TFYC are an aspect of Feminism that I can really support, people who just want to help female developers to get their games made.
Doing something positive to promote and advance your cause is always better and more likely to convert others to your opinion, than running a negative media campaign labelling your ENTIRE audience and customer base as misogynist.
They are! They are at 56,000 of their 65,000 goal.
It’s time for us to talk about a difficult and complicated series of issues which have affected the gaming community in recent weeks. This is one of those times when we’ve had to take a deep breath and just wait. It’s hard to do that, sometimes. We do like to say our piece. But sometimes you have to wait, because it’s moving too fast and affects far too many people. So we’ve waited. We’ve written something down, and we’ve turned the comments off.
Let us explain why.
Here’s what has happened: The past month has seen an explosion of criticism and harassment of gamers, games journalists, games critics, and game developers. The harassment has been particularly focused on women, and men who have spoken out in support of women. Without exception, harassment and abuse, for any reason, is unacceptable.
There has been criticism, too, which has resulted in gamers claiming that we hate them. We don’t hate gamers. We are gamers. Numerous (often offensive and widely incoherent) attempts to provoke controversy and scandal about the relationship between game developers and the games press have resulted in some people saying that RPS should be destroyed. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we disagree with that proposition, and we’ll explain why we disagree in this article.
Sadly, too much of the criticism we’ve seen has been enmeshed with abuse and harassment, and that has included threats, personal information being published online, and even people’s friends and family being personally menaced.
All this makes the related argument difficult to deal with calmly or methodically. The consequence of this abundant irrationality has been that no resolution currently seems possible, with violent deadlock between the various people who are affected by this event.
But all is not lost, as events like this one illustrate.
Crucially, some people have been attacked with such vitriol that it has damaged their personal lives, and caused them intense distress. This is unacceptable, offensive, unwarranted, inexcusable and we condemn it completely. These actions are embarrassing to the community, and profoundly damaging to the lives of people who work with games. This means it is damaging to games, which is the thing we are all supposedly agreed should be regarded as important and meaningful.
A small part of the criticism has been leveled at Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and thanks to the wide range of issues and the ferocity with which they are being pursued, some people now have a false picture of RPS as a site. We feel the need to address that, and also to state our position.
In doing so, we want to answer some questions that have been posed to us in the past couple of weeks, questions which will be again be asked of us in the years to come. We’re paraphrasing, of course, but you get the idea.
Why have you turned comments off on this post? And what about the other posts with the comments off?
We’ve turned off the comments on this and other posts because the topics they touch on cause people to post comments that are obscene insults, death threats, mutilation threats, and rape threats. This is extremely unpleasant material, and rather than force our writers and editors to read this stuff in the process of moderation, we have just closed comments entirely. Our team will still get to read a lot of this sort of stuff, of course, because that is the weird and unpleasant place the internet can be. It’s not okay.
But you are censoring people, stifling debate, and deliberately only presenting your side of the argument without right to reply.
This seems obvious, but there is an entire internet out there for anyone to exercise their right to reply to anything we post on RPS, and it’s clear that people have no problem doing so. All we can do is take care of our corner of things, and that’s what we’re trying to do, the best way we know how. We would sincerely love to be able to post an article about something emotive and not anticipate a torrent of abuse. We’d actually like to have gentle, mannered discussions every day. What a lovely thing that would be for everyone.
I don’t believe the harassment is real. People are faking it to get attention.
You are wrong. Sorry. We’re getting some of the abuse. John particularly has been told to kill himself multiple times, with specific, ugly descriptions of how, and been sent repeated wishes that he die of cancer. And those have been the extremes. There has also been a non-stop flow of lies spread about him and RPS, abuse sent to us, including alarming videos designed to discredit both John and RPS. Nothing fake about any of that.
Don’t think that this is a sob story, though. John is fine. It’s business as usual. But this does illustrate how bad even the most minor harassment can be. Much more of it is far more unpleasant, and much more organised.
And let’s be clear: Other people are getting far worse treatment. We know that it is real, too. It might be from a very small number of people, in fact that seems likely. (These folk have openly been using Astroturfing techniques to make their numbers seem greater, and whatever consensus they can muster seem wider.) It doesn’t change how inexcusable it is.
People do not trash their own lives to make a point on Twitter. You can be sure of that, at least.
Your site is corrupt. We know this because of the evidence presented in various videos and diagrams and put together by concerned individuals.
We’ve seen all this material, too. If any of it genuinely exposed corrupt practice, or if any of it could be verified with concrete evidence, we’d surely act on it.
The accusations for our corruption have focused on a claim that favourable reviews/coverage were written after a writer was alleged to be in a sexual relationship with a developer. Except, no such articles exist, making the claim nonsensical. It has been refuted. Nevertheless, the claim has been stated repeatedly, and with confidence, which seems to be enough to have some people believe it. Despite it not being true. The demands that we address this, and condemnations that we are being “silent” over it, are therefore basically demands to defend ourselves against a crime that hasn’t happened. And that’s it. That is, unfortunately, the basis on which people have called for a boycott of RPS, and urged people to hound our advertisers in order to “destroy” the website.
There are recent examples of corrupt practice being exposed in the games press and the games press responding to it. There are also recent examples of corrupt practice being exposed in the games press and no-one responding to it. But this is not either of those things. No-one has responded to it this time, because there is so little coherent argument to respond to. In fact, most of what is out there seems to point more concretely towards a conspiracy of misogynists to silence progressive writers and their supporters, than it does towards a conspiracy to corrupt or destroy games as a medium.
While there are certainly people who feel alienated from the games press, or who are (for whatever reason) unhappy about how the games press functions, many of the people who have pushed their ideas and opinions during this furore are people whose views are extreme and sexist. There are numerous individuals criticising the games press who are simultaneously harassing and abusing women. Many of these people have a history of attacking women. Their main intention is to attack women, not to improve practice across games. It’s deeply ugly stuff, and has little to do with ethics or games. It has to do with politics and hate.
Still others are simply reveling in the chaos and the cruelty, because they are bullies. It is profoundly damaging to people, and to games. These are just a few people, but they are causing great harm, and causing gamers to get caught in a web of misunderstanding and anger. That’s not helping anyone who believes they have a valid point to make about games and the games press. It should be at the top of our list of priorities to fix that, precisely so that discussion can take place.
Even outside the unpleasant sexist agenda and the extraordinary harassment, where there have been concerted attempts to carefully describe the nature of the games industry, what most of these critics seem to be discovering is that a lot of people in the industry know each other. This is true. But it should not be surprising, or extrapolated into corruption. It is true of all industries. It is being interpreted as a conspiracy, but of course it isn’t. And it is definitely not the end of games.
There are undoubtedly some people out there who are convinced enough by these accusations to attack game sites and individual games writers, and it’s awful that they feel the need to do that. We’d love to fix that. I am sure the wider games press would, too. However, until a cogent description of what the issues are can be reached – without incurring widespread harassment – little action can be taken. That hasn’t happened. Nevertheless there are many threads within chaos and confusion, and we’ll try to address those as fully as possible.
As for the wider question of whether games journalism is corrupt, and what should be done about it, well, we’ll attempt to discuss that in this article. But it’s a difficult task. Videoman Matt Lees wrote a useful summary of points related to this curiously problematic discussion, and why it has proven so difficult for the press to discuss it. You should read his article, because it addresses some of the really vital things being asked, and explains why it doesn’t seem like we’re getting very far.
You hate gamers. When we criticised you, you “spat on us”.
No, we don’t, and no, we didn’t. This statement is in quotation marks because that’s actually what someone said to us. That we spat on them. We understand that this person was speaking figuratively, but even so it does not reflect the truth. We banned people for being unexcellent on the forums and in comments, we blocked people attacking us on Twitter, and some of our writers expressed their frustration by lampooning what was said on social media. We make jokes when we’re unhappy, and we do tend to get sarcastic when faced with honest insults. It’s difficult.
But the truth is that some of us do also identify as gamers, despite whatever else you might have read. Hell, a good part of Jim’s book (written back in 2006-7) was about the gamer identity and why it was so positive and important to people all over the world. Yes, we’ve circulated some of the criticism that has appeared in response to this issue, including various “Gamers Are Over” type articles. They had some interesting points, some of which we agree with. But not all.
But let us say this: It is possible to criticise games while at the same time enjoying them, even loving them. It is even possible to criticise gaming, while at the same time being a gamer. Gamers can criticise their identity, try to change it, or reject it. People can play games and not think of themselves as a gamer. It’s not straightforward, and people have different responses to different games. That alone makes this issue complicated to deal with. Everyone is arriving with different understandings of what things mean, and how things should be, and very little in the way of communication is getting done.
So yes: It is possible to criticise something, while at the same time enjoying it, even loving it. This is not hypocrisy, this is understanding that there is no absolute truth in matters of taste and subjectivity. It is also understanding that personal identity is not a fixed, immovable character class that we select at the start of our life, but a shifting thing that will change with time, age, mood, circumstance.
We do not hate gamers. We object to, and will fight, harassment and abuse. But that has little to do with gamers, and little or nothing to do with the ethics of the games industry. Not everyone who objects to how the games press works are harassing and attacking, but the ones who are are causing enough disruption for this entire thing, whatever it actually is, to be a mess of resentment and recrimination. For any progress to be made, in any direction, it has to stop.
Importantly, to tease out the “RPS position” a little: games are not simply for people who identify as gamers. Games are much bigger than that, now, and that’s a good thing. If you do identify as a gamer, great. Just don’t imagine that games belongs to you, or the people you feel closest to. They are for everybody.
Imagine, too, our disappointment at being cast as a corrupt blight on games. The thing we’ve dedicated our careers to being trashed and described as corrupted and ruinous. It’s awful. The videochap Matt Lees again provided a useful encapsulation of our situation:
“I understand that people remain very angry at what they see as journalists lashing out at the community in general, and whilst I won’t try and justify that (or even entirely accept that this isn’t even true) I’d like to ask you to consider this: When the community you’ve worked so hard to serve choose to stand beside a group of manipulative misogynists rather than entertain the idea that you might not actually be corrupt, how do you think this makes people feel?
So much of this argument boils down to a misunderstanding – the games media aren’t calling you misogynists. They don’t think you hate women. But you’ve decided that your distrust of the media is so strong that you’d rather side with dangerous bigots than believe that the media might not be corrupt, that’s a hell of a statement to be making.”
And it is. We love games. We hate harassment, prejudice, and abuse.
Ultimately, we believe that games are at their most beautifully diverse right now, and so we’d love gamers to mean “everybody”. It can mean everybody, if we let it.
And – bizarrely, perhaps – that means we are being painted as corrupting and corrupted conspirators. Grim.
But corporations, developers and journalists are all part of the same industry, and I’m deeply sceptical of their relationships.
That’s great! Being sceptical of corporations, companies and the press is a good idea. Guess what: we’re sceptical of them too. Be sceptical, but don’t let it stop you enjoying games. Use scepticism wisely: the internet is full of things you should be sceptical about. Just because someone is confirming what you suspected doesn’t mean that they, or you, are necessarily correct.
Most important of all: there is a world of difference between cautious and sensible scepticism towards what is reported by the press, or claimed by corporations, and actively attacking individuals.
Games journalists should disclose conflicts of interest and be as transparent as possible.
Okay. We will do our best to be transparent at all times. We will continue to declare conflicts of interest and try to make sure that writers are not in close relationships with the people they write about. We want to stress, however, that writers and editors do have close working relationships with each other and with developers and PRs. They need to talk about the games. They need to get information for you. That’s their job. Perhaps they get too close sometimes. That’s not going to destroy anything.
Well, you still won’t engage the other side of the debate. Why isn’t that represented on RPS?
Because we are this side. Our own side. The chaotic nature of this debate, and the way it has been pursued, make things very difficult for us, but we’re doing our best to address some of it in this article. We already believe that we behave ethically, and don’t yet see anything that requires changing. If the current line up of issues could be separated from the abuse – as it clearly can and should be – then perhaps there would be something more concrete and useful to go on. Until that time, we can only present our editorial policy, and our philosophy towards writing about games, in response to the questions we have been asked.
We’re against sexism, we support feminist arguments of various kinds. We encourage you to disagree with these arguments, but we are not obliged to disagree with them ourselves, or to publish arguments attacking them at any level of vehemence. We do not have to present anyone else’s argument. RPS is a curated space, privately owned by individuals. It is our own website, which we use to say the things we want to say. That is bias, and we are completely happy to accept that. We are not objective robots, or a corporation trying to be “neutral”, and wouldn’t want to be. Yes, we invite some discussion, but we also get to police that, and decide when enough is enough. We have a huge platform with millions of people reading it. There are many things we just don’t want posted on our site, because this site is not for them to promote themselves. In 2014 people of all kinds have all manner of platforms to work from, they don’t need this one, and we’re certainly not obliged to allow free reign in using it.
Also, it’s not fair to say that we haven’t attempted to engage with the wider argument. Some of our writers have repeatedly attempted to discuss these issues on social media, and come away frustrated by the lack of actual evidence or reasoning. They’re not alone. Lots of people have attempted to steer their way through this quagmire, and watching them fail because no true dialogue can be established has been deeply frustrating. Not all of them have failed. This link which we pointed to earlier in the article, is an illustration of what patience and communication can do. It’s heartening to see that process in action, despite so many contentious issues in play.
We must stress one more time: many people pushing accusations of corruption within the games industry are doing so for reasons which seem to have nothing to do with ethics, or anything else related to games. When questioned about their beliefs, they are unable to explain or verify. This, then, is why we can’t engage with those people. But it doesn’t mean all is lost, or that it’s time for a war.
Again: it is possible to criticise games, while at the same time enjoying them, even loving. (And we do.)
It is possible to talk, but that does not mean you can say whatever you like, wherever you like.
But what about the specific issue of Rab Florence’s article? And doesn’t that deal with a developer’s personal life? If you publish that, then you are hypocritical if you ignore the personal lives of other industry people.
You are welcome to disagree with us posting the article, and to disagree with Rab’s assessments, but it has no relevance on the other topics being cited. Rab was specifically and personally replying to a public statement made by Temkin on being accused of a criminal act. This document was deliberately made public, which gives replies to a validity which harassment-driven examination of people’s private lives does not have. Regardless of that, all articles on RPS are at our editorial discretion. What is written here is published because of the decisions writers and editors made about it. Feel free to disagree with their decisions, but these decisions are not hypocrisy. If we examine a topic and conclude that it is not worth an article, then that is our decision to make.
We also note that claims that the Temkin article should never have been published are not a convincing approach to arguing that we therefore should have written about another developer’s sex life.
RPS posts that contain controversy about sexism are just clickbait. You do not actually believe this stuff, and you are just doing it for hits.
Nope, we actually believe it. If you believe that we actually don’t, well, it’s going to be hard to change your mind. But there would be easier ways to generate traffic, with less abuse directed at us, if what was really on our minds was traffic. Why wouldn’t we just do that?
You are doing it for sexual favours.
Wow. No.
But you ARE operating a business which relies on internet traffic. You must be posting clickbait, because that’s just how it works.
This seems like a misunderstanding, or perhaps a miscommunication. We’ve seen articles (not of this site) along the lines of “ten hottest girls in games” called clickbait, and we’ve seen serious discussions of sexism being called clickbait. There’s a contradiction there that seems to reveal a deeper confusion.
One theory behind “clickbait” goes: a site writes an article purely to cynically generate hype, being deliberately controversial or contentious such that it will infuriate people into clicking, and thus boost their hits and income. But there are some flaws with this logic.
First of all, no one has ever described an article they agreed with as “clickbait”. It’s a pejorative term used to dismiss something people are against having been written. We’ve never been accused of “clickbait” for posting news about GTA or Minecraft, for instance, which is far more likely to bait us clicks than an exploration of misogyny in 1980s arcade machines. The term is instead used to undermine an argument someone doesn’t want to see being made.
Secondly, most high revenue advertising on most gaming sites simply doesn’t work in a way that would make sense of the argument. It’s priced in advance, based on fixed fees for the site, which in turn are priced based on the overall popularity of a website. If one article has a huge spike in readers, it doesn’t earn the site any more money. For it to make a difference, a site needs to have a consistent rise in reader numbers over a long time. i.e. A site would need to “clickbait” all the time for this to be effective. And that’s where you get your Buzzfeeds and the like. RPS might post a couple of times a month on controversial issues. It doesn’t add up.
Thirdly, even if the first two points weren’t true, and they are, the idea of writing a gaming site is to get people to read it. We’re not a public service broadcaster, duty-bound by the Queen to provide “objective” gaming news to the masses. We’re a business, and our business is eyes on pages. We, at RPS, are *terrible* at this, because we dedicate a vast proportion of our site to providing detailed coverage of niche indie games that will only be of interest to at most a few thousand people. RPS is a colossally stupid failure at clickbait, sacrificing such lucrative “You Won’t Believe What Call Of Duty Did To This Child’s Face!” headlines for “Here Is A Game About A Happy Lion, Gosh It’s Obscure”. To accuse us of a systematic cynical click harvesting because we very, very occasionally write from our hearts about a subject that matters to us a great deal is plainly wrong. It is, as we said, instead an effort to undermine an argument the accuser wishes could be silenced.
But why would a site about videogames have views on social stuff? Surely that reveals you are being influenced by outsiders?
We are rational, independent people, who have been playing videogames for many years. We also take an interest in wider social and political issues, and we can see how they provide a context for discussion of videogames. We’re able to make up our minds about these issues without being manipulated by anyone. We do not even all agree with each other, because hey, people. It is really important to accept that we are able to hold views you might not agree with, without being corrupted or influenced in any way. It’s possible for us to enjoy a game you hate, and it’s possible for us to hold that sexism is problematic for videogames. That’s just the way people work.
I haven’t posted any abuse, I am not a misogynist, but I still think this entire article is a pack of lies, and that you are corrupt.
Yes, some people will feel this way. It’s disappointing. We’re sorry you feel like that. We think they’re wrong to think that, but since so little has actually be provided for us to refute, there’s little we can do. We can point to our long-standing record of attacking bad practices across the industry and fighting for consumer rights, if that helps. Or we can point to our daily news and features on all kinds of games, written by all kinds of authors, with all kinds of opinions and ideas contained therein.
Also, we care less about whether you read RPS than we do about whether you condemn misogyny and harassment. Don’t let others do these things in your name.
But games are changing. You can’t deny that. It’s is absolutely possible to point to a trend within games that reflects the agenda of people like you, and those you support.
Here’s what is happening: games are proliferating. There are more of them, and some of the new ones are different to what went before. There’s an important difference between changing as a whole, and new things appearing. The same old games come out every year, without the slightest change to their momentum. If anything, they are more entrenched and reliable than ever. Old games are returning with increasing frequency, too. However, more people have access to the tools to build and distribute games. Many of those people have political agendas of one kind of another. They are making games that say things about all kinds of issues. We regard that as a good thing. It’s part of the reason why RPS exists at all: we are omnivorous. We want to represent this new wave. It’s beautiful.
Are videogames dying?
No. Back when we started this site, it was widely argued that PC games were dead/dying. How ridiculous that now seems! But yes, it was very much the case that people believed it. People questioned the wisdom of sinking energy into a website about a dying format, and now look at it. Look at Steam. Look at LoL and Dota 2. Hardcore as feth. Popular as free pies.
And so what happened to being dead? Well, the point is that people will always tell you something is dead, when actually things are simply diversifying, or splitting apart, or hybridising or mutating. We’re always being told that x is dead because y. But my mobile phone hasn’t actually killed your PC/TV/bookshelf/console, it has just become another thing alongside them all.
That’s what is happening here: new, different games are appearing. And the old ones are continuing, just as they were. Hell, if you actually look at what’s happening with Kickstarter and so on, old games are actually coming back! And yes, there will still be games that contain women with breast-sides exposed, and there will still be unspeakable and exciting violence throughout. That’s okay, too! But there will be other things, and they will be different. Some of them will be designed to not make particular people uncomfortable. That’s what is happening. It’s okay.
Nevertheless, I believe changing games will ruin them. They’re supposed to be about escapism.
Escapism is great! We love it. We all need to escape. Even the people analysing and criticising want to escape for a while. It’s a wonderful thing to be able to do. It’s not all that games can do, though, is it? Games can be about real world situations. The same systems that run games are used to train pilots and soldiers. Game developers are using them to talk about social situations, personal issues, and to explore the real world from an interactive perspective, just as books explore it from a literary perspective. There are games about politics and social lives, economies and history. Games are a big old toolbox, and using them as escapism is just one application. Let’s not limit them.
No, change doesn’t ruin games. It makes them better. And that’s all anyone wants here, even critics you might find objectionable. They want better games. Their judgement about what might be better might differ, but they still want improvement. You might disagree with them over what that improvement means, but actually you still both share a love of games. You love escaping. You both do it. And you want more and better. Sometimes you’ll agree on what better is, sometimes not. But disagreement does not equate to corruption, destruction, or anything else particularly bad.
Remember that this is the same treatment movies get, it’s the critical process that books and plays are subjected to: those things have not been destroyed.
No, before you ask, these objectionable critics are not faking their interest in games. People don’t get involved with games to be cool. That’s why they get involved with music. (Joke. OR IS IT. It is. Maybe.)
This is horrible, why can’t we keep the politics out of games? Why can’t we just talk about the games?
This is one of those deeply tricky philosophy type things: not talking about politics is actually taking a political stance on them. It doesn’t keep the politics out. Tricky, right? It seems like a trick. But it’s really not: just talking about the games, without questioning anything, is you taking a political stance on games because it amounts saying that you completely accept the games at face value. Your stance on their politics is: this is fine. You can’t just talk about the games, because they can’t be pulled apart from the ideas and circumstances that brought them into being. You can ignore problems, or just not see them, and that’s okay. But if you talk about games, you talk about politics.
When we discuss how a woman is presented in a game we are talking about the game. She’s part of that game. If she’s a prostitute who gets killed by a pirate, then that happens in the game. That imaginary murder is part of the game content. Furthermore, games are not a disconnected dimension, even while they are being amazing escapist outlets for fantasy. They have a context. They reflect the world, and they are expressions of what the people made the game were trying to achieve. Some people want to examine that. They want to look at why a prostitute being murdered by a pirate is what happens in that game. They want to examine what it means. You don’t have to – it’s totally fine for you to enjoy whatever you like, and completely ignore any possible criticism, or even any possible meaning – but please don’t attack others for wanting to do so.
So basically this policy of “just talking about the games” isn’t really anything of the sort, and it can lead to saying that people who do analyse them politically, and point out how they might be problematic for themselves or others (if not for you) should shut up. It is silencing criticism, which is the thing that everyone wants to avoid. Let’s not do that, no matter what.
I’m not going to read RPS any more, and I will encourage others not do so.
Okay. That’s up to you.
A SORT OF CONCLUSION
Videogames can be for everybody. We think that’s a situation worth aiming for, if it isn’t already true, it should be. (RPS can be for everybody, too. But that’s another point.)
So yes. Deep breath.
It goes without saying that technology has changed things since we started playing games (which was a time before the internet). And it has changed things pretty drastically just in the time we’ve been working on RPS. That doesn’t just mean in terms of how many graphics-per-second the Unreal engine can do, or in the multiple ways that electronic media of all kinds can bend our ability to say what a “game” is, but mainly in terms of how it reaches us, how we respond to it, and how we create it. The internet has, in many ways (clearly not all) democratised how we are able to create and consume. Combine this with the myriad of tools that have been made available to build games and gamelikes, and we have a medium in which bird dating games and headshot simulators sit side by side on a digital shelf which is in easy reach of a billion people.
That means there’s going to be some conflict, of course. People do conflict. There are going to be issues. Working that out without violence or pain is the route we want to take.
This, then, is what we want to articulate here: we’re now in a place where our pursuit can be made by anyone, can be about anything, and can be enjoyed almost anywhere. If games were diversifying when we started the site in 2007, now they actually have diversified. Games can be for everyone. Games are by everyone. Games are about everything. That is their great power. That is their utterly vital quality. It is why they matter so, so much.
Games can be for everybody. Games should be for everybody. They should be for you.
All of you.
All of us.
Yes, even you, Steve.
And so it’s the philosophy of RPS to reflect that ubiquity and diversity. We find games interesting. You find games interesting. We can all be interested in them together.
We put weird oddities made by penniless experimentalists next to games that are produced on the whim of marketeers and executives with pockets a hundred million dollars deep. As connoisseurs of decades of digital violence we enjoy games about guns at the same time as spinning a camera around a stupid mountain. We publish things you might not agree with. We delete terrible attacks on people, and we try to make this as pleasant a place to be as we know how. All this, but no evil. No destruction of videogames. No conspiracy.
Just people. Gamers. Not-so-gamers. People.
It is possible to criticise games and gamers, while at the same time being a gamer, loving games, loving gamers. And that is precisely what we will continue to do.
Interesting. Very interesting.
I can see their argument.
I like how none of these websites have addressed the harassment on both sides.
While I can bite that the harassment being directed at women stands out, and there is quite a bit of it, it's a minority of the stuff I've been seeing. There's certainly that column out there that's using this to step up very targeted and sexist attacks, but I've seen far more attacks broadly launched at specific men, sites, and ambiguous groups than specific women. It's also funny in that article, because they have women on staff at RPS, and the only person they mention by name as being harassed is a man.
A shame. That was a decent article on a lot of points outside that moment of weirdness.
LordofHats wrote: While I can bite that the harassment being directed at women stands out, and there is quite a bit of it, it's a minority of the stuff I've been seeing. There's certainly that column out there that's using this to step up very targeted and sexist attacks, but I've seen far more attacks broadly launched at specific men, sites, and ambiguous groups than specific women. It's also funny in that article, because they have women on staff at RPS, and the only person they mention by name as being harassed is a man.
A shame. That was a decent article on a lot of points outside that moment of weirdness.
Agreed.
I think they still don't really get it. They just need to step back and think. "Why are gamers mad?"
And then do proper research. Such as looking it up. Following other articles.
Seeing why it is the gamers angry. Who make up the consumers of this industry.
"The Customer is always right." Is not a false statement its a truth. You have a duty to your customers, not to your business partners.
Considering RPS's popularity has taken a massive hit since July, sounds like the pressure's on over there. That said there's a fair amount of crap in their light little strawman. Any one can set the dollies up and knock them over. The exclusionary party in this ISN'T gamergate and the people affiliated with it, for the most part. The extremists are on both sides and neither are welcome. They make some good points, true points even, but the issues being dealt with remain.
I'll also note that to my knowledge RPS has yet to post attack articles against gamers and the gamer identity. If their practices are good, good for them, this isn't about them.
You'll also notice RPS isn't targeted by Operation Disrespectful Nod or by the "Avoid At All Costs" bulletins up for Gamasutra, Kotaku and Polygon, and the one that's been suspended for The Escapist now that the Publisher's gotten involved.
RPS is a pretty decent site with good writers (and to point, they have been vocal in the past about pointing fingers and saying 'that's not right' in the industry). If anything I'm surprised they're getting any harassment. Probably a decent sign that this things even more insane than I thought it would be.
LordofHats wrote: RPS is a pretty decent site with good writers (and to point, they have been vocal in the past about pointing fingers and saying 'that's not right' in the industry). If anything I'm surprised they're getting any harassment. Probably a decent sign that this things even more insane than I thought it would be.
Yeah. This whole issue has been boiling over.
I think there have been quite a few people have taken advantage of the whole situation.
Do we even need proof for that? The only reason to have the time codes hidden is because her story about hanging out for 2 weeks was crap on its face. More like she hanged out for a few days.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: TFYC are an aspect of Feminism that I can really support, people who just want to help female developers to get their games made.
Me too, it looks like they are quite awesome.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Yeah, that's actually very insulting to ISIS' victims. It trivializes the conflicts in Syria and Iraq by comparing critics of gaming journalists to ISIS.
I take it you NEVER used the term feminazi, then. Because that one is pretty good at trivializing too. Yet it seems to attract less flak.
Also I am not sure I would consider ISIS terrorists, are they not more of a paramilitary/militant group? I mean, it has become some bad habit to label violent Muslims as terrorists, and people seem to have slowly forgotten the meaning of the word, but terrorist is not, and have never been synonymous with just “violent group”.
LordofHats wrote: Do we even need proof for that? The only reason to have the time codes hidden is because her story about hanging out for 2 weeks was crap on its face. More like she hanged out for a few days.
Its to prevent that ad hominem BS they like pulling, having the evidence is how you prove them wrong. Notice most of the defenders of all this here disappeared?
Also I am not sure I would consider ISIS terrorists, are they not more of a paramilitary/militant group?
The answer is all of the above + street gang. A lot of their actions have mirrored those of the Mujahideen after the end of the Afghanistan War. So basically ISIS is Taliban 2.0. The execution of reporters and anyone who doesn't agree with their political agenda are typical terrorist acts. Granted, I would not describe them as a terrorist organization. I'd call them a militant insurgency (that engages in terrorist acts).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: TFYC are an aspect of Feminism that I can really support, people who just want to help female developers to get their games made.
Me too, it looks like they are quite awesome.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Yeah, that's actually very insulting to ISIS' victims. It trivializes the conflicts in Syria and Iraq by comparing critics of gaming journalists to ISIS.
I take it you NEVER used the term feminazi, then. Because that one is pretty good at trivializing too. Yet it seems to attract less flak.
Also I am not sure I would consider ISIS terrorists, are they not more of a paramilitary/militant group? I mean, it has become some bad habit to label violent Muslims as terrorists, and people seem to have slowly forgotten the meaning of the word, but terrorist is not, and have never been synonymous with just “violent group”.
No, actually I have not used that term. If that was an attempt at ad hominem, it failed.
LordofHats wrote: The execution of reporters and anyone who doesn't agree with their political agenda are typical terrorist acts.
Is that not what a dictatorship would do? I mean, to me being a terrorist is more about not having the power to enforce your agenda directly, and therefore threatening to do horrible stuff if others, that are actually in power, do not accept to enforce it. I will check the actual definition in a dictionary, maybe you are right. [edit]Apparently, it is just about “using violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals.”, so a dictatorship is a terrorist government, I guess.[/edit]
The difference is the question of conventionality. Does a dictator kill his opponents to cause fear? Yes. But he uses the conventional means to do it. He uses a standing military/police force, the courts, and a 'justice system' to kill anyone they don't like. The sad fact is that a dictator is the legal ruler of their state and they do have the political authority to do such things (might not be right but they can do it using legal mechanisms).
ISIS has no such process. ISIS just straight straight up kills you while lacking any legal authority to do so. No court, no investigation, no process what so ever. Just straight up head off shoulders.
The side effect of this minor difference is that a dictator tends to kill in a more targeted manor, people who threaten their immediate political future and often in a manner that reinforces their legal authority at the head of the state ("I've killed this traitor who threatened to overthrow our glorious republic" *giggles like a school dictator*). A terrorist on the other hand just kills anyone even remotely opposed to them simply to kill them. They might not even pose a threat to their political goals, and there is little to be gained by killing them. it results in a clear difference between discriminate killing and indiscriminate killing.
I mean, to me being a terrorist is more about not having the power to enforce your agenda directly,
I would agree. The issue is that the word 'terrorist' has become a very messy one for the things that 'terrorist' pertains.
The difference is the question of conventionality. Does a dictator kill his opponents to cause fear? Yes. But he uses the conventional means to do it. He uses a standing military/police force, the courts, and a 'justice system' to kill anyone they don't like. The sad fact is that a dictator is the legal ruler of their state and they do have the political authority to do such things (might not be right but they can do it using legal mechanisms).
ISIS has no such process. ISIS just straight straight up kills you while lacking any legal authority to do so. No court, no investigation, no process what so ever. Just straight up head off shoulders.
The side effect of this minor difference is that a dictator tends to kill in a more targeted manor, people who threaten their immediate political future and often in a manner that reinforces their legal authority at the head of the state ("I've killed this traitor who threatened to overthrow our glorious republic" *giggles like a school dictator*). A terrorist on the other hand just kills anyone even remotely opposed to them simply to kill them. They might not even pose a threat to their political goals, and there is little to be gained by killing them. it results in a clear difference between discriminate killing and indiscriminate killing.
I mean, to me being a terrorist is more about not having the power to enforce your agenda directly,
I would agree. The issue is that the word 'terrorist' has become a very messy one for the things that 'terrorist' pertains.
This issue though..
The entire idea that they rigged a contest seems easily convict-able.
I mean they have denied it but. That is still very suspicious and the correct authorities have been apparently contacted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: Interesting read, though I did notice that it was mostly one sided, which he did say he wasn't apologizing for in the article.
Is the gaming industry really so small that everyone knows everyone?
One thing I disagree with his statement though, is this:
Ultimately, we believe that games are at their most beautifully diverse right now,
IS THAT why every game is becoming Call of Duty/Gears of War lite?
No its not. The industry is pretty big.
The biggest issue currently is that the indie industry which is getting pretty big. Has gotten to the point where you can't know everyone. Way back people used to know someone else in the industry. Now there are so many people its impossible to know everyone.
The Indie Market has gotten to the point where personal relationships are pretty small. And only to other companies.
Just a few weeks ago. My school announced that there are 15 indie companies for gaming situated in Michigan. By itself. That is a ton.
Pff. Yeah. Like anything will be done about that. First off, the evidence is more conjecture than evidence, plus it involved hackivism. Authorities are really really nervous about involving themselves with hackivism. Yeah the Stubenville case really took off in part because of their efforts, but it was a rape case, and it was already being investigated when Anonymous broke it. No one will go to jail for anything GamerGate reveals simply because no political body would want to touch that hot potato and that's assuming any such body is really taking this stuff that seriously.
Here’s what has happened: The past month has seen an explosion of criticism and harassment of gamers, games journalists, games critics, and game developers. The harassment has been particularly focused on women, and men who have spoken out in support of women. Without exception, harassment and abuse, for any reason, is unacceptable.
There has been criticism, too, which has resulted in gamers claiming that we hate them. We don’t hate gamers. We are gamers. Numerous (often offensive and widely incoherent) attempts to provoke controversy and scandal about the relationship between game developers and the games press have resulted in some people saying that RPS should be destroyed. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we disagree with that proposition, and we’ll explain why we disagree in this article.
LordofHats wrote: Pff. Yeah. Like anything will be done about that. First off, the evidence is more conjecture than evidence, plus it involved hackivism. Authorities are really really nervous about involving themselves with hackivism. Yeah the Stubenville case really took off in part because of their efforts, but it was a rape case, and it was already being investigated when Anonymous broke it. No one will go to jail for anything GamerGate reveals simply because no political body would want to touch that hot potato and that's assuming any such body is really thing this stuff that seriously.
You never know. The FBI have been known to take tips, as they really don't like white collar crime at all.
I think no matter what the FBI would probably investigate it.
Even if it is from a hack, they still have the duty to act. And depending on how much money was actually made from this and how many people are involved it might make them wonder if it is worth it.
If it is well over a million dollars. Then they are probably going to leap at it like leopards.
If not they probably won't. Unless there are many things that happen.
LordofHats wrote: Pff. Yeah. Like anything will be done about that. First off, the evidence is more conjecture than evidence, plus it involved hackivism. Authorities are really really nervous about involving themselves with hackivism. Yeah the Stubenville case really took off in part because of their efforts, but it was a rape case, and it was already being investigated when Anonymous broke it. No one will go to jail for anything GamerGate reveals simply because no political body would want to touch that hot potato and that's assuming any such body is really taking this stuff that seriously.
The views for the journalist sites have dropped steeply, they claim its from the summer lull.
The views for the journalist sites have dropped steeply, they claim its from the summer lull.
It's one thing to say they're going to suffer from all this bad press (some of which is their own doing) and another that people will face criminal charges. The former is true, the later is a fanatical fantasy.
The only people remotely towing the possibility of criminal charges are the hackivists, not journalists or general twitter users.
And with that, I'm afraid, I'm out. If you want better ethics, be more ethical yourselves. I'm sure you won't miss me, so bye! <3 #GamerGate
Thats even worse.
@PixieJenni
Follow
Actual last point for now? You know why lazy clickbait is a thing, people? 'Cos people like you fething share it. #GamerGate
How to hit the lowest point. Is by attacking your customers. Daawwww. Someone didn't take a business class.
They're not customers though. That's her point. People that browse these websites with Adblock on aren't customers, they're readers. And they have no leg to stand on if they go 'you need to change stuff' because they're not paying in the first place. They have no contributing effect on how much she gets paid, so why should she pander to them?
seriously? Someone describes her as an asexual game Dev as if they're the only relevant descriptors about her, and so she's an oppression Olympics competitor? You know why people say that gamers are intolerant? It's because someone says that a writer is asexual, and your response was 'wah wah wah poor crybaby' as if a) she made the comment and b) she was fething complaining about asexuality.
They have no contributing effect on how much she gets paid, so why should she pander to them?
I'm not sure ethical journalism is pandering but if they want to pander to those who pay the bills (those being the advertisers it seems) maybe they should present themselves as freelance pr agents and not journalists.
Goliath wrote: They're not customers though. That's her point. People that browse these websites with Adblock on aren't customers, they're readers. And they have no leg to stand on if they go 'you need to change stuff' because they're not paying in the first place. They have no contributing effect on how much she gets paid, so why should she pander to them?
Because, once again, she is not singling out the people that already did that, she is attacking everyone even those that just took on AdBlock and using archive sites to read the stories as a form of protest.
Methinks the gaming community should start it's own blacklist by blocking and ignoring all developers, journalists glorified bloggers and websites who post abusive messages, hate mail and act like trolls themselves...I'm certainly not interested in anything the likes of Phil phish, zoe quinn or kotaku have to say.
seriously? Someone describes her as an asexual game Dev as if they're the only relevant descriptors about her, and so she's an oppression Olympics competitor? You know why people say that gamers are intolerant? It's because someone says that a writer is asexual, and your response was 'wah wah wah poor crybaby' as if a) she made the comment and b) she was fething complaining about asexuality.
Oh here we go. Pick one thing and run with it. Typical.
Go through her twitter and blogs. Its (unknowingly) a contest for her to be the most oppressed.
seriously? Someone describes her as an asexual game Dev as if they're the only relevant descriptors about her, and so she's an oppression Olympics competitor? You know why people say that gamers are intolerant? It's because someone says that a writer is asexual, and your response was 'wah wah wah poor crybaby' as if a) she made the comment and b) she was fething complaining about asexuality.
I personally don't give a flying feth about her sexuality, all I know is she seems to be a douche.
seriously? Someone describes her as an asexual game Dev as if they're the only relevant descriptors about her, and so she's an oppression Olympics competitor? You know why people say that gamers are intolerant? It's because someone says that a writer is asexual, and your response was 'wah wah wah poor crybaby' as if a) she made the comment and b) she was fething complaining about asexuality.
I personally don't give a flying feth about her sexuality, all I know is she seems to be a douche.
What does asexual even mean anyway?
I am asexual as well. It means we have no sexual attraction to people. Meaning we don't really care.
It was more of the fact we didn't really know what to think at the time. We didn't connect the dots till much later. That usually happens in these cases.
They're not customers though. That's her point. People that browse these websites with Adblock on aren't customers, they're readers. And they have no leg to stand on if they go 'you need to change stuff' because they're not paying in the first place. They have no contributing effect on how much she gets paid, so why should she pander to them?
Her "audience" aren't actually her customers either. The advertising service is.
Which is the underlying issue with the ad supported internet business model and why it's going to implode upon itself very soon.
- Internet was basically ad free.
- Writers needed to make money to afford to keep creating content. Ads came about.
- Consumers begrudgingly put up with it.
- Ads expanded in depth and technology, until you have pages that are more banner ads than content and they make noise and oscillate at seizure inducing rates.
- Consumers rebel. Site loses viewership and the only people willing to cope with ads are those who have a means to block them.
- Internet reverses stance on ads (mostly due to google making adsense readily available. Consumers still burned.
- Internet starts putting 1/4 the content on a page at a time to farm clicks to make up for all the consumers who won't be seeing the ads.
There's many technical reasons why ad supported sites are terrible too, but that's beyond the scope of the discussion, I think. What NEEDS to happen is that places need to revive the subscription model. They release just enough content out there for free to make sure that people know that they're worth their salt, and then charge something trivial for full access. I don't know, whatever their yearly profit would have been per user from adsense or whatever ad providing mechanism the site uses would probably be appropriate, and not a very large amount. I'd paypal the places I visit frequently if it meant not needing to stare at ads there anymore.
And with that, I'm afraid, I'm out. If you want better ethics, be more ethical yourselves. I'm sure you won't miss me, so bye! <3 #GamerGate
Thats even worse.
@PixieJenni
Follow
Actual last point for now? You know why lazy clickbait is a thing, people? 'Cos people like you fething share it. #GamerGate
How to hit the lowest point. Is by attacking your customers. Daawwww. Someone didn't take a business class.
They're not customers though. That's her point. People that browse these websites with Adblock on aren't customers, they're readers. And they have no leg to stand on if they go 'you need to change stuff' because they're not paying in the first place. They have no contributing effect on how much she gets paid, so why should she pander to them?
She didn't say that. I think more people use adblock because its all over the place. Ads are everywhere and sometimes obstruct the entire article. Sometimes they play on the side and everything.
They're not customers though. That's her point. People that browse these websites with Adblock on aren't customers, they're readers. And they have no leg to stand on if they go 'you need to change stuff' because they're not paying in the first place. They have no contributing effect on how much she gets paid, so why should she pander to them?
Her "audience" aren't actually her customers either. The advertising service is.
Which is the underlying issue with the ad supported internet business model and why it's going to implode upon itself very soon.
- Internet was basically ad free.
- Writers needed to make money to afford to keep creating content. Ads came about.
- Consumers begrudgingly put up with it.
- Ads expanded in depth and technology, until you have pages that are more banner ads than content and they make noise and oscillate at seizure inducing rates.
- Consumers rebel. Site loses viewership and the only people willing to cope with ads are those who have a means to block them.
- Internet reverses stance on ads (mostly due to google making adsense readily available. Consumers still burned.
- Internet starts putting 1/4 the content on a page at a time to farm clicks to make up for all the consumers who won't be seeing the ads.
There's many technical reasons why ad supported sites are terrible too, but that's beyond the scope of the discussion, I think. What NEEDS to happen is that places need to revive the subscription model. They release just enough content out there for free to make sure that people know that they're worth their salt, and then charge something trivial for full access. I don't know, whatever their yearly profit would have been per user from adsense or whatever ad providing mechanism the site uses would probably be appropriate, and not a very large amount. I'd paypal the places I visit frequently if it meant not needing to stare at ads there anymore.
I mean subscriptions aren't even that bad to begin with XD
Oh hey..... Look at all the people on Jenni Goodchilds follow twitter list.
Robin Arnott (one of the 5 guys)
Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian)
Jim Sterling
Numerous connections to Kotaku, RPS, and polygon, not to mention dozens upon dozens of SJWs. Dozens of game devs, dozens of other journalists. Not wonder there is collusion.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Oh hey..... Look at all the people on Jenni Goodchilds follow twitter list.
Robin Arnott (one of the 5 guys)
Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian)
Jim Sterling
Numerous connections to Kotaku, RPS, and polygon, not to mention dozens upon dozens of SJWs. Dozens of game devs, dozens of other journalists. Not wonder there is collusion.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Oh hey..... Look at all the people on Jenni Goodchilds follow twitter list.
Robin Arnott (one of the 5 guys)
Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian)
Jim Sterling
Numerous connections to Kotaku, RPS, and polygon, not to mention dozens upon dozens of SJWs. Dozens of game devs, dozens of other journalists. Not wonder there is collusion.
Of interest? Agreed.
This is how you be a good journalist...
You remove yourself from the equation....
And criticize both sides.
It seems they are doing the opposite, building financial ties with people they are writing on, then complaining and lashing out and dehumanizing the people that pay their bills. Im sending letters to their advertisers. Let 'em burn.
Im going through this Journalists and they really have insulated themselves from negative opinion by surrounding themselves with nothing but people that will agree with them.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Oh hey..... Look at all the people on Jenni Goodchilds follow twitter list.
Robin Arnott (one of the 5 guys)
Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian)
Jim Sterling
Numerous connections to Kotaku, RPS, and polygon, not to mention dozens upon dozens of SJWs. Dozens of game devs, dozens of other journalists. Not wonder there is collusion.
Of interest? Agreed.
This is how you be a good journalist...
You remove yourself from the equation....
And criticize both sides.
It seems they are doing the opposite, building financial ties with people they are writing on, then complaining and lashing out and dehumanizing the people that pay their bills. Im sending letters to their advertisers. Let 'em burn.
The fire rises indeed.
And they are probably going to be caught by the fire.
Though I would like to see them get hurt for this, I mean just their careers because they show how unprofessional they are.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Oh hey..... Look at all the people on Jenni Goodchilds follow twitter list.
Robin Arnott (one of the 5 guys)
Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian)
Jim Sterling
Numerous connections to Kotaku, RPS, and polygon, not to mention dozens upon dozens of SJWs. Dozens of game devs, dozens of other journalists. Not wonder there is collusion.
EDIT:
Moviebob
Jenn frank
Leigh Alexander
Legit question whats wrong with jim stirling and movie bob
Mechanical Crow wrote: Oh hey..... Look at all the people on Jenni Goodchilds follow twitter list.
Robin Arnott (one of the 5 guys) Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian) Jim Sterling
Numerous connections to Kotaku, RPS, and polygon, not to mention dozens upon dozens of SJWs. Dozens of game devs, dozens of other journalists. Not wonder there is collusion.
EDIT: Moviebob Jenn frank Leigh Alexander
Legit question whats wrong with jim stirling and movie bob
They are known for being extremely corrupt and for being extremely bad at reporting.
They don't research and only say their thoughts on the matter.
Everything he said in that video is criteria for me to dislike him.
About Movie Bob
A quick search reveals
I'll say this as some who can't stand him (hate is a strong word). But I also haven't watched or read anything by him in over a year so some of what I say may be redundant. It comes down largely to him thinking he's a lot better than he is. I don't mean at his job, I mean as a human being. He's hugely arrogant and used the excuse of "I'm entitled to my opinion" in order to avoid accepting criticism. And he is, of course, more than welcome to his opinion, but that doesn't mean that others can't call him out. Of course that's not to say that he is also not nearly as good at his job as he thinks. There have been times that I've wondered if he's trying to cash in on what makes ZP so popular but fails. He's just a stereotype. You know when people look at nerds and refer to them as "a bunch of pretentious man-children"? And you think "that's only a few"? Well he's one of the few. He'll watch a good film, then complain about it because it 'wasn't as good as the comic', or bitch that 'it's just dumb' and that 'real fans will hate it'. He picks the most trivial gak to complain about and goes at it. But unlike ZP, which comes off a brutally funny, he just exposes himself as a sad person who can't appreciate anything that he doesn't personally consider good. For instance, I don't like Jay Z's music but I know that he's very talented. I'm sure you could pick something similar. MB doesn't do that. He's one of those people who's too proud of being a nerd. Being a nerd is nothing to be ashamed of, but MB comes across as some sort of supremacist on more than one occasion, often highlighted in his moronic "COMICS ARE WEEEEIRD" segments. He's a walking negative stereotype, and as a result very hard to sympathise with./quote]
Well I actually just went to find some and funnily enough, his latest episode: The Amazing Spiderman 2. Right off the bat. He didn't like the new The Amazing Spider Man films and so it was enough to make him "not even want to think of the word 'superhero'". This is a grown ass man. There's a line between hyperbole and just being a child. The Amazing Spider Man isn't a great SM film. But as a dumb action film, it's not bad. I liked it. But he insinuates that it's because I must not be as big of a fan as Bob. He spends the entire film ignoring positives up until a quick 20 seconds at the end and focussing on the negatives. Half of which don't even make sense ("no development"... I mean you can easily argue that it wasn't well done but there was definitely development). But because he doesn't think it's good enough for him, this is a film that made him want to break anything Spider Man related. He doesn't review the film, he just whines about it. Something that I just can't stand seeing a supposedly grown human being do. It's not even that he focusses on negatives (again, ZP is very popular). It's that he does it in such a childish way. ZP mercilessly rips into it, but it never comes across as whiny. Even if people agree with his review (I can see how the movie pissed of SM fans), he delivers it in such an obnoxious manner that makes it so hard to like him. I hate the term, but he really is a cry baby.
What I don't like is how RPS went through and took a sort of "We're sorry about everything, but you're still wrong" type of stance; no where does it say anything about how a few of the Journalists have been saying that All Gamers should be Nuked or other such things.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Oh hey..... Look at all the people on Jenni Goodchilds follow twitter list.
Robin Arnott (one of the 5 guys)
Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian)
Jim Sterling
Numerous connections to Kotaku, RPS, and polygon, not to mention dozens upon dozens of SJWs. Dozens of game devs, dozens of other journalists. Not wonder there is collusion.
EDIT:
Moviebob
Jenn frank
Leigh Alexander
Legit question whats wrong with jim stirling and movie bob
They are known for being extremely corrupt and for being extremely bad at reporting.
They don't research and only say their thoughts on the matter.
Shrug maybe just me but i dont go to them for reporting just to here them rage a bit same with yahtzee
edit having said that i do think they sometimes bring up valid points hidden between the rage
Slarg232 wrote: What I don't like is how RPS went through and took a sort of "We're sorry about everything, but you're still wrong" type of stance; no where does it say anything about how a few of the Journalists have been saying that All Gamers should be Nuked or other such things.
Thats another point.
I mean there is an entire tumblr dedicated to this.
I despise the character of Jim Sterling ("Thank God for me, I'm your savior, so you absolutely need to fething thank God for me." is more than a little pretentious") and think the character thinks too highly of himself; Yahtzee is tearing the game apart and including you in on it, Jim always makes it seem as though he's better.
What has the non-character Jim Sterling done prior that has him being labeled as corrupt?
Slarg232 wrote: I despise the character of Jim Sterling ("Thank God for me, I'm your savior, so you absolutely need to fething thank God for me." is more than a little pretentious") and think the character thinks too highly of himself; Yahtzee is tearing the game apart and including you in on it, Jim always makes it seem as though he's better.
What has the non-character Jim Sterling done prior that has him being labeled as corrupt?
Not really much. He's not really corrupt more of his ideologies of being better.
Yahtzee actually makes fun of himself. Quite often. He only makes fun of the fanboys and doesn't completely generalize all the time.
Sterling generalizes and groups people.
Which the journalists are currently completely guilty of.
Slarg232 wrote: I despise the character of Jim Sterling ("Thank God for me, I'm your savior, so you absolutely need to fething thank God for me." is more than a little pretentious") and think the character thinks too highly of himself; Yahtzee is tearing the game apart and including you in on it, Jim always makes it seem as though he's better.
What has the non-character Jim Sterling done prior that has him being labeled as corrupt?
Not really much. He's not really corrupt more of his ideologies of being better.
Yahtzee actually makes fun of himself. Quite often. He only makes fun of the fanboys and doesn't completely generalize all the time.
Sterling generalizes and groups people.
Which the journalists are currently completely guilty of.
quote /Sterling generalizes and groups people.
So do alot even most of people
People like binary answers to issues Even tho it really dosnt help in complex discussions
Same, Jenni Goodchild and a few others are going on about how they make pennies. Well, the sympathy ploy after the name calling is a little weak (hence the oppression Olympics comment) and guess what? These journalists CHOSE to be in gaming journalism to write for gamers.
You choose the field you go into in life, if it doesn't pay you enough or its hard, then quit. Don't insult people then ask for sympathy.
Comes off has dishonest and intellectually disingenuous, but these are SJWs that label goes hand in hand.
Slarg232 wrote: I despise the character of Jim Sterling ("Thank God for me, I'm your savior, so you absolutely need to fething thank God for me." is more than a little pretentious") and think the character thinks too highly of himself; Yahtzee is tearing the game apart and including you in on it, Jim always makes it seem as though he's better.
What has the non-character Jim Sterling done prior that has him being labeled as corrupt?
Not really much. He's not really corrupt more of his ideologies of being better.
Yahtzee actually makes fun of himself. Quite often. He only makes fun of the fanboys and doesn't completely generalize all the time.
Sterling generalizes and groups people.
Which the journalists are currently completely guilty of.
quote /Sterling generalizes and groups people.
So do alot even most of people
People like binary answers to issues Even tho it really dosnt help in complex discussions
seriously? Someone describes her as an asexual game Dev as if they're the only relevant descriptors about her, and so she's an oppression Olympics competitor? You know why people say that gamers are intolerant? It's because someone says that a writer is asexual, and your response was 'wah wah wah poor crybaby' as if a) she made the comment and b) she was fething complaining about asexuality.
Oh here we go. Pick one thing and run with it. Typical.
Go through her twitter and blogs. Its (unknowingly) a contest for her to be the most oppressed.
And she isn't a Dev, she's a writer. Research.
Yeah. I know. I wrote that someone described her as an asexual game dev. You'll note that later on I refer to her as a writer. Nice try though.
And I really am not seeing this whole "contest for her to be the most oppressed" that you're talking about. Almost all of her articles are about games, and don't seem to reference herself so far as I can tell. Her tweets seem to just be responding to the replies regarding her rant.
Yeah. I know. I wrote that someone described her as an asexual game dev. You'll note that later on I refer to her as a writer. Nice try though.
And I really am not seeing this whole "contest for her to be the most oppressed" that you're talking about. Almost all of her articles are about games, and don't seem to reference herself so far as I can tell. Her tweets seem to just be responding to the replies regarding her rant.
Sympathy posts. Journalists make pennies! Why would we write for an audience like you people, etc etc
Its to make it look they haven't done anything wrong.
Its like how Kotaku calls themselves journalists when its high profile but then switch and call themselves bloggers when they get in trouble.
Plus the whole throwing your gender in peoples faces is a lot like walking up to a stranger and saying "Hello, I have massive depression, how are you?" its just not something that people give a crap about until you push it on them, which then will elicit a response, which is what I believe is the purpose, to either get praise or to fight some non existent boogeyman you blame your problems on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The point of all of this is that there is some serious corruption going down and agendas are being pushed that can possibly lead to the stagnation, mass censorship and cleansing of games.
Yeah. I know. I wrote that someone described her as an asexual game dev. You'll note that later on I refer to her as a writer. Nice try though.
And I really am not seeing this whole "contest for her to be the most oppressed" that you're talking about. Almost all of her articles are about games, and don't seem to reference herself so far as I can tell. Her tweets seem to just be responding to the replies regarding her rant.
Sympathy posts. Journalists make pennies! Why would we write for an audience like you people, etc etc
Its to make it look they haven't done anything wrong.
Its like how Kotaku calls themselves journalists when its high profile but then switch and call themselves bloggers when they get in trouble.
Plus the whole throwing your gender in peoples faces is a lot like walking up to a stranger and saying "Hello, I have massive depression, how are you?" its just not something that people give a crap about until you push it on them, which then will elicit a response, which is what I believe is the purpose, to either get praise or to fight some non existent boogeyman you blame your problems on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The point of all of this is that there is some serious corruption going down and agendas are being pushed that can possibly lead to the stagnation, mass censorship and cleansing of games.
As an art form that cannot happen.
Agreed. I mean I have connections too, but I don't balantaly use them to further my career and get pocket change.
LordofHats wrote: RPS is a pretty decent site with good writers (and to point, they have been vocal in the past about pointing fingers and saying 'that's not right' in the industry). If anything I'm surprised they're getting any harassment. Probably a decent sign that this things even more insane than I thought it would be.
Nathan Gray writes for the site, still dislike what he bumrushed Blizzard on with heroes of the storm, not to mention his whole involvement in the scandals...
Mechanical Crow wrote: Sympathy posts. Journalists make pennies! Why would we write for an audience like you people, etc etc
Its to make it look they haven't done anything wrong.
I'd have thought when you're being criticised by the people who are making a concerted effort to minimise your income (by using adblock) then complaining is justified? I mean, as much as "the industry" is coming under fire, that industry is composed of people, and often those people aren't going to be hating gamers (as mentioned in the RPS article, often they're going to identify as gamers themselves) so the criticism levelled at every single member of the industry because they all hate gamers and want them to stop is probably going to drag on those that are just trying to earn an honest buck.
Its like how Kotaku calls themselves journalists when its high profile but then switch and call themselves bloggers when they get in trouble.
Agreed, that's a pretty shady tactic.
Plus the whole throwing your gender in peoples faces is a lot like walking up to a stranger and saying "Hello, I have massive depression, how are you?" its just not something that people give a crap about until you push it on them, which then will elicit a response, which is what I believe is the purpose, to either get praise or to fight some non existent boogeyman you blame your problems on.
See, it's well known that she's asexual mainly due to the bbc article on her. It's not referenced in her Twitter bio, it's mentioned as a category at the top of her blog , but other than that I haven't really been able to find many references to it (by her) other than her commenting fairly often that the use of 'virgin' as an insult is really bad, and devalues her and other asexuals.
I think that a large part of the problem with this sort of discourse is that those people who fall under uncommon identities, be they referring to gender or sexuality, and are well known to identify as such are often reduced to that identity, to the point that points that would otherwise be perfectly normal, or common sense, are instead attributed to them 'throwing [their] gender in peoples faces', which often won't be the case. In Jenni Goodchild's case, because of the aforementioned BBC article if you google her name, the top result is the article, anything that she has input into doesn't mention it, and the rest are referring to the original article (or the fact that she's apparently a meme, the page discussing which is absolutely horrid, and consists almost entirely of "she just needs a good fething" type comments), so I think it's more the case that she's well known to be asexual, not that she throws it in people's faces.
The point of all of this is that there is some serious corruption going down and agendas are being pushed that can possibly lead to the stagnation, mass censorship and cleansing of games.
As an art form that cannot happen.
I think that part of the problem is that, as I think was mentioned here, Indie games and Games journalism started off as a small group, where this sort of thing was vaguely okay, but that it's grown to the size where that sort of stuff needs to stop. It strikes me that it didn't start out as a concerted "lets be corrupt, muhahahah" type thing, but that as it's grown, practices that used to be okay now aren't.
I would disagree with your stagnation, censorship and cleansing point though, I get the impression that the intention behind the criticism is well meant, and that the people wish for games to improve, it's just that it's turned into the standard human response of people taking criticism and automatically becoming opposed to the critic, so now both sides have gone beyond meaningful discourse and into "they're the enemy, therefore they're wrong, this evidence that would normally be spurious is now enough to convince me of widespread corruption and these people should be jailed" territory.
So spent my last half hour of insomnia going thru movicbobs tweets and
i can probably see what was meant before tho to be far so much was retweets and conflicting thoughts i have no idea what he really thinks
Automatically Appended Next Post: Article on Phil Fish and the investors involved in the fraud. http://gamesnosh.com/fez-investors-outed-judges-2011-igf-award/ Interestingly enough, Maya Kramer, journalist, and employee at silverstring media (where Anita and her boyfriend are advisors to).
Very interesting. Frauds linked to frauds linked to frauds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Article on Phil Fish and the investors involved in the fraud. http://gamesnosh.com/fez-investors-outed-judges-2011-igf-award/ Interestingly enough, Maya Kramer, journalist, and employee at silverstring media (where Anita and her boyfriend are advisors to).
Very interesting. Frauds linked to frauds linked to frauds.
Zoe tweeted this out earlier, and I came across it via a retweet from someone I respect, so I'm looking at this with a wtf mindset.
First things first: There is a donate button near the top. If this person wasn't trying to cash in on something (whether GamerGate or just general hate for MRA, etc...) then why have the donate? I'm immediately suspicious of this person's motives.
Now that this is out of the way, no one should give a fat frog arse about the 4chan IRC logs because 4chan doesn't care. They sit in public spaces and discuss this gak all the time. This is standard procedure for them...
SilverMK2 wrote: I always play as a female character in any game that offers it, especially ones with a more rpg element. Femshep made ME much more enjoyable for me than maleshep (my wife played through a couple of times as maleshep so I know how it plays going through as a male PC).
Games with a female PC are always of interest to me... generally because they tend to be games with an actual story
Also, loved Beyond Good and Evil... looking forward to the second one
I never know why, But I do that aswell, al my darksoul PC are female, even though armor completely obscures it.
It is weird.
I played WoW almost entirely as a female through like 3 expansions, because at the end of the day if I was gonna be staring at a butt for hours on end, I wanted a female butt... But dat Draenaei hoof lol.
Most games I'm a dude in though. Though I did play through ME3 again as FemShep, honestly it doesn't really matter. Often times I try to create fantastical versions of myself.... I'm delusional like that D:
Alfndrate wrote: I played WoW almost entirely as a female through like 3 expansions, because at the end of the day if I was gonna be staring at a butt for hours on end, I wanted a female butt... But dat Draenaei hoof lol.
Most games I'm a dude in though. Though I did play through ME3 again as FemShep, honestly it doesn't really matter. Often times I try to create fantastical versions of myself.... I'm delusional like that D:
That thread just makes me sad. There's one comment there about how some guy is saying the developer he's working for/with is trying to push for females to be 50% of an areas population as well as trying to include lots of minorities there whole saying people who support gamergate are against this. Meanwhile I'm like OK... But what about the game? Is it fun? No mention of that. Meanwhile another guy is saying those little details are making him happy he's getting the game. Like wth , what about gameplay? Shouldn't that be the MOST IMPORTANT THING
Sining wrote: That thread just makes me sad. There's one comment there about how some guy is saying the developer he's working for/with is trying to push for females to be 50% of an areas population as well as trying to include lots of minorities there whole saying people who support gamergate are against this. Meanwhile I'm like OK... But what about the game? Is it fun? No mention of that. Meanwhile another guy is saying those little details are making him happy he's getting the game. Like wth , what about gameplay? Shouldn't that be the MOST IMPORTANT THING
Not necessarily. Quite a lot of people play games mainly for the storyline, and I'd hazard a guess that if the universe is unrealistic or not up to scratch in their opinion (for example, a real-life setting with zero women or minorities) they'd not enjoy it as much.
Except none of those factors have anything to do with storyline. We're talking 50% of an areas NPCs which as far as gamers can be bothered can be asexual cause they're just walking XP / quest givers. And no one brought up having no woman or minorities. It's not like the only are two modes are zero or 50%
Lastly I think they were talking about dragon age in which anything that requires people to argue that it should be realistic is ludicrous. Also less said about the story the better
If realism doesn't matter for a fantasy game, then why not include more women and minorities in the game's world? What's wrong with being inclusive?
I don't think that anyone needs to mention whether or not a game they're working on is fun. Games are inherently supposed to be fun, otherwise nobody would play them. Nor does he need to mention gameplay, because you can find gameplay coverage of Dragon Age Inquisition with a Google search.
So it's the same issue as with the more traditional feminism debate: one side insisting on making generalizations of a group of people and that group of people refusing to accept that generalizations per definition doesn't include everyone in that group.
Again, no one is saying anything is wrong with it. It's kind of sad you don't understand what I'm saying because just because I don't see the point of it doesn't mean I see something wrong with it. Things aren't that black and white.
Again, the game could be all women or all minorities or all aliens with spaghetti tentacles but what I need to know is this one simple thing. IS the game FUN.
And lots of games are supposed to be fun but that doesn't mean they are. Eg, I didn't find DA2 fun. I didn't find DR2 fun even though I loved the first one. Telling me 'hey, this game has lots of women and minorities' should not be pushed as a USP of a game.
And lots of games are supposed to be fun but that doesn't mean they are. Eg, I didn't find DA2 fun. I didn't find DR2 fun even though I loved the first one. Telling me 'hey, this game has lots of women and minorities' should not be pushed as a USP of a game.
You know the common feminist observation that "not everything is about you"?
Sining wrote: There's one comment there about how some guy is saying the developer he's working for/with is trying to push for females to be 50% of an areas population as well as trying to include lots of minorities there whole saying people who support gamergate are against this. Meanwhile I'm like OK... But what about the game? Is it fun? No mention of that.
Not only being fun is something very subjective, but do you really expect the guy to tell you anything else than “This game is super-fun”? I mean, people do not mention it because it is just the most obvious thing that the game makers are trying to make the game as enjoyable as possible.
Sining wrote: Meanwhile another guy is saying those little details are making him happy he's getting the game. Like wth , what about gameplay? Shouldn't that be the MOST IMPORTANT THING
That is a bit excessive, but for many people, it is going to be one of the thing that will make them more likely to buy the game, among many other things that will push them in either direction.
And lots of games are supposed to be fun but that doesn't mean they are. Eg, I didn't find DA2 fun. I didn't find DR2 fun even though I loved the first one. Telling me 'hey, this game has lots of women and minorities' should not be pushed as a USP of a game.
You know the common feminist observation that "not everything is about you"?
That observation ought to be a two-way street instead of the one-way street it is now.
Sining wrote: There's one comment there about how some guy is saying the developer he's working for/with is trying to push for females to be 50% of an areas population as well as trying to include lots of minorities there whole saying people who support gamergate are against this. Meanwhile I'm like OK... But what about the game? Is it fun? No mention of that.
Not only being fun is something very subjective, but do you really expect the guy to tell you anything else than “This game is super-fun”? I mean, people do not mention it because it is just the most obvious thing that the game makers are trying to make the game as enjoyable as possible.
Sining wrote: Meanwhile another guy is saying those little details are making him happy he's getting the game. Like wth , what about gameplay? Shouldn't that be the MOST IMPORTANT THING
That is a bit excessive, but for many people, it is going to be one of the thing that will make them more likely to buy the game, among many other things that will push them in either direction.
I have to disagree with everyone here, but being a fun game is not something I would consider the biggest part of making a game. I think entertaining is a better word for that.
Sining wrote: Wouldn't fun and entertaining be interchangeable in this case?
Nope.
Entertain-provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment, give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).
Fun- lighthearted pleasure, enjoyment, amusement
To entertain an audience does not mean you are letting the audience have fun, you entertaining them, a horror game about the dark aspects of life is engaging and entertaining, but it is not 'fun'.
It matters what game they are making.
But anyway this issue I feel like keeps getting worse everytime the media opens its mouth in disagreement and insults the other side.
Sining wrote: Except none of those factors have anything to do with storyline. We're talking 50% of an areas NPCs which as far as gamers can be bothered can be asexual cause they're just walking XP / quest givers. And no one brought up having no woman or minorities. It's not like the only are two modes are zero or 50%
I totally agree, the NPC's are irrelevant and can be a talking horse or a text message on a phone.
@CorporateLogo
If realism doesn't matter for a fantasy game, then why not include more women and minorities in the game's world? What's wrong with being inclusive?
But that is a developers issue, Why don't they make more games that way? Why aren't they being inclusive in their programming?
As gamers we only see the final product and ask "is it fun? Is it entertaining?" Developers can be as inclusive as they want, and a good game will sell, a horrible game won't.
Sining wrote: Wouldn't fun and entertaining be interchangeable in this case?
Nope.
Entertain-provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment, give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).
Fun- lighthearted pleasure, enjoyment, amusement
To entertain an audience does not mean you are letting the audience have fun, you entertaining them, a horror game about the dark aspects of life is engaging and entertaining, but it is not 'fun'.
It matters what game they are making.
But anyway this issue I feel like keeps getting worse everytime the media opens its mouth in disagreement and insults the other side.
Yep limiting games to fun is... well limiting. Spec op the line isn't very fun. (Well we are at it the gameplay isn't very good.) It is entertaining though.
Sining wrote: Wouldn't fun and entertaining be interchangeable in this case?
Nope.
Entertain-provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment, give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).
Fun- lighthearted pleasure, enjoyment, amusement
To entertain an audience does not mean you are letting the audience have fun, you entertaining them, a horror game about the dark aspects of life is engaging and entertaining, but it is not 'fun'.
It matters what game they are making.
But anyway this issue I feel like keeps getting worse everytime the media opens its mouth in disagreement and insults the other side.
Yep limiting games to fun is... well limiting. Spec op the line isn't very fun. (Well we are at it the gameplay isn't very good.) It is entertaining though.
Same with amensia, Home, and i have no mouth and I must scream.
I still scratch my head and ask: How is game "journalism" relevant? It is inferring a level of professionalism that would be interesting to have confirmed or denied.
If I am considering a game for purchase, if I know someone of a similar taste in games getting their opinion on it I find of value.
Totalbiscuit (John Bain) I agree on much of his stuff plus he does add some entertainment as well, few other reviewers out there I find of value. Metacritic comparing the "experts" with user scores is a great secondary metric.
People should just make their games as best they can and keep in mind their audience. I think including mixes of cultural / ethnic as well as gender diversity can give all kinds of interesting twists to a story. It would even be a good means of wrestling with this very topic of fairness and inclusiveness.
So far with all this mess, we are seeing how tolerance is in short supply. A good healthy ignoring of those seeking attention seems to be in order and see if those involved learn anything ethical out of all this.
Sining wrote: Wouldn't fun and entertaining be interchangeable in this case?
Nope.
Entertain-provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment, give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).
Fun- lighthearted pleasure, enjoyment, amusement
To entertain an audience does not mean you are letting the audience have fun, you entertaining them, a horror game about the dark aspects of life is engaging and entertaining, but it is not 'fun'.
It matters what game they are making.
But anyway this issue I feel like keeps getting worse everytime the media opens its mouth in disagreement and insults the other side.
Yep limiting games to fun is... well limiting. Spec op the line isn't very fun. (Well we are at it the gameplay isn't very good.) It is entertaining though.
Same with amensia, Home, and i have no mouth and I must scream.
You know. If you want to go mainstream, you could make an argument that the newest GTA games (4,5) are less about fun gameplay and more about setting. The TES is less about fun then it is about fantasy. Hmm you know, when I think about it, very few games try to deliver fun as their main goal.
Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun. At least, not in a happy fun "this is awesome and I'm badass" sort of way. It's the kind of fun that watching a horror movie is. I think I'm saying the same "fun vs. entertainment" thing that was already said earlier. Is there an actual difference, really, beyond splitting hairs about it?
Either way, horror games are still entertaining. I'm not sure some "brilliant" commentary video game of someone's desperate struggle with coming to terms with their gender and gaining the acceptance of those around them or whatever is really something that will ever be entertaining, unless you can stomp goombahs or run from elder things or rob banks or whatever. It's nothing to do with gender, but the point is that it's nothing to do with gender. Regardless, the aforementioned commentary wouldn't be entertaining to me anyway, because I don't want to do that. Sometimes you don't want to have to think about something. Sometimes you don't want a deeper meaning, and it doesn't really matter if you're staring at a character representing a female form, a male form, or a featureless white cube that's doing it. Sometimes you just want to kick the goddamned turtle shell.
May this forever be known as "The Year Gaming Took Itself Too Seriously."
You know. If you want to go mainstream, you could make an argument that the newest GTA games (4,5) are less about fun gameplay and more about setting. The TES is less about fun then it is about fantasy. Hmm you know, when I think about it, very few games try to deliver fun as their main goal.
Mathematical looney tunes in the stats, exploiting donkey-cave physics in the game itself and systematically replacing every object in a person's house with different objects, I must have totally played TES differently than you did.
Oooh, I also call your attention to exhibit A, the Wabbajack.
daedalus wrote: Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun. At least, not in a happy fun "this is awesome and I'm badass" sort of way. It's the kind of fun that watching a horror movie is. I think I'm saying the same "fun vs. entertainment" thing that was already said earlier. Is there an actual difference, really, beyond splitting hairs about it?
Either way, horror games are still entertaining. I'm not sure some "brilliant" commentary video game of someone's desperate struggle with coming to terms with their gender and gaining the acceptance of those around them or whatever is really something that will ever be entertaining, unless you can stomp goombahs or run from elder things or rob banks or whatever. It's nothing to do with gender, but the point is that it's nothing to do with gender. Regardless, it wouldn't be entertaining to me anyway, because I don't want to do that. Sometimes you don't want to have to think about something. Sometimes you don't want a deeper meaning, and it doesn't really matter if you're staring at a character representing a female form, a male form, or a featureless white cube that's doing it. Sometimes you just want to kick the goddamned turtle shell.
May this forever be known as "The Year Gaming Took Itself Too Seriously."
Maybe, but shouldn't gaming take itself seriously? I mean seriously. Games are cool like really cool. You can do a lot more with games then make fun experiences. Games can do things that no other medium can. A book can tell you something, a movie can show you something, a game cam make you do something. It's like a crazy cool thing that games can let you do. I don't think this opportunity should be wasted. Also we need something for all our extra game devs to do. (There are a lot of them.)
sirlynchmob wrote: I totally agree, the NPC's are irrelevant and can be a talking horse or a text message on a phone.
For you maybe. I know that if you took Painkiller and replace every enemy by just a floating hitbox and turned all landscape into gray walls, it would loose much of its appeal. And I purposefully choose a game with no scenario or setting to begin with. Do the same to a Monkey Island game, and congratulation, you just made it completely useless.
nomotog wrote: Maybe, but shouldn't gaming take itself seriously? I mean seriously. Games are cool like really cool. You can do a lot more with games then make fun experiences. Games can do things that no other medium can. A book can tell you something, a movie can show you something, a game cam make you do something. It's like a crazy cool thing that games can let you do. I don't think this opportunity should be wasted. Also we need something for all our extra game devs to do. (There are a lot of them.)
Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want to imply is that games don't need to raise the bar. I'm just saying.... well, perhaps the problem is a hangup on language. I can accept that a movie can do "unfun" things. I can accept that a book can as well. I just can't accept an argument where a "game" is something that's serious or "unfun". It's pretty much in the definition.
It's like, well, at what point do you separate "software" from "game"? I mean, games ARE software, but software isn't games. You can still have fun with MS Paint, but it's software. You can't usually have fun with MS Access.
I guess I'm okay with the notion of serious, informative "un-games". I'm just not cool with calling them "games", because by some accounts, it sounds like they're not. Perhaps closer to that "edutainment" thing.
nomotog wrote: Maybe, but shouldn't gaming take itself seriously? I mean seriously. Games are cool like really cool. You can do a lot more with games then make fun experiences. Games can do things that no other medium can. A book can tell you something, a movie can show you something, a game cam make you do something. It's like a crazy cool thing that games can let you do. I don't think this opportunity should be wasted. Also we need something for all our extra game devs to do. (There are a lot of them.)
Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want to imply is that games don't need to raise the bar. I'm just saying.... well, perhaps the problem is a hangup on language. I can accept that a movie can do "unfun" things. I can accept that a book can as well. I just can't accept an argument where a "game" is something that's serious or "unfun". It's pretty much in the definition.
It's like, well, at what point do you separate "software" from "game"? I mean, games ARE software, but software isn't games. You can still have fun with MS Paint, but it's software. You can't usually have fun with MS Access.
I guess I'm okay with the notion of serious, informative "un-games". I'm just not cool with calling them "games", because by some accounts, it sounds like they're not. Perhaps closer to that "edutainment" thing.
Probably because a game is sometime more than just a game, its a combination of both books and movies, and its interactivity.
But does a game really have to be fun?
I mean we push the borders on what a game is everyday.
I mean I agree currently we are producing too many art games, and not too many action games and fun games..
Its been a long time since I sat down and enjoyed myself this year with a game, that come out this year. There were mostly art games that came out. Not really any games I would consider for myself as fun.
daedalus wrote: Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun.
I found Amnesia to be fun. You are solving puzzles and enjoying a nice Lovecraftian horror story and trying to avoid the horrible creatures of doom and not die, which is fun. When stuck and not finding what to do next, it can be frustrating, though.
Probably because a game is sometime more than just a game, its a combination of both books and movies, and its interactivity.
But does a game really have to be fun?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
daedalus wrote: Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun.
I found Amnesia to be fun. You are solving puzzles and enjoying a nice Lovecraftian horror story and trying to avoid the horrible creatures of doom and not die, which is fun. When stuck and not finding what to do next, it can be frustrating, though.
To both of these points, I think that the language is what I'm struggling with, because you both appear to make the opposite argument. I mean, when I say that Amnesia wasn't supposed to be "fun", I don't meant that it's not enjoyable. Consider Serious Sam. That's "fun". it's a goofy game that doesn't take itself too seriously. I guess that's using "fun" as "lighthearted", but I've heard it used that way. Amnesia and I Have No Mouth were fun games in that they're entertaining, but they're not fun games as in setting.
That's the difference. From my understanding of say, Depression Quest, there's no fun in setting or in gameplay. I heard it described as a static point and click adventure game with no real puzzles or anything. Maybe that description was wrong. Hopefully someone can clear that up. My point is that that sounds like it's only purpose is to inform with the faintest veneer of a game covering it. That sounds unfun.
I would say the same thing about reading the DSM-IV on depression. Not to say that it's beyond merit or doesn't deserve to exist or whatever, and the DSM is certainly interesting, but I think we could both agree that the DSM isn't a game, so why would we classify anything else who's primary intent is strictly to inform or to persuade as a game also?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The New Yorker wrote:“I can’t really call it a game since I don’t think the point is to entertain you,”
Well, that was prescient. I swear I wasn't the guy mentioned in the Yorker..
Probably because a game is sometime more than just a game, its a combination of both books and movies, and its interactivity.
But does a game really have to be fun?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
daedalus wrote: Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun.
I found Amnesia to be fun. You are solving puzzles and enjoying a nice Lovecraftian horror story and trying to avoid the horrible creatures of doom and not die, which is fun. When stuck and not finding what to do next, it can be frustrating, though.
To both of these points, I think that the language is what I'm struggling with, because you both appear to make the opposite argument. I mean, when I say that Amnesia wasn't supposed to be "fun", I don't meant that it's not enjoyable. Consider Serious Sam. That's "fun". it's a goofy game that doesn't take itself too seriously. I guess that's using "fun" as "lighthearted", but I've heard it used that way. Amnesia and I Have No Mouth were fun games in that they're entertaining, but they're not fun games as in setting.
That's the difference. From my understanding of say, Depression Quest, there's no fun in setting or in gameplay. I heard it described as a static point and click adventure game with no real puzzles or anything. Maybe that description was wrong. Hopefully someone can clear that up. My point is that that sounds like it's only purpose is to inform with the faintest veneer of a game covering it. That sounds unfun.
I would say the same thing about reading the DSM-IV on depression. Not to say that it's beyond merit or doesn't deserve to exist or whatever, and the DSM is certainly interesting, but I think we could both agree that the DSM isn't a game, so why would we classify anything else who's primary intent is strictly to inform or to persuade as a game also?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The New Yorker wrote:“I can’t really call it a game since I don’t think the point is to entertain you,”
Well, that was prescient. I swear I wasn't the guy mentioned in the Yorker..
Well. It be more accurate to call it an interactive experience than just a game.
I find it funny how people like zoe quinn make good games and yet they are the most rude individuals.
There was an ask Slashdot with Jeff Vogel once, not that he was ever really relevant, and he kind of came off as an ass. I did actually think the Exile games were pretty cool years and years ago. I think I still have my copy of Exile 3.
Asherian Command wrote: Well. It be more accurate to call it an interactive experience than just a game.
It is also how I describe my bathroom going experiences.
Well, if you consider interactive in terms of "allowing for input and output", then your bathroom experiences don't really account for the input without taking into account your breakfast burrito also.
Asherian Command wrote: Well. It be more accurate to call it an interactive experience than just a game.
It is also how I describe my bathroom going experiences.
Well. nevermind.
There was an ask Slashdot with Jeff Vogel once, not that he was ever really relevant, and he kind of came off as an ass. I did actually think the Exile games were pretty cool years and years ago. I think I still have my copy of Exile 3.
I think ever since the indie scene is so competitive that my industry is quite cut throat sometimes.
This is a fairly good article on the whole situation, and it also connects (or at least attempt to) Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo into this whole mess; if Gamergate keeps up, the companies "May have their all important 4th Quarter Earnings diminished."
This is a fairly good article on the whole situation, and it also connects (or at least attempt to) Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo into this whole mess; if Gamergate keeps up, the companies "May have their all important 4th Quarter Earnings diminished."
I find it funny how people like zoe quinn make good games and yet they are the most rude individuals.
.
Wouldn't that require Zoe Quinn to make a good game? I've had more enjoyable muggings then Depression Quest, which was less interactive and "game like" then the average Japanese visual novel. As well as being not as well written as the average VN run through Google Translate instead of a professional translator.
You know. If you want to go mainstream, you could make an argument that the newest GTA games (4,5) are less about fun gameplay and more about setting. The TES is less about fun then it is about fantasy. Hmm you know, when I think about it, very few games try to deliver fun as their main goal.
Mathematical looney tunes in the stats, exploiting donkey-cave physics in the game itself and systematically replacing every object in a person's house with different objects, I must have totally played TES differently than you did.
Oooh, I also call your attention to exhibit A, the Wabbajack.
You could look at it as we played different games. There is a thing about a games. The player is a part of the experience. A game is incomplete until it is played. Change the player and you have radically changed what the game is. It's an element that isn't really talked about enough when people talk games.
I find it funny how people like zoe quinn make good games and yet they are the most rude individuals.
.
Wouldn't that require Zoe Quinn to make a good game? I've had more enjoyable muggings then Depression Quest, which was less interactive and "game like" then the average Japanese visual novel. As well as being not as well written as the average VN run through Google Translate instead of a professional translator.
As someone that has completed Depression Quest, it's fething terrible. Nothing in the game was fun, entertaining, or hell informative. I know less about depression now than when I started
I find it funny how people like zoe quinn make good games and yet they are the most rude individuals.
.
Wouldn't that require Zoe Quinn to make a good game? I've had more enjoyable muggings then Depression Quest, which was less interactive and "game like" then the average Japanese visual novel. As well as being not as well written as the average VN run through Google Translate instead of a professional translator.
As someone that has completed Depression Quest, it's fething terrible. Nothing in the game was fun, entertaining, or hell informative. I know less about depression now than when I started
Hahaha so all this acclaim is false?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mechanical Crow wrote: Just saw that, interesting to know whats going on, Im sure it will come to light.
This is a fairly good article on the whole situation, and it also connects (or at least attempt to) Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo into this whole mess; if Gamergate keeps up, the companies "May have their all important 4th Quarter Earnings diminished."
That was a good article.
However I assume the big companies are hesitating because, well, some collusion takes two to tango. If they point the finger at journalists, journalists might point some fingers back.
I find it funny how people like zoe quinn make good games and yet they are the most rude individuals.
.
Wouldn't that require Zoe Quinn to make a good game? I've had more enjoyable muggings then Depression Quest, which was less interactive and "game like" then the average Japanese visual novel. As well as being not as well written as the average VN run through Google Translate instead of a professional translator.
As someone that has completed Depression Quest, it's fething terrible. Nothing in the game was fun, entertaining, or hell informative. I know less about depression now than when I started
Hahaha so all this acclaim is false?
Maybe I can't get the acclaim because I don't have depression, but if I were to use Depression Quest as an aide in teaching someone about Depression I'd have to study up on depression far more before using DQ as a valid source.
It's fething terrible from a gameplay aspect too..
1) There is horrible music constantly playing in the background that you can't turn off
2) As you become more and more depressed you lose options that would otherwise get you out of depression, so it's for the most part a downward spiral
3) Your HUD is three text boxes that tell you your level of depression, whether or not you're seeing a therapist, and whether or not you're on meds for depression, I was never given the option of seeing a therapist or going on meds
4) There is no positive ending, you do not win depression quest, you do not lose depression quest, you just get a little better every time you play, so the only winning move is not to play.
5) It's all text based, so you're basically reading someone's private live journal choose your own adventure...
A lot of this is to show how out of control depression is to those with it, I guess, but at the same time, it's made to make you feel like those with depression cannot cope with it and return to normalized, happy lives...
The game itself cannot be called a game, it's a simulation, and a terrible one at that. Calling it a game would mean that someone out where might use it for entertainment or escapism, I can't see anyone using it as such. It is by far the worst game I've ever played, and I paid full price for Duke Nukem Forever.
I'm half tempted to link this post in my twitter with the title, "My Review of @Quinnspiracy's Depression Quest." But I'd probably just be labeled as a mysogynistic cis gendered white male scum, or w/e buzzwords her followers are throwing around.
I find it funny how people like zoe quinn make good games and yet they are the most rude individuals.
.
Wouldn't that require Zoe Quinn to make a good game? I've had more enjoyable muggings then Depression Quest, which was less interactive and "game like" then the average Japanese visual novel. As well as being not as well written as the average VN run through Google Translate instead of a professional translator.
As someone that has completed Depression Quest, it's fething terrible. Nothing in the game was fun, entertaining, or hell informative. I know less about depression now than when I started
Hahaha so all this acclaim is false?
Maybe I can't get the acclaim because I don't have depression, but if I were to use Depression Quest as an aide in teaching someone about Depression I'd have to study up on depression far more before using DQ as a valid source.
It's fething terrible from a gameplay aspect too..
1) There is horrible music constantly playing in the background that you can't turn off
2) As you become more and more depressed you lose options that would otherwise get you out of depression, so it's for the most part a downward spiral
3) Your HUD is three text boxes that tell you your level of depression, whether or not you're seeing a therapist, and whether or not you're on meds for depression, I was never given the option of seeing a therapist or going on meds
4) There is no positive ending, you do not win depression quest, you do not lose depression quest, you just get a little better every time you play, so the only winning move is not to play.
5) It's all text based, so you're basically reading someone's private live journal choose your own adventure...
A lot of this is to show how out of control depression is to those with it, I guess, but at the same time, it's made to make you feel like those with depression cannot cope with it and return to normalized, happy lives...
The game itself cannot be called a game, it's a simulation, and a terrible one at that. Calling it a game would mean that someone out where might use it for entertainment or escapism, I can't see anyone using it as such. It is by far the worst game I've ever played, and I paid full price for Duke Nukem Forever.
I'm half tempted to link this post in my twitter with the title, "My Review of @Quinnspiracy's Depression Quest." But I'd probably just be labeled as a mysogynistic cis gendered white male scum, or w/e buzzwords her followers are throwing around.
Maybe I can't get the acclaim because I don't have depression, but if I were to use Depression Quest as an aide in teaching someone about Depression I'd have to study up on depression far more before using DQ as a valid source.
It's fething terrible from a gameplay aspect too..
1) There is horrible music constantly playing in the background that you can't turn off
2) As you become more and more depressed you lose options that would otherwise get you out of depression, so it's for the most part a downward spiral
3) Your HUD is three text boxes that tell you your level of depression, whether or not you're seeing a therapist, and whether or not you're on meds for depression, I was never given the option of seeing a therapist or going on meds
4) There is no positive ending, you do not win depression quest, you do not lose depression quest, you just get a little better every time you play, so the only winning move is not to play.
5) It's all text based, so you're basically reading someone's private live journal choose your own adventure...
A lot of this is to show how out of control depression is to those with it, I guess, but at the same time, it's made to make you feel like those with depression cannot cope with it and return to normalized, happy lives...
The game itself cannot be called a game, it's a simulation, and a terrible one at that. Calling it a game would mean that someone out where might use it for entertainment or escapism, I can't see anyone using it as such. It is by far the worst game I've ever played, and I paid full price for Duke Nukem Forever.
I'm half tempted to link this post in my twitter with the title, "My Review of @Quinnspiracy's Depression Quest." But I'd probably just be labeled as a mysogynistic cis gendered white male scum, or w/e buzzwords her followers are throwing around.
Numbers 2 and 4 sound like mechanics as metaphor. There is that spiral downward with depression sometimes. If you don't manager it, you can just get pulled deeper and deeper were it becomes almost impossible to pull yourself out. You also can't "win" depression in real life. It's a continuous fight. It's something you try to manage, but you can't fix it.
This illustrates the feeling of depression alot better.
God, I remember that game... I cried the first time after seeing it.
The guy still makes game. And they are just as depressing.
it just shows who had better intentions. One got down to the core issue. And made it more than just an interesting thing. It delivered. It used its mechanics to its fullest.
Maybe I can't get the acclaim because I don't have depression, but if I were to use Depression Quest as an aide in teaching someone about Depression I'd have to study up on depression far more before using DQ as a valid source.
It's fething terrible from a gameplay aspect too..
1) There is horrible music constantly playing in the background that you can't turn off
2) As you become more and more depressed you lose options that would otherwise get you out of depression, so it's for the most part a downward spiral
3) Your HUD is three text boxes that tell you your level of depression, whether or not you're seeing a therapist, and whether or not you're on meds for depression, I was never given the option of seeing a therapist or going on meds
4) There is no positive ending, you do not win depression quest, you do not lose depression quest, you just get a little better every time you play, so the only winning move is not to play.
5) It's all text based, so you're basically reading someone's private live journal choose your own adventure...
A lot of this is to show how out of control depression is to those with it, I guess, but at the same time, it's made to make you feel like those with depression cannot cope with it and return to normalized, happy lives...
The game itself cannot be called a game, it's a simulation, and a terrible one at that. Calling it a game would mean that someone out where might use it for entertainment or escapism, I can't see anyone using it as such. It is by far the worst game I've ever played, and I paid full price for Duke Nukem Forever.
I'm half tempted to link this post in my twitter with the title, "My Review of @Quinnspiracy's Depression Quest." But I'd probably just be labeled as a mysogynistic cis gendered white male scum, or w/e buzzwords her followers are throwing around.
number 2 and 4 sound like mechanics as metaphor. There is that spiral downward with depression sometimes. If you don't manager it, you can just get pulled deeper and deeper were it becomes almost impossible to pull yourself out. You also can't "win" depression in real life. It's a continuous fight. It's something you try to manage, but you can't fix it.
Except the problem is that its not as effective as loneliness. which actually did far better at illustrating it, with simple controls. If she wanted to give more depressing things, she needed to add more, she should of gone all out more than just a point and click game.
That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Yeah it doesn't actually let play as a game. Which is my major issue.
I understand the mechanics as metaphor. But then what? Do you tell a story?
No.
The best depression based game I've ever seen. Is The Crooked Man. Its a horror game.
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Na it's just bad music. It's still a game. It's about the level of interaction you have in an adventure game. It's basically a text adventure game with some more frills. I have seen games with less interaction. (Walk or die at necessary games is oddly compelling despite having only having one choice.)
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Na it's just bad music. It's still a game. It's about the level of interaction you have in an adventure game. It's basically a text adventure game with some more frills. I have seen games with less interaction. (Walk or die at necessary games is oddly compelling despite having only having one choice.)
Yeah, but lets face it. He has very few things that are not compelling. I mean he sets the mood with the music, the atmosphere, the controls, and what is going. We are given no context, and we are absorbed into the experience. So go through the game and its beyond compelling we are absorbed into the game with simple mechanics. With presentation, with very little expectations. And thats what we get. A beautiful game.
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Na it's just bad music. It's still a game. It's about the level of interaction you have in an adventure game. It's basically a text adventure game with some more frills. I have seen games with less interaction. (Walk or die at necessary games is oddly compelling despite having only having one choice.)
Yeah, but lets face it. He has very few things that are not compelling. I mean he sets the mood with the music, the atmosphere, the controls, and what is going. We are given no context, and we are absorbed into the experience.
And some of the games, think freedom bridge, you reach your goal only to die, nothing around it. The story after truly reinforces it. Or The Killer, where you have a choice, but your choice has no affect.
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Na it's just bad music. It's still a game. It's about the level of interaction you have in an adventure game. It's basically a text adventure game with some more frills. I have seen games with less interaction. (Walk or die at necessary games is oddly compelling despite having only having one choice.)
Yeah, but lets face it. He has very few things that are not compelling. I mean he sets the mood with the music, the atmosphere, the controls, and what is going. We are given no context, and we are absorbed into the experience.
And some of the games, think freedom bridge, you reach your goal only to die, nothing around it. The story after truly reinforces it. Or The Killer, where you have a choice, but your choice has no affect.
Feth me those are the most powerful games I've played.
Alongside the game Crooked Man. I've never cried about a game ever. And then I played that. And oh god I just cried my eyes. Especially after the killer.
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Na it's just bad music. It's still a game. It's about the level of interaction you have in an adventure game. It's basically a text adventure game with some more frills. I have seen games with less interaction. (Walk or die at necessary games is oddly compelling despite having only having one choice.)
Yeah, but lets face it. He has very few things that are not compelling. I mean he sets the mood with the music, the atmosphere, the controls, and what is going. We are given no context, and we are absorbed into the experience.
The minimalist approach is a good one. There is so little it like sucks you in. (Another game that uses the void is a dark room. It starts of very very basic and that pulls you in.)
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Na it's just bad music. It's still a game. It's about the level of interaction you have in an adventure game. It's basically a text adventure game with some more frills. I have seen games with less interaction. (Walk or die at necessary games is oddly compelling despite having only having one choice.)
Yeah, but lets face it. He has very few things that are not compelling. I mean he sets the mood with the music, the atmosphere, the controls, and what is going. We are given no context, and we are absorbed into the experience.
And some of the games, think freedom bridge, you reach your goal only to die, nothing around it. The story after truly reinforces it. Or The Killer, where you have a choice, but your choice has no affect.
Feth me those are the most powerful games I've played.
Alongside the game Crooked Man. I've never cried about a game ever. And then I played that. And oh god I just cried my eyes. Especially after the killer.
I first played Loneliness after a period of moderate depression, and that is a memory I have still. Such a small thing can be powerful. Just thinking of it makes me cry still. Not for myself, but for all those who have experienced depression or are experiencing it. I really think the saddest part of the game comes not quite at the end, but when the ones who are all alone leave you as well. That really got me.
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Na it's just bad music. It's still a game. It's about the level of interaction you have in an adventure game. It's basically a text adventure game with some more frills. I have seen games with less interaction. (Walk or die at necessary games is oddly compelling despite having only having one choice.)
Yeah, but lets face it. He has very few things that are not compelling. I mean he sets the mood with the music, the atmosphere, the controls, and what is going. We are given no context, and we are absorbed into the experience.
And some of the games, think freedom bridge, you reach your goal only to die, nothing around it. The story after truly reinforces it. Or The Killer, where you have a choice, but your choice has no affect.
Feth me those are the most powerful games I've played.
Alongside the game Crooked Man. I've never cried about a game ever. And then I played that. And oh god I just cried my eyes. Especially after the killer.
I first played Loneliness after a period of moderate depression, and that is a memory I have still. Such a small thing can be powerful. Just thinking of it makes me cry still. Not for myself, but for all those who have experienced depression or are experiencing it. I really think the saddest part of the game comes not quite at the end, but when the ones who are all alone leave you as well. That really got me.
Yeah that was so damn effective, I mean its just. Ugh. Oh my god.
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Na it's just bad music. It's still a game. It's about the level of interaction you have in an adventure game. It's basically a text adventure game with some more frills. I have seen games with less interaction. (Walk or die at necessary games is oddly compelling despite having only having one choice.)
Yeah, but lets face it. He has very few things that are not compelling. I mean he sets the mood with the music, the atmosphere, the controls, and what is going. We are given no context, and we are absorbed into the experience.
And some of the games, think freedom bridge, you reach your goal only to die, nothing around it. The story after truly reinforces it. Or The Killer, where you have a choice, but your choice has no affect.
I knew before I started freedom bridge you weren't going to make it. It's odd how a non choice feels. You know you have no option, but you think maybe. Just maybe. I waited at the bride for awhile just not wanting to cross trying to think of another option.
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine, if she wished to relay that with her two partners that made DQ, then don't call it a game. It literally has nothing in common with other games.
Also the music you can't turn off also could be another mechanic as metaphor. Describing the lack of control you feel from the out start
Edit: DQ is less than a point and click game. It's web page with a short scenario on it and 1 to 4 options you may have access to. You click an option and see presented with the next scenario...
Na it's just bad music. It's still a game. It's about the level of interaction you have in an adventure game. It's basically a text adventure game with some more frills. I have seen games with less interaction. (Walk or die at necessary games is oddly compelling despite having only having one choice.)
Yeah, but lets face it. He has very few things that are not compelling. I mean he sets the mood with the music, the atmosphere, the controls, and what is going. We are given no context, and we are absorbed into the experience.
And some of the games, think freedom bridge, you reach your goal only to die, nothing around it. The story after truly reinforces it. Or The Killer, where you have a choice, but your choice has no affect.
I knew before I started freedom bridge you weren't going to make it. It's odd how a non choice feels. You know you have no option, but you think maybe. Just maybe. I waited at the bride for awhile just not wanting to cross trying to think of another option.
Thats life sadly. Sometimes we get there and there are no more choices, there is only one choice. And some either panic, or they die for trying to live. That is an extremely powerful message.
And only using a few pixels.
I wish those games from necessary games won awards. Like hundreds of them, because those were more thought provoking than most games.
Thats life sadly. Sometimes we get there and there are no more choices, there is only one choice. And some either panic, or they die for trying to live. That is an extremely powerful message.
And only using a few pixels.
I wish those games from necessary games won awards. Like hundreds of them, because those were more thought provoking than most games.
(Apart from the walking dead games)
Ya. I want to see more games like this too. It is kind of why I dislike it when people try to cordon off the game scape to exclude games that do things differently. (I knew I could swing it back to depression quest ) If we want games to have the freedom to provoke thought, we need to give them freedom to work outside the box.
Though it's not like you can't provoke thought inside the box. Manhunt was a game about a man being forced to commit violent acts for the amusement of some watching him through a TV screen. Kind of a heavy handed metaphor when you think about it.
Ya. I want to see more games like this too. It is kind of why I dislike it when people try to cordon off the game scape to exclude games that do things differently. (I knew I could swing it back to depression quest ) If we want games to have the freedom to provoke thought, we need to give them freedom to work outside the box.
Though it's not like you can't provoke thought inside the box. Manhunt was a game about a man being forced to commit violent acts for the amusement of some watching him through a TV screen. Kind of a heavy handed metaphor when you think about it.
Completely agree.
There are certain things though that I do have to say though.
That there should be more games like this, but they should be more well done than depression quest. Which I played just a few hours ago, and hated it. I thought it misrepresented depression. Where loneliness didn't, it actually made remember everything i went through when I had depression.
I mean there are great games out there can do that, like Hotline Miami, it is an anti violence game, with extreme violence in it. The message is clear throughout the game, you are doing these murders, you are causing these things, are they right are they wrong? But you find out they are in the right, but it is going by in the extremest way possible.
That is a simple game mechanic that tells a lot about the game and us as person. That makes that game art.
But this whole deal with Zoe Quinn, this whole idea that her game won an award kind of makes me raise my eyebrows.
Because it is not a good game. The message is cheap and has a very basic understanding of what a game is and what depression is.
I wonder if the outcry was from this? Was from those who actually suffered from depression and hated her because they felt she did an unjust thing by releasing this game.
And not being thorough enough.
There are tons of variables in depression, more than just feeling sad, and alone. Its seeing others, and seeing how happy they are. And it making you sad that you don't have that.
Its not this me me thing at all. ITs more you have lost track of your life. You are lost to this endless dark void. And you were born like that.
Ya. I want to see more games like this too. It is kind of why I dislike it when people try to cordon off the game scape to exclude games that do things differently. (I knew I could swing it back to depression quest ) If we want games to have the freedom to provoke thought, we need to give them freedom to work outside the box.
Though it's not like you can't provoke thought inside the box. Manhunt was a game about a man being forced to commit violent acts for the amusement of some watching him through a TV screen. Kind of a heavy handed metaphor when you think about it.
Completely agree.
There are certain things though that I do have to say though.
That there should be more games like this, but they should be more well done than depression quest. Which I played just a few hours ago, and hated it. I thought it misrepresented depression. Where loneliness didn't, it actually made remember everything i went through when I had depression.
I mean there are great games out there can do that, like Hotline Miami, it is an anti violence game, with extreme violence in it. The message is clear throughout the game, you are doing these murders, you are causing these things, are they right are they wrong? But you find out they are in the right, but it is going by in the extremest way possible.
That is a simple game mechanic that tells a lot about the game and us as person. That makes that game art.
But this whole deal with Zoe Quinn, this whole idea that her game won an award kind of makes me raise my eyebrows.
Because it is not a good game. The message is cheap and has a very basic understanding of what a game is and what depression is.
I wonder if the outcry was from this? Was from those who actually suffered from depression and hated her because they felt she did an unjust thing by releasing this game.
And not being thorough enough.
There are tons of variables in depression, more than just feeling sad, and alone. Its seeing others, and seeing how happy they are. And it making you sad that you don't have that.
Its not this me me thing at all. ITs more you have lost track of your life. You are lost to this endless dark void. And you were born like that.
Most outcry I see from it is from people who want to complain it's not a game. Trying to talk about this game is complex because there is so much to unpack before you actually get to the game. There is a kind crowed around the game that hates it not for what it is, but what is stands for kind of. It's kind of an artsy game about a serous topic made by a woman. You know I did not forget the outcry that happened before the game was even made. They didn't know if it would be good or bad at the time. They hatted it just because it existed. This history makes it hard to look at the game as what it is because it was a thing before it was a thing. Kinda. You get what I mean?
Edit:: Another aspect that makes talking about this game hard for me personally is I have a hard time playing it. Depression is kind of a thing in my family. It runs all the way through my moms side of the family. I have experience with it. I can't speak for anyone else's experiences with depression.
Spoiler:
(One aspect I think works against the game is we really have a lot of diffident takes on what people think depression means. I can't say is my take is the right one either.)
Some aspects of the game maybe resonate too well. The way choices will be visible, but nu-pickible speaks to one of the more troubling aspects of depression. It's not logical. You know you shouldn't be lock yourself up in your house, that you should go out and connect with people. You know all the right choices to make. It is just you can't make them. Something is holding you back. Another aspect is how in the story your trying to hide your depression. That is something I have experienced too. It feels wrong to tell people that your depressed because you know it doesn't make sense a lot of the time. It's not logical it just is. You feel guilty when you tell people like it's something you should be able to handle by yourself. Again even though you know logically that this feeling is bloody stupid.
Ya so the game kind of gets to me a little. I'm not saying it's good, bad or anything. I guess I am maybe saying I can't be objective about it because of how it makes me feel. I an like 99% sure that makes no sense.
The problem with games like Depression Quest is that they don't actually raise awareness, especially when built like Depression Quest; People whom aren't aware aren't going to play it, people whom are don't need the messege, and no one is going to slog through text.
Slarg232 wrote: The problem with games like Depression Quest is that they don't actually raise awareness, especially when built like Depression Quest; People whom aren't aware aren't going to play it, people whom are don't need the messege, and no one is going to slog through text.
Basically.
I mean you can't just tack on a story to a depressive situation. You need to first tell a story. And it is up to the person to find out through the emotions of the character, through their actions, through their words, to figure out what depression is like.
Using vivid imagery, using things that happen. I think the biggest argument I have against the game is that it feels disconnected.
What a confusing mess #GamerGate has become:
- Find a bit of a juicy scandal with a female developer and the gaming media.
- Shines a light on how much gaming "journalism" is funded by content providers so the veneer of impartiality is thrown out the window.
- Gamers get all upset and post like crazy.
- Attempts at take-downs and censorship are applied (by various groups in question) and gaming community gets REALLY upset.
- So with the increased "hate" flying about #Notyourshield comes up with various other communities getting fed up with the garbage being written.
- Gaming media fights back claiming that the "gamer" is dead, there is no such thing now... still trying to wrap my brain around where that was going.
So where do we go from here?
Starve the various groups involved of clicks and sponsorship funding?
I figure the groups most willing to keep feeding the giant troll this has become are probably the ones we should most look at (Still liked some of Zoe's previous works but her latest media dalliances are showing some judgment issues...).
The best thing about all this is I had zero interest in gaming journalism before and having my attention drawn to them, I find precious little of interest now so all is well.
Talizvar wrote: What a confusing mess #GamerGate has become:
- Find a bit of a juicy scandal with a female developer and the gaming media.
- Shines a light on how much gaming "journalism" is funded by content providers so the veneer of impartiality is thrown out the window.
- Gamers get all upset and post like crazy.
- Attempts at take-downs and censorship are applied (by various groups in question) and gaming community gets REALLY upset.
- So with the increased "hate" flying about #Notyourshield comes up with various other communities getting fed up with the garbage being written.
- Gaming media fights back claiming that the "gamer" is dead, there is no such thing now... still trying to wrap my brain around where that was going.
So where do we go from here?
Starve the various groups involved of clicks and sponsorship funding?
I figure the groups most willing to keep feeding the giant troll this has become are probably the ones we should most look at (Still liked some of Zoe's previous works but her latest media dalliances are showing some judgment issues...).
The best thing about all this is I had zero interest in gaming journalism before and having my attention drawn to them, I find precious little of interest now so all is well.
Yeah this will continue for a while. Gamers are fed up with the media treating them like jerks and evil...
I mean this entire thing is about how gamers are being labeled as misogynist. That just really does a number on the gamers, because they are tired of it.
There are more issues coming out, like phil fish, zoey quinn who keep adding fuel to the fire, by saying what they are saying.
I have to say this is a rather interesting experience for me. I've never been generalized before. I think of myself as an equlitist (one who wants quality for everyone) and this is obviously searching for something to be mad about to make some money. There is not more misogyny in games than there is anywhere else.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have to say this is a rather interesting experience for me. I've never been generalized before. I think of myself as an equlitist (one who wants quality for everyone) and this is obviously searching for something to be mad about to make some money. There is not more misogyny in games than there is anywhere else.
True, but is that the gamers fault? Or the culture's fault? Or the designers fault? I mean we have been seeing less and less of it over the years.
by the way Equalitists don't exist, Egalitarianism I think is what you are going for.
The generalization is hurting the community. Pretty bad.
The gaming press wants gamers to believe that the Zoe Quinn story is about her sex life and misogyny in the gaming community, but in reality they are trying to shield themselves from accusations of journalistic impropriety that they don’t want to address. Zoe Quinn’s sex life is not the story here. While the accusation that Quinn’s relationship with Kotaku writer Nathan Grayson may have started this discussion about journalistic ethics and transparency, the fact is that Nathan Grayson never reviewed Quinn’s game, Depression Quest, or wrote about it again after beginning a sexual relationship with her. Had the gaming press left it at that, this story may have gone away, like so many other times in the past when readers have accused those they rely on to report on the gaming industry of being unduly influenced by the publishers and developers they are supposed to cover. But they didn’t leave it alone, because the Zoe Quinn story raised questions that made the gaming press very, very uncomfortable, questions they did not want to acknowledge. So to try to keep the story from being about themselves, gaming journalists tried to make the story about their readers. They pushed back, and they pushed angrily and clumsily and ended up fanning long-simmering flames of resentment by attacking their readership. Instead of addressing concerns about the relationships between journalists and the people and projects they are trusted to write objectively about, they framed the story as being about misogynists who wanted to slut-shame female developers out of the industry. Accusations of impropriety against game journalists are nothing new. In 2007, Jeff Gerstmann was fired by GameSpot after publishing a negative review of Eidos Interactive’s Kane and Lynch, a game that was heavily advertised by the publisher on the site. GameSpot claimed Gerstmann’s firing was not a consequence of his review, but in 2012 Gerstmann claimed that he was dismissed as a result of not only his Kane and Lynch review but other reviews whose scores had led to publishers pulling ad money from his employer. In 2010, GamePro detailed the inner workings of controversial “review events,” in which publishers pay for travel and accommodations for journalists to trek to several day-long events in which they are allowed to play the latest big release in franchises like Call of Duty in carefully controlled environments. In addition to free travel and lavish hospitality, reviewers are often plied with expensive gifts. “[L]et's be very clear: these events are designed to wow and impress the reviewer. It's not a matter of fighting piracy, because the game had already been leaked. It's not a matter of just controlling the setting, because that can be done without putting a reviewer up in a country club for three nights. Publishers like Activision spend the money in order to squeeze out the best reviews possible, and to send an implicit message: take care of us, and we'll continue to take care of you,” Ben Kuchera wrote at Ars Technica at the time. “It's a tough choice: stick by your ethics policy, or accept a free vacation, some gifts, and boost your site's traffic.” Is it likely that publishers directly pay for positive coverage and reviews? No. These are multiple-million dollar corporations operating on a global scale. They are too smart to engage in such blatant manipulation as to assign a monetary value for Game X to fall within a score of Y and Z. It’s the soft corruption, the promise of access and exclusivity, the suggestion of “take care of us, and we’ll take care of you” that has compromised the gaming community’s view of the gaming press over the years. The Zoe Quinn scandal reignited the debate about the legitimacy of gaming journalism while raising new questions about the interpersonal relationships between writers and the people within the industry that they cover. Since the initial fervor in response to the details of Zoe Quinn’s sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a writer for Kotaku, and the media blackout of the entire story, gamers began digging into the relationships between reporters, public relations firms, developers, and publishers. There are a number of examples of seeming conflicts of interest to cite, such as Patricia Hernandez of Kotaku reviewing games created by Anna Anthropy, a friend and reportedly a former roommate, and Ben Kuchera, now at Polygon, writing about harassment of Zoe Quinn without disclosing he contributed money to her and her projects through Patreon. Both Kotaku and Polygon have since changed their policies to either ban writers from contributing to projects they write about or publicly disclose which games they have financially supported, although judging by Kuchera’s Twitter feed, he didn’t seem to take the accusations of a conflict of interest very seriously:
One of the more damaging entanglements appears to be the interpersonal relationships between Zoe Quinn, Maya Kramer of Silverstring Media, and Brandon Boyer, the chairman of the Independent Games Festival (IGF). The problem is that Silverstring Media is involved with a number of games judged and promoted by the IGF, of which Boyer is one of the principle judges. Adding to the controversy is the relationship between Kramer and her employer and a number of gaming outlets, such as Kotaku; on June 3, 2014 Silverstring Media promoted an article by Nathan Grayson of Kotaku claiming that the game Glitchhikers saved him from driving drunk and potentially killing himself or someone else. Glitchhikers just happens to be the very first game listed under the “Projects” section on Silverstring Media’s website. Silverstring Media has since updated their site to claim they are not a public relations firm, despite Kramer claiming on her Patreon site that she does “PR and production” for independent game developers. The gaming press’s response to these latest accusations of ethical violations ranged from patronizing to dismissive to openly mocking, but they all pushed the same message: this isn’t about us, it’s about you, the readers, and your terrible bigotry. Leigh Alexander wrote at Gamasutra: “These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience… there is no ‘debate’ to be had.” At Polygon, Editor-at-Large Chris Plante created a false dichotomy: the side that has “folded its arms, slumped its shoulders while pouting like an obstinate child,” and the side that has “opened its arms, unable to contain its love and compassion, because they understand they are no longer alone.” Guess which side is the one Plante and other gaming journalists are supposed to represent? Luke Plunkett of Kotaku played the aggrieved innocent bystander card, bemoaning: “There has been so much hate. So many angry words, so many accusations, over...what? Video games? Women in video games? People who write about video games?” In an article patronizingly titled “Why I Feel Bad For - And Understand - The Angry #GamerGate Gamers,” Devin Faraci at least had the nerve to accuse readers of what all of these other writers cravenly insinuated: that the only issue here is that gamers are a bunch of fat, ugly social rejects who just want to beat up Zoe Quinn because they’re mad that women won’t sleep with them. “For male geeks there’s a disconnect with what they’re told - be a nice guy and you’ll get the girl - and what they see in action around them. They get told lies that I think are really insidious, like ‘It doesn’t matter what’s on your outside, it matters what’s on your inside,’ which lead to entire affinity groups that dress and smell like gak and don’t take care of themselves,” he wrote. “This leads to a horrible cycle where socially awkward weirdos who dress like garbage get rejected by attractive women, which cause the socially awkward weirdos to start blaming women in general for their problems and reinforce their social awkwardness.” According to Faraci, “It all comes down, again and again, to the same problem: lonely boys who have no social skills who are wallowing in self-pity.” These writers’ opinions of their readers’ social, sexual, and hygienic prowess has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but it’s a good play on their part; their insults will produce a fresh wave of vitriol from the reactionary members of the community that can be trotted out and used to paint their critics as hateful bigots. They know that’s exactly the response using terms like “shitslingers,” “devils,” and “hatemonger” will elicit. While their readers are busy defending themselves against such accusations, what they’re not doing is pressing these writers about the issues of journalistic integrity and transparency. And that’s the whole point. However, the problem for game journalists is that this pushback was too coordinated and too obvious, and readers who no longer rely on one or two gaming sites for all of their exposure to gaming news quickly identified this unified front. Discussions about the Zoe Quinn story were initially censored and memory holed, as Breitbart News’ Milo Yiannopoulos covered. When that didn’t stop the story but only inflamed it, the gaming press pushed back in force to accuse “gamers” of misogyny, bigotry, and bullying, turning a term for their own audience into a dirty word. They were desperate to make the Zoe Quinn story simply about one woman’s sexual proclivities and place in the gaming industry, anything to distract from questions about journalists’ relationships with developers and publishers and how that might impact their reporting. The problem for the gaming press is that the majority of those following GamerGate aren’t buying what they’re selling. This story is no longer about Zoe Quinn. The principle people still trying to bring her and her sexual affairs into this discussion are the gaming press; they are desperate to make GamerGate about anyone but themselves, and they are the ones who keep dragging Zoe Quinn’s sexual escapades into the forefront of the discussion to save themselves. By all means, let’s have a discussion about sexism, about women in the gaming industry, about expanding the themes and audience for games; we can and should discuss these issues to continue to grow this community and this industry, but understand that right now, in this moment, they are not the issues that are fueling GamerGate. These serious subjects are being used as a dodge, a shield to dismiss legitimate and pressing concerns and a wedge to divide the gaming community, and it cheapens what should be important and legitimate topics. The question of journalistic ethics and the influence of personal relationships on what is supposed to be impartial reporting needs to be answered. Gamers are not “over,” they’re not going away, and they’re not the problem.
Gamergate and the RPS response Published on Monday, September 08, 2014 By Frogboy In PC Gaming Today Rock Paper Shotgun put up this article with regards to the recent turmoil in the gaming community: Videogames are for everybody.
Disclaimer:
RPS is one of my favorite game sites. RPS is not just “another game site”, they are very important to both game developers/publishers as well as gamers. I say this because they have assembled an exceptionally high quality team of writers and reviewers. Anyone who thinks getting people with good writing skills and good judgment is easy has clearly never run a business before.
Now..that said…
There are a lot of good parts to that article. But there are some parts that I’d like to address:
Claim: I don’t believe the harassment is real. People are faking it to get attention.
RPS Response: You are wrong. Sorry. We’re getting some of the abuse. John particularly has been told to kill himself multiple times, with specific, ugly descriptions of how, and been sent repeated wishes that he die of cancer. And those have been the extremes. There has also been a non-stop flow of lies spread about him and RPS, abuse sent to us, including alarming videos designed to discredit both John and RPS. Nothing fake about any of that.
This is the first element I took issue with. No one is claiming that nobody is getting harassed. This is a case where semantics actually matter. What gamers are getting tired of are certain female Internet celebrities trying to claim any harassment / trolling / flaming = sexual harassment and turning those claims into easy coverage for their (surprise surprise) upcoming new project. The media, predictably then responds lecturing gamers on their so-called misogyny.
As a reminder:
misogynist: Noun. A person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
Gamer Claim: Your site is corrupt. We know this because of the evidence presented in various videos and diagrams and put together by concerned individuals.
RPS Response: We’ve seen all this material, too. If any of it genuinely exposed corrupt practice, or if any of it could be verified with concrete evidence, we’d surely act on it…
I don’t have any issue with this response. You don’t think there is any widespread journalism corruption. I tend to agree with this as well. I don’t think there’s systematic corruption with gaming journalism. This would have been a great response from the media two weeks ago.
..Instead, gamers were treated to THIS (courtesy of jw)
First, the original allegations about Zoe Quinn which were a tempest in a teapot and Second, the absurd, embarrassing response by some in the gaming media. It wasn’t until the second part that the media lost a lot of gamers and game developers and #gamergate really took off.
If someone makes allegations that there is corruption, the best way to deal with that is to answer it (like today’s RPS article tries to do). But that’s not what happened. Instead, the media smeared gamers.
So to recap, a bunch of gamers got upset at what appeared to them to be a pattern of corruption in the gaming media. And instead of addressing these concerns they got called (again, from jw).
Racial slurs (https://forum.encyclopediadramatica.es/attachments/1409516437457-png.47336/) (Note, the veracity of this instance is in question as a possible troll. The blog where I got it from, as with the rest of these,http://gamergateharrassment.tumblr.com/#, is unsure of the source. I’m leaving it up so as to not just pretend I didn’t post it, but I’m going to add that this link is questionable in intent.)
You hate gamers. When we criticised you, you “spat on us”.
No, we don’t, and no, we didn’t. This statement is in quotation marks because that’s actually what someone said to us. That we spat on them. We understand that this person was speaking figuratively, but even so it does not reflect the truth. We banned people for being unexcellent on the forums and in comments, we blocked people attacking us on Twitter, and some of our writers expressed their frustration by lampooning what was said on social media. We make jokes when we’re unhappy, and we do tend to get sarcastic when faced with honest insults. It’s difficult.
All I can say to this is: See above.
We do not hate gamers. We object to, and will fight, harassment and abuse. But that has little to do with gamers, and little or nothing to do with the ethics of the games industry. Not everyone who objects to how the games press works are harassing and attacking, but the ones who are are causing enough disruption for this entire thing, whatever it actually is, to be a mess of resentment and recrimination. For any progress to be made, in any direction, it has to stop.
I would hate to get into a “but they started it” type of argument but, if game sites start publishing a mass string of articles claiming that anyone who is concerned that coverage is less about merit and more about who’s sleeping with who is really just a horrible misogynist and needs to grow up and get out of their parents basements, I think that the recipient of this abuse is going to not take that well.
The problem is this: If you insult enough people, eventually you will have a lot of opponents. I’m not referring to RPS but to the self-described “Social Justice Warrior” dominated press (I don’t really have any serious criticism of RPS specifically, I am just hoping they can see the 10,000 foot high picture of this). Five years ago I would have been a lot more sympathetic to the Social Justice Warriors. I wonder how many on the fence gamers the SJWs lost during the whole “Dick Wolves” insanity. Eventually, non-snowflakes get fatigued at the deluge of first-world victim/outrage stories – and don’t forget, if you complain, you are blaming the victim. Each time they smear someone, they lose another small group. Drip. Drip. Drip.
And it is. We love games. We hate harassment, prejudice, and abuse.
Most gamers hate harassment, prejudice and abuse too. So why are so many in the gaming media subjecting them to harassment, prejudice and abuse?
I know of many others who would be natural allies of “social justice warriors” but have suffered at the hands of sustained harassment and death threats courtesy of SJWs. So when they see the media march lockstep with these people, they think that either you guys aren’t aware of their true nature or worse, you think that death threats and harassment are fine as long as it’s against people who “deserve it”.
If anything good comes of this #gamergate debacle it’s this: It is likely that the SJW movement into the games industry has reached its furthest extent. They’ve managed to alienate a critical mass of people with their shenanigans.
I, like many others, wasn’t just neutral but didn’t really care until the August 28 deluge of insult articles appeared. That’s where you lost a lot of game developers. And make no mistake, like the gaming media, we have our own mailing lists as well and most, if not nearly all, were appalled by that series of articles.
RPS posts that contain controversy about sexism are just clickbait. You do not actually believe this stuff, and you are just doing it for hits.
Nope, we actually believe it. If you believe that we actually don’t, well, it’s going to be hard to change your mind. But there would be easier ways to generate traffic, with less abuse directed at us, if what was really on our minds was traffic. Why wouldn’t we just do that?
Good for them for saying this. And I agree. News items are much easier to get page views from than original content. It's one of those urban legends that game sites live/die on click bait.
You are doing it for sexual favours.
Wow. No.
Well I am. Winking smile
Nevertheless, I believe changing games will ruin them. They’re supposed to be about escapism.
Escapism is great! We love it. We all need to escape. Even the people analysing and criticising want to escape for a while. It’s a wonderful thing to be able to do. It’s not all that games can do, though, is it? Games can be about real world situations. The same systems that run games are used to train pilots and soldiers. Game developers are using them to talk about social situations, personal issues, and to explore the real world from an interactive perspective, just as books explore it from a literary perspective. There are games about politics and social lives, economies and history. Games are a big old toolbox, and using them as escapism is just one application. Let’s not limit them.
Women tend to like different types of games than men and vice versa. It has nothing to do with how “inclusive” the community is. 5 of the most popular games for women include Candy Crush, Bejweweled 2, Crosswords and Soduku, Cake Shop 2 and World of Warcraft (this is before Sims 4 was released). In short, generally speaking (WoW aside) women tend to like different games than men. And that’s fine.
Gaming really is for everyone. But gaming is a relationship between the people who make the games and the people who play them. The level of “inclusiveness” in the communities nor the sensitivity of the journalist has little to do with attracting women to a given game. It’s mostly the game itself. Is the game fun and interesting to a woman?
My disinterest in playing Cake Shop 2 is not because the women playing it are filled is misandry. It’s really not their fault.
This is horrible, why can’t we keep the politics out of games? Why can’t we just talk about the games?
This is one of those deeply tricky philosophy type things: not talking about politics is actually taking a political stance on them. It doesn’t keep the politics out. Tricky, right? It seems like a trick. But it’s really not: just talking about the games, without questioning anything, is you taking a political stance on games because it amounts saying that you completely accept the games at face value. Your stance on their politics is: this is fine. You can’t just talk about the games, because they can’t be pulled apart from the ideas and circumstances that brought them into being. You can ignore problems, or just not see them, and that’s okay. But if you talk about games, you talk about politics.
When we discuss how a woman is presented in a game we are talking about the game. She’s part of that game. If she’s a prostitute who gets killed by a pirate, then that happens in the game. That imaginary murder is part of the game content. Furthermore, games are not a disconnected dimension, even while they are being amazing escapist outlets for fantasy. They have a context. They reflect the world, and they are expressions of what the people made the game were trying to achieve. Some people want to examine that. They want to look at why a prostitute being murdered by a pirate is what happens in that game. They want to examine what it means. You don’t have to – it’s totally fine for you to enjoy whatever you like, and completely ignore any possible criticism, or even any possible meaning – but please don’t attack others for wanting to do so.
So basically this policy of “just talking about the games” isn’t really anything of the sort, and it can lead to saying that people who do analyse them politically, and point out how they might be problematic for themselves or others (if not for you) should shut up. It is silencing criticism, which is the thing that everyone wants to avoid. Let’s not do that, no matter what.
I think that’s all fine. But it seems like the gaming media can talk about things other than games without attacking their readers. The objection isn’t about whether there’s a discussion on whether murdering prostitutes should give you HP is a good for society or not. The objection is saying that people who play that game are bad people.
If we game a game that is offensive, then tell us. We can take it. To emphasize: Game developers have a tremendous level of respect for gaming sites like RPS. We trust you. Your candid article is great thing. I wish it had come out 3 weeks ago before the well was poisoned by a dozen+ “gamers are losers” articles.
Well, you still won’t engage the other side of the debate. Why isn’t that represented on RPS?
Because we are this side. Our own side. The chaotic nature of this debate, and the way it has been pursued, make things very difficult for us, but we’re doing our best to address some of it in this article. We already believe that we behave ethically, and don’t yet see anything that requires changing. If the current line up of issues could be separated from the abuse – as it clearly can and should be – then perhaps there would be something more concrete and useful to go on. Until that time, we can only present our editorial policy, and our philosophy towards writing about games, in response to the questions we have been asked.
We’re against sexism, we support feminist arguments of various kinds. We encourage you to disagree with these arguments, but we are not obliged to disagree with them ourselves, or to publish arguments attacking them at any level of vehemence. We do not have to present anyone else’s argument. RPS is a curated space, privately owned by individuals. It is our own website, which we use to say the things we want to say. That is bias, and we are completely happy to accept that. We are not objective robots, or a corporation trying to be “neutral”, and wouldn’t want to be. Yes, we invite some discussion, but we also get to police that, and decide when enough is enough. We have a huge platform with millions of people reading it. There are many things we just don’t want posted on our site, because this site is not for them to promote themselves. In 2014 people of all kinds have all manner of platforms to work from, they don’t need this one, and we’re certainly not obliged to allow free reign in using it.
This was my favorite part of the article because, to me, it represents the most earnest, honest part of the discussion. This would have been a great statement for the gaming sites to make – 2 weeks ago.
If an RPS or Kotaku or Gamasutra wants to publicly acknowledge that they have an agenda to promote games and personalities based on their politics then how can anyone object to that? It’s their site.
At the same time, however, the gaming media will continue to decline, and make no mistake, it is declining, if the readership continues to lose trust in the objectivity of the site. If a gamer is just interested in finding fun games, they’re going to be disinclined to visit sites that determine their coverage based on their politics rather than any sense of objective merit. That isn't the same as saying they should/need to be "neutral". Write interesting things and people will come.
I read RPS every day. I expect I’ll continue to read RPS every day as long as the stories and content are things I’m interested in. They’re under no obligation to cover things I’m interested in. If they switched their coverage to focusing on handheld games, I’d probably stop reading it just as if they started bombarding me with articles telling me I’m a misogynist because I like Grand Theft Auto. That’s how the free market works and I say good for them.
I really don't like the "everyone is doing it, why are you picking on me" argument. If gaming wants people to stop calling them misogynistic, we have to better at addressing the issues. While it has gotten much better, there is still a way to go.
I think the actions of a vocal minority (that is tolerated) is more hurtful than generalizations.
AdeptSister wrote: I really don't like the "everyone is doing it, why are you picking on me" argument. If gaming wants people to stop calling them misogynistic, we have to better at addressing the issues. While it has gotten much better, there is still a way to go.
I think the actions of a vocal minority (that is tolerated) is more hurtful than generalizations.
While the majority of games journalists are attacking gamers O.o
That small minority though of gamers who are actually dicks, are being reported and dealt with on our side.
I've been seeing it. Basically everyone is applying peer pressure into the entire thing to stop certain groups of gamers from being dicks.
AdeptSister wrote: I really don't like the "everyone is doing it, why are you picking on me" argument. If gaming wants people to stop calling them misogynistic, we have to better at addressing the issues. While it has gotten much better, there is still a way to go.
I think the actions of a vocal minority (that is tolerated) is more hurtful than generalizations.
They're not the gamers issues to address.
The developers make "misogynistic games", the game media say this game is awesome you should play because the developers paid them to say it.
the game media then calls all gamers, every last one of them, including you misogynistic.
the issue is the corruption in journalism, and instead of them addressing their corruption, they try to distract away from the issue with libel against the gamers.
Ah, the "fighting stereotypes and overcoming adversity" narrative.
I have a question based on that telegraph article. I don't think it's actually been asked in this way yet in the thread: Do people find the idea of someone fething someone for favors (when they operate under the public assumption of lack of a bias) more repugnant than someone paying someone for favors (when they operate under the public assumption of lack of a bias)?
Ah, the "fighting stereotypes and overcoming adversity" narrative.
I have a question based on that telegraph article. I don't think it's actually been asked in this way yet in the thread: Do people find the idea of someone fething someone for favors (when they operate under the public assumption of lack of a bias) more repugnant than someone paying someone for favors (when they operate under the public assumption of lack of a bias)?
I think paying for favors is kind of worse.
And are the ones which can be properly executed as bad.
I read this article. I clicked on a link of this article. I arrived on another article on the same website by the same author. And there, I had the great pleasure to read this:
So ignore the shoddy, opportunistic posturing from feminists about Rodger’s crimes. It’s the blurring of fantasy and reality in today’s video game-obsessed young men that’s the real enemy. If there’s a cultural milieu that contributed to the creation of Elliot Rodger, it was that of nihilistic video games, not the myth of patriarchal oppression.
Asherian Command wrote: You read the whole article right? Its still crying out and saying the majority of people are misogynistic.
No. It does give Quinn more screen time (well, paper time?) than other people, but it does give some Gamergates people the occasion to express themselves. The article include Quinn herself saying some people involved in Gamergates are not misogynists. What else would you have wanted? That they only gave your side of the argument the occasion to speak out?
(Also, in case you missed it, I added something tasty in my previous message about Milo Yiannopoulos, and how video games turns people into killer .
Asherian Command wrote: You read the whole article right? Its still crying out and saying the majority of people are misogynistic.
No. It does give Quinn more screen time (well, paper time?) than other people, but it does give some Gamergates people the occasion to express themselves. The article include Quinn herself saying some people involved in Gamergates are not misogynists. What else would you have wanted? That they only gave your side of the argument the occasion to speak out?
(Also, in case you missed it, I added something tasty in my previous message about Milo Yiannopoulos, and how video games turns people into killer .
I didn't say it was a great article. I said it was a good article.
Good for you. I would personally take the guy that says video games make people misogynists rather than the guy which says it makes people heartless killers, but fair enough!
Good for you. I would personally take the guy that says video games make people misogynists rather than the guy which says it makes people heartless killers, but fair enough!
See if we did your line of thinking then I would believe anyone in the news ^.^
I judge the article for its own merits not for its past bits. But if it has a hidden agenda and has an underlying bias you bet I will get angry at the writer.
Good for you. I would personally take the guy that says video games make people misogynists rather than the guy which says it makes people heartless killers, but fair enough!
Good for you. I would personally take the guy that says video games make people misogynists rather than the guy which says it makes people heartless killers, but fair enough!
Why take either?
I don't. I just posted the article, thought it was an interesting read. I thought of it as more of a step forward than a step backward.
Today I sat down with the people behind the Fine Young Capitalists to talk about what they stand for, their recent project to get games created by women into the market place, and their involvement with controversial figure, Zoe Quinn.
Their most recent project has been a contest in which women submitted ideas for games. The winner, who is being voted on right now from five possible candidates, will have their game made and released to the public.
APGNation: Firstly, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions today. Our staff and readers really appreciate it. To begin, why don’t you tell our readers at home who may not be familiar with your organization what you do and what inspired everyone involved to start the project in the first place?
The Fine Young Capitalists: The Fine Young Capitalists’ mission is to create media using underrepresented labor, for unexplored demographics to fund non-profit organizations. Thereby “Creating the means for the production.” In simpler terms, we are a loose group of artists and entrepreneurs who work with minorities to help them make video games, graphic novels, and videos. Our current project is to get women to design video games. In March, we did an open call where any woman could come up with an idea for a video game. We took the top 5 best ideas and had them work with concept artists to design their game. Those ideas are online and the internet is voting on the best one. If there is enough interest in the form of pre-orders through crowdfunding, we’ll work with the winning women to create her game, giving her a percentage of the profits with the rest going to charity. The majority of the woman who applied did not have the necessary skills or connections to make their game.
Our groups were inspired because we felt that many interesting stories weren’t being told. This was a combination of lack of interest from the business community and the financial difficulties of hiring experienced labor when starting out. We were also highly suspicious of projects that only focus on education. Running a two-week workshop on how to design a game is great for fun, but it takes years to learn the skills necessary to make a real game and months to develop a project for market. We really wanted to show the world a finished product that people would buy, as a way to inspire businesses to hire more women.
We also wanted the backers to understand that they were giving money because they thought the project would succeed. As such TFYC is set up so anyone that backs the project gets part of the profits from the game to give to charity. This was supposed to create the idea in the person’s mind that he was investing in a woman. As a radical feminist group it’s important for people to see women as creators of ideas that are financially viable. By creating this perception, it helps us to break down the patriarchy.
APGNation: Zoe Quinn was connected to the Fine Young Capitalists for a time. What role did she play in the grand scheme of things?
TFYC: We did not expect this question, but Zoe Quinn has probably been the largest problem to this production even before it existed.
On Feb 28th, Zoe Quinn found out about the production through one of her followers, @ObiCynKenobi. Zoe Quinn started “Zoe Then Proceeds To Bribe Us“asking questions about the production that we answered. She asked about why we thought women should work for free. We explained that the women got 8% of the profits from the game (Which in television is what a producer would take) as well getting all the art that was created for their pitch for free. Zoe also asked about our Trans policy, which is here (http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/TransgenderPolicy). She had a specific problem with us policing people transition points. We explained that the reason for this policy was to prevent men lying about their identity (You have to identify as a woman publicly before the start of the contest) to gain access and to make it more accessible to people without identification.
Zoe Quinn then began a twitter discussion, which can be seen here. But the major points is she DDoS’d our site, she called us exploitative, and her PR manager Maya Felix Kramer posted my Facebook information which Zoe replied to alerting her followers. Due to this, I received a death threat. My name, Matthew Rappard, does not appear on the current site or the previous site for TFYC. I would have preferred to be a silent partner. This twitter retweeting went on for almost 24 hours most of them calling us transphobic and exploitative.
TFYC is what we like to refer as a high-risk production. We were aware that there might be some blowback. We did not expect his level of blowback, specifically the claim of being transphobic. One business partner, not wanting the rest of his work to be referred to as transphobic, left the project. He was planning to contribute $10,000 dollars. This cost was covered by me.
We immediately delayed launching the site for a week while we addressed these issues making sure or transgender policy was correct (It was checked by another human rights lawyer) and we went over our monetary policies. They were all deemed fine.
After the launch, it became extremely difficult to engage with an audience, if you searched for our name, especially on twitter then you’d get a long“Kotaku’s Jason Schreier contacted us after our Indiegogo page got hacked on August 25“ series of comment about how exploitative we were. Because of the number of tweets and retweets these search results bled into google. More over the original twitter storm spread into many communities. We had difficulties engaging with video game design communities, inevitably being called scam artists and often our threads were closed without specific reasoning as to why.
We approached a journalist and got a response for Chloi Rad at Indiestatik who liked the project and did an interview. She went to GDC, and we assumed she would publish the article. We contacted her at GDC when we were having more twitter problems with another user, asking when she was going to publish the article. She said she would talk to Zoe Quinn while she was at GDC. Chloi Rad did not get back us for about a week. We were doing an AMA on reddit, which included drawings and we did a drawing of Chloi as a means of getting her attention. Chloi asked us to immediately remove her name/picture from the AMA and explained that Zoe had told her that the project was highly exploitative and that we were transphobic. She made it clear she didn’t want to be associated with us. All the issues Zoe had with the project were addressed in the interview. Chloi has never published the article.
An article is very important because it allows us to engage with social networks like Reddit (I.E. link to the article instead of our page) and the Chloi sentiment was repeated when Zoe was brought into the picture with other journalists. We contacted Zoe a total of 5 times before the start of the crowdfunding, 2 by phone and 2 by email, and one through Chloi. Before the crowdfunding portion started, we also sent Emails to Chloi and Maya Felix Kramer explaining we would not engage in crowd funding if they deemed the project exploitative, nether responded. One of Zoe’s email explained that we would hire her as a consultant on a project, it was not returned.
We were extremely worried about Zoe because of her experience in a GameJam, which she ended. We were seriously worried that a similar thing could happen to us.
Once we launched the project there was a thread about the Wizardchan Raid on reddit. We had done research on Zoe, and we were aware that Wizardchan had not raided her, and assumed it was common knowledge and posted to the thread what happened to us, expecting 10 upvotes. We also indicated that Rebel Jam, the Gamejam that Zoe had started after she ended the previous one, had no start date, or location, but was still taking donations going directly into her bank account.
That reddit thread was picked up by the Internet Aristocrat, and published online in one of his videos. Which is where the information became public and known by the internet community. We assumed at this time Zoe just didn’t understand the project and was covering.
Kotaku’s Jason Schreier contacted us after our Indiegogo page got hacked on Aug 25. At the time, we assumed Zoe had simply not understood the terms of our website, and asked to do an article on the facts of the issues explaining Zoe was confused and did not understand them. We wanted to set the record straight on what happened. That article was never published.
On the Aug 27, Zoe contacted us via email asking why we said she doxxed us. We explained that she had retweeted Maya’s doxxing information. Zoe explained that Maya was not associated with her (A point which goes against Maya’s webpage and the twitter conversation) and attempted to manipulate the situation, and blame it on Maya.
At the time, we felt that since PAX was such an important part of Zoe’s work life that we should make a statement on the situation. We asked for a phone call. Zoe wanted us to deny that she had doxxed us, we said we wouldn’t lie but would make a statement. Zoe then proceeded to bribe us by saying that she would speak about us at PAX if we made the statement. We didn’t take her up on the offer but said we’d make a statement which she’d approve. We also discussed helping with RebelJam/ Another GameJam, because we so much difficulty making contacts in the indie video game industry. She agreed to help us.
Over the course of the next day we worked with Zoe to create a document known as the Peace Treaty. Zoe was supposed to have signed it but at the last minute decided not to. We expected her to take some responsibility but on her Tumblr she simply said that she didn’t Doxx us, and that it was just because she got passionate.
On September 2 we contacted an interactive/television producer that worked on video games that was interested in helping Zoe with Rebel Jam and to provide funding for the project. Zoe did not respond to 3 emails and 1 text asking if she’d like to have a meeting with the producer. We felt extremely used at this point.
We have taken down the PeaceTalk document instead directing people to the statement.
We feel Zoe is extremely suspect as she has lied to us on every occasion, she has deliberately misrepresented information as well as openly bribed us to change our story. We strongly suggest people should be very careful when dealing with her.
APGNation: On the topic of the threats received by people like Zoe Quinn, what do you think makes some people believe that such threats are a legitimate form of protest or speech? What do you feel is the best way to work towards eliminating behavior such as this?
TFYC: Threat aren’t protected speech, period. And I feel they cloud the issue. As I’ve written in great length there are very good reasons to be critical of Zoe Quinn’s work. Honest criticism can not be expressed and explored fully when she’s receiving threats of violence.
I feel the best way to end such behavior would be to have an honest and open discussion in the press so that people understand the issues, and don’t just jump to conclusions. I find even on Internet discussions if you link to an article, that can deflate an angry argument. I feel that honestly, this isn’t happening. Not for reviews, not for stories, not for anything. Penny Arcade once made a statement that /r/games is like a portal into seeing what gaming news will be in 4 hours. Reddit is not a place for people to get stories, and writing a story in 4 hours based on unsubstantiated information isn’t real journalism.
I also feel people should really stop taunting their trolls, at the time of writing at least ⅓ of the top 20 post on Zoe’s twitter feed were taunts at 4chan and other internet trolls. It’s impossible to say this without sounding like you’re blaming the victim. But it’s difficult to consider her blameless when you pretend that saving a public IRC chat is hacking a site, or that people who have no rank control a group. I have never been able to successfully get 4chan to do anything. I’d be shocked if anyone else could with a degree of certainty. They came to us with a donation, the came to us with a character, we just said yes, we asked for nothing. Pretending that 4chan is one person, or that their members share a common opinion on any topic is just plain silly.
APGNation: What are your feelings on Depression Quest?
TFYC: I feel that it is a game which some people feel a deep connection with. I do not, in the same way I did not like Dear Esther, or the newest Madden. It just wasn’t my type of game the last time I played it. That being said it is nether a technological marvel or a good indication of the average of design skills of a woman. Since the game is browser-based arguably Steam is a more cumbersome way to interact with it. And since Steam is taking a percentage of any donations received through it’s E-Store, it would have lower transaction costs in the browser. It is a strange game to have made it through Greenlight. But there are worst games that have made it through and better ones that have not.
APGNation: One of your stated goals is to get more women into various aspects of the gaming community. What advice do you have for women who want to develop their own games or write about games, but may be intimidated by certain aspects of the culture? Also, for gamers in general, what advice would you have for people who want to help put a better face forward for the community?
TFYC: The first point to understand is that woman in no way lack the skill, or physical ability to write code, or develop games. Per Capita women are more likely to be on Dean’s List in computer science than men, a woman invented the first computer programming language, and they show no less aptitude in problem solving or art. We assume most of the lack of interest comes from socialization and not a lack of desire or skill.
We find that men really just need to make people aware that they support women. One of the nicest things about TFYC is that it was all about thewomen in gaming Truth In Gaming: An Interview with The Fine Young Capitalists games, and we’d take the money from anyone. People who didn’t like feminism for some reason weren’t punished if they joined and could actively support women. We find even just saying hello to a new member of a gaming group, regardless of gender, makes them feel more welcome. These small steps help to make groups more inclusive and are just general courtesies.
We find that while the informal culture for video games can be difficult at times, the formal culture is very supportive. In Toronto groups like Hackernest will give our free passes to their events to women, and they are often giving preferential treatment at events. We suggest woman exploit these systems to make as many contacts as possible so they can find the right person to work with. We then suggest that they focus on presenting their idea over to themselves. Women tend to be viewed/judged on who they are and not what they can do. Because so much of computer science is through pseudonyms this can negatively affect women’s ability to succeed if they focus only on themselves. By focusing on ideas that are presented well, your gender can be removed from the equation
APGNation: Do you think that the depiction of women in games needs to change, and, if so, how? Also, do any of you have a favorite female video game character that you feel is particularly well executed?
TFYC: We feel that additional women working in the industry will create new games, which will allow for new characters. Video games actually have a rich tradition of strong female characters, especially in JRPGs. Even Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider is executed quite well, and much better than she was before. We feel that games like Grand Theft Auto with it’s particular brand of humor overshadows the good work that is done. We don’t feel like people should stop making Grand Theft Auto but we do feel that women should be able to design more female orientated games with their own characters that they may feel are empowered, but might not resonate with men. We also feel that woman should add their own characters to the existing genres to make it more inclusive.
APGNation: There have been many accusations of misogyny leveled against the gaming community as of late. How much truth do you think there is to those claims?
TFYC: I can reference Bell Hook here.
Emotional neglect lays the groundwork for the emotional numbing “This Corruption Is Always A Real Concern“that helps boys feel better about being cut off. Eruptions of rage in boys are most often deemed normal, explained by the age-old justification for adolescent patriarchal misbehavior, “Boys will be boys.” Patriarchy both creates the rage in boys and then contains it for later use, making it a resource to exploit later on as boys, become men. – The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love
With all the focus on female characters and female representation, the media has completely ignored male representation in gaming and its audience. In reality the average male gamer is over 30 now, many have daughters, wives or girlfriends. I don’t think people that lead these normal lives are misogynists. But I think a vocal minority feel they are not being represented and don’t have words to explain their problems. This confusion is expressed mostly as anger at everything. At game journalists, at women in the industry, at everyone.
I really feel more discussion of representation that address both genders would lower some of this anger. It would not completely remove it, but could help in the long run.
APGNation: On the other side of things, many gamers are speaking out about gaming news sites doing “feminist” news pieces. Do you think there is any legitimate concern here?
TFYC: I don’t feel that the issue has been with feminist pieces, I feel the issue was with Clickbait pieces. Articles that were poorly researched and meant to cause anger in the reader. I feel that there is very little real discussion of feminism in games. Simply a lot of finger pointing aimed at the male demographic. I feel that if a publication was to do a longer column that explores gender in depth, and provide a balanced viewpoint, it would be very well received by both genders, as our videos have. But I also feel that Clickbait probably generates the same revenue with much less effort.
APGNation: 4Chan recently donated quite a bit of money to your campaign over at Indiegogo. Was it surprising to get so much support from them, and what was the response from your team to the donation at the time?
TFYC: 4chan was swept rather unfairly into the Zoe Quinn thing. Their moderators actually engaged in a similar purging of information as many other sites had, but got relaxed faster than reddit did. 4chan is a collection of users with different drives and emotions. They are often used as a tool to spread information anonymously by users that don’t frequent the page.
Because so much information was being posted by Zoe Quinn on 4chan our name was mentioned due to the reddit leak. As such we started to receive donations from 4chan. For two days in a row they were the top donator to TFYC and I decided to Tweet out a thanks before going to bed. The Tweet was retweeted hundreds of times. When I awoke, I had received a letter to media@thefineyoungcapitalists.com, explaining that 4chan shouldn’t donate to women’s projects. I wrote a response on twitter saying that /v/’s love of games transcended gender barriers and that they were welcome. This resonated with /v/ and they asked if they could get a referral link and pool their money to reach the most expensive perk, which was to be a Logo in the game. We said yes and over the next couple weeks /v/ managed to raise over $22,000 through their referral link. This easily awarded them with their Logo which will appear before the front of the game. It’s important to understand that 4chan corporate isn’t affiliated with the project, so the community at /v/ took the time to design their own logo, which we are still voting on.
I was surprised that 4chan was so interested in the project. To this day we receive more referral traffic from 4chan than any other page. We feel this project resonated with /v/ because it’s so game focused and we treat them with respect. When /v/ designed Vivian James and asked if she could be placed into the game, we said yes because we liked the character. Because 4chan raised so much money we wanted to reward them. So we asked them what they’d like our next video to be about. They said female developers and as such we’ve covered three female developers and will probably cover at least 2 more by the end of the contest.
APGNation: The integrity of gaming journalism has come under fire recently. Is this a real concern, or something thrown out to distract people from other issues?
TFYC: Like movies, video games spend tens of millions of dollars on marketing. To pretend that this money doesn’t affect what is covered and by who is ludicrous. This corruption is always a real concern, and gaining the trust back of the audience is nearly impossible.
I do feel many of the policies being adopted by the Escapist, and other magazines in regard to Kickstarter and Patreon are actually good starting points to lowering the fears that people had. That being said, I feel most journalists are just trying to tell good stories and get paid properly. I feel that the majority of “corruption” is in reality “confusion” between parties.
Giant Bomb was created not out of the direct action of a publisher, but confusion internally at GameSpot, and certain producers overstepping their bounds to layoff reviewers. The lesson there was that people too often jump to the conclusion before coming to facts. However, many of the scandals that having been coming out in the last couple weeks do need to be addressed fairly. And steps should be taken so they don’t happen in the future.
APGNation: Do you think that gaming news sites will change if gamers begin to boycott those they feel are not ethical or reliable?
TFYC: I feel any site that can not maintain an audience is doomed to fail.
APGNation: What does the future hold for the Fine Young Capitalists? Do you have any projects down the pipeline besides those already in the works?
TFYC: We are still working on SNless which is a graphic novel project. Based around getting more people who self-identify as Black into the science fiction. Anyone that self-identifies as Black can create a character for the world. We’ll take the top 20 and work with the creators to design the character. The Internet will choose the top 5 characters and we’ll work with the author to create a graphic novel with the character. I like the idea, but it’s difficult to determine if it will be a succeed or not, at the moment.
APGNation: Of the projects you’ve worked on in the past, which has been your favorite?
TFYC: I’m still a money guy at heart. Unfortunately, my favorite projects are the ones where I work the least and get paid the most. I am not getting paid for TFYC, but my favorite project was one where I did almost nothing, got paid, and used the money to create a graphic novel with a friend.
APGNation: Thank you for your time, before we go though, do you have any parting words you’d like to share with our readers?
TFYC: The point of TFYC was to show that woman had good ideas and that men support them. People often forget the second part. To every guy out there that supported us, thank for showing that so many men actually care about women’s issues. For the women that are just hearing about the contest, remember that we want you making games just as much you do.
So there you have it. Another voice in the ongoing dialogue in the gaming community on gender, game journalism, and what we gamers can do to make our hobby more accessible to a wider audience. If you would like to know more about the Fine Young Capitalists and their recent contest to produce a game based on ideas pitched exclusively by women, you can visit them at their website here.
As always, we at APGNation strive to bring our readers the finest in gaming news and content, just like this interview. So if you want to see more in the future, make sure to follow us on Twitter @APGNation so you’ll always be up to date and informed! Support us by sharing on social media, any article you read and liked! If you’re a gamer and want to make a difference, then come and write for us! Send an E-Mail to info@APGNation.com and you could join our team!
S/N
We’ve reached out to Miss Quinn via Twitter for an interview but, as of press, we have not heard back from her.
for those confused about the issue.
I will leave this here
This will hopefully help those who are new to the argument understand it.
Slarg232 wrote: The problem with games like Depression Quest is that they don't actually raise awareness, especially when built like Depression Quest; People whom aren't aware aren't going to play it, people whom are don't need the messege, and no one is going to slog through text.
Basically.
I mean you can't just tack on a story to a depressive situation. You need to first tell a story. And it is up to the person to find out through the emotions of the character, through their actions, through their words, to figure out what depression is like.
Using vivid imagery, using things that happen. I think the biggest argument I have against the game is that it feels disconnected.
Not sure I agree; a good type of game for getting Depression across would be to have a bright and colorful world, with the main character falling down a giant pit. At the bottom, there is no color, no sound, no nothing. As you start to climb up, colors and sounds start to come back.... until a platform suddenly falls out from under your feet and you go crashing back down to the bottom, only to start climbing back up again. Have that happen enough times to seriously annoy the player, but not enough to where it becomes unplayable. When they finally get to the top, all the color and sound is restored and let the message show; "What you just experianced was a battle with depression."
Those who ragequit because they kept getting dropped down to the bottom lost that battle. As someone who fought depression in my High School years, I can say (While not for everyone) that any tiny thing can send you hurtling back into it, even as your struggling to get over depression.
There is a link, inside this article, sending the reader to the other article.
It is here:
Sometimes, we'll line up. Your enemies will be my enemies. I can't think of anything more awful than a humourless, dishonest, disreputable clique of single-issue campaigners turning indie games into boring social justice vehicles. Other times, you may want to give me a slap. Sometimes we may be in near-total agreement.
Click on the link in “near-total agreement.”
I think the link is part of the articles “merit”, and it is not very good.
Slarg232 wrote: The problem with games like Depression Quest is that they don't actually raise awareness, especially when built like Depression Quest; People whom aren't aware aren't going to play it, people whom are don't need the messege, and no one is going to slog through text.
Basically.
I mean you can't just tack on a story to a depressive situation. You need to first tell a story. And it is up to the person to find out through the emotions of the character, through their actions, through their words, to figure out what depression is like.
Using vivid imagery, using things that happen. I think the biggest argument I have against the game is that it feels disconnected.
Not sure I agree; a good type of game for getting Depression across would be to have a bright and colorful world, with the main character falling down a giant pit. At the bottom, there is no color, no sound, no nothing. As you start to climb up, colors and sounds start to come back.... until a platform suddenly falls out from under your feet and you go crashing back down to the bottom, only to start climbing back up again. Have that happen enough times to seriously annoy the player, but not enough to where it becomes unplayable. When they finally get to the top, all the color and sound is restored and let the message show; "What you just experianced was a battle with depression."
Those who ragequit because they kept getting dropped down to the bottom lost that battle. As someone who fought depression in my High School years, I can say (While not for everyone) that any tiny thing can send you hurtling back into it, even as your struggling to get over depression.
I think thats what I meant by vivid imagery. I mean you can have bright colorful, but somehow it feels empty. Somehow there is nothing there. It may be happy, but everywhere you go the flowers close up and the world becomes gray. Everywhere you go everything becomes darker. And finally you collopase down a hole, and you hit the bottom, the world is devoid of all life again, but there are no colors, just colors of gray,
The world is dead around you. But you climb out again. And start it all over again.
And sometimes it changes sometimes you see vibrant colors and sometimes you feel the winds blow and the world is sunny and bright, but then you trip on a root and fall down that hole once again. This time worse than before, with creatures stalking you throughout the world.
It would really add to that idea you currently have.
Having color would add something, but everywhere you go, it disappears, but you can see those colors but everytime you get close to a flower or something alive, it burns into ashes.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have to say this is a rather interesting experience for me. I've never been generalized before. I think of myself as an equlitist (one who wants quality for everyone) and this is obviously searching for something to be mad about to make some money. There is not more misogyny in games than there is anywhere else.
True, but is that the gamers fault? Or the culture's fault? Or the designers fault? I mean we have been seeing less and less of it over the years.
by the way Equalitists don't exist, Egalitarianism I think is what you are going for.
The generalization is hurting the community. Pretty bad.
It is not, it is society's fault. But it is changing. The gaming community did use to be mostly white men, but not any more. It is getting much more diverse. And so s\are the games. The gamers of today are the designers of tomorrow. And if they are diverse, the games will be.
Egalitarianism may be waht I am looking for, I just made up equalist of the top of my head (femanist, one who fights of women's rights, go from there ). Perhaps 'Omnist' would work better, although omnism is a DW religion, so that might be confusing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have to say this is a rather interesting experience for me. I've never been generalized before. I think of myself as an equlitist (one who wants quality for everyone) and this is obviously searching for something to be mad about to make some money. There is not more misogyny in games than there is anywhere else.
True, but is that the gamers fault? Or the culture's fault? Or the designers fault? I mean we have been seeing less and less of it over the years.
by the way Equalitists don't exist, Egalitarianism I think is what you are going for.
The generalization is hurting the community. Pretty bad.
It is not, it is society's fault. But it is changing. The gaming community did use to be mostly white men, but not any more. It is getting much more diverse. And so s\are the games. The gamers of today are the designers of tomorrow. And if they are diverse, the games will be.
Egalitarianism may be waht I am looking for, I just made up equalist of the top of my head (femanist, one who fights of women's rights, go from there ). Perhaps 'Omnist' would work better, although omnism is a DW religion, so that might be confusing.
I think the major problem in getting into game design is how depressive it is. I mean the entire game design scene is extremely hard to break into.
Its pretty damn hard. We have to study multiple subjects. How many jobs require you to have a mastery of mathematics, animation, art, programming, learning languages, critical thinking, and creative expression all in one box?
Very few do. I can say this as a student of game design that it is a lot harder to get your feet on the ground in the industry than any other.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have to say this is a rather interesting experience for me. I've never been generalized before. I think of myself as an equlitist (one who wants quality for everyone) and this is obviously searching for something to be mad about to make some money. There is not more misogyny in games than there is anywhere else.
True, but is that the gamers fault? Or the culture's fault? Or the designers fault? I mean we have been seeing less and less of it over the years.
by the way Equalitists don't exist, Egalitarianism I think is what you are going for.
The generalization is hurting the community. Pretty bad.
It is not, it is society's fault. But it is changing. The gaming community did use to be mostly white men, but not any more. It is getting much more diverse. And so s\are the games. The gamers of today are the designers of tomorrow. And if they are diverse, the games will be.
Egalitarianism may be waht I am looking for, I just made up equalist of the top of my head (femanist, one who fights of women's rights, go from there ). Perhaps 'Omnist' would work better, although omnism is a DW religion, so that might be confusing.
I think the major problem in getting into game design is how depressive it is. I mean the entire game design scene is extremely hard to break into.
Its pretty damn hard. We have to study multiple subjects. How many jobs require you to have a mastery of mathematics, animation, art, programming, learning languages, critical thinking, and creative expression all in one box?
Very few do. I can say this as a student of game design that it is a lot harder to get your feet on the ground in the industry than any other.
It does seem that way from what I have looked at. I'm going to college for a CS degree (and would love to get into the industry), but it seems that I should keep my day job, as it were.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I have to say this is a rather interesting experience for me. I've never been generalized before. I think of myself as an equlitist (one who wants quality for everyone) and this is obviously searching for something to be mad about to make some money. There is not more misogyny in games than there is anywhere else.
True, but is that the gamers fault? Or the culture's fault? Or the designers fault? I mean we have been seeing less and less of it over the years.
by the way Equalitists don't exist, Egalitarianism I think is what you are going for.
The generalization is hurting the community. Pretty bad.
It is not, it is society's fault. But it is changing. The gaming community did use to be mostly white men, but not any more. It is getting much more diverse. And so s\are the games. The gamers of today are the designers of tomorrow. And if they are diverse, the games will be.
Egalitarianism may be waht I am looking for, I just made up equalist of the top of my head (femanist, one who fights of women's rights, go from there ). Perhaps 'Omnist' would work better, although omnism is a DW religion, so that might be confusing.
I think the major problem in getting into game design is how depressive it is. I mean the entire game design scene is extremely hard to break into.
Its pretty damn hard. We have to study multiple subjects. How many jobs require you to have a mastery of mathematics, animation, art, programming, learning languages, critical thinking, and creative expression all in one box?
Very few do. I can say this as a student of game design that it is a lot harder to get your feet on the ground in the industry than any other.
It does seem that way from what I have looked at. I'm going to college for a CS degree (and would love to get into the industry), but it seems that I should keep my day job, as it were.
But to be honest, in this industry its who you know, and what you can do. If you have a single game idea, they won't care. but if you have hundreds of thousands of ideas. They might take, if you can program, write, and animate, and have made a game. You will get hired faster than you would think.
Good for you. I would personally take the guy that says video games make people misogynists rather than the guy which says it makes people heartless killers, but fair enough!
Why take either?
I don't. I just posted the article, thought it was an interesting read. I thought of it as more of a step forward than a step backward.
Today I sat down with the people behind the Fine Young Capitalists to talk about what they stand for, their recent project to get games created by women into the market place, and their involvement with controversial figure, Zoe Quinn.
.
for those confused about the issue.
I will leave this here
]
This will hopefully help those who are new to the argument understand it.
Sorry. I was replying to that one post in the thread. I know that the major issue discussed here was corruption, but the casual dismissal of misogyny in gaming culture was irritating.
AdeptSister wrote: Sorry. I was replying to that one post in the thread. I know that the major issue discussed here was corruption, but the casual dismissal of misogyny in gaming culture was irritating.
I am not saying it doesn't happen. I mean its common, but not all gamers are like that. The main part I think is that it happens from certain people who are sort of bigotted and only want to hurt other people.
That happens. Its the internet, you will find that one person who is crazy and wants to hurt people.
Which I feel that the acceptance of "it's the Internet" is self-defeating. I mean it is changing, right? Just because bullying happens, doesn't mean we have to accept it.
AdeptSister wrote: Which I feel that the acceptance of "it's the Internet" is self-defeating. I mean it is changing, right? Just because bullying happens, doesn't mean we have to accept it.
Agreed. It is changing though, those minorities are being thrown out as just idiots.
If you listen to that minority you are giving them recognition. If we ignore them or we decry them and say you can't do that. Then they will stop. If we give them attention then they will thrive on it.
That is the problem. Zoe Quinn and many others are only breeding it further, and intoxicating them with more attention.
But i think its more about consumers wanting to see less hype pieces and less about pushing a certain agenda. We want journalism that is unbiased, and transparent. we want them to disclaim their biases and tell us if they have personal relationships with who and who.
They cannot veil themselves in secrecy.
They cannot decry and generalize an entire population.
Asherian Command wrote: But i think its more about consumers wanting to see less hype pieces and less about pushing a certain agenda.
So, you want less opinion, and more… what exactly?
Asherian Command wrote: We want journalism that is unbiased, and transparent. we want them to disclaim their biases and tell us if they have personal relationships with who and who.
Apparently everyone knows everyone, so just expect all of them to have personal relationships with everyone else.
Asherian Command wrote: But i think its more about consumers wanting to see less hype pieces and less about pushing a certain agenda.
So, you want less opinion, and more… what exactly?
Asherian Command wrote: We want journalism that is unbiased, and transparent. we want them to disclaim their biases and tell us if they have personal relationships with who and who.
Apparently everyone knows everyone, so just expect all of them to have personal relationships with everyone else.
No not less opinion, but currently the hidden agenda is advertising for the game,
Your last comment makes no sense. I am saying they need to disclose their personal relationship in the article if they have one with the designer or person who made the game. You can make good press releases but you must disclose yur personal relationships.
Asherian Command wrote: But i think its more about consumers wanting to see less hype pieces and less about pushing a certain agenda.
So, you want less opinion, and more… what exactly?
Asherian Command wrote: We want journalism that is unbiased, and transparent. we want them to disclaim their biases and tell us if they have personal relationships with who and who.
Apparently everyone knows everyone, so just expect all of them to have personal relationships with everyone else.
There is no way to get rid of all Opinion, but more "I think this game was great because X" and less "This Game has Scantily Clad Character so is Inherently Bad" would be nice:
It's bizarre and disheartening that Grasshopper Manufacture's most approachable, refined, and charming game yet is so stuck in such disconcerting subject matter, so little of which is pertinent to Lollipop Chainsaw's gameplay, story, or characters. While Shadows of the Damned dealt with some similar themes in a darker story, it never dove into the weird misogyny and exploitation that Lollipop Chainsaw does.
Misogyny and Exploitation right there, in the review. They gave the game a 65, which while I'm not saying LC is the best game evar, most companies use anything below a 70 as "Don't play this".
That was in Polygon's review of Lollipop Chainsaw. Now, I'm no expert, but I don't think we can really expect a game about a cheerleader slaughtering Zombies with a chainsaw while her boyfriends decapitated head is cracking jokes while tied up to her belt as a game that's going to treat ANYTHING seriously.
Asherian Command wrote: But i think its more about consumers wanting to see less hype pieces and less about pushing a certain agenda.
So, you want less opinion, and more… what exactly?
Asherian Command wrote: We want journalism that is unbiased, and transparent. we want them to disclaim their biases and tell us if they have personal relationships with who and who.
Apparently everyone knows everyone, so just expect all of them to have personal relationships with everyone else.
There is no way to get rid of all Opinion, but more "I think this game was great because X" and less "This Game has Scantily Clad Character so is Inherently Bad" would be nice:
It's bizarre and disheartening that Grasshopper Manufacture's most approachable, refined, and charming game yet is so stuck in such disconcerting subject matter, so little of which is pertinent to Lollipop Chainsaw's gameplay, story, or characters. While Shadows of the Damned dealt with some similar themes in a darker story, it never dove into the weird misogyny and exploitation that Lollipop Chainsaw does.
Misogyny and Exploitation right there, in the review. They gave the game a 65, which while I'm not saying LC is the best game evar, most companies use anything below a 70 as "Don't play this".
To illustrate that point as well.
A review of Spec Ops: The Line.
9 Presentation Story takes precedent over everything in Spec Ops, which the smart pacing and writing emphasize. 8 Graphics Great lighting and attention to detail save Spec Ops from its texture loading issues and unimpressive particle effects. 7 Sound Music plays an important atmospheric role, and the voice acting creates genuine and believable characters. 7 Gameplay Control and cover problems hurt an already standard shooter, but the intelligent encounters and level design make each fight exciting. 7 Lasting Appeal Multiplayer's a wash, but the campaign is worth replaying -- seeing the same events while knowing what's really going on is uncomfortable in new ways.
Yes you read that right they docked points for not having good multiplayer.
I don't think you should get rid of points only because they multiplayer is not that good. You should rate a game soley on mechanics, story, sound, and gameplay. You don't need to dock points because of its extras.
Because other wise I would dock points from games like super mario brothers for not having COOP options. or multiplayer modes.
They rate games and hate it if it has certain things in it like skimpy outfits. They go nuts. And ignore the game think its terrible because of that.
I mean some games are pretty terrible, and they can be right.
Wow Forbes way to be informative and journalistic in nature.
I mean it can happen.
because currently reviewers jump on a band wagon, and do not analyze a game and critic it. They just praise it all the bloody time. If a game is perfect is perfect, I mean the flaws that were pointed out in the IGN article were flaws that I saw as well.
But I think there should be less a rating system, and more of a recommendation. I like this game, So I recommend it.
Its something that should happen, because assigning points to an art form really doesn't help.
Asherian Command wrote: But i think its more about consumers wanting to see less hype pieces and less about pushing a certain agenda.
So, you want less opinion, and more… what exactly?
Asherian Command wrote: We want journalism that is unbiased, and transparent. we want them to disclaim their biases and tell us if they have personal relationships with who and who.
Apparently everyone knows everyone, so just expect all of them to have personal relationships with everyone else.
There is no way to get rid of all Opinion, but more "I think this game was great because X" and less "This Game has Scantily Clad Character so is Inherently Bad" would be nice:
It's bizarre and disheartening that Grasshopper Manufacture's most approachable, refined, and charming game yet is so stuck in such disconcerting subject matter, so little of which is pertinent to Lollipop Chainsaw's gameplay, story, or characters. While Shadows of the Damned dealt with some similar themes in a darker story, it never dove into the weird misogyny and exploitation that Lollipop Chainsaw does.
Misogyny and Exploitation right there, in the review. They gave the game a 65, which while I'm not saying LC is the best game evar, most companies use anything below a 70 as "Don't play this".
To illustrate that point as well.
A review of Spec Ops: The Line.
9
Presentation
Story takes precedent over everything in Spec Ops, which the smart pacing and writing emphasize.
8
Graphics
Great lighting and attention to detail save Spec Ops from its texture loading issues and unimpressive particle effects.
7
Sound
Music plays an important atmospheric role, and the voice acting creates genuine and believable characters.
7
Gameplay
Control and cover problems hurt an already standard shooter, but the intelligent encounters and level design make each fight exciting.
7
Lasting Appeal
Multiplayer's a wash, but the campaign is worth replaying -- seeing the same events while knowing what's really going on is uncomfortable in new ways.
Yes you read that right they docked points for not having good multiplayer.
I don't think you should get rid of points only because they multiplayer is not that good. You should rate a game soley on mechanics, story, sound, and gameplay. You don't need to dock points because of its extras.
Because other wise I would dock points from games like super mario brothers for not having COOP options. or multiplayer modes.
They rate games and hate it if it has certain things in it like skimpy outfits. They go nuts. And ignore the game think its terrible because of that.
I mean some games are pretty terrible, and they can be right.
Also, look at a game like Dust, an Elysian Tail; it's a standardish Metroidvania style game. Using a five-is-medium scale system, I don't think it really deserves a 10, but a 8-9 would be good. However, it lacks New Game+ or Boss Rush modes, which are sorely disappointing at not being in there. Does it make it a worse game for not having one?
Not really, because does Call of Duty not having Halo's Forge game mode make CoD bad? No, CoD is bad solely because CoD is bad.
I completely agree. The entire issue remains that the media has to stop expecting certain things. You can rate minecraft and call it the worst game ever because of its graphics or its sounds.
You can't do that.
You can't compare it to the norm.
Should there be a quality type that must be acquired? Yes. There should be but, that doesn't mean though that a game is worse because of it.
If a game is reptitive or its mechanics work against the game then say that happens.
Report, look at it.
If an extra content was not provided do not complain about it.
Wow Forbes way to be informative and journalistic in nature.
I mean it can happen.
I actually thought this was sarcasm until I read the article. - It actually is a pretty darn good article that covers all the major points.
Only thing that I'd be a bit critical about it, is it could do with looking at the relative numbers involved somehow. - I don't think it mentioned 'notyourshield' either.
Wow Forbes way to be informative and journalistic in nature.
I mean it can happen.
I actually thought this was sarcasm until I read the article. - It actually is a pretty darn good article that covers all the major points.
Only thing that I'd be a bit critical about it, is it could do with looking at the relative numbers involved somehow. - I don't think it mentioned 'notyourshield' either.
I know right I thought at first. Oh boy here we go.
The Bad... darn article reminds me that with so much garbage being spewed out there that people worthy of criticism can point to all the nasty stuff thrown at them and can rightly say "I am not deserving of this!!!" the real "NotYourShield" should be the haters out there being used to dismiss legitimate rational criticism.
The extremely Ugly... did many searches to try to confirm or deny this, still having a problem nailing it down... but isn't that a statement to make complete strangers dislike you in an instant?
Looking at the reaction of the "journalists" more so than Zoe, they are acting like people used to being on top of the world and they are trying to put those who put them there "in their place". Nasty stuff.
The Bad... darn article reminds me that with so much garbage being spewed out there that people worthy of criticism can point to all the nasty stuff thrown at them and can rightly say "I am not deserving of this!!!" the real "NotYourShield" should be the haters out there being used to dismiss legitimate rational criticism.
The extremely Ugly... did many searches to try to confirm or deny this, still having a problem nailing it down... but isn't that a statement to make complete strangers dislike you in an instant?
Looking at the reaction of the "journalists" more so than Zoe, they are acting like people used to being on top of the world and they are trying to put those who put them there "in their place". Nasty stuff.
There a lot of mention of objectivity being difficult due to personal preferences, which is fair enough. But the issue is lack of objectivity due to financial and personal relationships between reviewers and people producing games. That is a bias that should be declared, or best avoided altogether. Apparently by not reviewing stuff made by someone you're sleeping with.
But I do have to say what happened to her was very unacceptable. But you can't blame the entire community for that. Blame the idiots that drove her out. Minus the fact one bit was that she sort of didn't disclose certain things.
I am currently talking with Daniel Floyd about the situation.
But i think its more about consumers wanting to see less hype pieces and less about pushing a certain agenda. We want journalism that is unbiased, and transparent. we want them to disclaim their biases and tell us if they have personal relationships with who and who.
They cannot veil themselves in secrecy.
They cannot decry and generalize an entire population.
The way I look at it is that game journalism should be like how dakka news and rumours is, its all about rumours, reviews and games negative and positive. That's it, its about games. Imagine if Suddenly SJWs came into warhammer and started complaining without the background or credentials or research. They would cherry pick whatever elements they need (IE Vects slave girls).
Slarg232 wrote: There is no way to get rid of all Opinion, but more "I think this game was great because X" and less "This Game has Scantily Clad Character so is Inherently Bad" would be nice:
So you want to get rid of that 0,5% so that you get more of that 99,5%? Right!
9
Presentation
Story takes precedent over everything in Spec Ops, which the smart pacing and writing emphasize.
8
Graphics
Great lighting and attention to detail save Spec Ops from its texture loading issues and unimpressive particle effects.
7
Sound
Music plays an important atmospheric role, and the voice acting creates genuine and believable characters.
7
Gameplay
Control and cover problems hurt an already standard shooter, but the intelligent encounters and level design make each fight exciting.
7
Lasting Appeal
Multiplayer's a wash, but the campaign is worth replaying -- seeing the same events while knowing what's really going on is uncomfortable in new ways.
Yes you read that right they docked points for not having good multiplayer.
I don't think you should get rid of points only because they multiplayer is not that good. You should rate a game soley on mechanics, story, sound, and gameplay. You don't need to dock points because of its extras.
Because other wise I would dock points from games like super mario brothers for not having COOP options. or multiplayer modes.
They rate games and hate it if it has certain things in it like skimpy outfits. They go nuts. And ignore the game think its terrible because of that.
I mean some games are pretty terrible, and they can be right.
I do not see the problem here. Unless someone is weird enough to rely on the notes without even looking at the explanation for them, they will know why the game got the mark and decide by themselves if this is something they care about or not.
Slarg232 wrote: There is no way to get rid of all Opinion, but more "I think this game was great because X" and less "This Game has Scantily Clad Character so is Inherently Bad" would be nice:
So you want to get rid of that 0,5% so that you get more of that 99,5%? Right!
9 Presentation Story takes precedent over everything in Spec Ops, which the smart pacing and writing emphasize. 8 Graphics Great lighting and attention to detail save Spec Ops from its texture loading issues and unimpressive particle effects. 7 Sound Music plays an important atmospheric role, and the voice acting creates genuine and believable characters. 7 Gameplay Control and cover problems hurt an already standard shooter, but the intelligent encounters and level design make each fight exciting. 7 Lasting Appeal Multiplayer's a wash, but the campaign is worth replaying -- seeing the same events while knowing what's really going on is uncomfortable in new ways.
Yes you read that right they docked points for not having good multiplayer.
I don't think you should get rid of points only because they multiplayer is not that good. You should rate a game soley on mechanics, story, sound, and gameplay. You don't need to dock points because of its extras.
Because other wise I would dock points from games like super mario brothers for not having COOP options. or multiplayer modes.
They rate games and hate it if it has certain things in it like skimpy outfits. They go nuts. And ignore the game think its terrible because of that.
I mean some games are pretty terrible, and they can be right.
I do not see the problem here. Unless someone is weird enough to rely on the notes without even looking at the explanation for them, they will know why the game got the mark and decide by themselves if this is something they care about or not.
They docked points specifically for the multiplayer. They thought it was worse because the multiplayer wasn't any good. That is my major issue.
The way I look at it is that game journalism should be like how dakka news and rumours is, its all about rumours, reviews and games negative and positive. That's it, its about games. Imagine if Suddenly SJWs came into warhammer and started complaining without the background or credentials or research. They would cherry pick whatever elements they need (IE Vects slave girls).
Completely agreed. They would tear GW a new one if they saw that.
But I don't think people would understand. ITs a grimdark future, where everyone is treated that way. But men are usually sacrificed or thrown into gladitorial rings. Which is worse, being forced to have sex? Or being forced and getting killed and or pain and suffering for the rest of your life? To be honest I would rather take death.
Asherian Command wrote: They docked points specifically for the multiplayer. They thought it was worse because the multiplayer wasn't any good. That is my major issue.
They rated what they called Lasting appeal, which is I guess what used to be call replayability, and to explain their grade, they said that while the multiplayer was not good enough to give the game points for replayability, something else was. Were they supposed to give the game the same amount of points for replayability without explaining that the multplayer was not very good, or were they supposed to give it more point for whatever reason?
Beside, you are way too hung up on notes, while really the text around it matters much more.
Mechanical Crow wrote: The way I look at it is that game journalism should be like how dakka news and rumours is, its all about rumours, reviews and games negative and positive. That's it, its about games. Imagine if Suddenly SJWs came into warhammer and started complaining without the background or credentials or research.
Even though I am pretty sure I know the background well enough to get the “credential and research”, I already did complain about some boob window on an illustration for the Inquisitor minidex in Dakka's Rumour section. It spawned some discussion that eventually was redirect to some thread in general. Do I count as a SJW?
Why did that make you sad? Personally, what made me sad about it is that it seems to reference anime rather than Terry Pratchett as the source of the expression wizard.
Asherian Command wrote: They docked points specifically for the multiplayer. They thought it was worse because the multiplayer wasn't any good. That is my major issue.
They rated what they called Lasting appeal, which is I guess what used to be call replayability, and to explain their grade, they said that while the multiplayer was not good enough to give the game points for replayability, something else was. Were they supposed to give the game the same amount of points for replayability without explaining that the multplayer was not very good, or were they supposed to give it more point for whatever reason?
Beside, you are way too hung up on notes, while really the text around it matters much more.
Mechanical Crow wrote: The way I look at it is that game journalism should be like how dakka news and rumours is, its all about rumours, reviews and games negative and positive. That's it, its about games. Imagine if Suddenly SJWs came into warhammer and started complaining without the background or credentials or research.
Even though I am pretty sure I know the background well enough to get the “credential and research”, I already did complain about some boob window on an illustration for the Inquisitor minidex in Dakka's Rumour section. It spawned some discussion that eventually was redirect to some thread in general. Do I count as a SJW?
Why did that make you sad? Personally, what made me sad about it is that it seems to reference anime rather than Terry Pratchett as the source of the expression wizard.
Wow you didn't see that the guy was calling them virigins and yelling at wizardchan?
But i think its more about consumers wanting to see less hype pieces and less about pushing a certain agenda. We want journalism that is unbiased, and transparent. we want them to disclaim their biases and tell us if they have personal relationships with who and who.
They cannot veil themselves in secrecy.
They cannot decry and generalize an entire population.
The way I look at it is that game journalism should be like how dakka news and rumours is, its all about rumours, reviews and games negative and positive. That's it, its about games. Imagine if Suddenly SJWs came into warhammer and started complaining without the background or credentials or research. They would cherry pick whatever elements they need (IE Vects slave girls).
>_>
I did this, at the time I may or may not have been trolling, but I threw quite the hissy fit in the Wild West Exodus thread about the Native Americans being the only ones that could turn into wild beasts... Not my proudest moment, though I still stand by the fact that Sitting Bull should have been a Buffalo and not a wolf, but w/e.
But i think its more about consumers wanting to see less hype pieces and less about pushing a certain agenda. We want journalism that is unbiased, and transparent. we want them to disclaim their biases and tell us if they have personal relationships with who and who.
They cannot veil themselves in secrecy.
They cannot decry and generalize an entire population.
The way I look at it is that game journalism should be like how dakka news and rumours is, its all about rumours, reviews and games negative and positive. That's it, its about games. Imagine if Suddenly SJWs came into warhammer and started complaining without the background or credentials or research. They would cherry pick whatever elements they need (IE Vects slave girls).
>_>
I did this, at the time I may or may not have been trolling, but I threw quite the hissy fit in the Wild West Exodus thread about the Native Americans being the only ones that could turn into wild beasts... Not my proudest moment, though I still stand by the fact that Sitting Bull should have been a Buffalo and not a wolf, but w/e.
Asherian Command wrote: Wow you didn't see that the guy was calling them virigins and yelling at wizardchan?
Its an insult. Its a sad sad insult.
Who is he calling virgin?
And I clicked on the link to Wizardchan:
Wizardchan is a Japanese-inspired image-based forum (imageboard) for male virgins to share their thoughts and discuss their interests and lifestyle as a virgin. The name of our website is inspired by the term wizard, a meme of Japanese origin that means 30-year-old virgin. In contrast to other imageboards, Wizardchan is dedicated exclusively to people who have no sexual experience and may be NEET or hikkikomori.
Wizardchan is a Japanese-inspired image-based forum (imageboard) for male virgins to share their thoughts and discuss their interests and lifestyle as a virgin. The name of our website is inspired by the term wizard, a meme of Japanese origin that means 30-year-old virgin. In contrast to other imageboards, Wizardchan is dedicated exclusively to people who have no sexual experience and may be NEET or hikkikomori.
Asherian Command wrote: Wow you didn't see that the guy was calling them virigins and yelling at wizardchan?
Its an insult. Its a sad sad insult.
Who is he calling virgin?
And I clicked on the link to Wizardchan:
Wizardchan is a Japanese-inspired image-based forum (imageboard) for male virgins to share their thoughts and discuss their interests and lifestyle as a virgin. The name of our website is inspired by the term wizard, a meme of Japanese origin that means 30-year-old virgin. In contrast to other imageboards, Wizardchan is dedicated exclusively to people who have no sexual experience and may be NEET or hikkikomori.
You know what everytime I discuss things with you you keep descending into. "Oh no this person didn't mean it as an insult."
When evidence has showed that is what he is doing. Check his tweets. Tell me if you really think he means well.
Wizardchan is a Japanese-inspired image-based forum (imageboard) for male virgins to share their thoughts and discuss their interests and lifestyle as a virgin. The name of our website is inspired by the term wizard, a meme of Japanese origin that means 30-year-old virgin. In contrast to other imageboards, Wizardchan is dedicated exclusively to people who have no sexual experience and may be NEET or hikkikomori.
Now that is sad @_@
Not really, if you have 2 virgins meet on the site, then they might not be on that site for long
Wizardchan is a Japanese-inspired image-based forum (imageboard) for male virgins to share their thoughts and discuss their interests and lifestyle as a virgin. The name of our website is inspired by the term wizard, a meme of Japanese origin that means 30-year-old virgin. In contrast to other imageboards, Wizardchan is dedicated exclusively to people who have no sexual experience and may be NEET or hikkikomori.
Now that is sad @_@
Not really, if you have 2 virgins meet on the site, then they might not be on that site for long
Asherian Command wrote: Wow you didn't see that the guy was calling them virigins and yelling at wizardchan?
Its an insult. Its a sad sad insult.
Who is he calling virgin?
And I clicked on the link to Wizardchan:
Wizardchan is a Japanese-inspired image-based forum (imageboard) for male virgins to share their thoughts and discuss their interests and lifestyle as a virgin. The name of our website is inspired by the term wizard, a meme of Japanese origin that means 30-year-old virgin. In contrast to other imageboards, Wizardchan is dedicated exclusively to people who have no sexual experience and may be NEET or hikkikomori.
Devin Faraci has no reason to be tweeting about wizardchan unless he's trying to draw attention to the fact that it is a site dedicated to 30+ year old virigins. His tone and intonations can only be of a mocking nature.
Asherian Command wrote: Wow you didn't see that the guy was calling them virigins and yelling at wizardchan?
Its an insult. Its a sad sad insult.
Who is he calling virgin? And I clicked on the link to Wizardchan:
Wizardchan is a Japanese-inspired image-based forum (imageboard) for male virgins to share their thoughts and discuss their interests and lifestyle as a virgin. The name of our website is inspired by the term wizard, a meme of Japanese origin that means 30-year-old virgin. In contrast to other imageboards, Wizardchan is dedicated exclusively to people who have no sexual experience and may be NEET or hikkikomori.
Devin Faraci has no reason to be tweeting about wizardchan unless he's trying to draw attention to the fact that it is a site dedicated to 30+ year old virigins. His tone and intonations can only be of a mocking nature.
He's the guy that also called gamers worse than ISIS.
I mean its not like he says....
I find that kind of funny, because there is corruption in everything... So. Does he live in a world that thinks corruption is non-existent?
Man, the crazies are still at it? I... don't know as I would have been able to remain so polite in the second picture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But imagine, if you will, an alternative universe where the only cars available are sports cars. In this universe, you are a Corvette enthusiast who has driven Corvettes for decades. Mustangs? No way. You're hardcore for Chevy in the Muscle Car Wars. Then one day, Chevrolet announces that the new 2015 Corvette will have a smaller engine, to make room in the back for a new set of pre-installed child seats. The automotive press lauds the fact that Corvette has become a more inclusive brand which has embraced the family driver. When you, an outraged Corvette fan, begin complaining loudly that this is a betrayal of the Corvette brand... you are criticized for hating children!
Now, imagine that you are a single parent with three children in this same alternative universe. You don't want a sports car. You want a safe, affordable car for driving to work and school. You are worried about pollution and want to save money on gas. Ford, suddenly waking up to a market opportunity, decides to build a new factory that will create a new line of four-door sedans with hybrid gas-electric engines. As a result, the release of the new Mustang is delayed six months. An outraged Mustang-driving sociopath goes on Twitter and threatens to crash his car into the first parent he sees driving a Ford sedan. The automotive press warns that car enthusiasts hate parents and proclaim that gearhead culture must die so that everyone can drive without fear.
daedalus wrote: Man, the crazies are still at it? I... don't know as I would have been able to remain so polite in the second picture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But imagine, if you will, an alternative universe where the only cars available are sports cars. In this universe, you are a Corvette enthusiast who has driven Corvettes for decades. Mustangs? No way. You're hardcore for Chevy in the Muscle Car Wars. Then one day, Chevrolet announces that the new 2015 Corvette will have a smaller engine, to make room in the back for a new set of pre-installed child seats. The automotive press lauds the fact that Corvette has become a more inclusive brand which has embraced the family driver. When you, an outraged Corvette fan, begin complaining loudly that this is a betrayal of the Corvette brand... you are criticized for hating children!
Now, imagine that you are a single parent with three children in this same alternative universe. You don't want a sports car. You want a safe, affordable car for driving to work and school. You are worried about pollution and want to save money on gas. Ford, suddenly waking up to a market opportunity, decides to build a new factory that will create a new line of four-door sedans with hybrid gas-electric engines. As a result, the release of the new Mustang is delayed six months. An outraged Mustang-driving sociopath goes on Twitter and threatens to crash his car into the first parent he sees driving a Ford sedan. The automotive press warns that car enthusiasts hate parents and proclaim that gearhead culture must die so that everyone can drive without fear.
That's actually pretty good.
Saw a game designer post that up. And decided to follow him.
Looks like a bunch of game designers are weighing in on this mostly siding with gamers and yelling. "Oh come on journalists!"
Completely agreed. They would tear GW a new one if they saw that.
But I don't think people would understand. ITs a grimdark future, where everyone is treated that way. But men are usually sacrificed or thrown into gladitorial rings. Which is worse, being forced to have sex? Or being forced and getting killed and or pain and suffering for the rest of your life? To be honest I would rather take death.
Try and imagine the field day Anita would have on 40k.... Some how the dice and assault phase became rape supporters and an avenue for us to abuse women!
Also it seems Jenni Goodchild is right on Devin Faraci over the whole virgin thing and has recently opened up with talking to people about gamergate. She was having a really good back and forth with MundaneMatt that was completely reasonable.
Also like to bring up #LiterallyWho since the journalists and media (as if pushed by a PR company) keep trying to make this about Zoe Quinn that hashtag popped up to show how irrelevant she is.
Asherian Command wrote: You know what everytime I discuss things with you you keep descending into. "Oh no this person didn't mean it as an insult."
No, I mean, who was he calling a virgin?
It is not clear in the post on your image. At all.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Try and imagine the field day Anita would have on 40k.... Some how the dice and assault phase became rape supporters and an avenue for us to abuse women!
Let us be honest, the first trope in 40k about women is that there are no women, only right-handed white men.
It has been ten years since the last model release for Sisters of Battle, there was not a single release of a female imperial guard or commissar or inquisitor in the mean time. During those ten years, unless I am mistaken, the only faction that had any female model release was the sado-masochistic space elves. And maybe some new daemons for the god of pleasure.
But yeah, 40k is the realm of sexual equality, right, spot on!
Mechanical Crow wrote: Try and imagine the field day Anita would have on 40k.... Some how the dice and assault phase became rape supporters and an avenue for us to abuse women!
Let us be honest, the first trope in 40k about women is that there are no women, only right-handed white men.
It has been ten years since the last model release for Sisters of Battle, there was not a single release of a female imperial guard or commissar or inquisitor in the mean time. During those ten years, unless I am mistaken, the only faction that had any female model release was the sado-masochistic space elves. And maybe some new daemons for the god of pleasure.
But yeah, 40k is the realm of sexual equality, right, spot on!
Could not be more wrong.
-Orks hold the largest population
-Orks have no gender
-Orks are green
-Orks have bunch of lefties
).
?
.
