are dead" argument before you criticize it?
Disable your entire credibility by attacking a large multicultured community with invalid criticism.
It's entirely valid criticism. Even you are spending more time complaining about how you're under attack than addressing the actual issues. And you're doing it in a clearly emotional way that suggests you're just lashing out at the enemy (you know, like an angry mob tends to do) instead of trying to participate in an honest discussion of the subject.
Asherian Command wrote: "Yeah you person who plays games. Yeah you are dead. Also your worse than ISIS!" *Smiles and winks at the camera before setting the building on fire*
Again with the straw man arguments. Nobody is saying that gamers are worse than ISIS, or even remotely close to that level of evil.
Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between "gamers" (in the context of "gamers are dead") and "people who play games". Perhaps you should try to understand the "gamers are dead" argument before you criticize it?
Disable your entire credibility by attacking a large multicultured community with invalid criticism.
It's entirely valid criticism. Even you are spending more time complaining about how you're under attack than addressing the actual issues. And you're doing it in a clearly emotional way that suggests you're just lashing out at the enemy (you know, like an angry mob tends to do) instead of trying to participate in an honest discussion of the subject.
Haha but they have. A video game journalist literally claimed gamers are worse than ISIS.
I understand the argument it is against white men who play games. And guess what I am a white man Who plays games
It is not entirely valid criticism. You are just saying it is. You can't use absolutes in this argument.
I am not saying all journalists are evil. I am saying a portion of them are corrupt.
You can't say that. You can't say it is an angry mob. That destroys your credibility in the entire debate.
Asherian Command wrote: Haha but they have. A video game journalist literally claimed gamers are worse than ISIS.
So now we're quoting a single random idiot saying something stupid (which may or may not have been intended as a serious statement) as a relevant fact? You really don't want that precedent.
I understand the argument it is against white men who play games.
No it isn't. I'm a white man who plays games and I don't feel targeted at all by any of this. There is nothing wrong with being a white man and playing video games. Please try to understand the arguments the other side is making before attempting to counter them.
Oh good, more "feminism ruins everything" nonsense. How exactly is having a female main character (dressed in sensible armor) for the next Call of Battlefield game supposed to "destroy gaming"? Will the AK-47 be overpowered because women have an inherent +10 bonus to assault rifles? Will watching her rescue a male hostage magically uninstall all of my other games?
(And I once again notice that, despite this supposedly being about honesty in gaming journalism, you're once again posting articles about how feminists/SJWs are bad.)
Oh good, more "feminism ruins everything" nonsense. How exactly is having a female main character (dressed in sensible armor) for the next Call of Battlefield game supposed to "destroy gaming"? Will the AK-47 be overpowered because women have an inherent +10 bonus to assault rifles? Will watching her rescue a male hostage magically uninstall all of my other games?
Is there a catchy hashtag for a group of people who believes that Call of Battlefield is destroying gaming, female characters or no?
Asherian you need to chill. Frankly Peregine has his own views and he's not going to change them and he's entitled to that. And frankly, I don't think he's worth the trouble considering he's the type who would make take sarcastic retorts as fuel for his own arguments
Again with the straw man arguments. Nobody is saying that gamers are worse than ISIS, or even remotely close to that level of evil.
Er... Peregrine, you might actually want to step back, read what several things that actual journalists have posted about this, and actually come back when you are actually informed because infact people did infact state that gamers were worse then ISIS.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Er... Peregrine, you might actually want to step back, read what several things that actual journalists have posted about this, and actually come back when you are actually informed because infact people did infact state that gamers were worse then ISIS.
Maybe you should take a step back, read what has been written, and come back once you're informed. That comment says that anti-SJWs are worse than ISIS, not gamers. It's still a ridiculous statement, but it's an attack on a certain group of people who whine endlessly about how SJWs are horrible, not an attack on gamers in general.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Er... Peregrine, you might actually want to step back, read what several things that actual journalists have posted about this, and actually come back when you are actually informed because infact people did infact state that gamers were worse then ISIS.
Maybe you should take a step back, read what has been written, and come back once you're informed. That comment says that anti-SJWs are worse than ISIS, not gamers. It's still a ridiculous statement, but it's an attack on a certain group of people who whine endlessly about how SJWs are horrible, not an attack on gamers in general.
And several of his articles have stated that he considers both in the same group of "Anti-Quinn, anti-SJW, Gamer Manchildren" and that there is no distinction between them.
Regardless of such, it is still the comparison you were considering to be a strawman, and will be the last time I respond to you on this topic.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: And several of his articles have stated that he considers both in the same group of "Anti-Quinn, anti-SJW, Gamer Manchildren" and that there is no distinction between them.
...
So let me get this straight: according to your argument he considers all gamers to be part of the same anti-Quinn anti-SJW group. But Zoe Quinn is a game developer, which presumably means she is also a gamer. So according to your interpretation of his position Zoe Quinn is a member of the anti-Quinn hate group, and worse than ISIS. Makes perfect sense to me.
(And I think the quoted tweets make it clear that he's talking about a specific group of people that happen to be gamers, not gamers as a whole.)
Regardless of such, it is still the comparison you were considering to be a strawman, and will be the last time I respond to you on this topic.
I was considering it to be a strawman, and it IS a strawman. "Anti-SJWs are worse than ISIS" is not the same thing as "gamers are worse than ISIS".
In order to advance their career a writer (that is marginal at best) uses sex as a substitute for developing real skills and talent? :::Shocked::: This has never happened in the history of the world.
Peregrine wrote: You really need to work on your communication skills.
I'll admit, I laughed
I know, right?
Soo... can we get back to the actual topic instead of explaining stuff to people to lazy to actually read the thread? And Peregrine, you will never change your stance on ANYTHING so there is absolutely no point to even consider your posts, please move on or inform yourself properly before you start spouting more nonsense.
And that, is the first and last time I respond to anything you say.
Polygon has written what amounts to a veiled attack on the lovely Christina Sommers, almost falling over itself to attack her character via guilt-through-association with a "conservative think-tank".
This is why we hate the gaming media. Speak out against the points they're making and they don't try to rebut; they just attack you personally.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Polygon has written what amounts to a veiled attack on the lovely Christina Sommers, almost falling over itself to attack her character via guilt-through-association with a "conservative think-tank".
This is why we hate the gaming media. Speak out against the points they're making and they don't try to rebut; they just attack you personally.
Are we even suprised at this point? I kind of want to give them all guns to see how long it takes before they shoot themselves in the foot, for real.
Friend of mine made an interesting observation about Chrstina's video:
"You can tell what side she's on just by the fact that she's left the comments open."
Really telling.
Oh, and Dr. Sommers has already responded to Polygot's hit article. It's from an older video, but she tweeted it out as her response to Polygon's bull gak.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Polygon has written what amounts to a veiled attack on the lovely Christina Sommers, almost falling over itself to attack her character via guilt-through-association with a "conservative think-tank".
This is why we hate the gaming media. Speak out against the points they're making and they don't try to rebut; they just attack you personally.
We're seeing in this thread too. On this very page in fact...
The "Are video games sexist" video was spot on, women like Christina Sommers should be the "face of feminism" if it needs one. The others remind me of Suey Park from the "#cancelcolbert" thing from a few months ago.
Yonan wrote: The "Are video games sexist" video was spot on, women like Christina Sommers should be the "face of feminism" if it needs one. The others remind me of Suey Park from the "#cancelcolbert" thing from a few months ago.
Yeah they remind me of hippy movement from the 80s.
Kevin VanOrd, one of the more well-known reviewers at Gamespot, has declared Christina Sommers to be a "dangerous person". This was in response to someone who claimed she was... wait for it... "mansplaining".
H.B.M.C. wrote: Kevin VanOrd, one of the more well-known reviewers at Gamespot, has declared Christina Sommers to be a "dangerous person". This was in response to someone who claimed she was... wait for it... "mansplaining".
I mean the nerve of these people.
I'm alarmed that we declare people "dangerous" for free exchange of ideas. Sometimes I don't think humanity wasn't ready for the internet.
There's a difference between "You're wrong because you're an idiot!" and "You're wrong and you're an idiot". One is ad hominem. The other isn't.
You're right, dismissing him because he is Peregrine ('Why do you argue with Peregrine? <Insert thinly veiled/implied insult here>') is possibly genetic fallacy, not ad hominem. I am not sure, but it is not really the point anyway. Regardless of what technical term you prefer, it's not very nice.
I am not saying Peregrine was nice. It is possible that he wasn't. I didn't consider his posts offensive, but I was neither the target nor a moderator so it is not mine to judge. However, that is no excuse for being not-nice back.
But establishing some gamer creed will certainly show that I am one of the gamers, and therefore on their side, right? This whole thing is obviously us gamers against the SJW that corrupts game journalists to make them write articles saying that gamers are dead because…
Well, that is first step, and third step is always profit anyway.
Now, I am not saying you cannot have an interesting and possibly constructive discussion with Asherian Command. You can. But with the many members in this thread that keep on saying it is all about journalist corruption/integrity, but will never stop posting vitriol at “SJW” and discussing social issues, you will not be able to. Not unless they drop the act and agree that social issues is what they actually want to rant about. Or possibly they start actually talking about corruption, but there is not much to be said on that subject, apparently.
Peregrine wrote: You really need to work on your communication skills.
I'll admit, I laughed
I know, right?
Ad hominem is funny, guys.
Soladrin wrote: Peregrine, you will never change your stance on ANYTHING
There is this expression about pots and kettles...
I have never seen Mechanical Crow or HBMC do that, either, but that is completely fine because they are on your side of the argument.
Come on, guys.
I am seeing a certain lack of integrity here, which I do feel should be adressed.
Fair enough, I'll agree that there are plenty of posters on this forum that don't tend to ever change their stance on stuff. The main difference is that most of these don't argue uninformed points. (where I've encountered it, I stick to very specific parts of this forum so YMMV. )
Anyway, I'm pretty much done here untill we get another big blow out of stuff. I'm not actively taking part in the whole thing anyway.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But establishing some gamer creed will certainly show that I am one of the gamers, and therefore on their side, right? This whole thing is obviously us gamers against the SJW that corrupts game journalists to make them write articles saying that gamers are dead because…
Well, that is first step, and third step is always profit anyway.
Now, I am not saying you cannot have an interesting and possibly constructive discussion with Asherian Command. You can. But with the many members in this thread that keep on saying it is all about journalist corruption/integrity, but will never stop posting vitriol at “SJW” and discussing social issues, you will not be able to. Not unless they drop the act and agree that social issues is what they actually want to rant about. Or possibly they start actually talking about corruption, but there is not much to be said on that subject, apparently.
You can as long as you don't insult me. I will take criticism, as long as you don't use blanketing terms and absolutes.
I have though said I mainly support the idea that there is corruption, mainly in this attack against gamers.
I think we should be kind and courteous but so far on twitter, the anti-gamer gate peeps have been extremely well.... rude. Some attack me for having an opinion to dare to slay a kings deer, but they are rude and not as kind as the gamer gaters.
There are anti-gamer gate supporters. People who are either trolling or attacking people and claiming to be friends with journalists or lawyers and claiming that they are right and we are all wrong. And keep saying it over and over again. Calling us harassers, spamming our twitters. calling us names
Yeah. You can tell the opposition are just a bunch of hypocrites. There is a difference between insulting and criticizing, or being a bloody observer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: It doesn't really matter what his points are, belittling is unnecessary either way.
And he's not guilty of this? He insults and makes remarks with little evidence.
Asherian Command wrote: You can as long as you don't insult me. I will take criticism, as long as you don't use blanketing terms and absolutes.
Well, if I recall correctly, I did not insult you.
I mean, I am not saying that there are not jerks on Twitter. I have no idea. The only Twitter I sometimes read is Wonderella's. But there is no reason to take the Twitter stuff out of Twitter and into this thread, right?
Beside, I would actually be pretty surprised if there were not pro-GamerGate being jerks on Twitter too.
Asherian Command wrote: You can as long as you don't insult me. I will take criticism, as long as you don't use blanketing terms and absolutes.
Well, if I recall correctly, I did not insult you.
I mean, I am not saying that there are not jerks on Twitter. I have no idea. The only Twitter I sometimes read is Wonderella's. But there is no reason to take the Twitter stuff out of Twitter and into this thread, right?
Beside, I would actually be pretty surprised if there were not pro-GamerGate being jerks on Twitter too.
Some are more aggressive but thus far anti-gamer gaters have been more aggressive and attacking more people.
I am quite surprised actually, there is a lot of positive people on GG, but the other side is overwhelmingly in chaos.
Not talking about you talking about a certain person.
This should be posted here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/613557.page, where it is really relevant to the discussion going on. I wholeheartedly agree with him that it is pretty easy for him to judge and dismiss the feelings of people whose experience he has never lived.
Anyway guys, I have been asking for proof all the way back at page 5 for evidence regarding all those claims of knowing the motivations of people, like 'Quinn and Anita does this just to troll/trick people into giving them money' et cetera ad nauseam.
I'd like to repeat this request.
If you are worried you'd break some forum rule by linking evidence, you can use PM, that won't get you banned. I just want some backup for those claims, and I'll put this request to rest.
Anyway guys, I have been asking for proof all the way back at page 5 for evidence regarding all those claims of knowing the motivations of people, like 'Quinn and Anita does this just to troll/trick people into giving them money' et cetera ad nauseam.
I'd like to repeat this request.
If you are worried you'd break some forum rule by linking evidence, you can use PM, that won't get you banned. I just want some backup for those claims, and I'll put this request to rest.
I would suggest you look up depressed quest and reviews on it and the awards that they have gotten.
Please note these people all know each other personally. And also being affiliate with silver string media. (http://silverstringmedia.com/team/)
Many of the GJs are also part of the same company or publication.
They act as advisors for the GJs on many matters.
It is more of an assumption that there is corruption as you just simply connect the dots.
There is no media coverage of this at all. But silverstring is a radical feminist group. They have cowritten bits and pieces.
(Polygon @Polygon 16h FBI investigating death threats against Feminist Frequency creator Sarkeesian http://polygon.com/e/5989876 )
I know we aren't suppose to share tweets.
Spoiler:
FBI investigating death threats against Feminist Frequency creator Sarkeesian By Brian Crecente on Sep 17, 2014 at 1:30p @crecenteb
SHARE TWEET
STAY CONNECTED. FOLLOW POLYGON NOW! × The FBI is investigating death threats and online abuse that Feminist Frequency's Tropes vs Women in Games creator Anita Sarkeesian says drove her out of her home last month, a San Francisco police spokesperson confirmed to Polygon.
San Francisco police public information officer Albie Esparza told Polygon that Sarkeesian had filed a report with the police department about the threats she received online and that the police department handed the information to the FBI for investigation.
Esparza declined to release any other details, saying that doing so could compromise the investigation or the safety of the victim. He also noted that the FBI is the primary agency handling the case. FBI officials did not respond to questions about the case.
Earlier this month, Esparza told publications that there was no complaint on file from Sarkeesian. When asked why and how that changed this week, the spokesman said he sent out a statement on Friday saying that it was reported to the police department and then forwarded to the FBI for investigation. He did not further clarify why his original statement contradicted that information.
On Aug. 26, Sarkeesian took to Twitter to write that "some very scary threats have just been made against me and my family. Contacting authorities now."
She later tweeted, "I'm safe. Authorities have been notified. Staying with friends tonight. I'm not giving up. But this harassment of women in tech must stop!"
The following day, Sarkeesian shared a particularly disturbing series of threats from one abuser, along with a trigger warning. "I usually don't share the really scary stuff. But it's important for folks to know how bad it gets."
Last month, Feminist Frequency published a new episode of Tropes vs Women in Games looking at the Women as Background Decoration trope, which Sarkeesian described as "largely insignificant non-playable female characters whose sexuality or victimhood is exploited as a way to infuse edgy, gritty or racy flavoring into game worlds. These sexually objectified female bodies are designed to function as environmental texture while titillating presumed straight male players." The episode has been widely praised and shared.
Earlier this month, the International Game Developers Association told Polygon that they were working with the FBI and bullying experts to help game developers deal with what they see as an increase in online harassment.
The FBI approached IGDA executive director Kate Edwards in July to discuss the online harassment of developers online, a spokeswoman with the San Diego office of the FBI confirmed to Polygon.
"We wanted to let Ms. Edwards know the FBI's capability," FBI spokeswoman Emily Yeh said at the time.
Yeh said all 56 field offices of the FBI help investigate a variety of cybercrimes, including harassment, adding that those who feel like they are being threatened should either contact their local police department or the FBI.
"Whichever they feel more comfortable with," she said.
Reached for comment this week, Sarkeesian said she wasn't able to talk much about the incident "because of the seriousness of the situation and because it is an active investigation."
"There are ongoing investigations in multiple municipalities regarding death threats targeting me and my family," she said. "Despite the seriousness of the situation, a group of obsessive cyberstalkers have started a witch hunt against me attempting to prove some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory about fabricated threats. This is unfortunately another example of how the aggressive denial of women's lived experiences online is not only sexist but can actually be dangerous. The witch hunt is irresponsible and has further compromised my privacy and my personal safety as well as serving as a distraction to authorities during an ongoing investigation." IMAGE SOURCE FBI
H.B.M.C. wrote: Polygon has written what amounts to a veiled attack on the lovely Christina Sommers, almost falling over itself to attack her character via guilt-through-association with a "conservative think-tank".
Why stop at veiled attacks? I'll take the veil off and attack her directly: she's either a ing idiot, or a sociopath who doesn't care what she says as long as she gets paid for it. And given how painful it was to watch her "I never play games but let me tell you all about how feminism is ruining them" video I'm favoring the first option. Take away the chance to whine and cry about the evil feminists and she wouldn't care one bit about any of this.
Ashiraya wrote: Anyway guys, I have been asking for proof all the way back at page 5 for evidence regarding all those claims of knowing the motivations of people, like 'Quinn and Anita does this just to troll/trick people into giving them money' et cetera ad nauseam.
I would suggest you look up depressed quest and reviews on it and the awards that they have gotten.
{"evidence" that is not evidence at all}
That's not what she asked for. The following are not evidence that someone is doing something just to trick people into giving them money:
*A game getting good reviews.
*People in the industry knowing each other.
*Being affiliated with feminist media.
*Lack of media coverage for your conspiracy theories.
*Claims of death threats.
Well, I take it back, I guess you could claim that it's evidence just as long as you admit that everyone is trying to trick people into giving them money. When the newest Call of Battlefield game comes out and gets good reviews it's clearly just an attempt to get money, not some amazing work of art done purely for its own sake. But if you're going to lower the standard so much that almost every game ever created is a scam then you're going to be making some awkward explanations for why this particular scam deserves so much more attention than all the other ones.
Peregrine wrote: That's not what she asked for. The following are not evidence that someone is doing something just to trick people into giving them money:
THANK YOU.
It does get a bit tiring to see those claims be thrown around without backup and when I try to inquire for evidence, Quinn and Sarkeesian are apparently not relevant any longer.
I don't care if you have swapped discussion to whatever, I just want to see some evidence before everyone forgets about it and accepts it without proof.
And no, Asherian, speculation and extrapolation is not evidence. I want to see some irrefuteable evidence, and if there truly is no such evidence to be had even via PM then I simply call BS on the claim of motivations.
The truth about Zoe Quinn is that no one in the world deserves the gak that she has gotten. The truth is that these witch hunts over journalistic ethics and transparency and whatever bs dog whistle that 4chan and its ilk are using for their issues with a woman’s sexual agency are driving women out of the industry.
Yeah I stopped reading the second one about this point when actual women developers have actually listed why they were run out of the industry and it certainly wasn't this. They can speak for themselves after all.
She still could have faked the ones that sent her fleeing her home from the freshly created account just as much as she could have received death threats from someone that created that account that wasn't her. She certainly has received plenty of death threats and people are being donkey caves and I hope they're punished for their crimes. I don't like Miss Sarkeesian, I don't like her videos, and I don't like her face (but that's personal), but the woman doesn't need to receive threats on her life.
Because that's what this is about. This isn't about a woman getting death threats, this isn't about a jilted guy that didn't understand he should have just drowned his sorrows in booze like the rest of us. This is about journalistic integrity. Peregrine is right, this has been going on for the past decade, but back then magazines and other serials were just as popular as news sites. Today, that's not the case and the ZOEPOST that started this whole thing caused everything to rise to a froth when half a dozen sites posted hateful articles about the people that literally paid their bills in web traffic.
Gaming Journalists are bloggers with large audiences that get paychecks to blog about games. Unfortunately they brand themselves as journalists and do nothing that journalists should do.
Plus there is numerous people using the freedom of information act to see if the FBI is handling her case, if proven wrong it uncovers all sorts of things.
And its polygon reporting it. You cant trust what they say half of them are involved directly in this and silverstring.
You guys know there is this thing called AdBlock, right?
Ashiraya wrote: I don't care if you have swapped discussion to whatever, I just want to see some evidence before everyone forgets about it and accepts it without proof.
You might as well ask for proof that the twin towers were actually destroyed by explosive planted by the government, or that planes are using chemtrails to mind-control us all, or that God exists!
You're right, I don't. It's a site founded by a right-wing nutcase with a bad history of lying and manufacturing "controversies" to attack his political enemies, and the site seems to be doing a good job of carrying on its founder's vision. If there's a Breitbart article claiming that the sky is blue any sensible person should still go take a look outside to verify it.
Well, that's some pretty heavy lack of consistency going on right there if so.
Freedom of Information act was used for the death threats.
As for the other stuff, look at silverstring, they interconnect everything. There is loads of evidence.
Okay, that is priceless
Ashiraya: “What are the evidence? Please give me the evidence!”
Mechanical Crow: “There is loads of evidence. I am not going to give them because this is the end of my message, but there are lots of them. They must be unspeakable or something”
Mechanical Crow wrote: As for the other stuff, look at silverstring, they interconnect everything. There is loads of evidence.
I don't see evidence, I see speculation. Right now you're looking like the 9/11 conspiracy crowd: lots of speculation about how everything "connects", but very little evidence that any of the connections mean anything.
(And just in case it isn't clear, 9/11 conspiracy theories are almost all ing stupid and you really don't want to look like the kind of tinfoil hatter that believes in them.)
Well, that's some pretty heavy lack of consistency going on right there if so.
There is no concrete evidence that Zoe and Quinn tricked people out of money. There is a load of circumstantial evidence that they have been acting skeevy and dishonest.
And once again, personally - like many other people involved - I didn't start caring about this whole deal until the concerted push to tell me that I am irrelevant, that a hobby and identity that has been near and dear to my heart for about 25 years is dead... because there are some jerks in it. I have a hard time giving a crap about Zoe's personal involvement except for as a member of that anti gamer group.
That said, there is pretty solid evidence of dishonesty and shady as feth business practices among the games journos and developers - investing in a game and then providing coverage and/or cash prizes to directly benefit financially without disclosing those ties.
And the major push to keep things centered around those two and misogyny from the games media is in large part a smokescreen to keep people from caring about it.
That said, there is pretty solid evidence of dishonesty and shady as feth business practices among the games journos and developers - investing in a game and then providing coverage and/or cash prizes to directly benefit financially without disclosing those ties.
And the major push to keep things centered around those two and misogyny from the games media is in large part a smokescreen to keep people from caring about it.
This I do not deny. I think it's outrageous to use feminism and anti-misogyny as a shield to hide corruption, and that it is harmful to those fighting true sexism.
But I see people's protests crossing over into 'feminism is bad and sjw' which is just as bad, in the other direction.
That said, there is pretty solid evidence of dishonesty and shady as feth business practices among the games journos and developers - investing in a game and then providing coverage and/or cash prizes to directly benefit financially without disclosing those ties.
And the major push to keep things centered around those two and misogyny from the games media is in large part a smokescreen to keep people from caring about it.
This I do not deny. I think it's outrageous to use feminism and anti-misogyny as a shield to hide corruption.
But I see people's protests crossing over into 'feminism is bad and sjw' which is just as bad, in the other direction.
I think that a lot of that is people who are like me, only less well adjusted or more willing to abuse internet anonymity. The mindset is that "These people are coming into my hobby, these young, fairly attractive people, and telling me that I am doing it wrong. All the crap I went through growing up, video games were what I used to deal with it... and now these a-holes are telling me I need to do things their way? Screw that!" So they go on the attack.
That's pretty much how I feel about this. I have stopped telling people in our hobby to stop playing games x, y, or z because they're bad (ala GW vs PP debates here on dakka). This has traveled over into just generally how I feel about people and their fun time.
Gamers play video games, we play what we like and will buy what we want. Unfortunately for indie devs trying to progress video games beyond eye candy and action heroes, the major corps are not going to pick those up and give them the press that games like Call of Duty get.
But when someone tells me that I'm doing my hobby wrong, then I get defensive because the only person that can tell me I'm hobbying wrong is me, everyone else can feth off.
Your opinion is factually incorrect, Alf. I know this.
An example I had recently involved Flames of War, it's really hated by a by some who will badmouth it continuously to anyone asking about it. Nothing constructive or pointing out issues, just saying "It's wrong and bad and you're a bad person if you consider it".
My response was to just hand them the rules and some scenarios, explain a bit how it works and leave it at that. Sigh.
There is no concrete evidence that Zoe and Quinn tricked people out of money.
Thank you, that was everything I was asking for!
Here's the problem, I can spend a few hours writing a post with all the links all the connections and tons of 30 minute videos that show the proof. Would you actually go through it all? Probably not.
And here's the other problem, peregrine and hybrid have already admitted to doing no research or ignoring it without watching/reading. So why bother doing the leg work for you when I already know the response? Peregrines been using ad hominems like crazy, Hybrid has a hard on for me and both will twist it to agree with them no matter how far. Corporate is posting some links but its all the polygon, kotaku stuff, and we cant really take their word on it with all the counters provided. It seems pointless to try and convince you when you've proven to be nothing but obtuse and dismissive. Spending that amount of effort on convincing people that don't matter seems like a waste of time.
In the meanwhile, Im writing letters and emails to all the advertisers and actually doing something for this. You can keep polluting this thread but you are doing nothing to stop it.
MrDwhitey wrote: Your opinion is factually incorrect, Alf. I know this.
An example I had recently involved Flames of War, it's really hated by a by some who will badmouth it continuously to anyone asking about it. Nothing constructive or pointing out issues, just saying "It's wrong and bad and you're a bad person if you consider it".
My response was to just hand them the rules and some scenarios, explain a bit how it works and leave it at that. Sigh.
I rescind my previous statement, the only one that can tell my I'm hobbying wrong is me Whitey.
There is no concrete evidence that Zoe and Quinn tricked people out of money.
Thank you, that was everything I was asking for!
Nor have I ever said as much, but there are lots of personal relationships that go on in games journalism they are completely obvious and they are not disclosed.
Bromsy wrote: There is no concrete evidence that Zoe and Quinn tricked people out of money.
Thank you, that was everything I was asking for!
Thats not necessarily true.
From what I recall reading in this thread and the previous threads...
Zoe Quinn claimed that she had/was going to, donate(d) some of the proceeds of Depression Quest or w.e. she makes her money off (SIlverstring?) to a specific charity. It was then confirmed by the Charity itself that they had received no such donation from her.
Zoe Quinn apparently then retconned the name of the charity to a different one, and produced a screenshot of what she claimed was her email account with emails indicating that (by way of the subject titles) payments had been made to this new charity. As I recall the screenshot did not indicate how much these donations were - it could have been mere pennies, or it could have been hundreds of dollars.
Thats just one example off the top of my head.
To come into the tail end of a month long discussion spread across dozens of pages in 4 or more threads and cry "Wheres the evidence? I don't see it here!" is a little disingenuous.
Bromsy wrote: There is no concrete evidence that Zoe and Quinn tricked people out of money.
Thank you, that was everything I was asking for!
Thats not necessarily true.
From what I recall reading in this thread and the previous threads...
Zoe Quinn claimed that she had/was going to, donate(d) some of the proceeds of Depression Quest or w.e. she makes her money off (SIlverstring?) to a specific charity. It was then confirmed by the Charity itself that they had received no such donation from her.
Zoe Quinn apparently then retconned the name of the charity to a different one, and produced a screenshot of what she claimed was her email account with emails indicating that (by way of the subject titles) payments had been made to this new charity. As I recall the screenshot did not indicate how much these donations were - it could have been mere pennies, or it could have been hundreds of dollars.
Apparently it was a 'mistake'.... It was released in what month? February 14, 2013 And when was it released on steam? The first week of august?
Hmmm
So she has had a year of donations and just now realized that she had forgot to contact the charity?
I think I have posted all the sources at the beginning of the thread... Oh yeah. I DID.
Bromsy wrote: There is no concrete evidence that Zoe and Quinn tricked people out of money.
Thank you, that was everything I was asking for!
Thats not necessarily true.
From what I recall reading in this thread and the previous threads...
Zoe Quinn claimed that she had/was going to, donate(d) some of the proceeds of Depression Quest or w.e. she makes her money off (SIlverstring?) to a specific charity. It was then confirmed by the Charity itself that they had received no such donation from her.
Zoe Quinn apparently then retconned the name of the charity to a different one, and produced a screenshot of what she claimed was her email account with emails indicating that (by way of the subject titles) payments had been made to this new charity. As I recall the screenshot did not indicate how much these donations were - it could have been mere pennies, or it could have been hundreds of dollars.
Thats just one example off the top of my head.
To come into the tail end of a month long discussion spread across dozens of pages in 4 or more threads and cry "Wheres the evidence? I don't see it here!" is a little disingenuous.
The charity depression quest claims to give money too is iFred, who know nothing about it and never been in contact with Quinn and there is emails with the lead about it. She has a inbox pic (with no name proving its hers) showing donations to some helpline in New York, who also claim they know nothing about Quinn. I donated my self so the page seems legit but her name isn't connected to it, and it seems weird not to mention anything and no one claiming they are connected at all.
and I know right? The 3 of them suddenly appearing at once demanding the same thing, hows the PM party?
In the meanwhile Shadow Captain, would you like to send some emails and letters to the advertisers rather then pointlessly arguing with these folks that keep derailing it back to Zoe and Anita?
MrDwhitey wrote: Your opinion is factually incorrect, Alf. I know this.
An example I had recently involved Flames of War, it's really hated by a by some who will badmouth it continuously to anyone asking about it. Nothing constructive or pointing out issues, just saying "It's wrong and bad and you're a bad person if you consider it".
My response was to just hand them the rules and some scenarios, explain a bit how it works and leave it at that. Sigh.
The funny thing about that, is that in my experience many of the most vocal critics of Flames of War have never actually played the game. It's like people criticizing a film they've never seen or a video game they've never played. This certainly happens in the video game world as well, although probably more with politicians than actual gamers.
Bromsy wrote: There is no concrete evidence that Zoe and Quinn tricked people out of money.
Thank you, that was everything I was asking for!
Thats not necessarily true.
From what I recall reading in this thread and the previous threads...
Zoe Quinn claimed that she had/was going to, donate(d) some of the proceeds of Depression Quest or w.e. she makes her money off (SIlverstring?) to a specific charity. It was then confirmed by the Charity itself that they had received no such donation from her.
Zoe Quinn apparently then retconned the name of the charity to a different one, and produced a screenshot of what she claimed was her email account with emails indicating that (by way of the subject titles) payments had been made to this new charity. As I recall the screenshot did not indicate how much these donations were - it could have been mere pennies, or it could have been hundreds of dollars.
Thats just one example off the top of my head.
To come into the tail end of a month long discussion spread across dozens of pages in 4 or more threads and cry "Wheres the evidence? I don't see it here!" is a little disingenuous.
The charity depression quest claims to give money too is iFred, who know nothing about it and never been in contact with Quinn and there is emails with the lead about it. She has a inbox pic (with no name proving its hers) showing donations to some helpline in New York, who also claim they know nothing about Quinn. I donated my self so the page seems legit but her name isn't connected to it, and it seems weird not to mention anything and no one claiming they are connected at all.
and I know right? The 3 of them suddenly appearing at once demanding the same thing, hows the PM party?
In the meanwhile Shadow Captain, would you like to send some emails and letters to the advertisers rather then pointlessly arguing with these folks that keep derailing it back to Zoe and Anita?
Yeah you already know my stance, I can't spam them
But I have contacted a few developers on the matter, and a lot of us agree, we see alot of the games media quite often even in person, but we assumed there was corruption going on, because we are human beings.
People who say "I don't enjoy X because Y" is fine. People who say "X is gak you suk" should be ignored. I have a very good mate that we agree on virtually nothing about... politics, economics, game systems, anime, programming languages, methodologies... but we're great mates because we respect each others opinions and know they're based on valid reasons or based on subjective preferences (which is in itself valid when known to be such).
Ashiraya wrote: This I do not deny. I think it's outrageous to use feminism and anti-misogyny as a shield to hide corruption, and that it is harmful to those fighting true sexism.
But I see people's protests crossing over into 'feminism is bad and sjw' which is just as bad, in the other direction.
We agree on this, but those crossing that line are a small minority with no coordination or power - notably no one here on dakka for example. Games journalists do have power and coordination and using misogyny and other topics actively harms those causes far more than a few trolls doing their usual thing. Of those trolls, most aren't even misogynists, they're just riling people up using whatever means they can. They do this to anyone and everyone, if you follow any large youtuber they'll say how often they get these - it's not labeled as misandry when a male gets them.
I don't understand the point of this video. Guy goes on about unlawful or harmful acts and admissions of guilt? About what? Using media to push an agenda? While citing Breitbart? I'm not sure how I can be expected to take this seriously.
Doesn't count? Sure, okay. Keep being offended. Im contacting Kraft as we speak.
I am going to sum it up for people too lazy to check it out. Apparently there were some VGJ that had a private newsletter/newgroup. And the guy on the video is very angry about that. And yes, the relation between this and whether or not Anita tried to steal/extort/scam money out of people is nilsch, zero, nada, none, que dalle. Just as was to be expected. Who is surprised? I know I am not.
Doesn't count? Sure, okay. Keep being offended. Im contacting Kraft as we speak.
I am going to sum it up for people too lazy to check it out. Apparently there were some VGJ that had a private newsletter/newgroup. And the guy on the video is very angry about that. And yes, the relation between this and whether or not Anita tried to steal/extort/scam money out of people is nilsch, zero, nada, none, que dalle. Just as was to be expected. Who is surprised? I know I am not.
Though it is usual for a group of people to talk to each other through group chats. If someone was able to leak evidence that would say they had planned a multidude of the articles to come out at the same time. Then that would basically put your words in your mouth.
I think it is funny how you've ignore shadow and the sources I have posted.
I think the whole issue is still why would you address you audience the way the did.
Do you really think they should get scott free when they claim to represent video gamers?
Asherian Command wrote: Though it is usual for a group of people to talk to each other through group chats. If someone was able to leak evidence that would say they had planned a multidude of the articles to come out at the same time. Then that would basically put your words in your mouth.
Ashiraya asked for proofs, or even hints, that Anita tried to scam/extort money from people. This video does not provide any.
Asherian Command wrote: Though it is usual for a group of people to talk to each other through group chats. If someone was able to leak evidence that would say they had planned a multidude of the articles to come out at the same time. Then that would basically put your words in your mouth.
Ashiraya asked for proofs, or even hints, that Anita tried to scam/extort money from people. This video does not provide any.
K
This is related to gamersgate
A few days ago I tweeted a response to somebody posting on the Gamer Gate hashtag, in which I insinuated that they were a straight white male person masquerading as a minority woman. They posted a picture which seemed to prove that they were not, and apparently Reddit got wind of it, because for the next day or two I was inundated by hundreds of the meanest, dumbest, most awful things that have ever been said to me on Twitter.
It quickly got to the point where locking my account was the only thing that seemed to slow the avalanche down, if not stop it completely (as it turns out people who you don’t follow still show up in your @-mentions even if your account is locked, which really should, at the very least, be a switch you can toggle).
I’m opening my account back up, though, because after the initial shock of this deluge of crap, and my knee-jerk reaction to just hide under a blanket until it all passes, I’ve realized I don’t want to give these donkey-caves the satisfaction. I don’t want them to be the reason I’m not using Twitter the way I want to.
And also, because I’m constantly humbled by people like Zoe Quinn, and Jenn Frank, and Leigh Alexander, and Anita Sarkeesian. And if they can continue to live their online lives in the face of the unimaginable, unending litany of hate that they receive, then I can tweet from a public account that gets a couple of hundred idiotic @-replies over a weekend.
I do want to address something serious here, though, and that’s my initial reaction to the woman that started this whole thing. Jumping to the conclusion that she was a straight white guy based on the way she tweeted showed poor judgement, and it was a gakky thing to do. I’d like to apologize to that person for doing so.
After all, if I’ve learned anything from this whole situation, it’s that not only straight white guys have rotten, worthless opinions about things.
Anyway, I’m back.
*please note he was harassing a 16 year old girl on twitter and calling her a manchild and a moron. Because she supports gamersgate... Yeah its gotten dicey on twitter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously though, this has been interesting to me from the point of view of "holy gak the internet is crazy".
This has been EXCEEDINGLY uncomfortable to me from the apparently genuine manifestations of emotion on both sides.
I can't figure out if I need to keep watching the train wreck or get as far away from it as possible.
Just sit and watch as the building starts to fall down.
Because we all know that the journalists aren't going to recover from this. Kotaku and Polygon are done. They can't come back after all this traffic damage.
They should be getting tons of traffic but they haven't been they have falling in the numbers by the thousands.
Their consumer base will never trust them again. And its funny they have destiny coverage but no one is listening to it. No one is waiting for their opinion and a lot of things were announced and they aren't getting traffic to their articles.
No, it's just more twitter drama that has nothing to do with any real issues here. Please stop triumphantly posting every random thing that you think might make the "enemy" look bad and stick to relevant issues.
"Woah man, twitter is serious business. You don't just call it dicey. Were you at the social network wars? Do you remember what it was like? Were you THERE, man? You remember Tom, man? I remember Tom."
Taking a step back, I'm really wondering if all these tempest in a teacup people genuinely realize how small they actually are.
No offense but when someone doesn't post any videos explaining the issues to people who don't 'get it', you all complain. When someone does, you all make smarmy remarks and wiseass retorts. Is there any pleasing you guys? You do realise you can just ignore this thread if you disagree with the message and ONLY have smarmy remarks to make right? At the very least, Peregine puts some effort into his arguments instead of going 'oh, we're so cool. let us make fun of this topic'
Sining wrote: No offense but when someone doesn't post any videos explaining the issues to people who don't 'get it', you all complain. When someone does, you all make smarmy remarks and wiseass retorts. Is there any pleasing you guys? You do realise you can just ignore this thread if you disagree with the message and ONLY have smarmy remarks to make right? At the very least, Peregine puts some effort into his arguments instead of going 'oh, we're so cool. let us make fun of this topic'
What's the point of OT then? This is an MC Escher drawing of condescending donkey-caves. Everyone is condescending to everyone, but no one is on the bottom.
Also, I think that picking team "holy gak you ALL are manchildren (or womanchildren (or trans-multi-nonspecific-etcetrachildren), as appropriate) get over yourselves and live your god damned lives." instead of picking team red or team blue is an entirely valid choice.
Yes, because calling everyone manchildren is obviously a valid retort and is magically going to make people realise you're correct and see the errors of their ways. And if that doesn't work, you can always call them sheeple as well.
Also, I can't see the stickied topic where it says the point of OT is to come into threads and make smarmy retorts.
Asherian Command wrote: Because we all know that the journalists aren't going to recover from this.
Past history says otherwise. There have been controversies and flame wars in the past, even controversies over dishonesty in gaming journalism, and there haven't really been any long-term effects from it. The drama will keep going a while longer, and then the internet will find a new pet cause to get outraged about and everyone will move on with their lives. Because the simple fact is that all of the legitimate issues here are things that people have been quietly putting up with for a very long time, and don't really have any impact on their everyday lives.
Kotaku and Polygon are done. They can't come back after all this traffic damage.
That remains to be seen. They've lost traffic, but could gain it back next time another big thing happens if they're on the "right" side of it. And even if these two websites see a major drop in traffic someone else will just show up to replace them. And since nothing is being done about the fundamental issues that drive game reviewers to hand out easy 9/10s to every mediocre game they receive those replacements will have the same incentives to skew their reporting in favor of the game publishers and we'll be right back where we started.
And the sad thing is this was pretty much inevitable when the controversy started focusing on Zoe Quinn's problems instead of the journalism industry as a whole. This made it all about one person and buried the real points under a flood of garbage, letting the industry as a whole off the hook. And then of course the conversation derailed into arguing over whether a particular death threat was real or not and whining about how feminism and SJWs ruin everything, pushing the few legitimate issues even deeper into the background.
No, it's just more twitter drama that has nothing to do with any real issues here. Please stop triumphantly posting every random thing that you think might make the "enemy" look bad and stick to relevant issues.
Hahaha Oh god. You really think that should be allowed then? Do you really think that the gamers are bad? I post evidence of someone attacking a teenage girl from the anti-gamer gate side, And yet you have said multiple times that the gamers are also doing this?
Ummm really?
You really ignore that and yet you and all the anti-gamer gaters on here have been saying we are misogynists and attacking us and then when we post evidence like this of anti-gamer gate person performing harassment you immedately say. "Nope That doesn't exist. Thats not relevant." "LALALLAALA I can't hear you Asherian! Oh those sources are illegitamte, Lets post a kotaku and polygon article in defense to attack their claims!"
Sining wrote: No offense but when someone doesn't post any videos explaining the issues to people who don't 'get it', you all complain. When someone does, you all make smarmy remarks and wiseass retorts. Is there any pleasing you guys? You do realise you can just ignore this thread if you disagree with the message and ONLY have smarmy remarks to make right? At the very least, Peregine puts some effort into his arguments instead of going 'oh, we're so cool. let us make fun of this topic'
What's the point of OT then? This is an MC Escher drawing of condescending donkey-caves. Everyone is condescending to everyone, but no one is on the bottom.
Also, I think that picking team "holy gak you ALL are manchildren (or womanchildren (or trans-multi-nonspecific-etcetrachildren), as appropriate) get over yourselves and live your god damned lives." instead of picking team red or team blue is an entirely valid choice.
Asherian Command wrote: Because we all know that the journalists aren't going to recover from this.
Past history says otherwise. There have been controversies and flame wars in the past, even controversies over dishonesty in gaming journalism, and there haven't really been any long-term effects from it. The drama will keep going a while longer, and then the internet will find a new pet cause to get outraged about and everyone will move on with their lives. Because the simple fact is that all of the legitimate issues here are things that people have been quietly putting up with for a very long time, and don't really have any impact on their everyday lives.
Kotaku and Polygon are done. They can't come back after all this traffic damage.
That remains to be seen. They've lost traffic, but could gain it back next time another big thing happens if they're on the "right" side of it. And even if these two websites see a major drop in traffic someone else will just show up to replace them. And since nothing is being done about the fundamental issues that drive game reviewers to hand out easy 9/10s to every mediocre game they receive those replacements will have the same incentives to skew their reporting in favor of the game publishers and we'll be right back where we started.
And the sad thing is this was pretty much inevitable when the controversy started focusing on Zoe Quinn's problems instead of the journalism industry as a whole. This made it all about one person and buried the real points under a flood of garbage, letting the industry as a whole off the hook. And then of course the conversation derailed into arguing over whether a particular death threat was real or not and whining about how feminism and SJWs ruin everything, pushing the few legitimate issues even deeper into the background.
Difference, this is a smaller market, and it will stay for a while. A site lives on sites per a day. It is no fox news. This is an internet website that is sustained from viewership. They will have to have massive cutbacks and start firing people. That is the reality of the situation.
Except not to this degree. There has been this degree of an outrage. Or this big of amount of talk about. It has never lasted a month. It has lasted for a day or a week. But a solid month? That means something very wrong is going on.
You have yet to prove your statement and say it has happened in the past. The only relatable one is Doritio gate, But that was just poor taste, not corruption. They weren't telling him to give them a good review on a video game, they were literally decorating behind him. Its still terrible, but it is not full on corruption.
Its not having a game dev paying someone and saying. "Yeah if you rate my game well, my company will pay you well." or "Hey were friends review my game give it a good review I need cash!"
That is downright corruption. That is a problem.
You keep saying this over and over but yet you have ignored all my sources, you haven't even put the time to read them. You read the other articles that are posted on her that are 5 minutes long and all you have done is just plug your ears. and say "NOpe DOEsn't EXIST.
Sining wrote: Yes, because calling everyone manchildren is obviously a valid retort and is magically going to make people realise you're correct and see the errors of their ways. And if that doesn't work, you can always call them sheeple as well.
Sometimes people are literally just being children. This really is the nerd equivalent of whatever the latest celebrity controversy on ESPN or TMZ.
Also, I can't see the stickied topic where it says the point of OT is to come into threads and make smarmy retorts.
Asherian Command wrote: I post evidence of someone attacking a teenage girl from the anti-gamer gate side, And yet you have said multiple times that the gamers are also doing this?
You posted evidence of one person posting something inappropriate on twitter, and then apologizing for doing it. That adds almost nothing to the discussion, and just derails it into more arguing about twitter drama. What happened to the original issue of corruption in gaming journalism?
Sining wrote: Yes, because calling everyone manchildren is obviously a valid retort and is magically going to make people realise you're correct and see the errors of their ways. And if that doesn't work, you can always call them sheeple as well.
Sometimes people are literally just being children. This really is the nerd equivalent of whatever the latest celebrity controversy on ESPN or TMZ.
I'm not really sure what makes you then. I can't really think much of a person who apparently feels the need to come into a topic, one that he has to specifically click on, then post remarks in it referring to the people in it and interested in the issue as manchildren and children and nerds. I think this really says more about you than it does us.
Asherian Command wrote: You really think that should be allowed then? Do you really think that the gamers are bad? I post evidence of someone attacking a teenage girl from the anti-gamer gate side, And yet you have said multiple times that the gamers are also doing this?
Seriously, man, what the hell are you talking about? Some guy thought a teenage girl was an adult man, he said crap to her, then was proven wrong. Does that mean “Gamers are perfect little angels because someone was stupid”? What the hell is your reasoning here? Beside, does it look like Peregrine, Ashiraya or me are “anti-gamers”? I am pretty sure we all play games, and all qualify as gamers, you know…
Peregrine wrote: Past history says otherwise. There have been controversies and flame wars in the past, even controversies over dishonesty in gaming journalism, and there haven't really been any long-term effects from it.
Time will tell. It's what, week 5 in this?
It could peter out, or could be another Killian documents
Sining wrote: I'm not really sure what makes you then. I can't really think much of a person who apparently feels the need to come into a topic, one that he has to specifically click on, then post remarks in it referring to the people in it and interested in the issue as manchildren and children and nerds. I think this really says more about you than it does us.
I assume you're speaking to me.
I wasn't that person to begin with. I was actually interested, intrigued, and engaged. Then I saw that there was nothing really actually available to progress the situation beyond more drama still. FOR DAYS.
I spent my entire day today debugging a next generation delivery system for an international news corporation. I say this not to laud myself; I'm a QA guy. I'm replaceable and meaningless, but I'm a cog in a big machine that makes some portion of the real world world turn. Now I turn here, and it finally dawns on me. Here, we have a set of consumers, and a set of overglorified bloggers quickly becoming irrelevant to people who'll youtube their thoughts for free at odds with each other. And we're hearing that, oh no, twitter is getting dicey?
I'm sorry. It's just that the outrage and strife and emotion and effort on all parts is literally just a grain of sand on a beach that'll be forgotten in the years to come. I'm gonna unsubscribe this thread, go outside and smoke my pipe and drink a beer and look at the stars and think about how awesome it would be if we were building the spaceships that we might be if we weren't so incensed about what the moron next in line in the circlejerk was saying on some overrated website.
Asherian Command wrote: I post evidence of someone attacking a teenage girl from the anti-gamer gate side, And yet you have said multiple times that the gamers are also doing this?
You posted evidence of one person posting something inappropriate on twitter, and then apologizing for doing it. That adds almost nothing to the discussion, and just derails it into more arguing about twitter drama. What happened to the original issue of corruption in gaming journalism?
It does it shows they are unprofessional and that is a breach of ethics in journalism. You can criticize, but you can't harass people that trust and look up to you. That is wrong!
I could post you an entire page of it If I wanted too, and I have the mind too do so.
But I won't because the material in there is extremely vile. And its from games journalists. I have told you again and again that some journalists have called us worse than ISIS. Misogynists, manchildern. And that is a defensiveness that shows that there is something going on.
This is a problem that is an extreme problem. We give these people power and what do they do with it. They attack us, they post articles about us being misogynists! And you sit here and say. "ITS HAPPENED BEFORE SEE!"
No it has not! There has never been this big of a back lash. This drama started up because of censorship, there is corruption in game journalism, there is censorship of legitmate criticism, taking down peoples videos because they don't agree with you and happen to dislike your game. Even though they are covered under fair use to use that image, under law.
If you keep saying that we are misgoynists. Look in the mirror. Because there are more woman on this side than there are on the other side. There is but a dozen of them on the anti-gamer gate side. And yet we have hundreds of thousands of people all raising their voices and saying. "We will not be labeled like that. We are gamers, we will not take this . Enough games media! We trusted you with power. And now we want it back!"
And you say that is wrong?
It is wrong for the consumers to want their power back now? Its not too late, it is the perfect time. And you know what I think. I think a reasonable human being would observe both sides, not just one side. And see who is right in their argument. Do I support the people who insult me and generalize and attack everyone and censor criticism (anti gamers gate)? Or do I go with the people who are fighting for change, yeah there might be idiots who harass but in every movement you will find that!
Be it the civil rights movement, feminist movement, egilitarian movement, socialist movement, same sex marriage movement. You will find crazies in their, you will find people who harass other people, you will find trolls who try to stir people up!
Have you forgotten that both sides are human beings? That both sides have opinions? And in this case. One side the anti-gamer gaters are completely wrong on the subject? While gamer gaters thus far have had the only valid complaints other than you are being mean!
And read articles and become reasonable in your argument.
Don't attack people. This is your problem peregrine, manchu everyone who is attacking the gamers. You need to sit back and absorb it. See both sides of the argument and choose the lesser of the two evils. Do you believe the people who say they represent gamer's 'best interest' and hide behind insults and attacks on several well known people? Or do you join those who want the media to learn it is not all powerful?
The decision is yours and some of you I will not convince. Because you don't want to see keep your mind open. I accept that. But you can't say that everyone in the movement that we call gamers gate are manchildern and misgoynists. You can't insult all of them because they don't fit your narrative of what is going on.
Asherian Command wrote: You really think that should be allowed then? Do you really think that the gamers are bad? I post evidence of someone attacking a teenage girl from the anti-gamer gate side, And yet you have said multiple times that the gamers are also doing this?
Seriously, man, what the hell are you talking about? Some guy thought a teenage girl was an adult man, he said crap to her, then was proven wrong. Does that mean “Gamers are perfect little angels because someone was stupid”? What the hell is your reasoning here? Beside, does it look like Peregrine, Ashiraya or me are “anti-gamers”? I am pretty sure we all play games, and all qualify as gamers, you know…
What is your reasoning then! You think that is fine? He was shown before. He was reacting to #notyourshield and say everyone was a sockpuppet and the girl responded with a picture first. And he said. She was a sockpuppet, she posted another picture with her with a frowny face and a picture with the date and hashtags and question marks. You have only shown yourselves to be opposition you can criticize, but if you do not bring meaningful discussion to this thread, or sharing of information that is relevant to the gamergate issue, then don't come onto this thread.
Do not come onto this thread and say you are wrong because of this!
You can say. "You are assuming, lets look at the facts." And discuss it like adults.
That goes for everyone. Including myself.
This as I have said many times. Is a complicated issue.
Gamergate once started out with corruption but has since evolved to be more broader, to encompase the problem of harassment and the ever growing social justice warriors who want to take away a hobby because they see it as a male dominanted form and think that is wrong. And that it should be given to women, and that they need to go from atheism and into games and say you can't do that.
And enforce political correctness into everything.
As an aside, I'm actually really grateful for ZQ. Her actions indirectly led to investigation into the tangled web of games journalism, exposed some of its corruption, and uncovered the rot in parts of the indie scene. Not to mention her tweets, Tumblr posts and Cracked article fan the flames when they appear to be dying.
I'd totally buy her a beer. She'd throw it in my face, but I'd still do it.
daedalus wrote: I'm gonna unsubscribe this thread, go outside and smoke my pipe and drink a beer and look at the stars and think about how awesome it would be if we were building the spaceships that we might be if we weren't so incensed about what the moron next in line in the circlejerk was saying on some overrated website.
Enjoy your beer and smoke, but I'm pretty sure NASA isn't embroiled in this. Pretty sure
And enforce political correctness into everything.
Keep on fighting the good fight Ash!
Well I don't think everything has to be politically correct. It is sort of a form of censorship. People are perfect. just because one thing in a game is not politically correct does not make it a terrible game.
If a book had been censored because it uses the wrong term. I think we can safely say its no that big of a deal.
Okay I am going to act like a SJW for this portion of this thread. Getting insulted by everything people post.
"Yeah I like the color black."
Me: Well your racist, what about other colors. What do you think they feel. You can't just like black, because all the colors of the rainbow are just the same thing just different shades of color.
"But black is the absence of color."
ME: Now your just a colorist!
Asherian Command wrote: It does it shows they are unprofessional and that is a breach of ethics in journalism.
Well yeah they're unprofessional, but how exactly is this news? Everyone knows the game journalism industry is hardly the New York Times in professionalism, they're a bunch of bloggers and magazine writers who think that games are cool and found a way to get paid to talk about their hobby. Participating in twitter drama is hardly unexpected.
We give these people power and what do they do with it.
Err, lol? What power did we give them? I can't see any power that they have over me, I might read their articles if they have something interesting to say but if they don't I'll be quite happy to just ignore them and never notice their absence.
This drama started up because of censorship, there is corruption in game journalism, there is censorship of legitmate criticism, taking down peoples videos because they don't agree with you and happen to dislike your game. Even though they are covered under fair use to use that image, under law.
And abuse of the copyright reporting system is an issue that deserves attention (but hardly one that is unique to this situation), but you still haven't figured out how to talk about the issues instead of just posting more twitter drama.
Have you forgotten that both sides are human beings? That both sides have opinions? And in this case. One side the anti-gamer gaters are completely wrong on the subject? While gamer gaters thus far have had the only valid complaints other than you are being mean!
No, I know that both sides have opinions, and I've already stated that there are legitimate issues for the gaming community to complain about (though the outrage is vastly disproportionate to the offense). But these few legitimate issues are being ignored in favor of more twitter drama and ridiculous complaints about how SJWs want to destroy gaming.
This is your problem peregrine, manchu everyone who is attacking the gamers.
You do realize that I'm also a gamer, right? Just like many of the "SJWs" you love to criticize? You don't represent the entire gaming community.
Asherian Command wrote: It does it shows they are unprofessional and that is a breach of ethics in journalism.
Is that guy even a journalist? I never heard of him. Give context when you post that kind of stuff.
Asherian Command wrote: You can criticize, but you can't harass people that trust and look up to you. That is wrong!
Yeah, he said so himself .
Asherian Command wrote: We give these people power and what do they do with it. They attack us, they post articles about us being misogynists!
I do not feel attacked by those articles. Mainly because I do not read them. But even then, who are going to read them, apart gamers that already have a strong opinion about gamers because… well, they play games together?
CatharsisX wrote: I'm sorry, I cant hear you over the email I'm writing to their advertisers
Damn, you must hit those keys quite hard to make that much noise writing an email .
I think this is a non-event. I think this is relevant, though. But for some reason, nobody is speaking about it.
Do you see why one would be relevant and not the other?
Asherian Command wrote: Gamergate once started out with corruption but has since evolved to be more broader, to encompase the problem of harassment and the ever growing social justice warriors who want to take away a hobby because they see it as a male dominanted form and think that is wrong.
No it hasn't, and no they don't want that. And more importantly, they couldn't if they wanted to.
Also, the use of terms such as SJW is prohibited outside of the bounds of 4chan, and as such you will be demoted to the "barely relevant" status level. Please remember that the use of terms such as "censorship" or "freedom of expression", in reference to such a ridiculous topic, is further punishable by testicular flogging. Have a good day, citizen!
Asherian Command wrote: Well I don't think everything has to be politically correct. It is sort of a form of censorship.
No it isn't. A for-profit business deciding to make a change that they believe will increase profit is not censorship. You are still free to say all of those "un-PC" things without any fear of punishment, you just don't have an automatic right to have everyone else help you say them.
"Yeah I like the color black."
Me: Well your racist, what about other colors. What do you think they feel. You can't just like black, because all the colors of the rainbow are just the same thing just different shades of color.
"But black is the absence of color."
ME: Now your just a colorist!
That is the SJW argument in a nut shell.
No, that's a bizarre straw man of a "SJW" argument that you've invented yourself. If you genuinely think it's an accurate representation and aren't just trying to win a forum argument then you really need to go back and learn what the people you're arguing against are actually saying before you try to criticize them.
Asherian Command wrote: Gamergate once started out with corruption but has since evolved to be more broader, to encompase the problem of harassment and the ever growing social justice warriors who want to take away a hobby because they see it as a male dominanted form and think that is wrong. And that it should be given to women, and that they need to go from atheism and into games and say you can't do that.
This is absolutely wrong. Many/most of the people criticizing sexism in games are gamers who enjoy playing games and want them to improve, and none of the things they're asking for would ruin games. Changing the gender of the main character isn't going to suddenly change the gameplay of a deathmatch FPS, putting a female character in sensible armor instead of a chainmail bikini doesn't ruin the story of an RPG, etc. The only people talking about wanting to destroy gaming because it's something men like are right-wing anti-feminists who don't care about gaming beyond its usefulness in attacking feminism.
I have commented on them, but every time I step away from this thread for a few minutes it's right back to twitter drama and complaining about SJWs.
Antia one of the critics in this does not play video games. She only criticizes games. She does not play them.
Oh FFS, do your research before posting. A quick google search for the original kickstarter shows this:
I love playing video games but I’m regularly disappointed in the limited and limiting ways women are represented.
And she's hardly the only person that has been saying those things. She just happened to start a project to bring that criticism to a larger audience and got a lot of attention because of it.
Peregine, it might interest you to read the interview with the developer who's did Mafia as well as Kingdom come deliverence. In it, he talks about people who insist he puts playable female characters for free into the game, despite the fact that this will cost him money for modelling and so on. I think that's one of the more interesting points about why this demand for female everything in games can be annoying to developers.
In the end, male/female? They're all bags of XP. I just don't think people should be forced to develop a male or female character just cause of very vocal demands
Posted about an apparent bomb threat six months ago that obviously didn't happen.
"Oh crap! The narrative is shifting against us!"
"We need to report something - anything- that will divert attention away."
"Something with Anita in it!"
"Yes! What about that bomb threat from six months ago that amounted to nothing?"
"Yeah, let's go with that!"
Oh FFS, do your research before posting. A quick google search for the original kickstarter shows this:
Says the guy who does no research and demands evidence for things that were posted on page one. But whatever continue.
Hey! Nvidia is a kotaku advertiser. Sure would be a shame if someone emailed them about how they think gamers are gak stains and that they are dying. Oops. Keep swinging champ.
Anyone wanting the contact info for the advertisers and links to example letters PM me, Im not going to even bother arguing with rape supporters anymore.
I would think most gaming related companies are Kotaku advertisers, considering it's you know...a gaming blog. It's a shame they chose to kill off gamers.
Sining wrote: I would think most gaming related companies are Kotaku advertisers, considering it's you know...a gaming blog. It's a shame they chose to kill off gamers.
Bingo. Oh hey! Blizzard! Here's a few Emails coming for you.
Sining wrote: Peregine, it might interest you to read the interview with the developer who's did Mafia as well as Kingdom come deliverence. In it, he talks about people who insist he puts playable female characters for free into the game, despite the fact that this will cost him money for modelling and so on. I think that's one of the more interesting points about why this demand for female everything in games can be annoying to developers.
I really fail to see what the problem here is. Customers want more features for the same price. Game publishers want fewer features for the same price. Remember that we're talking about a for-profit business here, not some poor sympathetic individuals being forced to do something they don't want.
And hey, if it's such a burden they could always just skip making playable male characters to make up for it.
In the end, male/female? They're all bags of XP.
Ok, you don't care about this issue. Some people do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mechanical Crow wrote: Im not going to even bother arguing with rape supporters anymore.
Well, just when I think you couldn't do anything more to demolish your own credibility you post this...
If their original vision is to have a male playable character, especially since the original brief on KS was that you played a MALE char, why should they have to change it? Just because some people want a female char for free and kick up a fuss when they don't get it? As the guy explained succinctly, things cost money. He was willing to put in a female character as a stretchgoal on that video game KS but people COMPLAINED that it was a stretchgoal and not included in the basic package.
Yeah, it's so shocking that multiple sites would post about the same event. CONSPIRACIES.
Now let's move on to discussing who is behind the conspiracy: is it aliens trying to cover up the mind control in the chemtrails, or the NSA trying to distract us from who really did 9/11?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sining wrote: If their original vision is to have a male playable character, especially since the original brief on KS was that you played a MALE char, why should they have to change it? Just because some people want a female char for free and kick up a fuss when they don't get it?
Well yes, that's generally why for-profit businesses add features to a product: because the customers want it, and they decide that the cost of adding it is less than the cost of lost sales if they don't add it.
He was willing to put in a female character as a stretchgoal on that video game KS but people COMPLAINED that it was a stretchgoal and not included in the basic package.
And how exactly is that news? Customers always want more, and they want it for free.
Sining wrote: In the end, male/female? They're all bags of XP. I just don't think people should be forced to develop a male or female character just cause of very vocal demands
Sooo, if it is not important, why not make all character females? Then people will stop complaining, right?
Peregrine wrote: Now let's move on to discussing who is behind the conspiracy: is it aliens trying to cover up the mind control in the chemtrails, or the NSA trying to distract us from who really did 9/11?
Is it not the lizard people from the English royal family? Look it up!
Sining wrote: Why is it shocking? We all know they're pretty much just regurgitating the same news over and over again. It's a very sad state of affairs for them
Well yes, that was kind of the point. Posting the same story in multiple places isn't proof of some evil conspiracy to destroy gamers, it's just more of the same low-content "journalism" we expect from the internet, where everyone just copy/pastes the same blog posts because writing your own content is hard.
You do realise it's a free stretchgoal don't you? Consumers ALREADY get it for free if it hits that goal and they buy the game
Key point: if it hits that goal. Of course customers want as much as possible in the basic package, while the company wants to put as much as possible into DLC/stretch goals/etc and get more money. This isn't some kind of censorship and oppression of poor game developers, it's just how things work with a for-profit business.
And your emails are about as influential as my forum posts. Ooh, I'll even predict the form letter you're going to get in response:
"Dear valued customer:
We always want feedback and place a high priority on customer satisfaction. We will consider your input very carefully. Thank you for taking the time to contact us, and remember to always buy more stuff from your local store!
Sincerely,
Wal-Mart customer satisfaction team"
Meanwhile the advertising decisions will be made by someone who doesn't give a about your "controversy" and only looks at the cost of buying the ad space compared to the number of clicks it generates.
Sining wrote: In the end, male/female? They're all bags of XP. I just don't think people should be forced to develop a male or female character just cause of very vocal demands
Sooo, if it is not important, why not make all character females? Then people will stop complaining, right?
What if people want to make male characters? Are you going to say 'No, you can not make male characters so that people will stop complaining?' I had no issues playing Oni, Tomb Raider, Mirror Edge just cause they had female characters as the playable chars. I'm not really sure why people; other than the creator or developer of the game who obviously have their own visions for the game, would insist NO, THE PC MUST BE THIS GENDER.
You do realise it's a free stretchgoal don't you? Consumers ALREADY get it for free if it hits that goal and they buy the game
Key point: if it hits that goal. Of course customers want as much as possible in the basic package, while the company wants to put as much as possible into DLC/stretch goals/etc and get more money. This isn't some kind of censorship and oppression of poor game developers, it's just how things work with a for-profit business.
The issue here is that consumers are basically getting the thing for 'free' as it is, which is what Peregine is trying to argue about. They're not paying additional for it but there's also the fact that it DOES cost money to make a female PC which the developer needs to cover as well. This is about how ridiculous it is for certain parties to keep demanding MOAR MOAR MOAR
Sining wrote: I'm not really sure why people; other than the creator or developer of the game who obviously have their own visions for the game, would insist NO, THE PC MUST BE THIS GENDER.
Because that's what they want. Seriously, asking why customers want a company to give them what they want is like asking why water is wet. People demand a female PC for the same reason that people make 50-page hate threads on the official forum if a FPS doesn't include their favorite gun.
The issue here is that consumers are basically getting the thing for 'free' as it is, which is what Peregine is trying to argue about. They're not paying additional for it but there's also the fact that it DOES cost money to make a female PC which the developer needs to cover as well. This is about how ridiculous it is for certain parties to keep demanding MOAR MOAR MOAR
Sigh.
Once again, this is how a for-profit business works. The customers demand MOAR MOAR MOAR no matter how much the company gives them, the company demands LESS LESS LESS no matter how much they strip from the product to save money on development. These aren't poor oppressed artists being censored by the evil PC police, they're for-profit businesses facing the same demands and expenses that every other for-profit business has to deal with.
Sining wrote: What if people want to make male characters?
So apparently, it is relevant.
Sining wrote: I had no issues playing Oni, Tomb Raider, Mirror Edge just cause they had female characters as the playable chars.
Yeah, you forgot to add Portal. Seriously, just compare the number of male versus female protagonists and tell me it is balanced…
It's relevant to some people, just not me. I believe people should be able to make whatever character they want to make REGARDLESS of whatever % gender proportion there is. This isn't like some MMO or some D&D game where we can go 'oh no, we have too many fighters, we need healers /wizards etc etc etc'. There isn't a set quota on these things -_- If people want to make males, making them make females out of some twisted desire to have everything be equal is kinda screwed up
Sining wrote: If people want to make males, making them make females out of some twisted desire to have everything be equal is kinda screwed up
Nobody is making them do anything. They're free to say "STFU we're not making any female PCs" if that's what they feel is right for their for-profit business.
And I'm assuming that you also object to every other case of customers demanding something that a game designer doesn't want to do? For example, game balance, which guns are included, story decisions, which console a game will be released on, etc.
Who even complains about guns. All game designers owe me; as a consumer, is a game that's functional. If I end up hating it anyway, I'm just not going to play it.
So, in a round-about manner, you have to thank the greater internet "bad people" theory being applied to the anonymous "bad people" at the likes of 4chan and reddit for weaseling this out?
Or maybe this is a giant pile of gross ick with a bunch of "bad people" on both sides makes it an even deeper pile of gross ick. Most of the original nonsense should have been chocked up to the greater internet "bad people" theory and moved on.
It's entertaining to watch the pile of gross ick get higher. At some point, someone will play with worse fire, and then we'll have a big pile of flaming gross ick.
I still think we've got bigger fish to fry with the bigger new entities than worrying about "vidja game" blogs, but that's me. Most of the ones people are throwing a tussle over are ones I knew were shallow long ago and stopped frequenting. I'm a bit sad that someone at Ars would do the same since most of the their tech articles are solid. But, such is life.
#GamerGate is a portion of this ecosystem being put on trial. It is so much more that I will get into in a series of these articles but for now let’s focus on this aspect of it. The majority of the people put in the cross hairs by #GamerGate have been largely arrogant and flippant in the majority of their responses. This is reflective of my belief that the establishment doesn’t believe it needs the public trust to sustain itself. Their myopic belief is that they are somehow immune to criticism of any kind because they exist in an ecosystem that isn’t actually driven by your participation, just your visitation. As long as you drive their traffic numbers up, they make a living, pure and simple. So why should they have to answer questions about their roles in corruption if they’re still getting your visit?
Nice find Kbob
I mean that is what is happening a boycott and a backing off of these websites.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh FFS, do your research before posting. A quick google search for the original kickstarter shows this:
I love playing video games but I’m regularly disappointed in the limited and limiting ways women are represented.
And she's hardly the only person that has been saying those things. She just happened to start a project to bring that criticism to a larger audience and got a lot of attention because of it.
Please que this quote.
"I don't play many video games."
And your argument falls at the seems
I found that on her kickstarter.
Takes pop culture games and dissects them.
Now all of you stop dragging woman representation of video games into this thread. Leave. You are dragging this place off topic. Again. You two have been doing this over and over. Hybrid Peregene. If you want to keep throwing in your hat please remain on topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Now let's move on to discussing who is behind the conspiracy: is it aliens trying to cover up the mind control in the chemtrails, or the NSA trying to distract us from who really did 9/11?
*Sigh*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think this is a non-event. I think this is relevant, though. But for some reason, nobody is speaking about it. Do you see why one would be relevant and not the other?
You do realize we have been talking about that the entire time, and Peregene has ignored that right?
Asherian Command wrote: Gamergate once started out with corruption but has since evolved to be more broader, to encompase the problem of harassment and the ever growing social justice warriors who want to take away a hobby because they see it as a male dominanted form and think that is wrong.
No it hasn't, and no they don't want that. And more importantly, they couldn't if they wanted to.
Also, the use of terms such as SJW is prohibited outside of the bounds of 4chan, and as such you will be demoted to the "barely relevant" status level. Please remember that the use of terms such as "censorship" or "freedom of expression", in reference to such a ridiculous topic, is further punishable by testicular flogging. Have a good day, citizen!
“This is a culture war. The right side is winning, at great cost. At great personal costs to people like Anita Sarkeesian, Leigh Alexander, Zoe Quinn and even Jennifer Lawrence, and countless others who are on the frontlines of creating new worlds for women, for girls, for everyone who believes that stories matter and there are too many still untold. We are winning. We are winning because we are more resourceful, more compassionate, more culturally aware. We’re winning because we know what it’s like to fight through adversity, through shame and pain and constant reminders of our own worthlessness, and come up punching. We know we’re winning because the terrified rage of a million mouthbreathing manchild misogynists is thick as nerve gas in the air right now. Us Social Justice Warriors – this is me, stealing that word in order to use it against my enemies- are winning the culture war by tearing up the rulebook, and there’s nothing the sad, mad little boys who hate women and queers and people of colour can do about it. Nothing, at least, that doesn’t sabotage their strategy, because they can win their game from day to day, but they’re losing the war. They can punish me for writing this, and I’m sure they will, but that will only prove my point. I’m not afraid anymore.
Every time they make an example of one of us, ten more stand up in outrage to hold her up or take her place.
Here's an interview with the mysterious anonymous X-box developer.
And here's someone replying to the execrable hypocrite Leigh Alexander.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm curious - how do you want the ratio of female video game protagonists to increase?
But that's just it, the ratio of female protagonists shouldn't increase. It shouldn't decrease either. It should rise and fall within the context of the stories being told. If the story requires or would be better told with a female protagonist, then it should have one. If the story requires or would be better told with a male protagonist, then it should have one. If the story requires or would be better told with a wheelchair-bound transexual half-Mexican/half-goldfish protagonist, then it should have one.
Asherian Command wrote: Now all of you stop dragging woman representation of video games into this thread. Leave. You are dragging this place off topic. Again. You two have been doing this over and over. Hybrid Peregene. If you want to keep throwing in your hat please remain on topic.
You know it's funny, you complain about how I'm making off-topic posts about this but you keep talking about it. Remember this image you posted?
Perhaps you should follow your own demands and leave this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: But that's just it, the ratio of female protagonists shouldn't increase. It shouldn't decrease either. It should rise and fall within the context of the stories being told. If the story requires or would be better told with a female protagonist, then it should have one. If the story requires or would be better told with a male protagonist, then it should have one. If the story requires or would be better told with a wheelchair-bound transexual half-Mexican/half-goldfish protagonist, then it should have one.
Which of the following is more likely:
1) Most gaming stories require a male protagonist for story reasons.
or
2) Games, like society in general, default to a male protagonist unless there's a specific reason to do something else.
Asherian Command wrote: Now all of you stop dragging woman representation of video games into this thread. Leave. You are dragging this place off topic. Again. You two have been doing this over and over. Hybrid Peregene. If you want to keep throwing in your hat please remain on topic.
You know it's funny, you complain about how I'm making off-topic posts about this but you keep talking about it.
You heard it from him people, ignore him and his off-topic posts.
With response to option 2, I'd say stop trying to social engineer people. We will play what we want to play and people will create what they want to create. This is why there are so many people saying that some people are trying to push their social agenda into games.
Sining wrote: With response to option 2, I'd say stop trying to social engineer people. We will play what we want to play and people will create what they want to create. This is why there are so many people saying that some people are trying to push their social agenda into games.
Yeah, we as customers should just STFU and buy the latest Call of Battlefield game every year because it's just not fair to ask those poor oppressed game developers to change their products.
Of course it does. If the industry is defaulting to male characters unless given a specific reason not then that's exactly what people are complaining about. In a sexism-free industry the "no preference" characters would be a roughly equal mix of men and women. So if you're accepting the claim that there aren't a ton of stories that require a male protagonist to work properly then the large majority of male characters is a sign of sexism.
Sining wrote: You mean like how people in this thread have said suck it up, the gaming press is like this?
No, that wasn't the point. Nobody is saying that the gaming press is like this so just STFU and deal with it, the actual point was that we really need to look at the reasons why people care so much about this when everyone has known that "honest game journalism" has been a joke for years/decades. When the same people who are outraged about this one incident have spent years quietly not caring about the problem it starts to look like honesty in journalism is little more than a pretense to avoid admitting that it's really about a personal vendetta against specific people and/or "SJWs".
Peregrine wrote: Of course it does. If the industry is defaulting to male characters unless given a specific reason not then that's exactly what people are complaining about.
Prove it. Prove that they default to male characters unless given a specific reason not to. Until you can I'll write the above sentence off as the ramblings of someone who still doesn't really understand the topic.
Making games with male protagonists isn't sexist. Making games that appeal to major demographics - demographics that far outweigh their smaller competing demographics - isn't wrong either. Games that allow for complete customisation, including whether the character is male or female, often have that character as secondary to the plot, Mass Effect being a good example. Male or female, Shep does the same thing in that game - what's between their legs never really factors into the major events of that story.
Peregrine wrote: So if you're accepting the claim that there aren't a ton of stories that require a male protagonist to work properly then the large majority of male characters is a sign of sexism.
No, because that logic... isn't.
Sining wrote: This is like people complaining hooters only hires female wait staff
Perhaps a closer comparison would be lambasting Chipendales as sexist because they don't include women in their shows.
Sining wrote: This is like people complaining hooters only hires female wait staff
You're right, it is. Hooters is part of the same problem where women are treated as objects for male entertainment. And do you really want to argue that video games are like Hooters, so it's entirely understandable that they'd be full of sexy women for all the men to enjoy? I don't know about you, but I have higher standards for my games and don't really want to be part of the same community as anyone that supports that kind of thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Prove it. Prove that they default to male characters unless given a specific reason not to.
Why do I need to prove it when you just admitted it? We know that a majority of video game characters are male, and you just rejected the idea that most games require a male protagonist for story reasons. So if the games which do require a male protagonist aren't enough to account for the disproportionate number of male characters then the only possible answer is that game developers tend to default to a male character unless they have a specific reason to have a female character.
Making games with male protagonists isn't sexist.
No, of course it isn't, and nobody is arguing that it is. The issue here is the majority of games having male protagonists, despite not having any compelling reason to do so. Consider an analogy with racism: nobody is going to throw out accusations of racism if a company with two employees is all white. But if you have a company with thousands of employees and they're still all white you're going to be asking some awkward questions about their hiring policies.
Making games that appeal to major demographics - demographics that far outweigh their smaller competing demographics - isn't wrong either.
The demographic issue is not a very significant one. Character gender is not something that has a major effect on gameplay, and I seriously doubt that having a female PC is going to have a major impact on sales to men.
Games that allow for complete customisation, including whether the character is male or female, often have that character as secondary to the plot, Mass Effect being a good example. Male or female, Shep does the same thing in that game - what's between their legs never really factors into the major events of that story.
This is also true of many games that don't have customization. Does the gender of the main character in the latest Call of Battlefield game matter? Of course not, the main character is just a faceless killing machine and the single player "story" is little more than a warmup round before you move on to multiplayer.
Women have a choice whether or not to work in Hooters. Hooters itself is very clear about what kind of image and brand it's trying to cultivate. To say that it's just about treating women as objects for entertainment kind of takes away the agency of the women who work for hooters.
And also it's hardly the same unless you're saying gamers like to stare at male player characters for male entertainment.
Making games that appeal to major demographics - demographics that far outweigh their smaller competing demographics - isn't wrong either.
The demographic issue is not a very significant one. Character gender is not something that has a major effect on gameplay, and I seriously doubt that having a female PC is going to have a major impact on sales to men.
\But apparently the reverse is true. I'm currently confused on who is sexist here
On the wholse sexual depictions of women in games. People like sex , no amount of figurative dressing people in grey overalls will change this . I for one like having attractive sexual depictions of women in my games , i'd like to add that most men in games seem to be attractive unless they are "character actors".
This neutralisation of things is going to make games very boring, very boring. Lets face it games are a lot about eye caNdy and flashing lights, at their very basic level that's what they are, the focus on graphics by the public and professional bloggers shows this. Story in games is quite often predictable and boring, I for one hate knowing where the whole cutscene is going 10 seconds in, but sadly that's where the writing is atmn. So we are left with eye candy and gameplay to sell games. Guess what sex sells. people like sex, they will always like sex. FFs in sales I'd say over 50% of my sales were due to sexual attraction/flirting, that is reality and no amount of anti sex feminism is going to change that.
There will be sex in games forever. I for one object to the demonisation of sex (and sexual attraction) , sex is natural and one of the driving forces of humanity.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But that's just it, the ratio of female protagonists shouldn't increase. It shouldn't decrease either. It should rise and fall within the context of the stories being told. If the story requires or would be better told with a female protagonist, then it should have one. If the story requires or would be better told with a male protagonist, then it should have one. If the story requires or would be better told with a wheelchair-bound transexual half-Mexican/half-goldfish protagonist, then it should have one.
Context, as always, is key.
I agree that protagonists should remain quota free - if a story was conceived with a male/female lead in mind, that shouldn't change based on external factors.
However I do want to see more games with female protagonists, and for selfish reasons. I don't try and self identify with game characters, so I generally pick a female option if available. It's escapism after all
But I'm not all gamers, so I wouldn't demand any devs change their games to suit me
H.B.M.C. wrote: But that's just it, the ratio of female protagonists shouldn't increase. It shouldn't decrease either. It should rise and fall within the context of the stories being told. If the story requires or would be better told with a female protagonist, then it should have one. If the story requires or would be better told with a male protagonist, then it should have one. If the story requires or would be better told with a wheelchair-bound transexual half-Mexican/half-goldfish protagonist, then it should have one.
Context, as always, is key.
I agree that protagonists should remain quota free - if a story was conceived with a male/female lead in mind, that shouldn't change based on external factors.
However I do want to see more games with female protagonists, and for selfish reasons. I don't try and self identify with game characters, so I generally pick a female option if available. It's escapism after all
But I'm not all gamers, so I wouldn't demand any devs change their games to suit me
I completely agree , I mostly use female characters but that is to escape male voice acting.
I don't think the reverse is true. I don't think it's going to result in major sales changes if a game has a female PC. I think that most customers will buy or not buy a game based on other factors. But I think there is enough value in trying to improve diversity a bit to make some changes, even if the number of people added to the community as a result is not a huge percentage.
So we are left with eye candy and gameplay to sell games.
And you know what I have if I want eye candy? Porn. Why would anyone want to bother with video game women in chainmail bikinis when there's a whole internet full of much better sexual material to watch? All the "sex sells" attitude does is clutter up the game and contribute to giving gamers a reputation for being immature losers who obsess over imaginary women because they can't get any real dates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sining wrote: Hooters itself is very clear about what kind of image and brand it's trying to cultivate.
Yes, and that image is a problem. You can't just dismiss an inappropriate attitude by saying "they're honest about it, so it's no big deal". An honest sexist is still a sexist, just like an honest racist is still a racist.
To say that it's just about treating women as objects for entertainment kind of takes away the agency of the women who work for hooters.
The fact that some women are willing to be entertainment in exchange for money doesn't magically erase the problems with it.
And also it's hardly the same unless you're saying gamers like to stare at male player characters for male entertainment.
That's exactly what you were saying by comparing gaming to Hooters. Hooters only hires women because that's what their male target market wants to see. If you're going to say that character gender choice in gaming works the same way then you're saying that it's all based on what men want to see: male PCs that are what men dream of being, with female characters (when they exist at all) being pretty scenery. And you're supporting the idea of games being designed around the male customer's perspective and dismissing any other potential customers, just like Hooters does.
I don't think it's sexist in any way. You're assuming that they're doing this because they don't want to hire men cause they're men and not because it goes against their corporate branding. That's like saying it's totally racism for NSA not to hire native afghans that just moved to USA.
And what problems? You're coming from a side where the most vocal supporters have been saying "HEY, LEAVE ZOE ALONE. It's her body! She can sleep with all those men if she wants, even if she's in a relationship" and you're having issues with women WORKING in hooters for a job??
Also careful there with that last point. You're projecting a lot. Especially without any evidence for someone who keeps wanting to see the evidence.
Sining wrote: You're assuming that they're doing this because they don't want to hire men cause they're men and not because it goes against their corporate branding.
...
Their corporate branding is sexist. This is like saying that the KKK isn't refusing to hire black people because they're black, it's just that black people go against their organization's branding.
You're coming from a side where the most vocal supporters have been saying "HEY, LEAVE ZOE ALONE. It's her body! She can sleep with all those men if she wants, even if she's in a relationship" and you're having issues with women WORKING in hooters for a job??
Do you honestly not see a difference between what someone does in private and having a business based on LOOK AT ALL THE SEXY WOMEN? People aren't defending Zoe Quinn because they approve of her sex life, they're defending her because it's none of our business who she sleeps with and digging into her private life is completely inappropriate. Hooters, on the other hand, is taking a public position and it's entirely appropriate to criticize that position.
Also, you'll notice that I didn't criticize individual women for working at Hooters, I criticized Hooters itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, since this is now hopelessly off-topic, I'll just end this by repeating what I said initially: defending gender choices in gaming by appealing to a comparison with Hooters is NOT a comparison that favors gaming.
Soladrin wrote: Well done people, once again you managed to completely go off topic and talk about sexism, again. There is a thread for that already, go there.
Also, Hybrid, Peregrine, you are the guys who keep bringing up Anita and Zoe, this topic isn't about them.
I think i've said this and told them if they keep dragging the conversation off topic that they should leave.
Ugh. Sometimes I wonder what goes through peoples brains when they decide to bring a topic off conversation.
Its great people are talking about the 'sexism' in gaming, but this is the wrong thread to do It. I have even said which thread they should talk about it in.
Anyone decrying harassment or misgony should look deep at their movement and see that theirs is guilty of this as well. Where the followers of both movements have that problem that small minority is just dragging their message down.
But this time for the first time, the minority is the the majority. And I am surprised to find out it is the journalists this time who have the largest amount of it. They have a deep sexism and people who hate men, and have an agenda to fix. If anyone disagrees with me read the links I posted and the quote I posted from the feminist social warriors news post.
That is their agenda. They are pushing for this. They are a problem. They keep rearing their heads in this mess, and keep attacking people. They make gross exaggerations and paint in generalizations.
They claim to use freedom of speech, but when someone speaks up they label it as harassment and censor it.
See thunderf00t as a great example. He was banned for speaking up. And saying "What the hell are you idiots doing?"
This is a factual article. This an article that takes a neutral stance and criticizes. And these same type of articles are censored by the ones who are being criticized.
And the article brings up great facts and ideas.
Ethnography is the study and research of people and cultures through data collection. One of the chief forms of data collection in ethnography is the interview. However, to do any sort of formal or informal communication, you must approach the culture or people with respect as an outsider.
Only after the culture or people trust you can you begin data collection. This is what Sommers did. She entered into the discussion, observed how we functioned, and then entered to discuss with us as a group to find our perspective on things.
She did ethnographic research, and ethnographic research is a valid form of research. If you have a problem with utilizing ethnographic research, I suggest you march to the nearest Anthropology department and tell them what you think about ethnography.
Opinion time:
Next time, consider utilizing Sommers’s methods when speaking about a culture or a people. You may find that you have more success when you approach a people with respect and a willingness to learn instead of entering the group with labels, jargon, insults, and degradation.
There's no doubt violent games play a part in the deeds of some wackos, such as Elliot "killer virgin" Rodger. Rodger didn't kill because the video games made violent, but the games did help to shape his violent fantasies. They provided a framework through which his online bloodlust turned into real-world slaughter.
As to whether a video game might make you any more likely to go out and commit a rape, the research says probably not. You were most likely going to do it anyway. But what's new about GTA Online, the thing that leaves me scratching my head and thinking these people must have something a bit wrong with them, is that these dorky deviants aren't just raping computer-generated characters, as has happened in some previous fames.
Because it's an online game they're modding, they get to rape other real-life players. Some of those other players are very young: GTA is rated 18, but has hundreds of thousands of teen addicts. Listen to the videos at Kotaku and judge for yourself how old some of the victims are.
The online version of the game, which had a chaotic launch plagued by technical snafus, has all but been abandoned by its developers, who are, I am told by those in the know, concentrating their efforts on the PC version and don't seem to care what's happening on their online platform.
But something tells me Rockstar wouldn't much care even if it had the resources to clamp down on the modding craze which enables users to modify the games way outside the parameters of the original programmer's vision. After all, this is a developer which itself launches games with secret shagging levels on them - then saturates future games with jokey references to the fact - and which hired Max Clifford to make sure its games caused the most outrage possible.
It's that brazen, sociopathic, adolescent attitude from Rockstar – founded in Scotland – that most people will find grating, together with a reckless lack of care about games that depict violent, public rape in quite granular detail. Hijacked by nerd rapists, GTA Online is now not only somewhere you wouldn't allow your children but it's somewhere no normal adult would want to go either.
Personally, I don't understand grown men wasting their lives playing computer games. It seems a bit sad to me. I mean, we've all been sucked in to a few rounds of Candy Crush, but if you want to shoot a gun, why not go to a rifle range? I suspect most people who play these games have never held a firearm in real life.
While I'm not a fan of GTA, over the years it's become rather apparent the entire series is a spoof of action, crime, and thiller films. They take all those cliches, tropes, and stereotypes, gather them up in a single game, and spend the entire game lampooning the entire thing (They took it up a level in GTAV and began lampooning GTA). I'm not really sure how that can be characterized as anymore reckless than an episode of South Park, except maybe that GTA isn't openly advertised as satire.
There's no doubt violent games play a part in the deeds of some wackos, such as Elliot "killer virgin" Rodger. Rodger didn't kill because the video games made violent, but the games did help to shape his violent fantasies. They provided a framework through which his online bloodlust turned into real-world slaughter.
As to whether a video game might make you any more likely to go out and commit a rape, the research says probably not. You were most likely going to do it anyway. But what's new about GTA Online, the thing that leaves me scratching my head and thinking these people must have something a bit wrong with them, is that these dorky deviants aren't just raping computer-generated characters, as has happened in some previous fames.
Because it's an online game they're modding, they get to rape other real-life players. Some of those other players are very young: GTA is rated 18, but has hundreds of thousands of teen addicts. Listen to the videos at Kotaku and judge for yourself how old some of the victims are.
The online version of the game, which had a chaotic launch plagued by technical snafus, has all but been abandoned by its developers, who are, I am told by those in the know, concentrating their efforts on the PC version and don't seem to care what's happening on their online platform.
But something tells me Rockstar wouldn't much care even if it had the resources to clamp down on the modding craze which enables users to modify the games way outside the parameters of the original programmer's vision. After all, this is a developer which itself launches games with secret shagging levels on them - then saturates future games with jokey references to the fact - and which hired Max Clifford to make sure its games caused the most outrage possible.
It's that brazen, sociopathic, adolescent attitude from Rockstar – founded in Scotland – that most people will find grating, together with a reckless lack of care about games that depict violent, public rape in quite granular detail. Hijacked by nerd rapists, GTA Online is now not only somewhere you wouldn't allow your children but it's somewhere no normal adult would want to go either.
Personally, I don't understand grown men wasting their lives playing computer games. It seems a bit sad to me. I mean, we've all been sucked in to a few rounds of Candy Crush, but if you want to shoot a gun, why not go to a rifle range? I suspect most people who play these games have never held a firearm in real life.
I hate this article because it goes against what it said in the beginning which is that there was no conculsive evidence to show a behavioral change as a result of video games. That is incredibly offtopic and I don't know why you even posted that article.
Anyone that claims that video games cause violent behavior or sexist behavior have not read all the studies which have been founded to be inclusive. You cannot test behavior change from an object in a scientific setting or a lab setting. They need to do it after a game is played. Not yanking out the cord in the middle of the game. that is usually when people get angry. Thats frustration and if they record that would corrupt the results of the experiment.
Any scientist who does do that needs to read up on some pyschological studies.
Me and my sister have opposite views on the whole video game violence thing. She says I am more use to violence. Ever since I am more confrontational than either of my siblings.
Is that because of video games or my personality. I say personality. Not because I enjoy video games. Because at the same time, I am also the most reserved of my family, and I only lend my voice if that occasion calls for it.
Because my experiences of being bullied have led me to be more confrontational as I do not take kindly to bullies or jerks.
Sining wrote: I don't think it's sexist in any way. You're assuming that they're doing this because they don't want to hire men cause they're men and not because it goes against their corporate branding. That's like saying it's totally racism for NSA not to hire native afghans that just moved to USA.
And what problems? You're coming from a side where the most vocal supporters have been saying "HEY, LEAVE ZOE ALONE. It's her body! She can sleep with all those men if she wants, even if she's in a relationship" and you're having issues with women WORKING in hooters for a job??
Also careful there with that last point. You're projecting a lot. Especially without any evidence for someone who keeps wanting to see the evidence.
Hooters did not originally hire men, they just didn't do it. Then came a lawsuit from SJW men, which lead to men being able to work for hooters.
It's surprisingly an apt comparison, If a company like silverstrings media is doing things we don't like, it can be changed.
I'm surprised the lawsuits haven't started yet, Everyone who submitted a game to IGN needs to sue. Those poor developers thought they had a chance at winning and gave up $100 in a false hope their game would be fairly reviewed.
If the games were fairly reviewed, that will be shown at trial, if not, the developers should at a minimum get their money back, and probably a bit more in damages based on the smear campaign that's going on.
Sining wrote: I don't think it's sexist in any way. You're assuming that they're doing this because they don't want to hire men cause they're men and not because it goes against their corporate branding. That's like saying it's totally racism for NSA not to hire native afghans that just moved to USA.
And what problems? You're coming from a side where the most vocal supporters have been saying "HEY, LEAVE ZOE ALONE. It's her body! She can sleep with all those men if she wants, even if she's in a relationship" and you're having issues with women WORKING in hooters for a job??
Also careful there with that last point. You're projecting a lot. Especially without any evidence for someone who keeps wanting to see the evidence.
Hooters did not originally hire men, they just didn't do it. Then came a lawsuit from SJW men, which lead to men being able to work for hooters.
It's surprisingly an apt comparison, If a company like silverstrings media is doing things we don't like, it can be changed.
I'm surprised the lawsuits haven't started yet, Everyone who submitted a game to IGN needs to sue. Those poor developers thought they had a chance at winning and gave up $100 in a false hope their game would be fairly reviewed.
If the games were fairly reviewed, that will be shown at trial, if not, the developers should at a minimum get their money back, and probably a bit more in damages based on the smear campaign that's going on.
There might be in the works.
I think IGN needs to rework its score.
If it wants keep the rating system thats fine they just need to be fair and not compare it to other games. Instead have a quality of a product hold it to a standard. Of the industry. Not to your own expectations.
If you do that then you might get a better review.
If you say the sound is terrible I don't know what you are comparing. If you say the graphics are bad. I don't know what you mean. In what way?
You need to get away from personal opinion and more objective writing. If you are writing a review talk about it and research what you are talking about. I am more qualified to write a review about a game because I know the work that goes in, and I respect that and I grade it based on how well it is created. And how they use that.
The entire point of a review is that it's a personal opinion... (Hence why it's upsetting that instead of getting an opinion about a game's quality we get ad pieces that might as well have been written by EA's marketing department).
There's no doubt violent games play a part in the deeds of some wackos, such as Elliot "killer virgin" Rodger. Rodger didn't kill because the video games made violent, but the games did help to shape his violent fantasies. They provided a framework through which his online bloodlust turned into real-world slaughter.
As to whether a video game might make you any more likely to go out and commit a rape, the research says probably not. You were most likely going to do it anyway. But what's new about GTA Online, the thing that leaves me scratching my head and thinking these people must have something a bit wrong with them, is that these dorky deviants aren't just raping computer-generated characters, as has happened in some previous fames.
Because it's an online game they're modding, they get to rape other real-life players. Some of those other players are very young: GTA is rated 18, but has hundreds of thousands of teen addicts. Listen to the videos at Kotaku and judge for yourself how old some of the victims are.
The online version of the game, which had a chaotic launch plagued by technical snafus, has all but been abandoned by its developers, who are, I am told by those in the know, concentrating their efforts on the PC version and don't seem to care what's happening on their online platform.
But something tells me Rockstar wouldn't much care even if it had the resources to clamp down on the modding craze which enables users to modify the games way outside the parameters of the original programmer's vision. After all, this is a developer which itself launches games with secret shagging levels on them - then saturates future games with jokey references to the fact - and which hired Max Clifford to make sure its games caused the most outrage possible.
It's that brazen, sociopathic, adolescent attitude from Rockstar – founded in Scotland – that most people will find grating, together with a reckless lack of care about games that depict violent, public rape in quite granular detail. Hijacked by nerd rapists, GTA Online is now not only somewhere you wouldn't allow your children but it's somewhere no normal adult would want to go either.
Personally, I don't understand grown men wasting their lives playing computer games. It seems a bit sad to me. I mean, we've all been sucked in to a few rounds of Candy Crush, but if you want to shoot a gun, why not go to a rifle range? I suspect most people who play these games have never held a firearm in real life.
What a bigoted, ignorant egit.
Grown men wasting our lives playing games?
We do it because it's fun, what more reasons do we need? If the time spent playing games entertains us, it's not wasted, no more than golfers, sports car enthusiasts, anglers, painters or people who read novels are wasting their time.
If you want to shoot a gun why not go to a rifle range?
Is this lunatic really suggesting that people should put down their controller, go out and receive training in how to use a lethal firearm? The OPPOSITE should be encouraged. I have absolutely no desire to shoot a real gun. I view a gun gun as a tool and a weapon, not a toy for my entertainment. (Not that I mean to denigrate those who enjoy shooting as a sport, I just have no desire to do it myself). A video game provides all the entertainment I need with regards to firearms . Anyway, I'd much prefer to shoot a bow than a gun, I tried archery as a kid and enjoyed it.
There is a standard review process in the industry.
Given the multitude of score systems, and reviewer priorities (some obviously care about photo realism a lot more than they do about style) I'd say no. There is no standard process...
Reviews are personal opinions. Acting like they shouldn't be is to ignore what reviews are, not just in games but in every realm of media (not to mention ignoring the issue that we aren't even getting reviewer opinions at times).
There is no standard process and no fixed terminology. Not only that but knit picking 'textures are messy' vs 'has graphical glitches' is just a complaint over brevity. I don't even know why you would think that's an incorrect term. It's vague, but not incorrect.
There is a standard review process in the industry.
Given the multitude of score systems, and reviewer priorities (some obviously care about photo realism a lot more than they do about style) I'd say no. There is no standard process...
Reviews are personal opinions. Acting like they shouldn't be is to ignore what reviews are, not just in games but in every realm of media (not to mention ignoring the issue that we aren't even getting reviewer opinions at times).
There is no standard process and no fixed terminology. Not only that but knit picking 'textures are messy' vs 'has graphical glitches' is just a complaint over brevity. I don't even know why you would think that's an incorrect term. It's vague, but not incorrect.
Glitch is an incorrect term. It is a bug, not a glitch. There are many other words to describe it. In the games industry we do not use the word glitch.
Glitch means something wrong with software, not a problem with a game itself.
I think there should be.
I mean movies are still opinion yet they are informative and they only reveal tiny details.
They give us a synopsis and rate people according to a set standard.
Glitch means something wrong with software, not a problem with a game itself.
The game is software.
And that's not even the distinction.
A 'bug' is a fault concerning an input that results in an unintended or incorrect output (most exploits are bugs).
A 'glitch' is a a fault usually corrected by the program after a brief moment or after being reloaded (it's temporary). Most graphic oddities in games, are very accurately described as a glitch. And something can be both a glitch and a bug.
This is a video a friend made;
^That, is a glitch. A graphics glitch concern the weapon meshes to be specific (it is also a bug probably) because it goes away when the map reloads.
EDIT: And setting aside that computer science draws a distinction between a glitch and a bug, most people just use those words interchangeably to mean the same thing, which isn't that big a deal since the distinction won't really mean much to the user of a program.
EDIT: And setting aside that computer science draws a distinction between a glitch and a bug, most people just use those words interchangeably to mean the same thing, which isn't that big a deal since the distinction won't really mean much to the user of a program.
Good point. But if you compare movie reviews to game reviews you can see a unprofessional-ism.
I think this is a non-event. I think this is relevant, though. But for some reason, nobody is speaking about it.
Do you see why one would be relevant and not the other?
You do realize we have been talking about that the entire time, and Peregene has ignored that right?
No. No I do not.
Bullockist wrote: People like sex , no amount of figurative dressing people in grey overalls will change this
Many people like sex. In the right context. For instance, few people like sex at the funeral of a loved one, for some reason .
Are games the right context for it? Depend on the game, obviously. But most of the time, the answer is no. Beside, very few games include actual sex. All they include usually is titillating looks and poses from the female cast. That looks out of place, cliche, and terribly boring. Actual good games about sex, why the hell not?
Bullockist wrote: i'd like to add that most men in games seem to be attractive unless they are "character actors".
Uh, not in the same way as the women.
Bullockist wrote: This neutralisation of things is going to make games very boring, very boring.
If you call that boring, you have no soul .
Spoiler:
Bullockist wrote: no amount of anti sex feminism
[…]
I for one object to the demonisation of sex (and sexual attraction) , sex is natural and one of the driving forces of humanity.
Seriously, what the hell?
Peregrine wrote: All the "sex sells" attitude does is clutter up the game and contribute to giving gamers a reputation for being immature losers who obsess over imaginary women because they can't get any real dates.
When will people finally acknowledge that I may be an immature looser that cannot get any real date, but I do not obsess over imaginary women nonetheless, and focus on self-hating and self-pitying instead .
Soladrin wrote: Also, Hybrid, Peregrine, you are the guys who keep bringing up Anita and Zoe, this topic isn't about them.
There's no doubt violent games play a part in the deeds of some wackos, such as Elliot "killer virgin" Rodger. Rodger didn't kill because the video games made violent, but the games did help to shape his violent fantasies. They provided a framework through which his online bloodlust turned into real-world slaughter.
As to whether a video game might make you any more likely to go out and commit a rape, the research says probably not. You were most likely going to do it anyway. But what's new about GTA Online, the thing that leaves me scratching my head and thinking these people must have something a bit wrong with them, is that these dorky deviants aren't just raping computer-generated characters, as has happened in some previous fames.
Because it's an online game they're modding, they get to rape other real-life players. Some of those other players are very young: GTA is rated 18, but has hundreds of thousands of teen addicts. Listen to the videos at Kotaku and judge for yourself how old some of the victims are.
The online version of the game, which had a chaotic launch plagued by technical snafus, has all but been abandoned by its developers, who are, I am told by those in the know, concentrating their efforts on the PC version and don't seem to care what's happening on their online platform.
But something tells me Rockstar wouldn't much care even if it had the resources to clamp down on the modding craze which enables users to modify the games way outside the parameters of the original programmer's vision. After all, this is a developer which itself launches games with secret shagging levels on them - then saturates future games with jokey references to the fact - and which hired Max Clifford to make sure its games caused the most outrage possible.
It's that brazen, sociopathic, adolescent attitude from Rockstar – founded in Scotland – that most people will find grating, together with a reckless lack of care about games that depict violent, public rape in quite granular detail. Hijacked by nerd rapists, GTA Online is now not only somewhere you wouldn't allow your children but it's somewhere no normal adult would want to go either.
Personally, I don't understand grown men wasting their lives playing computer games. It seems a bit sad to me. I mean, we've all been sucked in to a few rounds of Candy Crush, but if you want to shoot a gun, why not go to a rifle range? I suspect most people who play these games have never held a firearm in real life.
Yeah, I told Asherian Command about this when he posted an article that included a link to this “video games will make you a killer” article, as an example of when he agreed with “SJW”. He said that the article he originally posted should be judged on its own merit, not on what Milo had written before. I thought including a link to an article saying that video games makes you a killer was one of the article's merits .
Yeah, I told Asherian Command about this when he posted an article that included a link to this “video games will make you a killer” article, as an example of when he agreed with “SJW”. He said that the article he originally posted should be judged on its own merit, not on what Milo had written before. I thought including a link to an article saying that video games makes you a killer was one of the article's merits .
Which article?
Where? WHERE?
And I said a game should be based on its own merits, not a journalistic interview.
I found the article kind of insulting
No, we are not.
Basically you are just dragging it off topic.
I mention zoe quinn and make fun of her. Because I can mock them for their decisions.
Antia mostly I just disagree with. I don't think she is involved, But I do find it kind of interesting that there are 'social justice warriors' thrown in the mix.
Yeah, I told Asherian Command about this when he posted an article that included a link to this “video games will make you a killer” article, as an example of when he agreed with “SJW”. He said that the article he originally posted should be judged on its own merit, not on what Milo had written before. I thought including a link to an article saying that video games makes you a killer was one of the article's merits .
Which article?
Where? WHERE?
And I said a game should be based on its own merits, not a journalistic interview.
Yeah, I told Asherian Command about this when he posted an article that included a link to this “video games will make you a killer” article, as an example of when he agreed with “SJW”. He said that the article he originally posted should be judged on its own merit, not on what Milo had written before. I thought including a link to an article saying that video games makes you a killer was one of the article's merits .
Which article?
Where? WHERE?
And I said a game should be based on its own merits, not a journalistic interview.
If memory serves, a week or so ago Milo asked twitter for game suggestions. I believe there is a video floating around of his first time playing portal.
So, funnily enough, it looks like he is willing to do actual research as part of actual journalism
So what do you folks think of Devi Ever? She does some great work. I was following her on Twitter for a bit... she used to be vehemently against #GamerGate but then she kind of became part of the 'movement'... I quickly unfollowed her when I learned of this. But then re-followed her because I sincerely do enjoy her work and I think some of the experiences she's had are interesting. Any way just thought I throw her name out to see if anyone had any thoughts on her. I'm going to check out some of her writings that explain some of her thoughts/experiences with #GamerGate. I'm still kind of hurt that she supports #GamerGate... but that's just being hurt... I'm also curious and will check on other perspectives (of course I kind of don't really enjoy how some of these perspectives are being expressed though).
BTW haha sorry for being an ass earlier. I was really bored at work. Besides... my mustache is soooo untwistable... its barely there...
Oh and so there isn't any confusion... I'll make it plain because I totally don't think it is plain in what I just typed above... (its probably not even there):
Sometimes yes... sometimes no... its all very situational... I try to be fluid... I look at something... assess... and see from there what I might need to do.
Some would call it being uncommitted... or maybe indecisive... or just being stupid... hahaha...
Part of it is because not everything is as clear cut as everyone would like to think it is. At least I don't think its as clear cut as everyone thinks it is.
EDIT:
Re: #GamerGate - I'm not totally against it... but it could be carried out a little better I think. Though some of the stuff Zoe has done has been a bit 'wacky'.
djphranq wrote: Re: #GamerGate - I'm not totally against it... but it could be carried out a little better I think. Though some of the stuff Zoe has done has been a bit 'wacky'.
And the Understatement Of The Year Award 2014 goes to...
In the words of Leigh Alexander, quoted in the above:
"Self-identified nerds are often so obsessed with their identity as cultural outcasts that they are willfully [sic] blind to their privilege, and for the sake of relatively-absurd fandoms — space marines, dragons, zombies, endless war simulations — take their myopic and insular attitudes to 'art' and 'culture' with tunnel-visioned, inflexible, embarrassing seriousness that often leads to homogeneity, racism, sexism and bullying."
But if it has a hidden agenda and has an underlying bias you bet I will get angry at the writer.
Wow someone took me out of context. Or you know took one bit and went with it without reading the rest of the post! Whoops!
Also thats from a locked thread. Interestingly enough XD
Well, you got the thread locked, not me, despite all the accusations that I wanted to have it closed . All those Twitter images .
And an article linking to another article from the same writer is hardly a “hidden agenda”. Because hidden. It is not hidden. As for the bias, where the hell do you expect objectivity ?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: If memory serves, a week or so ago Milo asked twitter for game suggestions. I believe there is a video floating around of his first time playing portal.
So, funnily enough, it looks like he is willing to do actual research as part of actual journalism
If that is research, I deserve a Nobel price. Or a Pulitzer.
But if it has a hidden agenda and has an underlying bias you bet I will get angry at the writer.
Wow someone took me out of context. Or you know took one bit and went with it without reading the rest of the post! Whoops!
Also thats from a locked thread. Interestingly enough XD
Well, you got the thread locked, not me, despite all the accusations that I wanted to have it closed . All those Twitter images .
Actually, I doubt that.
I think I was the one who attracted the attention of the Mods and provoked the use of the BanHammer in the last thread. I reported someone for what I thought was a rude personal attack, 5 min later the thread was locked. It may have been you, or someone else, it certainly wasn't Asherian.
Totalbiscuits last video had a nice quick dig at journalistic integrity in the opening minute. Good on him - as usual.
I really think this whole thing is going to escalate and help enforce better standards in the industry for which I'm grateful, and perhaps a greater shift away from sites to individuals. Like others here I stopped frequenting game review sites many years ago. I didn't really realize why, I just thought "this isn't useful to me anymore" without looking into it. Since then I've discovered youtube channels that give me exactly what I want - game coverage, far better than in the past where the presenters wear their bias and perspective in plain sight so you can analyse the material with that in mind. As TB says, you learn to trust the person not the site which is far more evident as you follow that person instead of a site. Sites are made of multiple people with different inherent bias, and an overall directive frequently that clashes with what we want - which is obvious since we're the product being sold to games devs (sites primary advertisers). On youtube we're still the product, but it's to third parties completely divorced from the content so misinformation is not required.
http://imgur.com/h2CzZNC Samsung supports Kotaku. Samsung needs to stop supporting unfair and biased gaming news sites. Email d2.cohen@sea.samsung.com to ask him to politely stop funding this insanity.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: He is increasing his knowledge in a field he admits he knew little about.
What would you call that, if not research?
A new hobby?
"Research is a process of steps used to collect and analyze information to increase our understanding of a topic or issue" - John W. Creswell
I'm really sorry, Hybrid, but what he's doing is called research. It what people do when they want to learn more about something they don't know about. It's what normal journalists do.
Strangely, it reminds me of a certain someone who admitted she didn't play video games in a conference, and then in later her kickstarter mentioned she loves video games. You would be invalidating her work, because in your opinion it wouldn't have been research. Why would you do that to her, Hybrid?
Automatically Appended Next Post: . . .
Oh dear, Milo released some incriminating emails from some senior games journalists. . . but forgot to remove their contact details.
I believe this is the calm right before the storm.
Yeah... if you've got a spare 1/2hr to 45 mins you might want to use that time to rethinkthatposition (yes, the articles are quite in-depth, but well worth reading).
Enjoy!
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Oh dear, Milo released some incriminating emails from some senior games journalists. . . but forgot to remove their contact details.
I believe this is the calm right before the storm.
He did. He released a stack of GameJournoPro (or whatever it's called) E-mails, but some of them had contact info on them, so he took the whole lot down and is going to remove them before putting anything back up.
So I saw this from the Dalai Lama this morning and all I could think is, he forget the #notyourshield tag
If your mental attitude is positive, even when threats abound, you won’t lose your inner peace. On the other hand, if your mind is negative, marked by fear, suspicion and feelings of helplessness, even among your best friends, in a pleasant atmosphere and comfortable surroundings, you won’t be happy.
In other news, I've unsubbed from cracked. I'd link the article from yesterday but it wasn't worth reading.
sirlynchmob wrote: So I saw this from the Dalai Lama this morning and all I could think is, he forget the #notyourshield tag
If your mental attitude is positive, even when threats abound, you won’t lose your inner peace. On the other hand, if your mind is negative, marked by fear, suspicion and feelings of helplessness, even among your best friends, in a pleasant atmosphere and comfortable surroundings, you won’t be happy.
In other news, I've unsubbed from cracked. I'd link the article from yesterday but it wasn't worth reading.
I say pastebin it. Do not give them the clicks but let the people know what the article detailed.
Anita's videos are not censorship, she is performing critical appraisal, which is something that is required if you want video games to be taken seriously as an art form.
Yeah... if you've got a spare 1/2hr to 45 mins you might want to use that time to rethinkthatposition (yes, the articles are quite in-depth, but well worth reading).
Enjoy!
I really agree with those articles, though I'm not sure where he was going with that last bit. I mean, I understand the argument, but was he trying to use her own arguments when saying that "If all men had were role models like Bowser, instead of both Bowser and Mario, men would be a lot more villainous as a whole"?
CorporateLogo wrote: Anita's videos are not censorship, she is performing critical appraisal, which is something that is required if you want video games to be taken seriously as an art form.
Sigvatr wrote: Tons of /v/ mods have been fired for speaking up against the incoherent claims and a 4chan supermod is BFF with Zoe. Surprise.
It's worse than that. Latest skuttlebutt shows that Moot himself is good friends with a couple of folks from Gawker media, as in the guys running many of these so-called gaming websites. Latest info is that Moot has instructed his mods to go out of their way to annihilate all #GG threads. Hell, Moot was even in the audience at Anita's latest call to nonsense.
CorporateLogo wrote: Anita's videos are not censorship, she is performing critical appraisal, which is something that is required if you want video games to be taken seriously as an art form.
Sigvatr wrote: Tons of /v/ mods have been fired for speaking up against the incoherent claims and a 4chan supermod is BFF with Zoe. Surprise.
It's worse than that. Latest skuttlebutt shows that Moot himself is good friends with a couple of folks from Gawker media, as in the guys running many of these so-called gaming websites. Latest info is that Moot has instructed his mods to go out of their way to annihilate all #GG threads. Hell, Moot was even in the audience at Anita's latest call to nonsense.
From what's been discovered, Moot is trying to get a startup of something else, so he's basically trying to be "In the Know" like the rest of the journalists/developers in this group.
CorporateLogo wrote: Anita's videos are not censorship, she is performing critical appraisal, which is something that is required if you want video games to be taken seriously as an art form.
Clearly you don't understand the difference between criticism and censorship. Saying "this is bad, you shouldn't do it" is not the same as saying "stop doing this or we're going to throw you in prison". Her criticism only has the power to cause change if people agree with it and voluntarily make those changes in their own work, she has absolutely no power to force anyone to do anything.
Also, that first article isn't really off to a great start when it spends a whole page on a ridiculous guilt by association "argument". The fact that she uses a term that is kind of like something that was used by Dworkin* does not magically negate the substance of the argument.
*Who, for the record, is an extremist lunatic and completely irrelevant.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly you didn't read the articles, which explain the two quite well and why Anita is one and not the other.
I read it, and it's a terrible argument by an author who also clearly doesn't understand the difference between censorship and criticism. You can't censor something if you have no power to force the person creating it to obey your demands.
Totalbiscuit finished his wasteland 2 stream this morning (evening US time) with some commentary on the situation. He likened the recent "youtubers accepting money for promotional content" discussion recently to the "corruption in games journalism" we have here. The youtubers had an open discussion about it and many quickly started being more open about it. The games journalists did the opposite, they closed ranks and attacked the gamers instead.
I just don't get the "if x want's be taken seriously as art/art form" thing
For one, it sounds like a scolding parent in tone but my primary issue with that statement is art is inherently subjective. I've heard friends say that exact thing and it left me baffled. That bungie game made half a billion on release, someone's taking that artform seriously it seems.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly you didn't read the articles, which explain the two quite well and why Anita is one and not the other.
I read it, and it's a terrible argument by an author who also clearly doesn't understand the difference between censorship and criticism. You can't censor something if you have no power to force the person creating it to obey your demands.
It was a fantastic, well-sourced and well-put-together argument that cleanly and clinically dismantled everything Anita has ever said. The fact that you don't see that shows a failure of comprehension on your part. As to your second point, you can still want to censor something even if you lack the power to do so, and that's what Anita wants - to censor things. Just because she can't do it herself (yet) doesn't mean that she doesn't want to.
But, as always, I'm a complete idiot for stepping into the ring with you Peregrine. You never change, never back down, and never ever listen to anything anyone says when they run counter to your cast-iron opinions. You are a wall - a big, strong, impenetrable wall. The good news is that walls are stuck being walls, and everyone can walk away.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly you didn't read the articles, which explain the two quite well and why Anita is one and not the other.
I read it, and it's a terrible argument by an author who also clearly doesn't understand the difference between censorship and criticism. You can't censor something if you have no power to force the person creating it to obey your demands.
It was a fantastic, well-sourced and well-put-together argument that cleanly and clinically dismantled everything Anita has ever said. The fact that you don't see that shows a failure of comprehension on your part. As to your second point, you can still want to censor something even if you lack the power to do so, and that's what Anita wants - to censor things. Just because she can't do it herself (yet) doesn't mean that she doesn't want to.
But, as always, I'm a complete idiot for stepping into the ring with you Peregrine. You never change, never back down, and never ever listen to anything anyone says when they run counter to your cast-iron opinions. You are a wall - a big, strong, impenetrable wall. The good news is that walls are stuck being walls, and everyone can walk away.
*walks away*
Her desire to do so - coupled with being brought in to do seminars at EA - implies increasing ability to do so too. We need to put a stop to that ASAP. By all means create a variety of games that appeal to different people. Don't do so at the cost of the traditional games market. It's part of why we were so ragey at EA for Dungeon Keeper mobile.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly you didn't read the articles, which explain the two quite well and why Anita is one and not the other.
I read it, and it's a terrible argument by an author who also clearly doesn't understand the difference between censorship and criticism. You can't censor something if you have no power to force the person creating it to obey your demands.
It was a fantastic, well-sourced and well-put-together argument that cleanly and clinically dismantled everything Anita has ever said. The fact that you don't see that shows a failure of comprehension on your part. As to your second point, you can still want to censor something even if you lack the power to do so, and that's what Anita wants - to censor things. Just because she can't do it herself (yet) doesn't mean that she doesn't want to.
But, as always, I'm a complete idiot for stepping into the ring with you Peregrine. You never change, never back down, and never ever listen to anything anyone says when they run counter to your cast-iron opinions. You are a wall - a big, strong, impenetrable wall. The good news is that walls are stuck being walls, and everyone can walk away.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It was a fantastic, well-sourced and well-put-together argument that cleanly and clinically dismantled everything Anita has ever said.
It was very long and made a few good points, but the argument about censorship was not one of them. And it didn't "dismantle" anything, even at its best it still just pointed out some gray areas and room for disagreement.
The fact that you don't see that shows a failure of comprehension on your part.
Lack of agreement is not the same thing as lack of comprehension. I understood exactly what it was saying, the author is just wrong about most of it. Let me summarize:
1) Sarkeesian said some things about sex and objectification that are superficially similar to a nutcase nobody takes seriously. This is a terrible guilt by association "argument" that the author should be embarrassed to include.
2) Sarkeesian is in favor of censorship. This is just plain stupid and relies on an assumption that persuading certain game companies to change their products would be censorship. It clearly isn't, because anyone who thinks it is a profitable business decision would still be free to publish their own games that she doesn't approve of, and she couldn't do anything to stop them. Nothing in those articles even comes close to supporting a claim that Sarkeesian is in favor of government restrictions on game content, which would be required for it to be censorship.
3) Sarkeesian's arguments aren't cited and supported to the level of peer-reviewed scientific journals. This is just stating the obvious: it's a series of opinion videos aimed at a general audience, not a high-level academic work. The author gets extra comedy points for complaining about how some of her sources are in journals that require you to pay money to read them, which is pretty standard when you're talking about academic work.
4) Sarkeesian's arguments involve controversial gender-essentialist claims about "masculine" and "feminine" attributes. This is actually the best point the author makes, there are major issues with this approach both in the lack of evidence to support it and the morality of supporting sexist assumptions about gender roles. On the other hand, Sarkeesian does have at least a decent point in that simply flipping the appearance of a formerly-male character is a rather superficial way of adding equality to a game.
5) Sarkeesian's criticism provides a no-win scenario for game developers, and makes "women crush men" the only acceptable story. This is a pretty weak argument because it's based on considering Sarkeesian's criticism in the context of a single game, rather than games as a whole. While she does mention specific games as an example (and arguably gets it wrong) the larger point isn't that one particular game has a problem, it's that gaming as a whole keeps using the same "women as damsels" story. A world in which those same "save the damsel" games existed but the gender of each character was determined by a random coin flip would satisfy her criticism, especially if media and society as a whole followed a similar trend.
As to your second point, you can still want to censor something even if you lack the power to do so, and that's what Anita wants - to censor things.
I see nothing in there that suggests that she wants government regulation of game content. And yes, that's what is required for it to be censorship. Simply persuading game developers to voluntarily change their products is not censorship.
But, as always, I'm a complete idiot for stepping into the ring with you Peregrine. You never change, never back down, and never ever listen to anything anyone says when they run counter to your cast-iron opinions. You are a wall - a big, strong, impenetrable wall. The good news is that walls are stuck being walls, and everyone can walk away.
See, you're just missing the obvious explanation her: I never back down because I only post when I already know I'm right. And, in this case, I'm right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yonan wrote: Her desire to do so - coupled with being brought in to do seminars at EA - implies increasing ability to do so too.
And you also don't seem to understand the difference between criticism and censorship. Persuading EA to change their products is not censorship, nor is it even close to censorship.
By all means create a variety of games that appeal to different people. Don't do so at the cost of the traditional games market.
You do realize that these are for-profit businesses, right? If the "traditional games" market is less profitable than the "Sarkeesian-style games" market then guess what any sensible company is going to do. It isn't reasonable to expect a for-profit business to throw away money on an unprofitable product line just because a small number of fans want to have it.
And of course if there is enough of a market for "traditional games" to be profitable then it doesn't matter what EA does, if they abandon the market then someone else will step in and fill that hole. Because, no matter how much you talk about censorship, it really isn't.
Yonan wrote: Her desire to do so - coupled with being brought in to do seminars at EA - implies increasing ability to do so too.
And you also don't seem to understand the difference between criticism and censorship. Persuading EA to change their products is not censorship, nor is it even close to censorship.
Semantics. She's convincing them to change the product to suit her agenda. We don't want her to do that.
By all means create a variety of games that appeal to different people. Don't do so at the cost of the traditional games market.
You do realize that these are for-profit businesses, right? If the "traditional games" market is less profitable than the "Sarkeesian-style games" market then guess what any sensible company is going to do. It isn't reasonable to expect a for-profit business to throw away money on an unprofitable product line just because a small number of fans want to have it.
You do realize that PHBs often make very bad decisions and may think pandering to her will help them increase the female demographic when it's doubtful at best without realising it would seriously cut into their male demographic. Just like the journalist sites are for-profit businesses but didn't realize that pandering to sarkeezian/quinn/anti-gamer/whatever it is will have a large impact on their profitability by driving away many of their main user base.
?
who spends way too much time whining and crying about how much feminism sucks, and any credibility he once had is long gone. I suspect anything he had to say on this issue had much more to do with his anti-feminist crusade than any real interest in gaming.
)
.
.
