Is there a point to this? Peregrine has flat out stated that he cannot be wrong, so what is the point in engaging in a debate with him? He has been doing nothing but making declarative statements based on his opinion, but apparently confuses his opinion with facts, and will not be persuaded there is a difference... so why bother?
Bromsy wrote: Is there a point to this? Peregrine has flat out stated that he cannot be wrong, so what is the point in engaging in a debate with him? He has been doing nothing but making declarative statements based on his opinion, but apparently confuses his opinion with facts, and will not be persuaded there is a difference... so why bother?
Pretty much everyone has been doing that in this thread.
Bromsy wrote: Is there a point to this? Peregrine has flat out stated that he cannot be wrong, so what is the point in engaging in a debate with him? He has been doing nothing but making declarative statements based on his opinion, but apparently confuses his opinion with facts, and will not be persuaded there is a difference... so why bother?
Pretty much everyone has been doing that in this thread.
Really? Provide some quotes where people haven't just been stating their opinion, but instead stating that they don't have an opinion - they only have facts.
Alright, I'm not going to look though all 31 pages to prove my point, I'll admit I'm wrong on that accusation and that my point is just pure conjecture. But what I do know about a lot of debates is that a lot of people go into them with strong beliefs and are just looking for others to help validate
them rather than actually wanting to be informed and/or open minded on the issue, aka confirmation bias.
Cheesecat wrote: Alright, I'm not going to look though all 31 pages to prove my point, I'll admit I'm wrong on that accusation and that my point is just pure conjecture. But what I do know about a lot of debates is that a lot of people go into them with strong beliefs and are just looking for others to help validate
them rather than actually wanting to be informed and/or open minded on the issue, aka confirmation bias.
That's fine man. I will not debate that most people go into a debate believing they aren't wrong. Only one person in this debate has stated they are never wrong.
Bromsy wrote: Is there a point to this? Peregrine has flat out stated that he cannot be wrong, so what is the point in engaging in a debate with him? He has been doing nothing but making declarative statements based on his opinion, but apparently confuses his opinion with facts, and will not be persuaded there is a difference... so why bother?
I like hearing opinions that are different from mine, and trying to see the other point of view. I want to hear what they have to say.
Heck I'll come right out and thank Peregrine for being a dissenting voice and providing a differing viewpoint. Not letting people talk about issues is what escalated this mess.
That writer in the first link seems goddamn batman angry! How come nobody had posted about that lawyer against game corruption corruption here ? I really wonder, not.
That last link seems pretty misguided though, TFYC seems like a really nice bunch.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: If some elements of the right decide to strike while the iron is hot (a la Milo Yiannopoulos) and join this on the side of GamerGate then a lot of gamers might become more right wing out of simple gratitude.
Woah, you really do believe that a lot of gamers are complete, total idiots!
(And before someone misunderstands me, I am not saying being right-wing makes you a complete, total idiot. I am saying “becoming right-wing out of gratitude” makes you a total, completely idiotic gullible moron.)
Cheesecat wrote: Alright, I'm not going to look though all 31 pages to prove my point, I'll admit I'm wrong on that accusation and that my point is just pure conjecture. But what I do know about a lot of debates is that a lot of people go into them with strong beliefs and are just looking for others to help validate
them rather than actually wanting to be informed and/or open minded on the issue, aka confirmation bias.
Considering this thread has two sides of the debate and the ONLY person everyone has a problem with is the guy who said he's always right, I'm not sure I follow you on this.
Cheesecat wrote: Alright, I'm not going to look though all 31 pages to prove my point, I'll admit I'm wrong on that accusation and that my point is just pure conjecture. But what I do know about a lot of debates is that a lot of people go into them with strong beliefs and are just looking for others to help validate
them rather than actually wanting to be informed and/or open minded on the issue, aka confirmation bias.
Considering this thread has two sides of the debate and the ONLY person everyone has a problem with is the guy who said he's always right, I'm not sure I follow you on this.
Everyone? Speak for yourself. And just two sides? Nothing ever really has only two sides if there's more than one person involved.
Cheesecat wrote: Alright, I'm not going to look though all 31 pages to prove my point, I'll admit I'm wrong on that accusation and that my point is just pure conjecture. But what I do know about a lot of debates is that a lot of people go into them with strong beliefs and are just looking for others to help validate
them rather than actually wanting to be informed and/or open minded on the issue, aka confirmation bias.
Considering this thread has two sides of the debate and the ONLY person everyone has a problem with is the guy who said he's always right, I'm not sure I follow you on this.
Everyone? Speak for yourself. And just two sides? Nothing ever really has only two sides if there's more than one person involved.
Ummm.... did I say "Both" sides implying that there are ONLY two sides? No, I did not.
Go take a nap or change yer diaper and come back afterwards
Slarg232 wrote: Considering this thread has two sides of the debate and the ONLY person everyone has a problem with is the guy who said he's always right, I'm not sure I follow you on this.
Oh. Who is this everyone? Because there are a bunch of members that have no problem with Peregrine. Actually, I would say only the GGers have problems with him .
What I don't want is an enviroment where a creator has to go through a politically correct checklist of races, genders and sexual preferences just to write a story.
There's a difference between trying to put more emphasis on minorities and such and forcing/shaming people that write about non-minorities.
I'm a writer and the same debate is going on in the literary world. Writers tend to write what they know and often when they try to write from a different perspective, it comes out inaccurate or unconvincing.
They want more women in games? Get more women making games.
I refuse to be told what to write though. If my character's a white male protestant, I'm not going to apologize.
(Says the guy that wrote a history book about powerful women.)
Back to gamergate stuff, and sorry Ive been away, I decided to write an email to the advertisers every time peregrine altered facts to fit his narrative, so It was a ton of emails. In a way he has really supported the cause.
Anyway, seems Dina from the might no 9 thing is getting in on this and blocking anyone that supports gamergate, including people that have PAID her.
Bromsy wrote: Is there a point to this? Peregrine has flat out stated that he cannot be wrong, so what is the point in engaging in a debate with him? He has been doing nothing but making declarative statements based on his opinion, but apparently confuses his opinion with facts, and will not be persuaded there is a difference... so why bother?
I like hearing opinions that are different from mine, and trying to see the other point of view. I want to hear what they have to say.
This, exactly. Everyone is and should be free to speak his respective opinion as long as it follows the rules, whether you agree with those or not. Peregrine has a different opinion and is entitled to it, so either argue with him or just ignore what he says and move on. Since he literally said that he's always right, he has zero credibility whatsoever anyway. But having a different opinion still is a good thing.
Sigvatr wrote: Since he literally said that he's always right, he has zero credibility whatsoever anyway.
Lol, no. I didn't say that I'm always right, I said that I only post when I know I'm right. I don't know how you go from "if I'm not sure about something I STFU and don't embarrass myself" to "zero credibility", but I suspect it has something to do with disagreeing with me.
MWHistorian wrote: What I don't want is an enviroment where a creator has to go through a politically correct checklist of races, genders and sexual preferences just to write a story.
Good for you. I do not want an environment where I can fill many bikini armor bingo every time I play a MOBA. And therefore, I am playing MOBA that do not try to oversexualized every female character, and I make it loud and clear that I dislike the sexualization. Got a problem with that? Does that makes me someone who “forces every creator to go through a politically correct checklist”?
Compel wrote: It seems fair to me, that is, provided they don't end up receiving any goods at the end of it all.
That would be a legitimate chargeback, but the "issue" here is anger at being blocked on twitter and/or the game's forum, not failure to deliver a product.
MWHistorian wrote: What I don't want is an enviroment where a creator has to go through a politically correct checklist of races, genders and sexual preferences just to write a story.
Thanks for the perspective from the literary field. That's definitely a really important aspect that a number of game devs have spoken out about too and you're spot on about the problem and the only way to really fix it.
This video was apparently delayed twice because of all the new info that kept popping up... and it's only part 1. In any case, it's an interesting recap of the past few week's worth of events for anyone wishing to find out or for people who've found themselves lost in the jumble:
Mechanical Crow wrote: Lucky you its been a slow news week, I'm going to keep sending emails to the advertisers every time you post, I've decided to make a game of your impotent arguing and put it to a good cause.
You have said it a few dozen times already. I do not think he cares. Personally, I think that the advertisers being spammed by consumers is delicious irony. I hope for them they have a good anti-spam filter .
Mechanical Crow wrote: Lucky you its been a slow news week, I'm going to keep sending emails to the advertisers every time you post, I've decided to make a game of your impotent arguing and put it to a good cause.
You have said it a few dozen times already. I do not think he cares. Personally, I think that the advertisers being spammed by consumers is delicious irony. I hope for them they have a good anti-spam filter .
It's worth trying to get advertisers to change their tune towards those sites, particularly if they're getting bad rap. Enough voices can come together to prove that point. It's been done many times in the past so it can be done again. Anything we think is a worthy cause is worth trying. Better than throwing the cards on the table and saying "welp, we just give up".
Mechanical Crow wrote: Lucky you its been a slow news week, I'm going to keep sending emails to the advertisers every time you post, I've decided to make a game of your impotent arguing and put it to a good cause.
You have said it a few dozen times already. I do not think he cares. Personally, I think that the advertisers being spammed by consumers is delicious irony. I hope for them they have a good anti-spam filter .
Hahaha yeah because a mass media event like this wont make them think. "Should I go to the website causing my trouble or should I not support them and cease this problem permanently and keep my good PR?"
I think they would happy with keeping their customers happy. Not the people they pay
Does not “keep the customers happy” go against your mantra about journalistic integrity?
What?
No it doesn't it is reinforced by it.
Journalists need to learn that.
They need to learn about integrity and being honest.
And clearly label whether it is an editorial
List sources,
List personal biases.
Hybrid this has been going on for 7 weeks.
And the things people want will change.
And communicating to the advertisers and say. "Do not support these people."
Is a pretty great idea. And also not visiting their sites because feth them.
This cuts their funding and in another way forces them into another situation that they rather not be in.
Because everyone was expecting it, here's what I think about Zoe Quinn. She is a person without morals. She is a shameless self-promoter. But let's be fething frank here, has anyone worked in sales or business? She's not exceptional in any way! I've seen people talk about, "She's corrupted the gaming media, this and that..." No. The gaming media was ALREADY corrupt. The environment of one-sidedness and pretentious, over-educated bs is what allowed this fething thing to happen in the first place! Zoe Quinn is not the Ebola virus that wiped out a hospital, she is an Ebola virus in the Ebola celebration commitee. She, like Anita Sarkeesian, is another poster child practically constructed by the media so that journalists could point to her and say, "Look! People hate this WOMAN! Look how much people hate WOMEN! All women!"
I laughed and laughed. This is quite interesting to see in an article.
Though he swears quite often and needs to work on certain parts of the article it is a good summary of the entire oppression olypmics currently going on.
I've always suspected corruption over and over again. But there was no cause to bring it to justice. And now the people want the media in games to change. This is basically a giant battle, and the journalists are basically get their ass handed to them.
They have lost so much.
Their images are destroyed and those that regarded them well have dwindled to bare bones. Barely able to aid them, because of the decisions they have made. It has been shown time and time again that they are colluding with each other and have purposefully biased each other and will continue to paint their consumers//readers as immoral bigots.
I am not saying there isn't some individuals who fall under that category, but they are the minority. They are vocal, but they are the minority.
I think they biggest problem also is the mass censorship of those who speak out against. I.E. 4chan and reddit doing this massive wipe out.
Where /v has basically left 4chan for good. And 4chan has begun to suffer and fall at it's seems.
This movement like I thought it would, would have real consequences on those that dare to poke the angry beast.
Because everyone was expecting it, here's what I think about Zoe Quinn. She is a person without morals. She is a shameless self-promoter. But let's be fething frank here, has anyone worked in sales or business? She's not exceptional in any way! I've seen people talk about, "She's corrupted the gaming media, this and that..." No. The gaming media was ALREADY corrupt. The environment of one-sidedness and pretentious, over-educated bs is what allowed this fething thing to happen in the first place! Zoe Quinn is not the Ebola virus that wiped out a hospital, she is an Ebola virus in the Ebola celebration commitee. She, like Anita Sarkeesian, is another poster child practically constructed by the media so that journalists could point to her and say, "Look! People hate this WOMAN! Look how much people hate WOMEN! All women!"
So the problem with “video game journalist corruption” is once again not about the big producers giving advantages in exchange of good reviews, but only about the fact they do share some of my opinions on female representations in video games. Woah, such corruption, much tragedy, really terrible!
Secondly you are right about the key art that the male and female form are not represented equal on that image. There is no counter argument to that and I will admit that indeed there has been a bad judgement call on that part. Partially with me, partially with the marketing departement at Larian. Having done the reflection excersice more than once I do realise I made a big mistake on this part and I have only myself to blame for not seeing this issue when creating this image, as an artists it was my responsibility to say "guys, we're sending the wrong message with this image."
All because the issue was non excisting for me at the time of creation.
I am pretty sure this translate as “That image was actually problematic, and if people had not reacted to it, I would never have known”. Now was the reaction pedagogue enough? Apparently not. Should work on that. Still was a good thing .
Mechanical Crow wrote: Lucky you its been a slow news week, I'm going to keep sending emails to the advertisers every time you post, I've decided to make a game of your impotent arguing and put it to a good cause.
Personally, I think that the advertisers being spammed by consumers is delicious irony. I hope for them they have a good anti-spam filter .
Your personal, non-industry experience once again is amusing because other peoples personal, INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE has shown how much they DO care. Even more amusingly, this was brought up in the journo list after some of them were laughing at the attempts, when another member chimed in citing his industry experience witht he specific company they were talking about, and how much the companies do care about this.
So the problem with “video game journalist corruption” is once again not about the big producers giving advantages in exchange of good reviews, but only about the fact they do share some of my opinions on female representations in video games. Woah, such corruption, much tragedy, really terrible!
-.-
Yeah this thread I feel like won't go anywhere with that type of attitude.
Have you just ignored the information we have brought up to the table.
Or are you stuck in reverse?
Or are you trying to get this thread closed?
I am pretty sure this translate as “That image was actually problematic, and if people had not reacted to it, I would never have known”. Now was the reaction pedagogue enough? Apparently not. Should work on that. Still was a good thing .
Who cares about boob plates oh my god keep it to the other thread. Not this one.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So the problem with “video game journalist corruption” is once again not about the big producers giving advantages in exchange of good reviews, but only about the fact they do share some of my opinions on female representations in video games. Woah, such corruption, much tragedy, really terrible!
It's comments like this that convince the rest of us that you're just trolling and trying to get the thread shut. 6 weeks into this only the dumbest or blindest people around still think what you've written above. I'm not going to call your dumb and/or blind, so I presume you know full well what you're doing, therefore you are trolling. Pure and simple.
Don't respond to perceived trolling. I mean Hybrid replying with his own logic is one thing, but I have no idea why if people think he's trolling or trying to get this thread closed, why do they keep replying to him. Dudes, just stop. If he needs attention for his views, just don't give it to him.
Also Hybrid, there's an even better place for your arguments than the other thread. It's called tumblr
If by "interesting" you mean "wow, what a trainwreck". I mean really, if you're going to whine about SJWs and oppression olympics you should probably at least spend a few seconds looking up what "oppression olympics" means.
Asherian Command wrote: Who cares about boob plates oh my god keep it to the other thread. Not this one.
You know, it's funny how you only complain about "off topic" comments when it's someone you disagree with making them, not when someone on "your" side posts an article talking about how boob plates are totally justified and SJWs need to stop complaining about them.
PS: "keep this out of my thread" is censorship. It's amazing how such a devout anti-censorship crusader can be so strongly in favor of censorship when the thing being censored is something you don't like.
Every single thing game journalists publish is an editorial because the factual content of a game is little more than a list of hardware requirements and which platforms it will be released for. If a journalist says "nice graphics" it's an editorial. If a journalist says "has some balance issues" it's an editorial. If a journalist assigns a score to the game it's an editorial. So if 99.999999% of game journalism will be labeled "editorial" then what's the point of adding the label? This is like demanding that every bottle of water have a label saying "contents may be wet".
List personal biases.
Does that mean all biases, or just biases related to issues that you disagree with them about? For example, if a game journalist prefers to play melee classes over ranged classes should they make sure to announce that preference before commenting on balance issues in an RPG? Do they need to announce their preference for PCFPS games over console FPS games when talking about awkward controls in the latest console FPS?
They have lost so much.
Their images are destroyed and those that regarded them well have dwindled to bare bones. Barely able to aid them, because of the decisions they have made. It has been shown time and time again that they are colluding with each other and have purposefully biased each other and will continue to paint their consumers//readers as immoral bigots.
Really? Because I don't see all that much discussion of this subject elsewhere. Perhaps you're spending too much time talking to people who agree with you and confusing unanimous agreement among those people with widespread success outside of your group?
I think they biggest problem also is the mass censorship of those who speak out against. I.E. 4chan and reddit doing this massive wipe out.
Again, you still don't understand what censorship is. A private website saying "we don't want this here" is not censoring you. Every time you argue otherwise it just confirms that you feel entitled to use other people's property for your own benefit.
This movement like I thought it would, would have real consequences on those that dare to poke the angry beast.
IOW, you want there to be consequences for saying the wrong things. Isn't this exactly the same as what you just complained about the "censors" doing? Remember how many times you've accused feminists/SJWs/etc of trying to censor video games by hoping for financial consequences for people who publish games they don't approve of? How is this any different from you hoping for financial consequences for websites that post articles that you don't approve of?
You know, it's funny how you only complain about "off topic" comments when it's someone you disagree with making them, not when someone on "your" side posts an article talking about how boob plates are totally justified and SJWs need to stop complaining about them.
PS: "keep this out of my thread" is censorship. It's amazing how such a devout anti-censorship crusader can be so strongly in favor of censorship when the thing being censored is something you don't like.
umm no it is called being offtopic....
Tell me what does boob plates have to do with censorship?
Also tell me what does it have to d with gamergate?
In anyway?
None.
Absolutely nothing.
The door is behind Mr. Peregrine.
Does that mean all biases, or just biases related to issues that you disagree with them about? For example, if a game journalist prefers to play melee classes over ranged classes should they make sure to announce that preference before commenting on balance issues in an RPG? Do they need to announce their preference for PCFPS games over console FPS games when talking about awkward controls in the latest console FPS?
No!
Personal bias means listing whether you know the developer in a personal fashion.
Personal Bias not all biases.
Really? Because I don't see all that much discussion of this subject elsewhere. Perhaps you're spending too much time talking to people who agree with you and confusing unanimous agreement among those people with widespread success outside of your group?
Twitter, 8chan seem to disagree with you. There is lots of discussions of it. It just isn't here. Pull your head where ever it has been and open your eyes.
Again, you still don't understand what censorship is. A private website saying "we don't want this here" is not censoring you. Every time you argue otherwise it just confirms that you feel entitled to use other people's property for your own benefit.
Umm no. Because yet again, they weren't invited. In order for a forum to be private it needs to be invite or membership only.
If a moderator starts closing threads without the permission of the admin then that is censorship. Especially if the moderator does not agree with certain people.
OW, you want there to be consequences for saying the wrong things. Isn't this exactly the same as what you just complained about the "censors" doing? Remember how many times you've accused feminists/SJWs/etc of trying to censor video games by hoping for financial consequences for people who publish games they don't approve of? How is this any different from you hoping for financial consequences for websites that post articles that you don't approve of?
You are miss understanding me. They are suffering in their fanbase. And thus in their monetary gains.
This is a much different idea.
You are grabbing at straws now and all you have done is devalue your own argument.
The entire thing is that mostly the people in this the journalistic side, will have lost their influence over game developers. They no longer hold that choke hold on game designers like they used to. The Game's Media is broken now, and is seen as less than what it was before.
They are now simply ignored.
And that is a giant set forward.
This is a consequence for games media, for acting so rash against the people they say they represent.
Also tell me what does it have to d with gamergate?
In anyway?
I don't know, perhaps you should ask yourself? You know, because you have posted arguments about how representation of women isn't an issue?
Personal bias means listing whether you know the developer in a personal fashion.
That's not a bias, that's a conflict of interest. Perhaps you should spend more time learning what words mean before making your demands?
Twitter, 8chan seem to disagree with you. There is lots of discussions of it. It just isn't here. Pull your head where ever it has been and open your eyes.
Again, you're missing the point. Twitter might have lots of discussions of it, but are those discussions reaching a "mainstream" audience or are they just the twitter version of this thread, where you have a few people going back and forth endlessly while everyone else ignores them? Volume of comments is not the same thing as success in presenting a message.
Umm no. Because yet again, they weren't invited. In order for a forum to be private it needs to be invite or membership only.
Only by your absurd rules. By the rules everyone else uses to define private property a forum is private if it is owned by a private entity (an individual or corporation). It is NOT public property just because the owner decides to be generous in granting access to it.
If a moderator starts closing threads without the permission of the admin then that is censorship. Especially if the moderator does not agree with certain people.
No, that is NOT censorship. Again, you do not have a right to post on someone else's forum, no matter how much you act like you're entitled to do so.
You are miss understanding me. They are suffering in their fanbase. And thus in their monetary gains.
And what do you think the "SJWs" you hate want to do? They want game developers to lose money and therefore make changes to their products. Or are you still operating under the delusion that "SJWs" are threatening government-imposed censorship rather than going after the developers' wallets?
The entire thing is that mostly the people in this the journalistic side, will have lost their influence over game developers. They no longer hold that choke hold on game designers like they used to. The Game's Media is broken now, and is seen as less than what it was before.
And this shows where you have absolutely no clue about the subject you're talking about. Game journalists have never had power over game developers. In fact, that's the reason why game journalism has been corrupt for so long: game journalists exist only as long as the game developers cooperate with them, which means that game journalists make staying on good terms with the developers their top priority. This is why even mediocre games get amazing reviews, because every reviewer knows that if the developer isn't happy with their review then they're not going to get access any more early copies of games to review.
They are now simply ignored.
Are they really? Or has your crusade simply diverted readers from certain websites to other websites where the same corruption will exist (as it always has) because nothing has been done about the fundamental problems that cause corruption? IOW, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Yonan wrote: You're being proven wrong repeatedly about things on this issue.
I think you are mistaking “I think you are wrong” with “you are proven wrong”.
Asherian Command wrote: Who cares about boob plates oh my god keep it to the other thread. Not this one.
You do realize that YOU POSTED THE LINK TO THIS “SAVE THE BOOBPLATE” ARTICLE IN THIS VERY THREAD YOURSELF, right?
How very hypocrite. You are being hypocrite. You should stop, pause, and think about what you want. If you want no reference to how female characters are represented in games in this thread, you should get a little self-discipline and never again post anything related to this subject here. Even if it is also, in your mind, by some strange connection, linked to corruption in video game journalism. If you want to continue posting stuff about how female characters are represented in games, you should agree that people will answer to you on that.
Asherian Command wrote: Umm no. Because yet again, they weren't invited. In order for a forum to be private it needs to be invite or membership only.
Nope. For instance, DakkaDakka is a privately own forum. It is own by Yakface, who bought it. He can decide to forbid access to whoever he wants to, because he owns it, and there is nothing you can do about it. Nothing.
Have you read Dakka's rules?
Remember that posting content on this site (or any internet site, for that matter) is a privilege, NOT A RIGHT.
Emphasis is not even mine. Yeah, that is how much you are wrong on this one.
Peregrine wrote: And this shows where you have absolutely no clue about the subject you're talking about. Game journalists have never had power over game developers. In fact, that's the reason why game journalism has been corrupt for so long: game journalists exist only as long as the game developers cooperate with them, which means that game journalists make staying on good terms with the developers their top priority. This is why even mediocre games get amazing reviews, because every reviewer knows that if the developer isn't happy with their review then they're not going to get access any more early copies of games to review.
This is true for AAA games, but for indie games the power balance might be reversed.
Yonan wrote: You're being proven wrong repeatedly about things on this issue.
I think you are mistaking “I think you are wrong” with “you are proven wrong”.
Asherian Command wrote: Who cares about boob plates oh my god keep it to the other thread. Not this one.
You do realize that YOU POSTED THE LINK TO THIS “SAVE THE BOOBPLATE” ARTICLE IN THIS VERY THREAD YOURSELF, right? How very hypocrite. You are being hypocrite. You should stop, pause, and think about what you want. If you want no reference to how female characters are represented in games in this thread, you should get a little self-discipline and never again post anything related to this subject here. Even if it is also, in your mind, by some strange connection, linked to corruption in video game journalism. If you want to continue posting stuff about how female characters are represented in games, you should agree that people will answer to you on that.
Asherian Command wrote: Umm no. Because yet again, they weren't invited. In order for a forum to be private it needs to be invite or membership only.
Nope. For instance, DakkaDakka is a privately own forum. It is own by Yakface, who bought it. He can decide to forbid access to whoever he wants to, because he owns it, and there is nothing you can do about it. Nothing. Have you read Dakka's rules?
Remember that posting content on this site (or any internet site, for that matter) is a privilege, NOT A RIGHT.
Emphasis is not even mine. Yeah, that is how much you are wrong on this one.
Peregrine wrote: And this shows where you have absolutely no clue about the subject you're talking about. Game journalists have never had power over game developers. In fact, that's the reason why game journalism has been corrupt for so long: game journalists exist only as long as the game developers cooperate with them, which means that game journalists make staying on good terms with the developers their top priority. This is why even mediocre games get amazing reviews, because every reviewer knows that if the developer isn't happy with their review then they're not going to get access any more early copies of games to review.
This is true for AAA games, but for indie games the power balance might be reversed.
I think you are making that up. Or you are confusing me with someone else.
Because thus far you are the only one in this thread has used that article at all.
I talked about it in the other thread.
And Hybrid don't kid yourself you have been proven wrong on several occassions whether you accept it or not.
How very hypocrite. You are being hypocrite. You should stop, pause, and think about what you want. If you want no reference to how female characters are represented in games in this thread, you should get a little self-discipline and never again post anything related to this subject here. Even if it is also, in your mind, by some strange connection, linked to corruption in video game journalism. If you want to continue posting stuff about how female characters are represented in games, you should agree that people will answer to you on that.
Now you are just getting desperate!
I have not posted anything about the boobplate. I have looked through and found nothing on it other than when I said. "I Like Boobs,"
On the other thread maybe. But not on this thread.
I don't think it is entirely relevant the to conversation.
Nope. For instance, DakkaDakka is a privately own forum. It is own by Yakface, who bought it. He can decide to forbid access to whoever he wants to, because he owns it, and there is nothing you can do about it. Nothing. Have you read Dakka's rules?
Rule 2: Stay on Topic
After reading and posting at Dakka for awhile you may feel as though you have developed friendships with some, perhaps many, of the other posters and readers. This is probably one of the most rewarding parts of participating in a discussion area. It is only natural to occasionally want to share information with your friends that is "Off Topic" (i.e. not related to the subject matter of the forum you are in).
While it may at first seem harmless to post a bit about off topic (OT) subjects, it can become a slippery slope. If others join in on OT posts then soon everybody has sent the discussion threads on so many tangents that it is difficult to follow the original topic. Further, posting off topic essentially violates Rule #1. People come to Dakka looking for information related to the hobby. It is not polite to post off topic items frequently.
If you wish to discuss a topic that doesn't pertain to wargaming, it should be started in the "Off-Topic" forum.
Hey look you break this one all the time.
And I have said this multiple times to both you and Peregrine.
Also it is privately owned. but they have opened it up for discussions. They can't go along and close threads because they don't agree with them. They know if they did that they would lose membership because of that.
It is not a good idea to do that at all. Its a consequence.
If Yakface or legoburner ever did that their popularity would plummet like all who have done that before.
Emphasis is not even mine. Yeah, that is how much you are wrong on this one.
True, but that does not mean that you can't post your thoughts.
It says be kind in your arguments and don't attack others.
They cannot censor you because of your opinion. No matter how stupid it might be.
And this shows where you have absolutely no clue about the subject you're talking about. Game journalists have never had power over game developers. In fact, that's the reason why game journalism has been corrupt for so long: game journalists exist only as long as the game developers cooperate with them, which means that game journalists make staying on good terms with the developers their top priority. This is why even mediocre games get amazing reviews, because every reviewer knows that if the developer isn't happy with their review then they're not going to get access any more early copies of games to review.
Hahaha. No.
See the problem here is that you have no clue.
I work in the industry. Do you?
Sorry where is your experience? Have you worked with the games media hmmmm?
Do you actually work with these people? Do you see that they hold alot of power?
That a single bad review usually starts a whole storm?
The Media thinks they own this power and they did for a very long time.
But their grip has been loosening for the last few years.
And this is the straw that broke them. When they lost the trust of the viewership.
They need their viewers. But the viewers don't need them.
That's not a bias, that's a conflict of interest. Perhaps you should spend more time learning what words mean before making your demands?
Bias- prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Conflict of interest- A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.
They seem quite comparable to me. Both are personal and can lead to shenigains.
I suggest you look up the words next time.
Again, you're missing the point. Twitter might have lots of discussions of it, but are those discussions reaching a "mainstream" audience or are they just the twitter version of this thread, where you have a few people going back and forth endlessly while everyone else ignores them? Volume of comments is not the same thing as success in presenting a message.
Yes because lets ignore the 1 million twitter posts about it!
Because that surely has reached the mainstream crowd and there hasn't been banners errected in certain areas of the internet.
Are they really? Or has your crusade simply diverted readers from certain websites to other websites where the same corruption will exist (as it always has) because nothing has been done about the fundamental problems that cause corruption? IOW, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Crusade?
Ha. No. There has been policy changes there has been changes in the media. And those sights that were seen as corrupt are going down.
They are no longer this giant in the indie scene. Or in the Triple A scene anymore.
Lets take a look at the viewership of these sights.....
Wait what is that?
The sites that we want to hear from are getting more views because they actually follow journalistic ethics?
And are actual good people and not jerks?
Yes that is apart of life, we go to the places we like to go.
If you think that is bad.........
I don't think I have exclaimed and said that all journalists are evil. I said this particular group is.
this group has been horrible and should be down right ignored for the rest of your life.
But I am sure as hell not going to let them get money from anyone. Because their ethics are screwed up and they are not real journalists.
And because of that I hold disdain towards them.
They are nothing but pawns, who think they hold the power in the palms of their hands.
After reading and posting at Dakka for awhile you may feel as though you have developed friendships with some, perhaps many, of the other posters and readers. This is probably one of the most rewarding parts of participating in a discussion area. It is only natural to occasionally want to share information with your friends that is "Off Topic" (i.e. not related to the subject matter of the forum you are in).
While it may at first seem harmless to post a bit about off topic (OT) subjects, it can become a slippery slope. If others join in on OT posts then soon everybody has sent the discussion threads on so many tangents that it is difficult to follow the original topic. Further, posting off topic essentially violates Rule #1. People come to Dakka looking for information related to the hobby. It is not polite to post off topic items frequently.
If you wish to discuss a topic that doesn't pertain to wargaming, it should be started in the "Off-Topic" forum.
Hey look you break this one all the time.
And I have said this multiple times to both you and Peregrine.
Whoah, how zealous are you to enforce this. On me and Peregrine. And how lenient do you become when it is someone else, including yourself (remember that picture? I highlighted the important parts for you).
Spoiler:
Tell me this image was not about female character representation, I dare you.
Why exactly again did you not react when Vorpal Bunny posted the link I just commented on?
Asherian Command wrote: They can't go along and close threads because they don't agree with them. They know if they did that they would lose membership because of that.
They can do that. They would lose some membership if they did that, and maybe gain other memberships, depending on what they decided was unacceptable on DakkaDakka. And they already do. There are a number of issues that are not allowed to be discussed on DakkaDakka, and this is a good thing. Do not believe me? I can send you by PM some message I dare you to post, and I can guarantee they will get you banned soon enough.
Asherian Command wrote: They cannot censor you because of your opinion. No matter how stupid it might be.
They can. Maybe they will choose not to, maybe they will choose to. Up to them, really.
You may have heard about me, my name is Gabe Newell. Peregrine is actually John Carmack.
Do you know who else works in the industry? Phil Fish. And how much is Phil Fish relevant, even though he does work in the industry?
Asherian Command wrote: Bias- prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Conflict of interest- A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.
You do not see the difference between prejudice and interest? Damn.
One million twitter posts by one hundred users weight way less than one hundred thousand twitter posts made by one hundred thousand users.
And have you counted the anti-GG twitter posts too?
They are no longer this giant in the indie scene. Or in the Triple A scene anymore.
Lets take a look at the viewership of these sights.....
Sites?
Asherian Command wrote: The sites that we want to hear from are getting more views because they actually follow journalistic ethics?
Does that mean they have not yet reviewed a game from one of their roommates, or does that mean they do not get any kind of advantages from the big publishers, or does that mean they do not push for better representation of female character? Or maybe it means they start each and every article they write with “This is an editorial”?
Asherian Command wrote: They are nothing but pawns, who think they hold the power in the palms of their hands.
Pawn to whom? Because you just said they used to have power of the game makers. And obviously they were not pawn of the game consumers either in your narrative. Pawn of the terrible conspiracy of evil SJW?
Can this be all summed up as video game "journalists" have been proven to not represent the will of the people as much as they thought?
They then got all upset since their "fan-base" abandoned them as well as some of their meal-tickets.
All because they were exposed as just another part of advertising and did not typically represent the average gamer and their interests.
The main question with them is "What good are you to me then? Your integrity is compromised and you show no allegiance to the concept of what it is to be a gamer.".
The other part of this is other "special interest groups" I swear are just trying to position themselves in the power vacuum: "Listen to us and do as we say or we can hurt your game sales!"
It is possibly a logical growing pain of the era of social networks: centralized control of information by an "authority" can be mistrusted and may need to be actively circumvented.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: You do realize that YOU POSTED THE LINK TO THIS “SAVE THE BOOBPLATE” ARTICLE IN THIS VERY THREAD YOURSELF, right?
How very hypocrite. You are being hypocrite. You should stop, pause, and think about what you want. If you want no reference to how female characters are represented in games in this thread, you should get a little self-discipline and never again post anything related to this subject here. Even if it is also, in your mind, by some strange connection, linked to corruption in video game journalism. If you want to continue posting stuff about how female characters are represented in games, you should agree that people will answer to you on that.
Considering I posted the link (as you discovered) and not Asherian Command, are you going to apologize to him?
Also be warned Hybrid - the search for the hypocrite is always conducted by the narcissist
No, you didn't, but someone on "your" side did. And yet you only criticized people on the other side for responding to it, not your "ally" who posted it originally. An outside observer might suspect that your definition of "off topic" depends much more on whether someone agrees with you than the content of their posts.
Also it is privately owned. but they have opened it up for discussions.
And your point is? Allowing certain people to post does NOT mean that they have any obligation to continue allowing those posts, or allow other people to post.
They can't go along and close threads because they don't agree with them.
Of course they can. Part of having a well-moderated forum is getting rid of inappropriate threads. For example, I think we can all agree that spam threads should be deleted. The only disagreement here is that you don't like the rules that certain forums are enforcing.
If Yakface or legoburner ever did that their popularity would plummet like all who have done that before.
Did you know that they lock plenty of threads they don't agree with? And yet here we are, on a popular forum that doesn't seem to have suffered any harm over those decisions.
Bias- prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Conflict of interest- A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.
They seem quite comparable to me. Both are personal and can lead to shenigains.
They only "seem comparable" because you don't understand the situation you're talking about. Bias requires that a person actually does feel prejudiced against or in favor of something. Conflict of interest simply requires that there be a connection that might cause bias, even if no bias ever exists. So a journalist being friends with a game developer is only a conflict of interest until you can establish that they are inappropriately biased in favor of that developer.
Yes because lets ignore the 1 million twitter posts about it!
Because that surely has reached the mainstream crowd and there hasn't been banners errected in certain areas of the internet.
And you're missing the point again. Take this thread as an example: it has 32 pages of posts (pretty large for this forum), but the vast majority of it consists of the same people arguing back and forth and there's no real sign that many people other than the participants are even aware of what's happening in it. So now we have to ask the same question about those 1 million twitter posts: are they the same people talking to (or flaming) each other while everyone else ignores them, or are they actually spreading out to a wider audience?
Lets take a look at the viewership of these sights.....
Yes, let's take a look at that viewership, without starting from an assumption that you're winning your crusade. What do the graphs actually show?
gamasutra.com: down to the same level as early this year, but their rank is very "spiky" suggesting that a large part of their audience only comes to read when something interesting is happening. So it looks like they've lost popularity recently, but it's hard to separate permanent loss from their typical slow periods and we'll have to see a few more months of data to know how much of that drop is temporary and how much is gone and never coming back.
rockpapershotgun.com: down big, but how much was caused by this incident? If you look at the graph you'll notice that the downward trend starts in mid July and is already well established by mid-late August to early September when the controversy really exploded. So was their decline the result of being on the "wrong" side of this issue, or was the site already in trouble and losing readers for other reasons?
kotaku.com: no effect. Another "spiky" graph, and their "loss" over this time period is no different than any of their other spikes, and is immediately followed by another increase. Meanwhile the overall trend is still the same slow growth that has existed for the past year. And, more importantly, look at the y-axis on that graph: their rank varies between ~1k-2k, unlike the ~6k-10k range on the first two sites. So regardless of any traffic variation recently they're still high up there.
arstechnica.com: no effect. Any variation over the past few months is small compared to previous spikes, and their overall rank is still high. Posting "gamers are dead" seems to have had no meaningful impact.
polygon.com: down, but recovering. The past year shows major growth (without the spikes of other sites), followed by a major drop over the past 1-2 months. This would be something to worry about, but then we see a recovery at the end. We need to see more data to know the long-term outcome, as this could be either a drop and recovery or just a slight upward spike interrupting an overall downward trend.
But I am sure as hell not going to let them get money from anyone. Because their ethics are screwed up and they are not real journalists.
You know, this sounds an awful lot like the "SJWs" you complain about and how they demand changes from video game developers. Since you've accused them of censorship I'm going to assume that you'll also accuse yourself of censorship? Or are you a hypocrite?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: You do realize that YOU POSTED THE LINK TO THIS “SAVE THE BOOBPLATE” ARTICLE IN THIS VERY THREAD YOURSELF, right? How very hypocrite. You are being hypocrite. You should stop, pause, and think about what you want. If you want no reference to how female characters are represented in games in this thread, you should get a little self-discipline and never again post anything related to this subject here. Even if it is also, in your mind, by some strange connection, linked to corruption in video game journalism. If you want to continue posting stuff about how female characters are represented in games, you should agree that people will answer to you on that.
Considering I posted the link (as you discovered) and not Asherian Command, are you going to apologize to him?
Also be warned Hybrid - the search for the hypocrite is always conducted by the narcissist
I think I addressed everyone in the thread when I said. no offtopicness.
If it has nothing to do with the conversation I will ignore it.
Before I bring in the sweet hammer of justice.
Seeing as this thread is quite getting lengthy.
Please refrain from posting any offtopicness on this thread.
If you so wish you can create your own thread for those matters or use the representation of women thread instead.
(I am addressing All of you buggers)
Also peregrine I can see what you are saying and we need more data but seeing how the advertisers from these websites are starting to pull away. I can safely say gamer gate is winning their cause. And ethics is being forced onto the journalists.
And this is not similar to the SJWs.
The SJWs are in it because they think they know what is right, subsquently so do we.
but here is the difference, WE play video games. We are in the industry. They are not.
They only jumped onto the bandwagon as soon as Zoe Quinn or Antia involved themselves or found themselves underattack.
They began white knighting for these peoples. What they are doing is far worse.
They are pulling influence in and attacking randomly.
Using miniorities as a shield for what they do.
Using whatever means to silence their opposition.
I will hear their opinion and I will take it into account as long as it is not filled with vile or hatred.
Which is common on the anti-gamer gate side, Like shesh, I got swarmed immediately when I pointed out that not all gamers were misogynists, and then I got told I hate women and that I hate minorities
If you really think our side is deplorable look at the other side.
The other side is trying to do their best to squash this to silence it, plugging their ears and yelling at themselves so they can't hear criticisms. There may be some haters, but it is not the entire movement.
You cannot generalize when you talk about a community.
If I made the comment all men are stupid morons who are also spankers on their offtime. That is insulting and hurts men. That is a generalization, and if I was a journalist that is a breach of ethical standards. If I am a feminist and I say that. That is even more of a cause of concern. because I am using my political background as leverage to appeal my idea.
As far as I can see that has nothing to do with gamergate.
So, let me get this straight:
websiteyoudon'tlike.com says "no discussion of gamergate" and locks/deletes any attempts to discuss it = censorship.
"SJWs" say "this is not appropriate, stop putting it into your games" = censorship.
You say "this is off-topic, stop talking about it here" = not censorship.
I think everyone but you can see how this is not exactly a consistent position to hold. Perhaps, before labeling everything as censorship, you should consider how that label could apply to your own actions?
MrDwhitey wrote: Locking/deleting all threads about a subject, and asking someone to post in the correct thread about a subject, are not even slightly the same thing.
No, they're exactly the same thing. In both cases people are being told "take this discussion elsewhere". The only difference is that one is something Asherian Command approves of, while one is done by people that he disagrees with.
Just saying, and I have no bone to pick with this situation, but also, offtopic stuff is generally against the rules for this actual forum isn't it?
And a forum with a "no gamergate topics" rule is just enforcing their rules.
No, they're not. That's pretty much it. One is the suppression of all speech on a forum about a subject, the other is merely posting it in the appropriate threads, or making your own for it. One allows discussion of it, one does not. Arguing that you can't bring up random gak in every single thread is frankly being petulant/Frazzled.
As for it being their rules, then fair does. As far as I can remember, Freedom of speech or whatever the hell laws people ascribe to don't generally apply on privately owned forums right?
MrDwhitey wrote: No, they're not. That's pretty much it. One is the suppression of all speech on a forum about a subject, the other is merely posting it in the appropriate threads, or making your own for it. One allows discussion of it, one does not. Arguing that you can't bring up random gak in every single thread is frankly being petulant/Frazzled.
Except Asherian Command's argument is that restricting speech to a less-appealing location (for example, your own personal blog instead of a more popular website) is censorship even though you're still free to speak. And yet he's still insisting that I take my speech elsewhere, where it might not have as much of an audience as it would in this thread.
(And just to clarify, I'm not opposed to rules about sticking to the topic. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of constantly labeling everything "censorship" and then doing the same things when it's something he doesn't approve of.)
As for it being their rules, then fair does. As far as I can remember, Freedom of speech or whatever the hell laws people ascribe to don't generally apply on privately owned forums right?
Exactly. The right to freedom of speech only applies to government interference, it does not in any way give you the right to use someone else's property to help you speak.
Except Asherian Command's argument is that restricting speech to a less-appealing location (for example, your own personal blog instead of a more popular website) is censorship even though you're still free to speak. And yet he's still insisting that I take my speech elsewhere, where it might not have as much of an audience as it would in this thread.
(And just to clarify, I'm not opposed to rules about sticking to the topic. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of constantly labeling everything "censorship" and then doing the same things when it's something he doesn't approve of.)
No I have not.
I am saying if someone makes a thread and it is deleted by a moderator without the permission of the admin, after they made a statement of. "You can discuss this."
Then that is censorship.
There is a big difference between censoring a single post than silence thousands upon thousands of posts.
Your argument is moot if there is no back-up, upon it. I agree with Dwhitey because he presents it in a manner that is respectful and well meaning.
This is a privately own forum, but it is not a dictatorship run only by the moderators. They cannot delete a thread because they disagree with it.
They can delete a thread if it is promoting hate speech and/or offtopicness has ensued. That is a rule here at dakka dakka.
There have been countless examples of people being banned for being insulting and rude to others.
Such as the famous dakknaut who yelled to the heavens. "BLAME THE VICTIM!"
Saying that you are trying to prove a point by going offtopic just makes your argument falter and wither and die.
This is again offtopic. So leave I will leave it at that. I swear I feel like I should just ask to close this thread.
I would say the context of the censorship, and the lengths it go to, would really need to be factored into judging whether it's good or not.
To clarify, I don't believe all censorship is a bad thing.
If what you say is factual, then it'd be more he's potentially using relatively sensible censorship rules to his advantage in maintaining a discussion on an issue. I wouldn't exactly consider it hypocritical considering the vast difference in censorship he's using in regards to what he's opposed to, but it is certainly amusing. Then I find most things amusing so...
I would much prefer it if everyone were to hold open, honest and willing to be "think the best" interpretations of others posts, but what the hell is the likelihood of that?
Anyhow, it seems I will need to point it out to you every time a GamerGater posts something about female representation in video games, because you seem to be able to notice just fine when it is me or Peregrine answering to it, but you have a hard time noticing it when a GGer does it. Which is likely completely by chance.
Asherian Command wrote: Also peregrine I can see what you are saying and we need more data but seeing how the advertisers from these websites are starting to pull away. I can safely say gamer gate is winning their cause. And ethics is being forced onto the journalists.
Do you mean their coherent and completely clear demands?
Oh wait, each GGer have various undefined demand that most of the time do somehow overlap the demands of other GGers.
Asherian Command wrote: The SJWs are in it because they think they know what is right, subsquently so do we.
but here is the difference, WE play video games. We are in the industry. They are not.
I am pretty sure I play video games. Do you, Peregrine?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: I am saying if someone makes a thread and it is deleted by a moderator without the permission of the admin, after they made a statement of. "You can discuss this."
Then that is censorship.
No, that is abuse of power, and is solved quite efficiently by sending an email to the admin explaining this. It will however backfire badly if that was actually done with the permission of the admin.
Whilst I am fairly certain a good deal of so called "SJW's" only took part due to certain individuals, I find it laughable that would be the only reason for all of them. I'm going to bet that a good amount of people who consider themselves "Gamers" would also be "SJW's".
I am pretty sure I play video games. Do you, Peregrine?
Do categorize yourself as an SJW?
Do you wish to kill the world of video games because they disagree with your opinions?
Are you ill-researched and often find yourself calling people misogynists?
Do you mean their coherent and completely clear demands?
Oh wait, each GGer have various undefined demand that most of the time do somehow overlap the demands of other GGers.
Nope.
I mean that they need work. They aren't clear and he rarely capitilizes the first letter of a sentence.
He only asks or answers with a single sentence.
I commentate and give guidance. I do support the movement but that does not mean I agree with everything in it.
Just like how I am a chocolate lover but I don't like all chocolates.
I pick and choose which arguments I agree with, those that I don't I simply just disagree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Whilst I am fairly certain a good deal of so called "SJW's" only took part due to certain individuals, I find it laughable that would be the only reason for all of them. I'm going to bet that a good amount of people who consider themselves "Gamers" would also be "SJW's".
'
It happens in every movement.
I think i have stated that before.
In every movement you have some stupid extremist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: I would say the context of the censorship, and the lengths it go to, would really need to be factored into judging whether it's good or not.
To clarify, I don't believe all censorship is a bad thing.
If what you say is factual, then it'd be more he's potentially using relatively sensible censorship rules to his advantage in maintaining a discussion on an issue. I wouldn't exactly consider it hypocritical considering the vast difference in censorship he's using in regards to what he's opposed to, but it is certainly amusing. Then I find most things amusing so...
I would much prefer it if everyone were to hold open, honest and willing to be "think the best" interpretations of others posts, but what the hell is the likelihood of that?
I agree. Censoring a bully or removing someones voice who is known to be rude, a jerk or trying to provoke people or trying to hurt others with their words are people who should be censored.
People do this all the time by muting another player or sqeuchling them.
But yes I listen to sensible arguments. not people who refuse to read everything and stay informed on the issue.
If you choose not to be informed do not come and commentate on this thread.
Asherian Command wrote: This is a privately own forum, but it is not a dictatorship run only by the moderators. They cannot delete a thread because they disagree with it.
Yes they can. And they do.
I swear I feel like I should just ask to close this thread.
IOW, "stop discussing something I don't like or I'll get the mods to censor this thread". If you don't like the contents of this thread then why not just stop participating in it? Why do you need to censor it for everyone else?
Asherian Command wrote: Do you wish to kill the world of video games because they disagree with your opinions?
No, of course I don't, and neither do the "SJWs" you hate. In fact, I think that most of those changes would be better for the world of video games. The only people talking about killing video games are people who have built careers around whining about how feminists hate men and want to destroy everything men like.
In every movement you have some stupid extremist.
And if you think that the criticism of games and gamers is "extremist" then you clearly haven't met the real extremists.
If you choose not to be informed do not come and commentate on this thread.
Oh hey, more censorship. Aren't you supposed to be opposed to censorship?
I come to this thread to keep up to date on what is going on with Gamergate, not to read forum posters carrying on personal vendettas from multiple threads and trying to hit one another with "gotcha" posts.
Peregrine, we get it, you think you got one over on Asherian with the whole censorship thing. It was cute about a page ago, it is not cute now.
Why don't you guys take the other gak to PM and keep this thread open to developments regarding Gamergate? Because at this point a very interesting and formerly informative thread has degenerated into a slap fest between multiple users and it is becoming tiresome.
I come to this thread to keep up to date on what is going on with Gamergate, not to read forum posters carrying on personal vendettas from multiple threads and trying to hit one another with "gotcha" posts.
Peregrine, we get it, you think you got one over on Asherian with the whole censorship thing. It was cute about a page ago, it is not cute now.
Why don't you guys take the other gak to PM and keep this thread open to developments regarding Gamergate? Because at this point a very interesting and formerly informative thread has degenerated into a slap fest between multiple users and it is becoming tiresome.
Agreed. I have tried to get it back on topic though.
Ugh as far as I can see I am done with this thread because the two of them attack me like rabid dogs.
I feel for you situation, Asherian and have appreciated your efforts in this thread. Some members on here seem hell bent on causing it to be locked, though. Perhaps a mod can come in here and politely remind people to stay on topic without nuking the whole thing from orbit?
To be honest, I have been afraid of hitting the yellow triangle because I don't want the entire thread washed away for certain incessant off-topic postings, but it does appear to be approaching "lost cause" territory. :(
According to you. According to someone else, I will be. And if I make a comment on a YouTube video about the sexualization of all goddess on Strife, you can damn well expect people to assume I did not play the game, and I am not playing games in general. Both are false.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: According to you. According to someone else, I will be. And if I make a comment on a YouTube video about the sexualization of all goddess on Strife, you can damn well expect people to assume I did not play the game, and I am not playing games in general. Both are false.
But we all know that already.
That is common sense.
I will be called a misogynist for just about anything.
Oh my god. Really?
Yeah don't trust wikipedia it is quite biased in many ways.
And I think they need to look it over because it is reading to be very biased and heavily one sided.
I think that there is quite a bit of tension.
I agree that the triple A corporations have things wrong with it. But small steps fix the smaller group and then when that is done and there are allies that have been set up then we deal with the triple A companies.
But it does raise some legitmate criticisms and then falls apart by the end.
Asherian Command wrote: And I think they need to look it over because it is reading to be very biased and heavily one sided.
I think you need to read it again. That seems to be about the fairest coverage you can have of something like this, both "sides" are represented and the article as a whole takes no position.
Asherian Command wrote: And I think they need to look it over because it is reading to be very biased and heavily one sided.
I think you need to read it again. That seems to be about the fairest coverage you can have of something like this, both "sides" are represented and the article as a whole takes no position.
I don't know they don't mention at all several interviews between gamers,
Especially from youtubers such as Minx, and Total Biscuit.
Currently there is not a balanced revenue of sources in the subject.
As some of them are forgetting bits and pieces of the argument that are happening.
And some legitmate criticisms.
Such as the call for no hate against zoe quinn.
And then saying that notyourshield is just sockpuppet accounts when it has been proved false several times.
So far it seems to be borderline pandering to the journalistic side, instead of a middle ground.
Middle ground would pick and choose from all sides.
And post a disclaimer on the article about it and say it is ongoing. (Which it has)
Asherian Command wrote: I don't know they don't mention at all several interviews between gamers,
Especially from youtubers such as Minx, and Total Biscuit.
And? It's a finite-length article where the point is to summarize the event, not to make a record of every single thing said by every single person that was even vaguely related to it. Do these sources you're talking about add legitimate new perspectives that are not already covered by the material that is already cited in the article, or is your goal just to add redundant content in an argument from popularity?
Oh my god. Really?
Yeah don't trust wikipedia it is quite biased in many ways.
And I think they need to look it over because it is reading to be very biased and heavily one sided.
I think that there is quite a bit of tension.
I agree that the triple A corporations have things wrong with it. But small steps fix the smaller group and then when that is done and there are allies that have been set up then we deal with the triple A companies.
But it does raise some legitmate criticisms and then falls apart by the end.
Though it is wikipedia a user edited forum.
The Wikipedia article has been guarded by a cybermob on the journo side of things for a few weeks now, its how that 13 year old girl got doxxed and had her personal information published and she was of course jumped on by social justice hate brigade, real class acts.
Nero getting the syringe in the mail is another good one. Seems all the insanity and genuine threats are coming from the journo side. But lets have that explained away in 3... 2... 1...
Asherian Command wrote: I don't know they don't mention at all several interviews between gamers,
Especially from youtubers such as Minx, and Total Biscuit.
And? It's a finite-length article where the point is to summarize the event, not to make a record of every single thing said by every single person that was even vaguely related to it. Do these sources you're talking about add legitimate new perspectives that are not already covered by the material that is already cited in the article, or is your goal just to add redundant content in an argument from popularity?
I guess you didn't read the article then? It mentions several examples of people on either side of the debate condemning the harassment of Zoe Quinn, dismissing it as an obnoxious minority that doesn't represent the gaming community as a whole, and/or regretting that harassment of one person has taken the focus away from the issues that really matter.
And then saying that notyourshield is just sockpuppet accounts when it has been proved false several times.
So what you want is for the article to favor your side, not for it to be neutral. Because right now it's neutral, it cites the claims that there were sockpuppets and it cites the denial of sockpuppeting. And it doesn't say that sockpuppets were used, it says that some people claimed that sockpuppets were used. And that's something that is indisputable fact.
Clearly you aren't reading the same article as the rest of us, because the one on wikipedia right now gives attention to all sides. Not allowing "your" side to dominate the article does not mean that you're being neglected.
And not interviews of those involved.
See previous question about what those interviews add to the discussion.
I guess you didn't read the article then? It mentions several examples of people on either side of the debate condemning the harassment of Zoe Quinn, dismissing it as an obnoxious minority that doesn't represent the gaming community as a whole, and/or regretting that harassment of one person has taken the focus away from the issues that really matter.
And then saying that notyourshield is just sockpuppet accounts when it has been proved false several times.
So what you want is for the article to favor your side, not for it to be neutral. Because right now it's neutral, it cites the claims that there were sockpuppets and it cites the denial of sockpuppeting. And it doesn't say that sockpuppets were used, it says that some people claimed that sockpuppets were used. And that's something that is indisputable fact.
Clearly you aren't reading the same article as the rest of us, because the one on wikipedia right now gives attention to all sides. Not allowing "your" side to dominate the article does not mean that you're being neglected.
And not interviews of those involved.
See previous question about what those interviews add to the discussion.
Just reread it and saw those arguments agreed on several. but thus far It read as not very neutral on some bits and pieces. It is a lot better than it was a few weeks ago.
I signed that boogie petition. Sadly, The anti-gg side doxxed (outdated info) him which was enough to threaten him to silence. For having a vry moderate "lets be reasonable people" stance, like Totalbiscuit who also copped a load of gak. But Zoe was the only one that's suffered in all this -_-
Yonan wrote: I signed that boogie petition. Sadly, The anti-gg side doxxed (outdated info) him which was enough to threaten him to silence. For having a vry moderate "lets be reasonable people" stance, like Totalbiscuit who also copped a load of gak. But Zoe was the only one that's suffered in all this -_-
IT happens people get targeted. because for really stupid reason.
cause I was 16 and because I was angry, too readily bored and too easily lonely, and because I wanted very badly to be accepted by anyone at all, I once spent the better part of an October weekend doing nitrous oxide in a San Diego hotel suite with a dozen or so hackers and internet trolls.
My presence wasn't some freak happening. It was the result of some two years I'd spent running in trolling circles: an affiliate of Bantown, a sometimes-member of 4chan, and an early contributor to Encyclopedia Dramatica, the Wiki site where we documented our exploits (that is: where we documented every time we made somebody cry or scream for our own amusement). I wasn't a hacker. I didn't have the technical know-how for much of that. But I compensated for this deficiency with an over-abundance of juvenile sociopathic impulse. I was one of them, or at least I had the company t-shirt (bright yellow; red, MS-Paint style star with a missing pixel; ‘LOL DONGS' printed across the front).
I was in San Diego for 2006's ToorCon, a "hacker convention" of the gray-hat kind that is still held there today, still somewhere between a legitimate security conference and a gathering of criminals. The main event was a talk by two fellow trolls: Mischa Spiegelmock ("Rev. Mischa"), who worked for SixApart, the company behind LiveJournal, and Andrew Auernheimer ("weev"). Auernheimer was relatively obscure then, but six years later would become considerably more famous after he was convicted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for exposing the email addresses of tens of thousands of AT&T iPad customers, served a year in federal prison, was released on a technicality, and promptly expatriated to Lebanon. He was the one who invited me to San Diego. He was also the one standing over me with the nitrous and telling me to take it while I pretended to know why anybody would want to inhale freezing gas from a balloon.
I want to tell you about when violent campaigns against harmless bloggers weren't any halfway decent troll's idea of a good time
Among the topics on offering during the speech: how floating servers of the near-future will allow untraceable black-market arms sales; how the Chinese internet could be brought down from inside with a fairly simple package overload if a brave troll didn't mind "being disappeared"; how the revolution — still ill-defined in the nascent days of digital libertarianism — was nigh.
All of this built up to the announcement that Auernheimer and Mischa had discovered a flaw in how Mozilla Firefox handles JavaScript. They said that it would allow them to surreptitiously access the computer of every Firefox user, useful for data storage, script-running, or any other function they might not want attached to their own PC. They would not, despite the pleas of a Mozilla employee in the audience, turn the secret over in exchange for a petty cash reward. There is, they explained, quite a lot more money in covertly using tens of thousands of home computers as server hosts for illicit, for-profit websites than there is in letting Mozilla sweep it under the rug. Their intent, though, was not profit — only the amusement of seeing the representative of a powerful company unable to respond.
The Firefox lackey eventually took the stage to beg. Then he followed five or six of us into the hall. This was when the only evidence of my being there was captured: a picture accompanying CNet's write-up of the threat, of several of us standing with Firefox Man in the hall. I was on the periphery, wearing a tie-dye dress shirt and a black velvet jacket and grinning like an idiot because I didn't get out of the house much and I was finally in on the joke.
I want to tell you one last thing about ToorCon: while Mischa and Auerenheimer talked, the rest of us trolls sat scattered in the audience. During the Q&A section, our task was to ask Auernheimer the following two questions: first, is it possible to suck a dick by accident? (He cracks up. "Yes. Yes, I believe that is possible.") Then, if it happens a second time, is it still an accident? ("That would be hard to believe, no"). If you're looking to understand the animating spirit of trolling, understand that this regrettable little skit, played entirely for ourselves and obscure in origin even for some of us who knew it was part of any public appearance by weev, was as important to our sense of what we were doing in San Diego as threatening an international technology corporation. It remained a source of vaguely homophobic, adolescent glee even after law enforcement got involved and Rev. Mischa folded and decided not to go after Firefox after all and everyone did one more line and went home.
Trolling isn't quite so David vs. Goliath anymore. If it was adolescent then, more mean-spirited fun than outright malice, it is now a frighteningly adult enterprise where the joke is lost somewhere amid the sexual harassment and death threats. What began as the occasional doxxing of a Tumblr user or the occasional angry 4chan /b/ post leading to the uncoordinated harassment of a social justice blogger has grown into a series of ever more serious and well-organized public attacks. Several weeks ago there was "Gamergate," the precious name we've given to the harassment of two women in the video game community, critic Anita Sarkeesian and developer Zoe Quinn. Quinn was harassed on Twitter and by phone, had her Tumblr hacked; Sarkeesian fled her home after receiving gratuitous threats with her home address included for emphasis. More recently, trolls, reportedly from 4chan, were involved in acquiring and disseminating nude photographs of several female celebrities. (Last week the same group was briefly implicated in a plan to retaliate against actress Emma Watson's speech at The United Nations with nude pictures of the Harry Potter star, although the empty threat was revealed to be the work of an entirely separate, for-profit trolling entity hoping to exploit 4chan's recent rash of publicity.)
It isn't that these darker elements haven't always existed in the trolling scene. But I want to tell you about when violent campaigns against harmless bloggers weren't any halfway decent troll's idea of a good time — even the then-malicious would've found it too easy to be fun. When the punches went up, not down. Before the best players quit or went criminal or were changed by too long a time being angry. When there was cruelty, yes, and palpable strains of sexism and racism and every kind of phobia, sure, but when these things had the character of adolescents pushing the boundaries of cheap shock, disagreeable like that but not criminal. Not because that time was defensible — it wasn't, not really — but because it was calmer and the rage wasn't there yet. Because trolling still meant getting a rise for a laugh, not making helpless people fear for their lives because they're threatening some Redditor's self-proclaimed monopoly on reason. I want to tell you about it because I want to make sense of how it is now and why it changed.
One thing has remained consistent. Then, as now, the imagined age of a troll depends on the extent to which they're ascribed sexual frustration as a motive. If yes, they are 25 or 30; whatever age seems just slightly inappropriate for continued occupation of mom's basement. If not, they are 14 feigning older, hiding on the internet where nobody knows you're a dog. (Both types are true and common enough, although they don't fill out the roster: at ToorCon, for example, one of the most successful and popular of our group was a woman from the Bay Area who helped found Encyclopedia Dramatica and who constituted my first encounter with polyamorous domestic life. Another friend of ours was an unassuming woman with a young son; she's since gone on to semi-professional Roller Derby. A third, a woman of color, is now in law school.)
But I was the 14-year-old white boy kind of troll and it came about like this. The web has corners that produce, in teenagers, a psychological effect not terribly dissimilar from the scene one might have encountered by running away to New York or San Francisco some 40 years ago. The landscape is obscure, the pressure to seem with it and local is immense, and the people you meet first, no matter how incidental the contact, assume an exaggerated gravity in your concept of the local topography. My encounter was with Auernheimer and the incident was the first time I was banned from LiveJournal. I don't remember the play in special detail — something to do with setting LiveJournal's inexplicably Furry-dominated moderation team against teenage photo rating communities. The practical consequence was my first ban from the site and an instant message from an internet friend asking if I'd be willing to help out a buddy of theirs in a much bigger, better troll.
The friend was weev, and the angle was a LiveJournal post that contained an embedded script, one that when viewed by a LiveJournal user pulled their PayPal cookie information and automatically broadcast the post to their own friend list to let the scam spread exponentially. I don't remember if it worked or not. More than likely, it just sent all of us in search of another proxy to get around another IP ban. What was important were the conversations that started that day, over AIM and over Addium (better for encryption) and in IRC chat rooms with a growing cohort of misfits plotting the next way to humiliate some unlucky sector of the web. Furries; Neo-Nazis; MySpace Celebrities — anybody who it seemed might come back swinging. Once the lulz were sufficient, the troll could be documented on Encylopedia Dramatica. Like all misfits disdainful of vanity and convinced nobody could get our story right, we were obsessed with chronicling our every thought and deed. (My first entry: "Chronic Troll Syndrome," wherein an overabundance of trolling makes the patient unable to distinguish between situations where the result of their troll will be laughter and when the result will be a well-deserved beating.)
TeenageTroll
It comes back as 20 or 30 people hanging around IRC on any given day, hidden behind proxies, developing a lexicon of cruelty that seemed at the time like good fun. And it was. And this should embarrass me more than it does.
I am going to find it difficult to tell you precisely why I was so taken by this scene and why I threw myself so enthusiastically into its underworld. The simplest and likely sufficient answer is that I was 14 years old. It all felt vaguely dangerous, vaguely revolutionary, but with ill-defined goals. Its romance was the same one that makes Randians of so many high-school sophomores. It gave the sickly sense of power one gets from finding the next button to push, laughing in a rapidly reddening face. It's no different from the power trip a bully takes at school, except now I was the powerful one and not the victim. It was something between having power for the first time and the guilt of knowing it was ill-gotten. Power, because there is nothing quite so seductive to a teenage malcontent as a world that offers belonging coupled with authority; that is secret in the way that everybody knows you're into something slightly criminal. Guilt, because it was all schoolyard. Even when it was less dangerous, it was offensive, vaguely sexist and vaguely racist and vaguely homophobic in the daring-to-transgress kind of way. Even if I wasn't better than it then, I already had the sense that I might like to be.
I can't tell you whether my experience and motives were typical or not. I am, however, certain of a few things. If there was a difference between trolling and schoolyard taunting, it was trolling's particular take on the best way to be an outsider. The prototypical rebel without a cause is either a nihilist or self-serious, disappointed by a vapid world or giving up on it entirely; in either case, he is not content to gossip while there are motorcycles to be ridden in stoic search of the real. For us, it was neither possibility: the world was the place that cared too much, but the way to be above it all was to take aim at its vanity, to embarrass those who thought themselves too composed and too in charge to ever be caught flustered by something petty. We engaged. We had a cause. Whether it was a worthwhile one was a separate issue entirely.
Trolling isn't really trolling anymore. The motive isn't sublimated. The rage is bare.
I don't know if that sensibility is still prevalent in theory, but if so, it no longer means what it once did. Now, as then, the victims of a concerted trolling effort are selected not only by the probable combustibility of their reaction but also by the sense that they have it coming. In the previous decade, you had it coming because you were pompous or entitled or privileged or foolish. The spirit was mischievous, and its intent was to humiliate unclothed emperors. Today, to have it coming is to expose the nakedness of masculinity or whiteness or some other sacred cow of the self-serious; the trolls these days are the red-faced ones, the ones who cannot stand to have their worldview made fun of. "Butthurt" used to be a schoolyard taunt for our marks, not us.
Let me give you an example of the difference. Let me tell you about a man we called Feltcho.
I am unsure where we found him — the record offers only this vaguely Dickensian generality: "Feltcho, like all other internet crazies, eventually got an Encyclopedia Dramatica article written about him." Feltcho was a run-of-the mill conspiracy theorist, a believer in an international Jewish conspiracy but not — in his words — a Nazi, only "one who sees." This in itself was unremarkable and had things ended at that, Feltcho might've faded into the back catalogue of internet oddballs discovered, written up, and taunted. But at the time, Encyclopedia Dramatica had a public phone number linked to a voicemail box accessible by the group, and Feltcho, discovering that a Google search for his name turned up his entry as the first result, began making phone calls. The rants he left — filled with vague legal threats, stuttering disgust over the "pornography" he found on the page, and an apparent misapprehension that Encyclopedia Dramatica was some kind of school project somewhere — became a source of enormous entertainment. The transcripts are still available here (the better pull quotes are unprintable in this context), but they culminated in a call back from Auernheimer, who coaxes Feltcho into saying the words "I have been trolled by Bantown" (on the false promise that this will bring the page down). He never left another voicemail, but Feltcho kept calling for years, with threats of legal action just around the corner. His page still stands.
A few things should be noted about Feltcho: first, he is a white man. Second, he was at no time made to fear for his physical safety. Third, the snowballing of his case was entirely his own doing; like the best trolls, the fire was fed by the mark's insistence on furthering his own embarrassment out of a misguided belief that if he yelled at just the right pitch, he would be restored in his status as a powerful, respected truth-teller. Was antagonizing him some great service to the world? No. Was it juvenile? Yes. But it was fun, the mostly harmless kind.
(Editor's note: Feltcho said he was misled and harassed by the people behind Encyclopedia Dramatica, and that the information on his page is inaccurate. He affirms that the voicemail transcripts are accurate, though he says they are misleading out of context.)
Trolling as an impulse has always been largely the domain of white men. They — we — are all anxious.
Among other victims of the time: Microsoft executives; AT&T; Myspace celebrities of all kinds; Amazon. All powerful, superficially or literally, all victims of their own defensiveness. None of them targeted because they were speaking out against injustice.
So what changed? Culture, maybe. Ten years ago there weren't quite so many visible writers and activists suspended in the frustrating space between immense cultural influence in writing and the ongoing injustice of their lived experience. To subscribe to the theory that trolling targets anything trolls see as a sacred cow without any underlying political agenda of their own is to believe that trolls now taking aim at the least among us is just a reaction to how much the mainstream has begun to accept those voices. Feminism is in — therefore, it ought to be mocked. Yet this explanation seems inadequate. It strikes me as too easy to see trolling as some force of nature not explicable by political motive. Moreover, such an explanation would seem to place the blame on activists for their harassment — "If you want to be left alone, stop being so successful and popular." This isn't right. The world may have turned to bring up new targets, but the trolls have done the larger part of changing.
For all of my desire to complicate the trolling narrative, to insist that at one time our motives were permissible if not strictly noble, to suggest that it was fun and harmless and surprisingly diverse, trolling as an impulse has always been largely the domain of white men — and especially of those acutely aware of a world where the theoretical foundation of their inherited power is crumbling. They — we — are all anxious. The difference is in how we cope. This fear does not deserve pity, nor does it take priority over the far deeper worries of the genuinely maligned, but there is something explicable in this alienation. It's worth having a little bit of empathy if you want to understand where these people came from. Ten years ago, the worry was easily enough ignored: displaced into pranks and jokes and insistence on being above it all, somehow outside both systems, crumbling and ascendant. Trolling was escapism; a denial of one's place as part of a threatening world by way of imagining a troll as its incidental trickster, here to expose all vanities in equal measure. Today's so-called trolling is the opposite: it is an explicit part of these power dynamics; a reactionary force desperate to stop the world from changing in this way.
It's why trolling isn't really trolling anymore. The motive isn't sublimated. The rage is bare. Trolls don't expose the vanities of the world these days; the world exposes the vanity of trolls. I don't know if it will ever go back to how it was.
When ToorCon was over, I hitched a ride back to Los Angeles in a rental car with a man named darkcube. It was nearly midnight, and he needed to catch his redeye to Detroit. We returned the car to a rental agency down the street from LAX, finishing off the last of the drugs in the parking lot and taking the keys into a room with velvet walls and hanging cigar smoke and a silent TV. The owner drove us to the terminal, and I took a cab back to my parent's house in the Valley. That winter I would finally find some proper friends and some approximation of a girlfriend. Without ever quite deciding to leave, I realized a year later that I hadn't ruined anybody lately and I hadn't checked Encyclopedia Dramatica and I wasn't really a troll anymore. Thank God. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I am immune to corrosive influence. I'm not sure that if I had hung with it, I wouldn't have woken up one of the monsters one day, browsing for some activist to terrify with simmering, impotent rage.
:/
Wow that was a misinterpretation and not seeing the picture and generalizations.
*sigh*
I want to tell you about when violent campaigns against harmless bloggers weren't any halfway decent troll's idea of a good time
Okay that bugs me.
Calling everyone involved in the campagin a troll is just discrediting the authors entire intent. And it just shows their ignorance on the entire subject and are completely discreditted!
Trolling isn't quite so David vs. Goliath anymore. If it was adolescent then, more mean-spirited fun than outright malice, it is now a frighteningly adult enterprise where the joke is lost somewhere amid the sexual harassment and death threats. What began as the occasional doxxing of a Tumblr user or the occasional angry 4chan /b/ post leading to the uncoordinated harassment of a social justice blogger has grown into a series of ever more serious and well-organized public attacks. Several weeks ago there was "Gamergate," the precious name we've given to the harassment of two women in the video game community, critic Anita Sarkeesian and developer Zoe Quinn. Quinn was harassed on Twitter and by phone, had her Tumblr hacked; Sarkeesian fled her home after receiving gratuitous threats with her home address included for emphasis. More recently, trolls, reportedly from 4chan, were involved in acquiring and disseminating nude photographs of several female celebrities. (Last week the same group was briefly implicated in a plan to retaliate against actress Emma Watson's speech at The United Nations with nude pictures of the Harry Potter star, although the empty threat was revealed to be the work of an entirely separate, for-profit trolling entity hoping to exploit 4chan's recent rash of publicity.)
Yes because the entire movement and everyone associated in it started attacking Zoe Quinn and Antia only. Yeah lets completely ignore facts.
Lets ignore official statements from users who have said. "Investigate this FBI"
And the fbi confused did so.
This is a misrepresentation of the facts....
Corporatelogo. Please check your sources.
These are not good sources. Nor legitimate criticisms of the movement.
This is just some fool who thinks he/she knows what the movement is about and has not researched the subject at all. At any length. They did research trolling. But not the movement itself.
And this is a misrepresentation of the facts at hand.
Wow, that guy manages to be an insulting prick and anti-intellectual at the same time, without backing up his arguments whatsoever. I'm sure that's worth at least a bronze in the Oppression Olympics.
I watched a bit, heard nothing interesting, a bunch of excerpt out of context. Also keep in mind oral English is way harder for me to get than written English.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I watched a bit, heard nothing interesting, a bunch of excerpt out of context. Also keep in mind oral English is way harder for me to get than written English.
Basically it is decrying the entire consumers and trying to rally the people into making their decisions matter more than the gamers.
It is basically a pep rally, except the problem is that he goes a little too far into the territory of being a proagandist and trying to incite people to be anti-gamer and to destroy games that the gamer's like.
You have to watch the whole video.
You can't watch a tiny portion and get bored and walk away.
I remember at one point the guy that make the video saying that the guy in the video was insulting anyone that bought GTA, but what the guy really said was about “anyone that defend [something] is really really bad”, not “anyone that bought the game is really really bad”. But then again, oral English.
Can I get a transcript?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I remember at one point the guy that make the video saying that the guy in the video was insulting anyone that bought GTA, but what the guy really said was about “anyone that defend [something] is really really bad”, not “anyone that bought the game is really really bad”. But then again, oral English. Can I get a transcript?
i could get someone on it.
I will get it for you.
Spoiler:
GTA V: Anything Less Than Perfect
As a video game producer, one of my chief responsibilities is to mitigate scope, cutting and approving features from a project as they are deemed either to lead to higher review scores and player satisfaction, or to be benign and ultimately removable without harming the game’s core appeal. It can be the difference between a tightly-focused and financially successful project, and a bloated, unprofitable title with eyes bigger than its stomach. This requires the ability to understand a feature’s value as it relates to the audience’s desires, so as to better represent them during the decision-making process.
The term we have for this is “player advocacy,” and it requires the ability to step outside your personal understanding of media to assess the wants and needs of those not in your own demographic. Empathy goes hand in hand with effective game production, which is why the gender hurricane surrounding Grand Theft Auto V right now gives me pause, both as an advocate for gender representation in games and as a video game professional.
In an abstract sense, this is not a discussion about the game; it’s about understanding the basic considerations of your audience, and the intersectionality of those considerations with the financial, critical, and social interests of game developers. I’ve heard every accusation leveled at critics who dare to give Rockstar’s baby less than a perfect review, and what strikes me is how these are directly at odds with the ethos of what Rockstar has tried to accomplish with their latest open-world marvel.
The source of games’ weight as a storytelling medium is the unparalleled narrative agency and self-direction that they afford the user; that is, the ability to affect a virtual world, and just as importantly, be affected in kind. But for all our swagger as the vanguard of interactivity in popular media, there is notable industry disregard for a crucial element in fostering self-identification within a product narrative: Gender. Specifically, the ability to inhabit a foreign narrative as the gender you identify as, and be satisfied by that gender’s portrayal. The industry (and audience) has long been a gynophobic treehouse, and the traditional safe bet – though not the most considerate one - has always been the male protagonist.
For games that pride themselves on their universe’s reactivity and player-authored presence – think Mass Effect, or Fallout – the absence of gender options is nigh-inexcusable. But GTA V’s location on this spectrum of inbuilt narrative freedoms – navigating an open-but-prescriptive world versus authentic reactivity – is what seemingly spares it from this requirement. The responsibility for a developer to provide a gender option is, arguably, extended to the extent with which they desire the player to feel personally engrossed in their universe, rather than just impressed by it.
In games like Red Dead Redemption, for instance, in which you are escorted through a very strictly-authored narrative for an explicitly gendered entity (in this case, the fall and redemption of John Marsten), the absence of a this option can be excused on the grounds of telling a specific story with explicitly male messaging. The caveat, however, is that the game world will not be as identifiable for consumers whose personal gender and moral alignments are not reflected in their avatar, which is an artistic tradeoff that you make depending on your approach to storytelling and player authorship. And according to Rockstar, the story of GTA V requires a lens of masculinity. The lack of a female protagonist, then, is a seemingly necessary creative decision on their part. Seems fair, no? No male reviewers are raising a stink about the lack of an option to play as Larry Croft to experience Lara’s story, right? So what’s the hubbub about?
Well, nobody is “demanding” a female protagonist in GTA. The issue is what happens when you dare to ask “why not?”
Re-evaluate, if you will, the status quo: That the male protagonist is the historically safe bet. Without touching on the very real dearth of positive portrayals of women in games, this assumption – that a woman in a leading role is enough to alienate your core demographic, or sink your project – is a sad reflection of the consumer audience for modern video games, and the environment of non-advocacy women experience every day. That we are capable of gleefully vaulting violent games into the retail stratosphere, but are so culturally delicate as to feel alienated or threatened by a non-male protagonist, is as damning a judgment as the audience could ever hope to bring on themselves.
The reaction to Carolyn Petit docking a point from the game for an imperfect 9/10 on the grounds of rampant misogyny makes it very apparent why we are perceived this way.
GTA V has drawn explicit complaints about its existence as a spectacular, flaming Hindenburg of a Bechdel test. The critics, as is typical in comment section discourse, are pilloried; told repeatedly that they are unrealistic or naïve for requesting such an inhuman, herculean feat of the developer as to think of their non-male customers, even amidst effusive praise for the product. But that’s certainly not beyond their capability. GTA is lauded for its attention to tiny details; we marvel at how pedestrians flee from a sudden rain shower, or how a Burger Shot employee goes about a janitorial schedule. Rockstar is meticulous in their pursuit of a believable game world; it’s their secret sauce.
When you spend a quarter-billion dollars making a living, breathing analog of Los Angeles county, don’t tell me that making an inclusive product is difficult.
Listen: Making your game inclusive is not that hard. Honestly, it really isn’t. In fact, as it turns out, not alienating people is one of the best investments you can make in your game in terms of pure return-on-investment. What many people don’t realize is the very basic nature of the concessions you need to make to keep your title inclusive. Not everyone is asking for a starring role; only a little consideration, a bit of advocacy and respect, as your characters and world fiction take form. You can explore themes of masculinity without debasing feminine characters. Nobody is asking you to re-write your entire game script, but if a sizable portion of your potential audience is female, maybe consider, y’know, throwing some not-on-purpose-gakky women into the character roster while you’re writing it up in the first place. As developers, bringing more players into the fold is in our best interest. The best part? Even Rockstar is now realizing this.
To have such a rich and intricate world, and then skimp on the appeal to a whole gender, is completely out of line with the ethos of a modern Rockstar title; the value proposition of a dynamic weather system, or intricate traffic AI, is a drop in the bucket compared to not potentially insultinghalf your audience. If you’re afraid that straying from historically male-oriented portrayals of women – as sex objects, or things to be conquered, won, saved, and bargained with – will alienate the demographic that your game is specifically geared towards, consider not developing games specifically for man-children. You have nothing of value to lose. Give your fanbase more credit, that they won’t run screaming from a game that features women in roles other than as the inhabitants of male power fantasies. The rich world you’ve created should be able to withstand the threat of an inclusive narrative. If it can’t, take a long, hard look at the world you’ve built. And fire your writer.
This culture of A Man’s World in games is just as much our fault as it is the developers who perpetuate it. The pressure we put on journalistic outlets to award long-hyped games ‘The Perfect 10’ for fear of retribution is the Trojan horse that conceals every game’s very real flaws and obvious afterthoughts as acceptable oversights. It insults our credibility as cultural critics; when your focus is telling people what they want to hear, instead of your honest thoughts, you surrender your reputation as a journalistic entity and assume a de facto role as an extension of the developer’s marketing branch.
I’ve had my feet wet in games journalism for a number of years, and it is my firm belief that numerical rating systems are total gak in both concept and practice, with negative repercussions for developers as one of many reasons. But this can extend beyond getting stiffed for royalties – overly zealous scores downplay the very real criticisms vocalized in the text. Perfect scores have become a formality for Rockstar, and that can preserve negative qualities in our cultural output. It mollifies the developer and encourage them to guarantee success through repetition. The Perfect Ten is the critical equivalent of embalming fluid.
Carolyn’s modest detraction for what she perceived as an irresponsible representation of women was the best thing we could hope to do for future GTA titles. By slathering ugly truths with unconditional praise, we perpetuate an industry culture where criticism and social accountability is perceived to be directly at odds with marketability. We criticize games to make them better, and in that sense, Carolyn is doing more for the good of our industry than her detractors ever will.
0:00this but use any tangentially related to my dog videos 0:03and as usual I don't use contact any of the people 0:06mention in this video I want you to leave them alone 0:09but I want you to know who they are what they do 0:12this is David Lifschitz David elections is the president and the girl group 0:17get industries engages in the manufacturing sale distribution 0:21wiring cable industrial supplies and related products that the United States 0:25and Canada 0:25in the past thirty years get development has owned and operated over a thousand 0:30residential units 0:31over a million square feet industrial office and retail space 0:35ago group doesn't have a Wikipedia entry and I couldn't find any information on 0:38the net worth 0:39gay group nor about the net wealth David liscio its 0:42here he is conducting 170 million dollar portfolio financing 0:48as the gay group acquires a Manhattan hotel David Lynch's 0:52is undoubtedly a multi-millionaire Alex Lipschitz 0:56is David Lipschitz Sun Alex got a haircut there's now a video game 0:59producer 1:00and he can be found on Twitter under the pseudonym known cold to Tina 1:04we consume empathizing with gamesGame randos by telling them welcome to real 1:08life 1:08we are not food anything alex is working the video game industry 1:12includes quality assurance for call of duty world at war 1:16and Fallout New Vegas when he was a production intern 1:20Alex Lipschitz comes from exceptionally wealthy family as can be evidenced buy 1:23this photo of him hanging out with one's only queen 1:27critical distance was founded in 2009 the price in a very similar magnitude 1:31diagram the group provides a platform 1:34for ideas to be disseminated to the gaming press 1:37mission statement States the goal is to bring together 1:40Highland miss interesting provocative repost writing 1:44video and discussion on games from across the web 1:47and so hard critical distance is not his create a Canon 1:50best works instead we want to facilitate 1:54dialogue in March 2014 critical distance hosted a 1:58games criticism conference call critical proximity 2:01the pope's at this conference was to bring people together in a shared space 2:05and they aim to move forward together to lick a common ground 2:08build bridges get directions the sold-out conference 2:12was organized by superstring media's so your street 2:16since I've been investigating the subject substring media 2:19vermouth team page from their website but the internet never forgets 2:23the street is an adviser so strict alongside indeed Sarkisian 2:27and Jonathan McIntosh the street is in a new one to remember for future videos 2:32Alex Lipschitz gave a talk at critical proximity called 2:35the treachery of games and his views 2:39were rather outlandish to say the least 2:42I will play a few clips the most glaringly insane things he said 2:47I'll include a link in description and I strongly recommend that you watch the 2:51whole thing 2:51Alex Lipschitz is very clearly on board with social justice 2:55hi I'm Alex I produce video games quick warnings from the slides leading 3:00presentation depict some 3:02transphobic Mile End and sex is content all of which are screenshots from modern 3:06titles 3:06alex is the sole fruitcake conflates being alive and growing older 3:11with actively dying so this is the familiar 3:14valuable refrain in the steam greenlight peanut gallery who commits nothing out 3:18the imposters in their midst 3:19their concern is in de France perhaps unconsciously to the fact that we are 3:24all going to die 3:24probably soon and probably painfully so of course 3:28we need two min max our time on earth Alex appears to rank depression quest 3:33over any other me a video game if we judge the validity of media by its 3:37success and fulfilling the purpose 3:39media and depression quest is more valid than any mere video game could ever 3:43hope to be and this directly affects your purpose as critics 3:46alex is under the impression that the negative reaction to depression quest 3:50was because people the defensive and afraid of new things 3:53not because it could have been programmed in an hour by student 3:56learning haste and now 3:57we are in secure about games 4:00we are insecure about game criticism when confronted with 4:03intruders like depression quest we dare to which there to exist in the discourse 4:07reserved for triple-a travestis in the Unreal engine to power them 4:11our reaction is defensive in your phobic alex is not a game 4:15he doesn't understand gaming and he thinks the games don't like 4:19gaming to quote original but you area Philip Seymour Hoffman 4:23it's like watching a group of children gossiping and nonsense language they had 4:26invented 4:27in order to exclude unpopular classmate there's a certain internal logic 4:31apparent in the chatter 4:32at the gibberish is repeated in certain sequences respecting big 4:35rules using the state inflections but all observer would be able to discern 4:39omits the nonsense is late in contempt 4:41for the subject alex also shows us the social justice warriors 4:45have no idea if their own levels of projection all this independent author: 4:49only decided 4:50narcissistic industry that fabricates and integrity from whole cloth 4:53Alex could with the wrong about the merits of depression quest for hours 4:57depression quest is a map to the territory of depression any use 5:01interactivity to draw startlingly accurate diagram 5:04as a piece appear media then it's a resounding success 5:07video game isn't just the label a subclass occasion of I love media 5:12its a local bar that depression quest man just to leave in the dust 5:16as you can see alex has no idea what the merits a video games car 5:21he also thinks the criticism should contain nothing but praise 5:24and this is where you come in I do creators not just games 5:28but I've all media and cultural cartographers with the duty of 5:31praising their maps falling to you the critics 5:34not just for the presentation legibility nor their format but for their accuracy 5:39as the proverb goes the best way to learn about the journey ahead is to ask 5:42someone 5:43was just returning from it and it's at this point Alex goes 5:46truly of rails except this industry 5:51this leadership this consumer demographic we demand knowledge 5:54love the route but Sean knowledge of the journey we want to muzzle your 5:58experience 5:59and call it journalistic impartiality 6:02but be perfectly clear impartiality is bs 6:05you heard incorrectly he doesn't think is possible 6:09to be impartial you can't control how you feel 6:13you heard back correctly to to an ovation from the audience 6:17two's credit Alex is well aware of the corruption in the gaming 6:21industry and how that informs a review was bias 6:24I'm a AAA producer that's where I live 6:27i've seen the emails come down about e3 demos and press junkets 6:31and I'm line level in a producer pets are chances are I'm the one booking your 6:35flights 6:35and your bar tabs and spa treatments and catering in rooms full HD TVs an 6:39Alienware 6:40Razer keyboard with me on parking under carriages 6:43and none of these are about the game in replying you 6:48with Paola we're not just expecting you to not be impartial were fething banking 6:52on it 6:52and then we have the gall to demand your impartiality when it stands to work 6:56against us 6:57as a social justice warrior Alex naturally hates 7:01Grand Theft Auto 5 the MoMA condescendingly looks down 7:05on all the people who bought it sheesh 7:08one grand theft auto 5 launched Caroline petite there to give the game a generous 7:13nine out of 10 docking a point for being exceptionally misogynistic more than its 7:17present cynicism can really justify 7:20a very real problem that threatens the enjoyment anyone with an eye for 7:23spotting marginalization 7:25share her commitment to your readership she was pilloried by the internets 7:28teenage in Iowa Smosh pit 7:30miss Dean her too sensitive to get it nursing their center denied granger with 7:34the implication of course 7:35being that day do in their mind's eye they are all very hard 7:39enlightened culture connoisseurs were sharp wits to enjoy ham-handed new mouth 7:43cultural shift taking 7:44their minds and collective conscience home to a steely indifferent edge by the 7:47brilliant satire of South Park 7:50after whipping himself up into the self-righteous frenzy 7:53he'll show just how much he hates the people 7:56who bought Grand Theft Auto 5 and which is 7:59physical harm on these people who so 8:03bullshit presley defender quarter-billion dollar technical marvel 8:06from a woman looking after the best interests of others 8:08their mice that more dishonest sacks hot garbage you should be broken on racks 8:12once again we can see an astounding love love projection 8:15and in his attempts to give what he considers to be inaccurate 8:18representation 8:20the mental state to games he actually gives us 8:23an accurate representation into the mental state social justice warriors 8:28near-death their civil and hissing should not be mistaken for love games 8:31for ideological purity 8:33but for what it is in security to Germany in motion 8:37a pleading request for the homogeneous no typical Mountain Dew 8:40easily ingested but utterly beer after nutritional value 8:44alex also despises the nature of the free market 8:47which allows people to produce what they want and consumers to enjoy what they 8:51want 8:52we seek meaning and guidance from you they seek to become lost 8:56to set the torch to the path and they prefer we burn up with them 8:59and our industry would settle to be an eternally burning garbage fire so long 9:03as well in consumer stoke the coals 9:05Alex actively wants biased game reporting 9:09he wants social justice warriors writing game reviews 9:12so that he personally will know how he will feel 9:16about the game instead of how he might enjoyed playing the game 9:21when GTA 5 stand a good chance making me 9:24straight white dude she'll exceptionally uncomfortable about race and gender 9:28portrayals 9:29I want to know when God of War is gonna surprise me with the sexes trophy to 9:33make me put the game down 9:34I want to know and what something is relatively benign 9:38as having to suspend your engrossment to gloss over the fact Nathan Drake is 9:42murdering 100 dudes from my intricate 9:44you know what I do want to know Alex actively calls for 9:47bias in journalism heal but demands it 9:51I'm want your insight I want your agenda if I didn't 9:54I wouldn't be talking to you soco gonzo 9:57don't conflate personality with bias even if you do 10:00don t buy it as a bad thing when alex talks about the game industry 10:04he has a hard time not sounding like a Nazi talking about jus 10:08the game industry is decadent and depraved but his greatest moment of 10:12insanity lies ahead 10:13when he participates in what I think could be accurately described 10:17as a modern-day book burning you want formalism 10:20you know what is in the game yes 10:25this is not a game it is a desk 10:29it is fragile it is tangible it is not nearly as invincible as rock star would 10:33like us to believe 10:35huh the the 10:43that's right he just destroyed the disc 10:46her Grand Theft Auto 5 to a cheering crowd have 10:49ideologues he finishes stoking up the peasants 10:53with the stupidest thing anyone could possibly say 10:56now I assure you the game 11:00is in fact shine hmm in fact millions of people are enjoying it right now 11:06but those millions of people loll they're on their own 11:09yes Alex that is exactly how it works 11:12I'm sure the Rockstar terrified that you have symbolically 11:16burned their most successful game if not the most successful game 11:20in history I do wonder how rock star feels 11:23about these people
Please note this is everything including the youtuber who was speaking at the same time.
What i got from that Video is Biased journalism is good, all GTA players must be tortured, gamers are all narcissistic dew drinking idiots, and Depression quest is gods gift to man.
Jehan-reznor wrote: What i got from that Video is Biased journalism is good, all GTA players must be tortured, gamers are all narcissistic dew drinking idiots, and Depression quest is gods gift to man.
Yeah lets ignore thomas was alone, spec ops: the line, loneliness, and several several things.
Could someone find an entire write up of what he said?
Jehan-reznor wrote: What i got from that Video is Biased journalism is good, all GTA players must be tortured, gamers are all narcissistic dew drinking idiots, and Depression quest is gods gift to man.
My thoughts are that it's a 10+ minute video, and I hate videos. If you can find a transcript that's actually readable (unlike that incoherent mess you posted) then I might look at it, otherwise I'm not going to support the annoying trend (on all sides of the debate, and everywhere else on the internet) of reading your article out loud in front of a camera instead of posting it in text form like a sensible person.
Jehan-reznor wrote: What i got from that Video is Biased journalism is good, all GTA players must be tortured, gamers are all narcissistic dew drinking idiots, and Depression quest is gods gift to man.
That's about all I got as well.
And something that he is also a nazi in someway and that it is good to have an agenda all the time and to be biased in your reviews and get paid for it is a good thing.
Yepo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Apropos: I am really looking forward to the PC release of GTAV.
Jehan-reznor wrote: What i got from that Video is Biased journalism is good, all GTA players must be tortured, gamers are all narcissistic dew drinking idiots, and Depression quest is gods gift to man.
I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
Jehan-reznor wrote: What i got from that Video is Biased journalism is good, all GTA players must be tortured, gamers are all narcissistic dew drinking idiots, and Depression quest is gods gift to man.
I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
I think trigger warnings would be great for games. Just play the ones with the most warnings
Also Milo is apparently going to release more GameJournoPros emails soon
H.B.M.C. wrote: This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
I think trigger warnings would be great for games. Just play the ones with the most warnings
Also Milo is apparently going to release more GameJournoPros emails soon
There have been quite a many already amassed and thus far the other side is digging themselves to an early grave.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
Well I dislike the name and phrase trigger warning. (It makes it sound new and odd, but it's not odd at all.) The idea is decent one. You wouldn't post a NSFW picture without labeling it. We label things that we worry might offend it's just a nice thing to do. I mean unless you want to surprise and shock someone, but then you should have a point to make or something.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
Well I dislike the name and phrase trigger warning. (It makes it sound new and odd, but it's not odd at all.) The idea is decent one. You wouldn't post a NSFW picture without labeling it. We label things that we worry might offend it's just a nice thing to do. I mean unless you want to surprise and shock someone, but then you should have a point to make or something.
I think that is a stupid idea.
Why would I want players to know that something is coming? That destroys suspense and gets rid of all the tension. Right before a monster boom you are hit with a warning saying. "This scene is graphic."
That would be game breaking.
If you were told about where every jump scare occurred it would make the game stupid.
I think it should be put at the beginning of the game. But not before a cutscene or a major event or any gameplay bit.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
Well I dislike the name and phrase trigger warning. (It makes it sound new and odd, but it's not odd at all.) The idea is decent one. You wouldn't post a NSFW picture without labeling it. We label things that we worry might offend it's just a nice thing to do. I mean unless you want to surprise and shock someone, but then you should have a point to make or something.
I think that is a stupid idea.
Why would I want players to know that something is coming? That destroys suspense and gets rid of all the tension. Right before a monster boom you are hit with a warning saying. "This scene is graphic."
That would be game breaking.
If you were told about where every jump scare occurred it would make the game stupid.
I think it should be put at the beginning of the game. But not before a cutscene or a major event or any gameplay bit.
If a game includes a graphic sex scene half way through it, you really want to know that before you play it in the common room. You put these warnings on things because they are useful, They let you know if you want to consume this media or if there is a particular way you want to consume it.
Basically. The ESRB label is like a industry mandated trigger warring. (It could be done better. I mean just listing sex, nudity, blood is kind of vague. You want the context of these elements not just a check list of if they exist or not.)
ESRB warnings are there to allow consumers to make informed decisions. Trigger warnings, as they exist on places like Tumblr, are the tools of professional victims.
The ESRB is more than detailed enough and ratings in Australia are already problematic with games being banned from sale or forced to change for ridiculous reasons. There is no way they need to be made more detailed, cumbersome or stringent, certainly not to cater to "trigger warning" nonsense.
6:57as a social justice warrior Alex naturally hates
7:01Grand Theft Auto 5 the MoMA condescendingly looks down
7:05on all the people who bought it sheesh
7:08one grand theft auto 5 launched Caroline petite there to give the game a generous
7:13nine out of 10 docking a point for being exceptionally misogynistic more than its
7:17present cynicism can really justify
7:20a very real problem that threatens the enjoyment anyone with an eye for
7:23spotting marginalization
7:25share her commitment to your readership she was pilloried by the internets
7:28teenage in Iowa Smosh pit
7:30miss Dean her too sensitive to get it nursing their center denied granger with
7:34the implication of course
7:35being that day do in their mind's eye they are all very hard
7:39enlightened culture connoisseurs were sharp wits to enjoy ham-handed new mouth
7:43cultural shift taking
7:44their minds and collective conscience home to a steely indifferent edge by the
7:47brilliant satire of South Park
That is the part I was referring to.
I still have no idea what he means starting at 7:25. Maybe the problem was not oral English here?
H.B.M.C. wrote: ESRB warnings are there to allow consumers to make informed decisions. Trigger warnings, as they exist on places like Tumblr, are the tools of professional victims.
Very true. People seem to think they have an inalienable right to be protected against things that might offend them. I prefer the kind of country where you can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't doesn't break the law. You're free to listen or not to. No where in America's Constitution does it say "Freedom from not being offended." That's the price of free speech, you may see or hear things you don't like. Deal with it.
If someone thinks something is wrong in the gaming industry, then work to fix it, but don't try to cry victim or throw up laws to make everyone do things just how you want them. And don't shame others because they have a different point of view.
That's where the SJW comes in. They shame and force others to their viewpoint.
I for one agree that the games tend to be sexist and masochistic, but not the degree the SJW's do. I'm not going to villainize a whole group of people because they like to watch beautiful women or prefer to play male characters. I'm not going to force game makers to be politically correct. What I can do is try to shift people's opinions.
I occasionally enjoy games like GTA or Bayonetta. Hypocritical of me, I know. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don't need some SJW demanding that I change and only play games approved by some board of political correctness.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
No, you just have absolutely no clue what trigger warnings are about. It has nothing to do with "offending" people, it's about not bringing up memories of traumatic experiences without warning. For example, a discussion of racism in the recent murders might say "trigger warning: police abuse" because there's a fairly good chance that some of the people interested in that discussion might have been the victim of police abuse and don't want to be surprised by reminders of it. Adding a trigger warning lets the reader determine whether or not they want to deal with it or not before reaching it. It's really no different than adding a NSFW tag to a post so that people know to be careful about where they read it.
Yonan wrote: The ESRB is more than detailed enough and ratings in Australia are already problematic with games being banned from sale or forced to change for ridiculous reasons. There is no way they need to be made more detailed, cumbersome or stringent, certainly not to cater to "trigger warning" nonsense.
Do you understand the difference between labeling the content of a game and banning games based on that content? One involves giving customers an informed decision about what they buy, the other involves letting the government choose for the customer. I'll gladly admit that Australia has problems with censorship, but those problems aren't universal.
MWHistorian wrote: Very true. People seem to think they have an inalienable right to be protected against things that might offend them. I prefer the kind of country where you can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't doesn't break the law. You're free to listen or not to. No where in America's Constitution does it say "Freedom from not being offended." That's the price of free speech, you may see or hear things you don't like. Deal with it.
Oh good, another person who doesn't understand what freedom of speech means. You have the right to say (almost) anything you want without the government punishing you for it. You do NOT have the right to say anything you want without being criticized by other people. If someone says "I'm offended, you're a " then it is NOT a free speech issue.
And don't shame others because they have a different point of view.
So what exactly is the difference between the "SJWs" not wanting to be offended and your demand to stop shaming people as if there's a right to be protected against things that might shame them?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
Why are the warnings "pathetic"? I thought it'd sort under "being a decent human being".
While we're at it, how is sexual abuse, police brutality, and murder "innocuous things"?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Read the post above Peregrine's. It explains it pretty well.
Only if by "explains it well" you mean "complains about freedom of speech when the issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech". But it does get bonus points for the hypocrisy of complaining about people acting like they're entitled to not be offended while simultaneously acting like there's a right to not be shamed. You don't usually get that argument in a typical "freedom of speech means you can't tell me that you don't like what I say" post.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
Why are the warnings "pathetic"? I thought it'd sort under "being a decent human being".
While we're at it, how is sexual abuse, police brutality, and murder "innocuous things"?
I've seen people go as far as saying you should put up "trigger warnings" up to including curse words, if your fertile (Don't want to hurt those with infertility) sexuality (Incase asexuals are reading this), any sort of violence (Including self-defense up to including light taps), food (..I'm not so sure on this one, thin shaming? They were just talking about pictures of fried chicken so I'm unsure on what this would try and trigger)
I suppose I've been jaded by Tumblr, while Trigger Warnings would be good on sites that are supposed to be safe zones (Like say, violence or extreme noise on a PTSD support group site would be a valid trigger warning area), my issue is that people seem to want trigger warnings within each and every post on the internet in case of triggering someone.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
Why are the warnings "pathetic"? I thought it'd sort under "being a decent human being".
While we're at it, how is sexual abuse, police brutality, and murder "innocuous things"?
I've seen people go as far as saying you should put up "trigger warnings" up to including curse words, if your fertile (Don't want to hurt those with infertility) sexuality (Incase asexuals are reading this), any sort of violence (Including self-defense up to including light taps), food (..I'm not so sure on this one, thin shaming? They were just talking about pictures of fried chicken so I'm unsure on what this would try and trigger)
I suppose I've been jaded by Tumblr, while Trigger Warnings would be good on sites that are supposed to be safe zones (Like say, violence or extreme noise on a PTSD support group site would be a valid trigger warning area), my issue is that people seem to want trigger warnings within each and every post on the internet in case of triggering someone.
Which, as you say, isn't a problem with the concept, it's a problem with idiots using it in a counterproductive manner.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I like how he wants to be warned by reviewers if he'll find something offensive in a game.
I'm guessing he could find offense in most things (except Depression Quest GOTY)
This comes back to the nonsensical notion of "trigger warnings", where you put up a warning over innocuous things that might "offend" someone. Of course, no one has the right to not be offended, making these warnings all the more pathetic.
Why are the warnings "pathetic"? I thought it'd sort under "being a decent human being".
While we're at it, how is sexual abuse, police brutality, and murder "innocuous things"?
I've seen people go as far as saying you should put up "trigger warnings" up to including curse words, if your fertile (Don't want to hurt those with infertility) sexuality (Incase asexuals are reading this), any sort of violence (Including self-defense up to including light taps), food (..I'm not so sure on this one, thin shaming? They were just talking about pictures of fried chicken so I'm unsure on what this would try and trigger)
I suppose I've been jaded by Tumblr, while Trigger Warnings would be good on sites that are supposed to be safe zones (Like say, violence or extreme noise on a PTSD support group site would be a valid trigger warning area), my issue is that people seem to want trigger warnings within each and every post on the internet in case of triggering someone.
Which, as you say, isn't a problem with the concept, it's a problem with idiots using it in a counterproductive manner.
A viewpoint of a topic can be devastating to it's use however if used harmfully for a long period of time, because after a while it will be seen as "Oh it's just that thing these Toxic groups use to try and gain superiority over one another" Rather then it's intended usage for safe zones as people will shy away from it's usage just to avoid being labelled part of said toxic groups
I do not get this whole point about trigger warning. I mean:
MWHistorian wrote: People seem to think they have an inalienable right to be protected against things that might offend them. I prefer the kind of country where you can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't doesn't break the law. You're free to listen or not to. No where in America's Constitution does it say "Freedom from not being offended." That's the price of free speech, you may see or hear things you don't like. Deal with it.
Yeah, you have the right to be rude. Does that mean being nice is bad? Nobody is forcing you to be right, but why would you pick on other people because they are nice? If people uses trigger warning, it is at best considerate, at worst useless. So, I see no reason to be against it. Indifferent to it, if you think they are useless? Okay. Actually opposed to it? Why on earth would you want to do that?
MWHistorian wrote: I'm not going to villainize a whole group of people because they like to watch beautiful women or prefer to play male characters.
Pretty much nobody is doing that. Those who are “villainized” are those that dismiss and ridicule and belittle the criticism of games. I am pretty sure someone saying “I like to watch beautiful women but I agree that the lack of equivalent male eye-candy is a bad thing”, or “I prefer to play a male character, and therefore I empathize with players that do not get to play they favorite gender most of the time” would not be villainized.
Actually, for some reason, Bayonetta is very much liked by some feminists. I know about nothing about the game, so I have no idea why. The problem very, very rarely comes from the content of a single game anyway. It usually comes from trends.
This is probably the best summary of Bayonetta I've read (story spoilers ahead!):
Spoiler:
bayonetta is an interesting one and actually ripe for some very strange deconstructions if people want to read too much into it (consider, for example, the only females who fight for god are faceless female angels who are destroyed by orgasms - not even joking).
on the other hand, the developers pretty clearly just made bayonetta stupidly over the top because they thought it was funny - the project director even notes that they kept upping the stupid sex stuff until they collectively decided it had gone too far. its also interesting to note that her character designer was a woman.
what this does mean is that bayonetta wears its bad sexual politics on its outside - it is full of male gaze and crotch shots. however, what they dont do is do any of the slightly weird stuff with female characters where they pretend they are powerful then put them in situations where they have to be rescued, or undercut them by presenting them as emotionally weak, etc. bayonetta is unique in being, in effect, a demigod (who finishes the game by punching the (female) god into the sun by constructing the (female) queen of hell out of her own hair - the punch is measured in infinitons... obviously) and never seems to be in the slightest bit of danger. the pseudo love interest is set up as an object of mockery who she never even touches. the almost entirely male angel protagonists monologue at her and she laughs at them and then destroys them. it is also interesting that her violence is very feminised - she has ice skates, butterfly wings, summons high heels to smash things and so on. it is interesting how many girls i have talked to who managed to enjoy it despite the ostensibly terrible presentation simply because they liked the way it made them feel like being female was pretty awesome. its also worth noting that they take the conventional game structure of the forces of light versus dark and put you on the feminine, lunar side of the things.
on the other hand, i suspect virtually none of this was done that deliberately. there seems to have been a fair element of them just making the silly game they wanted to make and stuffing it full of the usual semiotic soup that japanese developers love and getting slightly lucky that they didnt run straight off the cliff of terrible sexual politics.
CorporateLogo wrote: This is probably the best summary of Bayonetta I've read (story spoilers ahead!):
Spoiler:
bayonetta is an interesting one and actually ripe for some very strange deconstructions if people want to read too much into it (consider, for example, the only females who fight for god are faceless female angels who are destroyed by orgasms - not even joking).
on the other hand, the developers pretty clearly just made bayonetta stupidly over the top because they thought it was funny - the project director even notes that they kept upping the stupid sex stuff until they collectively decided it had gone too far. its also interesting to note that her character designer was a woman.
what this does mean is that bayonetta wears its bad sexual politics on its outside - it is full of male gaze and crotch shots. however, what they dont do is do any of the slightly weird stuff with female characters where they pretend they are powerful then put them in situations where they have to be rescued, or undercut them by presenting them as emotionally weak, etc. bayonetta is unique in being, in effect, a demigod (who finishes the game by punching the (female) god into the sun by constructing the (female) queen of hell out of her own hair - the punch is measured in infinitons... obviously) and never seems to be in the slightest bit of danger. the pseudo love interest is set up as an object of mockery who she never even touches. the almost entirely male angel protagonists monologue at her and she laughs at them and then destroys them. it is also interesting that her violence is very feminised - she has ice skates, butterfly wings, summons high heels to smash things and so on. it is interesting how many girls i have talked to who managed to enjoy it despite the ostensibly terrible presentation simply because they liked the way it made them feel like being female was pretty awesome. its also worth noting that they take the conventional game structure of the forces of light versus dark and put you on the feminine, lunar side of the things.
on the other hand, i suspect virtually none of this was done that deliberately. there seems to have been a fair element of them just making the silly game they wanted to make and stuffing it full of the usual semiotic soup that japanese developers love and getting slightly lucky that they didnt run straight off the cliff of terrible sexual politics.
Corporatelogo this has nothing to do with the thread.
On ESRB it is a great way to do it, but I think people here sometimes just read a sentence start getting really angry.
Corporate. What does Bayonetta have to do with gamergate?
CorporateLogo wrote: This is probably the best summary of Bayonetta I've read (story spoilers ahead!):
Spoiler:
bayonetta is an interesting one and actually ripe for some very strange deconstructions if people want to read too much into it (consider, for example, the only females who fight for god are faceless female angels who are destroyed by orgasms - not even joking).
on the other hand, the developers pretty clearly just made bayonetta stupidly over the top because they thought it was funny - the project director even notes that they kept upping the stupid sex stuff until they collectively decided it had gone too far. its also interesting to note that her character designer was a woman.
what this does mean is that bayonetta wears its bad sexual politics on its outside - it is full of male gaze and crotch shots. however, what they dont do is do any of the slightly weird stuff with female characters where they pretend they are powerful then put them in situations where they have to be rescued, or undercut them by presenting them as emotionally weak, etc. bayonetta is unique in being, in effect, a demigod (who finishes the game by punching the (female) god into the sun by constructing the (female) queen of hell out of her own hair - the punch is measured in infinitons... obviously) and never seems to be in the slightest bit of danger. the pseudo love interest is set up as an object of mockery who she never even touches. the almost entirely male angel protagonists monologue at her and she laughs at them and then destroys them. it is also interesting that her violence is very feminised - she has ice skates, butterfly wings, summons high heels to smash things and so on. it is interesting how many girls i have talked to who managed to enjoy it despite the ostensibly terrible presentation simply because they liked the way it made them feel like being female was pretty awesome. its also worth noting that they take the conventional game structure of the forces of light versus dark and put you on the feminine, lunar side of the things.
on the other hand, i suspect virtually none of this was done that deliberately. there seems to have been a fair element of them just making the silly game they wanted to make and stuffing it full of the usual semiotic soup that japanese developers love and getting slightly lucky that they didnt run straight off the cliff of terrible sexual politics.
Corporatelogo this has nothing to do with the thread.
On ESRB it is a great way to do it, but I think people here sometimes just read a sentence start getting really angry.
Corporate. What does Bayonetta have to do with gamergate?
There you go again, complaining when someone responds about something someone on "your" side said.
I occasionally enjoy games like GTA or Bayonetta. Hypocritical of me, I know. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don't need some SJW demanding that I change and only play games approved by some board of political correctness.
MWHistorian used Bayonetta as an example of a game that SJWs would disapprove of, Corporatelogo disagreed and explained why.
CorporateLogo wrote: This is probably the best summary of Bayonetta I've read (story spoilers ahead!):
Spoiler:
bayonetta is an interesting one and actually ripe for some very strange deconstructions if people want to read too much into it (consider, for example, the only females who fight for god are faceless female angels who are destroyed by orgasms - not even joking).
on the other hand, the developers pretty clearly just made bayonetta stupidly over the top because they thought it was funny - the project director even notes that they kept upping the stupid sex stuff until they collectively decided it had gone too far. its also interesting to note that her character designer was a woman.
what this does mean is that bayonetta wears its bad sexual politics on its outside - it is full of male gaze and crotch shots. however, what they dont do is do any of the slightly weird stuff with female characters where they pretend they are powerful then put them in situations where they have to be rescued, or undercut them by presenting them as emotionally weak, etc. bayonetta is unique in being, in effect, a demigod (who finishes the game by punching the (female) god into the sun by constructing the (female) queen of hell out of her own hair - the punch is measured in infinitons... obviously) and never seems to be in the slightest bit of danger. the pseudo love interest is set up as an object of mockery who she never even touches. the almost entirely male angel protagonists monologue at her and she laughs at them and then destroys them. it is also interesting that her violence is very feminised - she has ice skates, butterfly wings, summons high heels to smash things and so on. it is interesting how many girls i have talked to who managed to enjoy it despite the ostensibly terrible presentation simply because they liked the way it made them feel like being female was pretty awesome. its also worth noting that they take the conventional game structure of the forces of light versus dark and put you on the feminine, lunar side of the things.
on the other hand, i suspect virtually none of this was done that deliberately. there seems to have been a fair element of them just making the silly game they wanted to make and stuffing it full of the usual semiotic soup that japanese developers love and getting slightly lucky that they didnt run straight off the cliff of terrible sexual politics.
Corporatelogo this has nothing to do with the thread.
On ESRB it is a great way to do it, but I think people here sometimes just read a sentence start getting really angry.
Corporate. What does Bayonetta have to do with gamergate?
There you go again, complaining when someone responds about something someone on "your" side said.
I occasionally enjoy games like GTA or Bayonetta. Hypocritical of me, I know. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don't need some SJW demanding that I change and only play games approved by some board of political correctness.
MWHistorian used Bayonetta as an example of a game that SJWs would disapprove of, Corporatelogo disagreed and explained why.
hmm. I didn't see that. Continue the conversation then.
But its mostly that thus far he plops in and gives a single line of dialogue and posts something that usually is poorly written and or from a heavily biased or incorrect source.
CorporateLogo wrote: This is probably the best summary of Bayonetta I've read (story spoilers ahead!):
Spoiler:
bayonetta is an interesting one and actually ripe for some very strange deconstructions if people want to read too much into it (consider, for example, the only females who fight for god are faceless female angels who are destroyed by orgasms - not even joking).
on the other hand, the developers pretty clearly just made bayonetta stupidly over the top because they thought it was funny - the project director even notes that they kept upping the stupid sex stuff until they collectively decided it had gone too far. its also interesting to note that her character designer was a woman.
what this does mean is that bayonetta wears its bad sexual politics on its outside - it is full of male gaze and crotch shots. however, what they dont do is do any of the slightly weird stuff with female characters where they pretend they are powerful then put them in situations where they have to be rescued, or undercut them by presenting them as emotionally weak, etc. bayonetta is unique in being, in effect, a demigod (who finishes the game by punching the (female) god into the sun by constructing the (female) queen of hell out of her own hair - the punch is measured in infinitons... obviously) and never seems to be in the slightest bit of danger. the pseudo love interest is set up as an object of mockery who she never even touches. the almost entirely male angel protagonists monologue at her and she laughs at them and then destroys them. it is also interesting that her violence is very feminised - she has ice skates, butterfly wings, summons high heels to smash things and so on. it is interesting how many girls i have talked to who managed to enjoy it despite the ostensibly terrible presentation simply because they liked the way it made them feel like being female was pretty awesome. its also worth noting that they take the conventional game structure of the forces of light versus dark and put you on the feminine, lunar side of the things.
on the other hand, i suspect virtually none of this was done that deliberately. there seems to have been a fair element of them just making the silly game they wanted to make and stuffing it full of the usual semiotic soup that japanese developers love and getting slightly lucky that they didnt run straight off the cliff of terrible sexual politics.
Corporatelogo this has nothing to do with the thread.
On ESRB it is a great way to do it, but I think people here sometimes just read a sentence start getting really angry.
Corporate. What does Bayonetta have to do with gamergate?
There you go again, complaining when someone responds about something someone on "your" side said.
I occasionally enjoy games like GTA or Bayonetta. Hypocritical of me, I know. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don't need some SJW demanding that I change and only play games approved by some board of political correctness.
MWHistorian used Bayonetta as an example of a game that SJWs would disapprove of, Corporatelogo disagreed and explained why.
hmm. I didn't see that. Continue the conversation then.
But its mostly that thus far he plops in and gives a single line of dialogue and posts something that usually is poorly written and or from a heavily biased or incorrect source.
The same could be said for a couple of other posters as well, but you're only attacking the ones that disagree with your overall statement as being "poorly written".
CorporateLogo wrote: This is probably the best summary of Bayonetta I've read (story spoilers ahead!):
Spoiler:
bayonetta is an interesting one and actually ripe for some very strange deconstructions if people want to read too much into it (consider, for example, the only females who fight for god are faceless female angels who are destroyed by orgasms - not even joking).
on the other hand, the developers pretty clearly just made bayonetta stupidly over the top because they thought it was funny - the project director even notes that they kept upping the stupid sex stuff until they collectively decided it had gone too far. its also interesting to note that her character designer was a woman.
what this does mean is that bayonetta wears its bad sexual politics on its outside - it is full of male gaze and crotch shots. however, what they dont do is do any of the slightly weird stuff with female characters where they pretend they are powerful then put them in situations where they have to be rescued, or undercut them by presenting them as emotionally weak, etc. bayonetta is unique in being, in effect, a demigod (who finishes the game by punching the (female) god into the sun by constructing the (female) queen of hell out of her own hair - the punch is measured in infinitons... obviously) and never seems to be in the slightest bit of danger. the pseudo love interest is set up as an object of mockery who she never even touches. the almost entirely male angel protagonists monologue at her and she laughs at them and then destroys them. it is also interesting that her violence is very feminised - she has ice skates, butterfly wings, summons high heels to smash things and so on. it is interesting how many girls i have talked to who managed to enjoy it despite the ostensibly terrible presentation simply because they liked the way it made them feel like being female was pretty awesome. its also worth noting that they take the conventional game structure of the forces of light versus dark and put you on the feminine, lunar side of the things.
on the other hand, i suspect virtually none of this was done that deliberately. there seems to have been a fair element of them just making the silly game they wanted to make and stuffing it full of the usual semiotic soup that japanese developers love and getting slightly lucky that they didnt run straight off the cliff of terrible sexual politics.
Corporatelogo this has nothing to do with the thread.
On ESRB it is a great way to do it, but I think people here sometimes just read a sentence start getting really angry.
Corporate. What does Bayonetta have to do with gamergate?
There you go again, complaining when someone responds about something someone on "your" side said.
I occasionally enjoy games like GTA or Bayonetta. Hypocritical of me, I know. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don't need some SJW demanding that I change and only play games approved by some board of political correctness.
MWHistorian used Bayonetta as an example of a game that SJWs would disapprove of, Corporatelogo disagreed and explained why.
hmm. I didn't see that. Continue the conversation then.
But its mostly that thus far he plops in and gives a single line of dialogue and posts something that usually is poorly written and or from a heavily biased or incorrect source.
The same could be said for a couple of other posters as well, but you're only attacking the ones that disagree with your overall statement as being "poorly written".
I usually ignore them. But yes I could see that. But I was wondering why people are talking about bayonetta.
That has nothing to do with this thread.This about the scandal and the conspiracy and journalism corruption and anything that happens in it.
I think saying that bayonetta is part of this thread is quite false. That is protrayal of women. The other thread is meant for that. Again. Thats what I mean.
Don't book a room with 200 chairs if you've only got 20 people to invite who will cheer you.
I found a lot of what he was saying too difficult to follow, why say something in a few words if you can use dozens? I'm always suspicious of people who puff up what they're saying by being overly verbose, it's because they really have very little to say or it lacks substance.
Don't book a room with 200 chairs if you've only got 20 people to invite who will cheer you.
I found a lot of what he was saying too difficult to follow, why say something in a few words if you can use dozens? I'm always suspicious of people who puff up what they're saying by being overly verbose, it's because they really have very little to say or it lacks substance.
I usually ignore them. But yes I could see that. But I was wondering why people are talking about bayonetta.
That has nothing to do with this thread.This about the scandal and the conspiracy and journalism corruption and anything that happens in it.
I think saying that bayonetta is part of this thread is quite false. That is protrayal of women. The other thread is meant for that. Again. Thats what I mean.
Gammer gate is nowhere near that cohesive. If it was only about journalistic corruption, then.. well no one would care I think. It's been an open secret for years that isn't going to rouse anyone unless it comes with some adds.
I usually ignore them. But yes I could see that. But I was wondering why people are talking about bayonetta.
That has nothing to do with this thread.This about the scandal and the conspiracy and journalism corruption and anything that happens in it.
I think saying that bayonetta is part of this thread is quite false. That is protrayal of women. The other thread is meant for that. Again. Thats what I mean.
Gammer gate is nowhere near that cohesive. If it was only about journalistic corruption, then.. well no one would care I think. It's been an open secret for years that isn't going to rouse anyone unless it comes with some adds.
Mostly due to the fact we lack a single authority or leader
Asherian Command wrote: That has nothing to do with this thread.This about the scandal and the conspiracy and journalism corruption and anything that happens in it.
I think saying that bayonetta is part of this thread is quite false. That is protrayal of women. The other thread is meant for that. Again. Thats what I mean.
Why did you not react to all those messages about trigger warning being stupid or not stupid? They were not about scandal or conspiracy or journalist corruption. Why did you not react to this:
MWHistorian wrote: That's where the SJW comes in. They shame and force others to their viewpoint.
I for one agree that the games tend to be sexist and masochistic, but not the degree the SJW's do. I'm not going to villainize a whole group of people because they like to watch beautiful women or prefer to play male characters. I'm not going to force game makers to be politically correct. What I can do is try to shift people's opinions.
I occasionally enjoy games like GTA or Bayonetta. Hypocritical of me, I know. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don't need some SJW demanding that I change and only play games approved by some board of political correctness.
This is not about scandal or conspiracy or journalist corruption.
Asherian Command wrote: That has nothing to do with this thread.This about the scandal and the conspiracy and journalism corruption and anything that happens in it.
I think saying that bayonetta is part of this thread is quite false. That is protrayal of women. The other thread is meant for that. Again. Thats what I mean.
Why did you not react to all those messages about trigger warning being stupid or not stupid? They were not about scandal or conspiracy or journalist corruption. Why did you not react to this:
MWHistorian wrote: That's where the SJW comes in. They shame and force others to their viewpoint.
I for one agree that the games tend to be sexist and masochistic, but not the degree the SJW's do. I'm not going to villainize a whole group of people because they like to watch beautiful women or prefer to play male characters. I'm not going to force game makers to be politically correct. What I can do is try to shift people's opinions.
I occasionally enjoy games like GTA or Bayonetta. Hypocritical of me, I know. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don't need some SJW demanding that I change and only play games approved by some board of political correctness.
This is not about scandal or conspiracy or journalist corruption.
Its all interconnected. It's not JUST about journalist corruption. It's also about how the journalists have a heavy political agenda in which they want to show the gamer culture as a bunch of racist, misogynistic neanderthals and that they'll lie to do it.
Like someone else said, if it was just about journalists being advertisements, no one would really care.
I usually ignore them. But yes I could see that. But I was wondering why people are talking about bayonetta.
That has nothing to do with this thread.This about the scandal and the conspiracy and journalism corruption and anything that happens in it.
I think saying that bayonetta is part of this thread is quite false. That is protrayal of women. The other thread is meant for that. Again. Thats what I mean.
Gammer gate is nowhere near that cohesive. If it was only about journalistic corruption, then.. well no one would care I think. It's been an open secret for years that isn't going to rouse anyone unless it comes with some adds.
Mostly due to the fact we lack a single authority or leader
I don't think that is it. Lot of movements without leaders can have somewhat cohesive goals. This is just my impression here feel free to disagree. I think the reason GG is so messy is that the movement is disingenuous. It's about so many conflicting things because the people who started it wanted a smoke screen and a noble face to hide their real intentions behind. It basically feels two faced.
Asherian Command wrote: That has nothing to do with this thread.This about the scandal and the conspiracy and journalism corruption and anything that happens in it.
I think saying that bayonetta is part of this thread is quite false. That is protrayal of women. The other thread is meant for that. Again. Thats what I mean.
Why did you not react to all those messages about trigger warning being stupid or not stupid? They were not about scandal or conspiracy or journalist corruption. Why did you not react to this:
MWHistorian wrote: That's where the SJW comes in. They shame and force others to their viewpoint.
I for one agree that the games tend to be sexist and masochistic, but not the degree the SJW's do. I'm not going to villainize a whole group of people because they like to watch beautiful women or prefer to play male characters. I'm not going to force game makers to be politically correct. What I can do is try to shift people's opinions.
I occasionally enjoy games like GTA or Bayonetta. Hypocritical of me, I know. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions. I don't need some SJW demanding that I change and only play games approved by some board of political correctness.
This is not about scandal or conspiracy or journalist corruption.
Its all interconnected. It's not JUST about journalist corruption. It's also about how the journalists have a heavy political agenda in which they want to show the gamer culture as a bunch of racist, misogynistic neanderthals and that they'll lie to do it.
Like someone else said, if it was just about journalists being advertisements, no one would really care.
And actually this is kind of what I am talking about. The second face of GG is less about journalists, but about purging gaming of these "political" elements. I have had a few people tell me things along the line of this is to get Anita/feminist out of games, or to stop people from talking about sexism in games. On the ugly side of GG, it's more about silencing people they call SJW.
And actually this is kind of what I am talking about. The second face of GG is less about journalists, but about purging gaming of these "political" elements. I have had a few people tell me things along the line of this is to get Anita/feminist out of games, or to stop people from talking about sexism in games. On the ugly side of GG, it's more about silencing people they call SJW.
I see that as well.
I mean sexism should be addressed but not in the way it currently is done.
It is too balanat too overall attack on gaming.
It is too much generalization and not specifics.
Condemning a large population is not the way to go about things.
But you will see that in every movement, no matter which movement it is.
There will always will be different parts of an argument. Some may agree over specifics other times they will not.
This is not about scandal or conspiracy or journalist corruption.
This is about scandals, conspiracy and journalist corruption.
This is about people who are corrupt and have problems confronting they are biased, or they know about the corruption and do nothing about it.
They acknowledge but they do nothing about i.
In order to change there needs to be something done about it in the scene.
Hopefully this is the restart button for gaming journalism.
Where they look at themselves and see what they have become and become afraid.
MWHistorian wrote: Its all interconnected. It's not JUST about journalist corruption. It's also about how the journalists have a heavy political agenda in which they want to show the gamer culture as a bunch of racist, misogynistic neanderthals and that they'll lie to do it.
Like someone else said, if it was just about journalists being advertisements, no one would really care.
“Gamergate is totally not about sexism or feminism. It is only about journalists that want to fight sexism because they are feminists. But don't you dare say it is about sexism or feminism, it is only about corruption.”
And actually this is kind of what I am talking about. The second face of GG is less about journalists, but about purging gaming of these "political" elements. I have had a few people tell me things along the line of this is to get Anita/feminist out of games, or to stop people from talking about sexism in games. On the ugly side of GG, it's more about silencing people they call SJW.
I see that as well.
I mean sexism should be addressed but not in the way it currently is done.
It is too balanat too overall attack on gaming.
It is too much generalization and not specifics.
Condemning a large population is not the way to go about things.
But you will see that in every movement, no matter which movement it is.
There will always will be different parts of an argument. Some may agree over specifics other times they will not.
You see it, but dose it bother you? It bothers me. I don't see a gammer purge as good thing.
I would like to see a more open, more gammer involved discussion of issues of sexism/racism/all the other little issues we avoid talking about. I don't think GG wants to talk at all. The impression is get is that they want to stop or silence debate on these issues.
You mentioned this might be a reset button for gaming journalism. I worry what kind of journalism could emerge from a movement like this. This movement doesn't feel like a call for free independent games journalism that can tackle and discuss the big issues. It very much feels like the inverse of that. A call for games journalism that agrees with what the majority of it's audience believes or we will call your advertisers and tell on you. A big big part of journalism is saying things that people don't want to hear. It's not about confirming your basis, it's about challenging you to see other views and to look at things in a wider scope. Yes that even includes looking at games/gammers and asking is there some kind of misogyny going on here?
On a side note, I am really getting a bit tired of misogyny being used synonymously with sexism. I get it, it's the new buzzword because you have to trot out a new one every few years to get people paying attention again, but come on.
I would ascribe actual misogyny to such a tiny portion of GG as to render it irrelevant. Ditto the industry insofar as an industry can be said to have collective 'feelings'.
Hating specific women for specific reasons - even if that reason is simply because you find them annoying or whatever isn't misogyny. It's just good old fashioned hate.
Bromsy wrote: On a side note, I am really getting a bit tired of misogyny being used synonymously with sexism. I get it, it's the new buzzword because you have to trot out a new one every few years to get people paying attention again, but come on.
I would ascribe actual misogyny to such a tiny portion of GG as to render it irrelevant. Ditto the industry insofar as an industry can be said to have collective 'feelings'.
Hating specific women for specific reasons - even if that reason is simply because you find them annoying or whatever isn't misogyny. It's just good old fashioned hate.
Agreed. You are not a misogynist if you disagree with a woman.
You see it, but dose it bother you? It bothers me. I don't see a gammer purge as good thing.
I would like to see a more open, more gammer involved discussion of issues of sexism/racism/all the other little issues we avoid talking about. I don't think GG wants to talk at all. The impression is get is that they want to stop or silence debate on these issues.
You mentioned this might be a reset button for gaming journalism. I worry what kind of journalism could emerge from a movement like this. This movement doesn't feel like a call for free independent games journalism that can tackle and discuss the big issues. It very much feels like the inverse of that. A call for games journalism that agrees with what the majority of it's audience believes or we will call your advertisers and tell on you. A big big part of journalism is saying things that people don't want to hear. It's not about confirming your basis, it's about challenging you to see other views and to look at things in a wider scope. Yes that even includes looking at games/gammers and asking is there some kind of misogyny going on here?
It does bother me. But this movement is not about misgony. It is not bout the hate of women.
IT is about the corruption and the agendas these people are pushing for. They could be from my same view point and I would still criticize them. They are wrong to push their agenda in a game review. They should not rate a game because it insulted their personnal view point.
It will be a discussion and people do talk about it. Some gamers don't and thats fine. But they will be dragged into it one day. But lets deal with the issue at hand.
Journalism and the problem from within it.
Why worry? You don't want more yahtzees? More objectivity? Better reviews where it reviews games for everything? And not acting biased.
I would like to see a more open, more gammer involved discussion of issues of sexism/racism/all the other little issues we avoid talking about. I don't think GG wants to talk at all. The impression is get is that they want to stop or silence debate on these issues.
It will happen. Just wait and be patient.
It will be brought up. But it is a significant minority that are homophobic, or sexist or racist, But they are extremely vocal.
I think though we reward people for those that talk about hard subjects in gaming.
Depression quest is not the first game that has done what it has done. And it is being glorified. That I find insulting to games in the past that are being ignored and have done something far better and have done it in a better way. Its pretentious idea.
But this isn't what people want these aren't good subjects they are facing things that are biased completely. We want them to disclose themselves.
We don't want them to hold power.
They can talk about these subjects as long as they are factual about it, and not making up things based on hearsay.
So far they have not done this. They have lied and cheated. They have used each other as sources. That is not accurate.
They are in collision with each other and constantly put down the consumer.
A true journalist, does not attack their audience, they point out the truth, but they do so in an objective way, they back up with reasoning that is sound and with facts, They do not attack like a dog backed into a corner.
If they say they wish to represent the audience and their best intentions they will talk about the game in a objective way. They will offer both sides of an opinion without being a jerk.
To see more than a small viewpoint. Journalism is about the freedom of speech, exercising that is good. But if you use it to further your agenda for a movement that forgets to research its topic extensively then yes.
The press should not always praise someone. They should be able to criticize without being labeled as a misogynist. That is the problem though. Criticism is being seen as harassment. If you do not accept criticism you do not belong in the realm of writing or in the media in general. IF you do not know the difference between criticism and harassment you have a lot to learn and you might as well quit your job. Because you do not deserve to be in this field
Bromsy wrote: On a side note, I am really getting a bit tired of misogyny being used synonymously with sexism. I get it, it's the new buzzword because you have to trot out a new one every few years to get people paying attention again, but come on.
I would ascribe actual misogyny to such a tiny portion of GG as to render it irrelevant. Ditto the industry insofar as an industry can be said to have collective 'feelings'.
Hating specific women for specific reasons - even if that reason is simply because you find them annoying or whatever isn't misogyny. It's just good old fashioned hate.
I was not using misogyny as a replacement for sexism. I was using it as it's defined. A hatred or contempt for women. I also wasn't saying that GG is no question misogynistic. I was more saying that it's some times important that people be able to ask and talk about the question. Are gamers misogynistic, or more accepting of misogyny, is a question I ponder some times. (The answer I come up with most times is maybe or some in case you need vindication. Some times I see some really gross bile come from gaming, but most people I meet aren't horrible people.)
Asherian Command wrote: IT is about the corruption and the agendas these people are pushing for. They could be from my same view point and I would still criticize them. They are wrong to push their agenda in a game review. They should not rate a game because it insulted their personnal view point.
Forget about the marks for a second. Now, if someone reads “This game is sadly sexualizing every female characters, which is a bad thing” and that person actually like female character to be sexualized, it will make him or her want to play the game. And it works the other way around. It is actually a subjective opinion on some relatively objective fact. So, why care about this that much?
You see it, but dose it bother you? It bothers me. I don't see a gammer purge as good thing.
I would like to see a more open, more gammer involved discussion of issues of sexism/racism/all the other little issues we avoid talking about. I don't think GG wants to talk at all. The impression is get is that they want to stop or silence debate on these issues.
You mentioned this might be a reset button for gaming journalism. I worry what kind of journalism could emerge from a movement like this. This movement doesn't feel like a call for free independent games journalism that can tackle and discuss the big issues. It very much feels like the inverse of that. A call for games journalism that agrees with what the majority of it's audience believes or we will call your advertisers and tell on you. A big big part of journalism is saying things that people don't want to hear. It's not about confirming your basis, it's about challenging you to see other views and to look at things in a wider scope. Yes that even includes looking at games/gammers and asking is there some kind of misogyny going on here?
It does bother me. But this movement is not about misgony. It is not bout the hate of women.
IT is about the corruption and the agendas these people are pushing for. They could be from my same view point and I would still criticize them. They are wrong to push their agenda in a game review. They should not rate a game because it insulted their personnal view point.
It will be a discussion and people do talk about it. Some gamers don't and thats fine. But they will be dragged into it one day. But lets deal with the issue at hand.
Journalism and the problem from within it.
Why worry? You don't want more yahtzees? More objectivity? Better reviews where it reviews games for everything? And not acting biased.
I would like to see a more open, more gammer involved discussion of issues of sexism/racism/all the other little issues we avoid talking about. I don't think GG wants to talk at all. The impression is get is that they want to stop or silence debate on these issues.
It will happen. Just wait and be patient.
It will be brought up. But it is a significant minority that are homophobic, or sexist or racist, But they are extremely vocal.
I think though we reward people for those that talk about hard subjects in gaming.
Depression quest is not the first game that has done what it has done. And it is being glorified. That I find insulting to games in the past that are being ignored and have done something far better and have done it in a better way. Its pretentious idea.
But this isn't what people want these aren't good subjects they are facing things that are biased completely. We want them to disclose themselves.
We don't want them to hold power.
They can talk about these subjects as long as they are factual about it, and not making up things based on hearsay.
So far they have not done this. They have lied and cheated. They have used each other as sources. That is not accurate.
They are in collision with each other and constantly put down the consumer.
A true journalist, does not attack their audience, they point out the truth, but they do so in an objective way, they back up with reasoning that is sound and with facts, They do not attack like a dog backed into a corner.
If they say they wish to represent the audience and their best intentions they will talk about the game in a objective way. They will offer both sides of an opinion without being a jerk.
To see more than a small viewpoint. Journalism is about the freedom of speech, exercising that is good. But if you use it to further your agenda for a movement that forgets to research its topic extensively then yes.
The press should not always praise someone. They should be able to criticize without being labeled as a misogynist. That is the problem though. Criticism is being seen as harassment. If you do not accept criticism you do not belong in the realm of writing or in the media in general. IF you do not know the difference between criticism and harassment you have a lot to learn and you might as well quit your job. Because you do not deserve to be in this field
Ya I really do not get the impression that gamergate is about corruption. We have some different views about what gamergate is here. I think because we look at it from different places. Personally I would rather you be right. You know because a nice clean message like "We would like better journalistic ethics" is something I can get behind. Sign me up for good games journalism. It is just the message is so not clean.
I'll diverge a little and blame twitter for the mess. Twitter is not the platform for talking about anything serous. You need more then a brief blurb you tap out on your phone. You want people who sit, think, study and then take time to write a honest and thoughtful thought. (Then again maybe I hate twitter because I am old and don't understand the kids these days. )
Asherian Command wrote: IT is about the corruption and the agendas these people are pushing for. They could be from my same view point and I would still criticize them. They are wrong to push their agenda in a game review. They should not rate a game because it insulted their personnal view point.
Forget about the marks for a second. Now, if someone reads “This game is sadly sexualizing every female characters, which is a bad thing” and that person actually like female character to be sexualized, it will make him or her want to play the game. And it works the other way around. It is actually a subjective opinion on some relatively objective fact. So, why care about this that much?
Sexualization is seen as negative. Not a good thing. I don't think someone is going to say. "OH THEY HAVE SEXUALIZED CHARACTERS OH MAN I AM TOTALLY GOING TO BUY THAT GAME!"
I don't think that is a common thing.
I think there are certain things we need to consider in that regard. They are biased and they are pushing an agenda. They want less sexualization which is good, but docking points because it is sexually charged is a bad thing and makes the game worse because of it.
That is a big problem. People really don't care about that. But if you are going through scores people are not going to read the whole review. They will only look for the score. Especially parents. Parents will look at the score and see it lower and will not buy it for their kid. Or will be pushed away from buying it because it has sexual content.
Ya I really do not get the impression that gamergate is about corruption. We have some different views about what gamergate is here. I think because we look at it from different places. Personally I would rather you be right. You know because a nice clean message like "We would like better journalistic ethics" is something I can get behind. Sign me up for good games journalism. It is just the message is so not clean.
I'll diverge a little and blame twitter for the mess. Twitter is not the platform for talking about anything serous. You need more then a brief blurb you tap out on your phone. You want people who sit, think, study and then take time to write a honest and thoughtful thought. (Then again maybe I hate twitter because I am old and don't understand the kids these days. )
i would agree. But the primary people involved with this Christian Sommers, Total Biscuit, Mundane Matt, and that video that was linked. Are only talking about the corruption in games journalism . The minority on here who are only talking about feminists are the problem though we need a more concise opinion that we need better writers in the industry. Ones who understand what you have to do in order to be a good writer.
Asherian Command wrote: IT is about the corruption and the agendas these people are pushing for. They could be from my same view point and I would still criticize them. They are wrong to push their agenda in a game review. They should not rate a game because it insulted their personnal view point.
Forget about the marks for a second. Now, if someone reads “This game is sadly sexualizing every female characters, which is a bad thing” and that person actually like female character to be sexualized, it will make him or her want to play the game. And it works the other way around. It is actually a subjective opinion on some relatively objective fact. So, why care about this that much?
Sexualization is seen as negative. Not a good thing. I don't think someone is going to say. "OH THEY HAVE SEXUALIZED CHARACTERS OH MAN I AM TOTALLY GOING TO BUY THAT GAME!"
I don't think that is a common thing.
I think there are certain things we need to consider in that regard. They are biased and they are pushing an agenda. They want less sexualization which is good, but docking points because it is sexually charged is a bad thing and makes the game worse because of it.
That is a big problem. People really don't care about that. But if you are going through scores people are not going to read the whole review. They will only look for the score. Especially parents. Parents will look at the score and see it lower and will not buy it for their kid. Or will be pushed away from buying it because it has sexual content.
A review is an option peace. It's not like a mathematical thing. Gamers have a hard time understanding this. A review can't be objective. Good, bad, 9.9, 8.8 aren't object measurements. They are subjective scales based on subjective impressions.
Asherian Command wrote: Sexualization is seen as negative. Not a good thing. I don't think someone is going to say. "OH THEY HAVE SEXUALIZED CHARACTERS OH MAN I AM TOTALLY GOING TO BUY THAT GAME!"
DoA Beach Volley would like to disagree.
Asherian Command wrote: But if you are going through scores people are not going to read the whole review. They will only look for the score. Especially parents. Parents will look at the score and see it lower and will not buy it for their kid. Or will be pushed away from buying it because it has sexual content.
Then the only problem is score. Get rid of scores. That is something I may agree with. That is certainly not the main concern of most GGers.
Asherian Command wrote: But if you are going through scores people are not going to read the whole review. They will only look for the score. Especially parents. Parents will look at the score and see it lower and will not buy it for their kid. Or will be pushed away from buying it because it has sexual content.
Then the only problem is score. Get rid of scores. That is something I may agree with. That is certainly not the main concern of most GGers.
Yes 100% dump the numbered scores. They are so dishonest. A review can't be boiled down to a number like that and scores aren't used for anything good. Mostly fan-boy arguments and metacritic stats. I know one gamer who uses a games meta critic score as the alpha and omega of a games quality.
Bromsy wrote: On a side note, I am really getting a bit tired of misogyny being used synonymously with sexism. I get it, it's the new buzzword because you have to trot out a new one every few years to get people paying attention again, but come on.
I would ascribe actual misogyny to such a tiny portion of GG as to render it irrelevant. Ditto the industry insofar as an industry can be said to have collective 'feelings'.
Hating specific women for specific reasons - even if that reason is simply because you find them annoying or whatever isn't misogyny. It's just good old fashioned hate.
I was not using misogyny as a replacement for sexism. I was using it as it's defined. A hatred or contempt for women. I also wasn't saying that GG is no question misogynistic. I was more saying that it's some times important that people be able to ask and talk about the question. Are gamers misogynistic, or more accepting of misogyny, is a question I ponder some times. (The answer I come up with most times is maybe or some in case you need vindication. Some times I see some really gross bile come from gaming, but most people I meet aren't horrible people.)
Wasn't referring to your post. If I was I'd have quoted you.
Asherian Command wrote: IT is about the corruption and the agendas these people are pushing for. They could be from my same view point and I would still criticize them. They are wrong to push their agenda in a game review. They should not rate a game because it insulted their personnal view point.
Forget about the marks for a second. Now, if someone reads “This game is sadly sexualizing every female characters, which is a bad thing” and that person actually like female character to be sexualized, it will make him or her want to play the game. And it works the other way around. It is actually a subjective opinion on some relatively objective fact. So, why care about this that much?
Sexualization is seen as negative. Not a good thing. I don't think someone is going to say. "OH THEY HAVE SEXUALIZED CHARACTERS OH MAN I AM TOTALLY GOING TO BUY THAT GAME!"
I don't think that is a common thing.
I think there are certain things we need to consider in that regard. They are biased and they are pushing an agenda. They want less sexualization which is good, but docking points because it is sexually charged is a bad thing and makes the game worse because of it.
That is a big problem. People really don't care about that. But if you are going through scores people are not going to read the whole review. They will only look for the score. Especially parents. Parents will look at the score and see it lower and will not buy it for their kid. Or will be pushed away from buying it because it has sexual content.
If you find a problem in a game, you should doc points for it. Like how people took points off ground zeros because it was so short and so expensive. Saying you shouldn't take off points for serialization is a little like saying you can't take off points because you find the games art style bad. A review is an option peace. It's not like a mathematical thing. Gamers have a hard time understanding this. A review can't be objective.
I disagree. There should be a quality held.
If a game lacks multiplayer or does not have a function that is not really seen in the game nor was promised by the designers, It should not be taken off for not having. If a game lacks a quality it should not be put down because of it.
I will however do that if I expect a better story. Because writing a story is easier.
Having sexualization is an idea in a game, it is an art style. It should not be the highest thing that gets rid of points. I think there should be a universal way to rate video games, like how movies are given stars or thumbs up. Those are two rating score paths. There may be others, but we only listen to those types of scores.
With video games it should follow that same path. They should become like the movie industries reviewing scene. They should stop acting like idiots and more like professionals.
Who ever says that objectivity is impossible in games that is a completely false. You can be a mix of both objective and personal. You can mix them, you can do both. And address it as a game and find its strengths and weaknesses. If a game is bad there isn't much to talk about, apart from how bad it is.
You can be objective with games. You can try to be, but that does not mean they can't try to be, the aim is to be objective, the aim is to write like an academic student.
Asherian Command wrote: But if you are going through scores people are not going to read the whole review. They will only look for the score. Especially parents. Parents will look at the score and see it lower and will not buy it for their kid. Or will be pushed away from buying it because it has sexual content.
Then the only problem is score. Get rid of scores. That is something I may agree with. That is certainly not the main concern of most GGers.
Yes 100% dump the numbered scores. They are so dishonest. A review can't be boiled down to a number like that and scores aren't used for anything good. Mostly fan-boy arguments and metacritic stats. I know one gamer who uses a games meta critic score as the alpha and omega of a games quality.
I agree. Scores should be dumped but sadly we can't get rid of them, just like numbers for grades.
Asherian Command wrote: I think there should be a universal way to rate video games, like how movies are given stars or thumbs up. Those are two rating score paths. There may be others, but we only listen to those types of scores.
Why you believe the movie review system is better than the gamer review system is beyond me. I have no idea.
So, “Why can we not” is the correct phrase? Because “can't” is not appropriate for formal written English .
Asherian Command wrote: I think there should be a universal way to rate video games, like how movies are given stars or thumbs up. Those are two rating score paths. There may be others, but we only listen to those types of scores.
Why you believe the movie review system is better than the gamer review system is beyond me. I have no idea.
So, “Why can we not” is the correct phrase? Because “can't” is not appropriate for formal written English .
Not true. I use them all the time. Can't is a shortenning cannot sounds ugly in certain situations and does not make sense in certain contexts.
I think movies have better rating systems in general. I mean when I read a movie review or a book review they are far different from game review. A game review is usually quite unprofessional and very laid back. It should be strict.
Asherian Command wrote: They want less sexualization which is good, but docking points because it is sexually charged is a bad thing and makes the game worse because of it.
WHY is it a bad thing to lower a game's score over sex? How is that any different for lowing a game's score because you don't like the story or because you think it has balance problems? You might disagree with a reviewer's opinion, but that doesn't mean that they're objectively wrong and need to rate a game by your standards instead.
That is a big problem. People really don't care about that. But if you are going through scores people are not going to read the whole review. They will only look for the score. Especially parents. Parents will look at the score and see it lower and will not buy it for their kid. Or will be pushed away from buying it because it has sexual content.
I really fail to see why this is an issue. In fact, isn't the problem with corruption that games get higher scores than they deserve because reviewers are afraid to give anything less than a 9/10? Isn't creating an obligation to only lower a game's score over issues that you approve of just creating a different form of dishonest reviews, where reviewers are afraid to lower a score because it might reduce sales? Shouldn't you be in favor of reviewers rating a game honestly according to their own opinions without any concern at all about how it might hurt sales of the game?
But the primary people involved with this Christian Sommers, Total Biscuit, Mundane Matt, and that video that was linked. Are only talking about the corruption in games journalism .
Err, lol? Did you watch the Sommers video which was essentially "I don't play games, but let me tell you how feminists want to destroy them just to hurt men", without any mention at all of journalism?
Asherian Command wrote: If a game lacks multiplayer or does not have a function that is not really seen in the game nor was promised by the designers, It should not be taken off for not having. If a game lacks a quality it should not be put down because of it.
And that's your opinion. But why should a reviewer be obligated to rate a game the way you want it rated? If a reviewer really cares about multiplayer and considers any game that lacks it a disappointment then why should they give a dishonest score to the game?
I will however do that if I expect a better story. Because writing a story is easier.
And you're wrong about this. Writing a good story is hard. Adding deathmatch multiplayer to a game is trivially easy compared to that.
Having sexualization is an idea in a game, it is an art style. It should not be the highest thing that gets rid of points.
Why not? Shouldn't the positive or negative effect of art style choices be up to the individual reviewer?
I think there should be a universal way to rate video games, like how movies are given stars or thumbs up.
This is just laughably wrong. Not only do movie reviews lack a single system (some use stars, some use letter grades, etc) the reasons for giving a particular rating are entirely up to the individual critic. There's no consistency at all in how reviews work, beyond an incredibly superficial use of the same star icons in a lot of places.
Game reviews. There are context clues that point to it.
It is also. "Why can't we?"
Why cannot we? Is an incorrect phrase.
We can't because it is a standard we can't get rid of it until with have concession, until we have an alternative to it and it works.
Strictly speaking, he was not incorrect. His phrase would be generally considered archaic though. Of course, your explanation seems to suggest we cannot live (correct, this time) without the use of contractions.
"Why can we not?" would be the acceptable way of conveying the same thoughts without resorting to a contraction. It has to do with long-distance dependency in a strange way that I don't fully remember the rules behind because this world has beer and science and video games and space.
I really fail to see why this is an issue. In fact, isn't the problem with corruption that games get higher scores than they deserve because reviewers are afraid to give anything less than a 9/10? Isn't creating an obligation to only lower a game's score over issues that you approve of just creating a different form of dishonest reviews, where reviewers are afraid to lower a score because it might reduce sales? Shouldn't you be in favor of reviewers rating a game honestly according to their own opinions without any concern at all about how it might hurt sales of the game?
Because in this score system no 10 means it is perfect in everyway.
There is no such thing as a perfect game. So why have the score in the first place if there are two unobtainable numbers in it? I have yet to see a perfect game.
Because there is no such thing as a perfect game.
WHY is it a bad thing to lower a game's score over sex? How is that any different for lowing a game's score because you don't like the story or because you think it has balance problems? You might disagree with a reviewer's opinion, but that doesn't mean that they're objectively wrong and need to rate a game by your standards instead.
Because that is a completely biased opinion. Why would you even need to dock points. Its like docking points because you wanted to see the color blue, but someone gave you the color green. And you will complain about it because your favorite color is blue and you want that color because it is the best color in your opinion. It is a loaded idea, just putting a score on a game just because it lacks a feature other games have or if it has sexual content in it, does not make it a worse game. I will continue to repeat this over and over. You do not need multiplayer in order to have a better game.
Adding multiplayer does not make the game instantly better. So there is no reason to dock points.
This goes along with sexualization. You can talk about it, you can mention it. But you shouldn't dock points because of the artist decided to put in. That is art. We don't have people go to statues and place scoreboards for art pieces and mark down for sexual content.
That is completely foreign to art.
This is just laughably wrong. Not only do movie reviews lack a single system (some use stars, some use letter grades, etc) the reasons for giving a particular rating are entirely up to the individual critic. There's no consistency at all in how reviews work, beyond an incredibly superficial use of the same star icons in a lot of places.
What wanting a centralize rating system is a bad thing? Okay so tell me and translate an IGN score into a Metacritic score, or a 5 out 5 system. Tell me and translate that. Make it so that the mathematical equation makes sense.
Infact all the systems of rating are completely wonky. They don't make sense mathematically
They may be opinion pieces but the amount of sub points assigned are far too many.
And that's your opinion. But why should a reviewer be obligated to rate a game the way you want it rated? If a reviewer really cares about multiplayer and considers any game that lacks it a disappointment then why should they give a dishonest score to the game?
They can express it, but they do not have to put into the score itself. They can talk about it through their article, but they do not have to put up on the score.
You can still mention it and talk about it, but that is a feature. Not apart of the main game, so if the multiplayer is not included who the hell cares? It doesn't have it, move on. But then that goes into criticing the game.
You may raise this point up, but you should not dock points because it didn't have that feature.
Also on scores: skip to the 15 minute mark or so. And he starts to talk about scores.
There is no such thing as a perfect game. So why have the score in the first place if there are two unobtainable numbers in it? I have yet to see a perfect game.
Because there is no such thing as a perfect game.
No, for many people a 10/10 means a game that is as close to perfect as you can reasonably expect. And why are you even mentioning this as a problem? There's no difference between a 0-10 scale where 10 is not allowed as a score and a 0-9 scale where 9 is the highest possible score. This isn't even remotely close to an issue, you're just complaining that reviewers don't write their reviews the way you want them to.
Because that is a completely biased opinion.
EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT GAME REVIEWS IS A BIASED OPINION.
Seriously, why is this so hard to understand? If I say a game has poor balance it's my biased opinion. If I say that the load times between levels are too long and frustrating it's my biased opinion. If I say that the graphics are disappointing for a 2014 game it's my biased opinion. If I say that I love the story it's my biased opinion. The only way to get an unbiased review is if you limit it to quoting objective facts like the hardware requirements and never discuss the things anyone wants to read about.
Why would you even need to dock points.
Because that's what the individual reviewer felt like doing. Aren't you the person arguing for honest reviewers that rate games according to their genuine opinions, not external pressure to produce the "right" review?
Its like docking points because you wanted to see the color blue, but someone gave you the color green. And you will complain about it because your favorite color is blue and you want that color because it is the best color in your opinion.
And what's your point? If a reviewer wants to rate a game based on its color choices then they have every right to do so. Then it's up to you as a reader to determine whether or not that reviewer rates games in a way that you find useful, and either pay attention to them or ignore them based on that decision.
It is a loaded idea, just putting a score on a game just because it lacks a feature other games have or if it has sexual content in it, does not make it a worse game.
I will continue to repeat this over and over. You do not need multiplayer in order to have a better game.
And that is YOUR OPINION. Some people disagree with you and think that multiplayer is an essential part of a game, and have little or no interest in a game that doesn't have it.
This goes along with sexualization. You can talk about it, you can mention it. But you shouldn't dock points because of the artist decided to put in. That is art. We don't have people go to statues and place scoreboards for art pieces and mark down for sexual content.
So what you're saying here is that you don't actually want reviews that reflect the reviewer's genuine opinion, you want reviews where the reviewer is compelled to give a better review because they have to agree with your opinion about what makes a good game. How exactly is this any different than a reviewer being compelled to give a better review because the game developers don't want a low score?
Okay so tell me and translate an IGN score into a Metacritic score, or a 5 out 5 system. Tell me and translate that. Make it so that the mathematical equation makes sense.
Why? What would be the point? We don't ask how to translate one newspaper's movie review of 3 stars to another newspaper's A/B/C/D/F scale.
They can express it, but they do not have to put into the score itself. They can talk about it through their article, but they do not have to put up on the score.
You can still mention it and talk about it, but that is a feature. Not apart of the main game, so if the multiplayer is not included who the hell cares? It doesn't have it, move on. But then that goes into criticing the game.
You may raise this point up, but you should not dock points because it didn't have that feature.
So now we come to your final conclusion: this isn't about corruption in game journalism, it's about reviewers doing something that you don't agree with.
So now we come to your final conclusion: this isn't about corruption in game journalism, it's about reviewers doing something that you don't agree with.
Nope. It is still about corruption it is a side thing to journalism it is an issue, but it is not corruption. It is not a big thing, but it should change.
silencing their opposition, criticism, and being paid to review a game by the company or doing a favor for a friend that worked on the game they are reviewing is corruption. Giving publicity without acknowledging you personally know or have contacts with the Game Developer or anyone involved with that game is corruption. You must acknowledge that you have a personal bias, other wise you are breaching journalistic integrity and ethics.
And what's your point? If a reviewer wants to rate a game based on its color choices then they have every right to do so. Then it's up to you as a reader to determine whether or not that reviewer rates games in a way that you find useful, and either pay attention to them or ignore them based on that decision.
It is a loaded idea, just putting a score on a game just because it lacks a feature other games have or if it has sexual content in it, does not make it a worse game.
Yes but why is that a good thing?
Why should a journalist be allowed to do that?
That is a bad thing! That stifles creatiing anything in the medium.
So what you're saying here is that you don't actually want reviews that reflect the reviewer's genuine opinion, you want reviews where the reviewer is compelled to give a better review because they have to agree with your opinion about what makes a good game. How exactly is this any different than a reviewer being compelled to give a better review because the game developers don't want a low score?
No. We want criticisms of the game. But that criticism of sexualization is something that shouldn't be docked by, it should be based around the six major parts of a video game, Story, Sound, Mechanics, Gameplay, Theme, and Graphics. Those are the things they must focus on. If they do not focus on it that is fine, but those should be the things they look at more. But graphics is not meaning graphical or how good it looks, it is how well it works on the screen. Story deals with characters and the world. Sound is voice acting, music and everything else. Mechanics are about how well they work with gameplay.
A good game is one that balances all six of these in perfect unison. That is what reviewer should do. They can talk about the bad parts of the game, If they did not use bits and pieces and they should improve on it. Dock points for not using their tools that they introduced in the game more.
If there are bugs in the game that are gamebreaking, dock points.
Why? What would be the point? We don't ask how to translate one newspaper's movie review of 3 stars to another newspaper's A/B/C/D/F scale.
Because that is the problem. There are untranslatable we don't know what those numbers mean. If I had my way, scores would all be replaced with. I recommend or I do not recommend, Rent it, or buy it.
Gaming is a investment. A game for a console is around 60$ The gamer wants a game they will research it or see what other people think about it. (A smart one does that anyway.)
I do not buy a game unless I know it is supposed to be good. I buy bad games only because I know they are bad games, and then I deconstruct them.
No, for many people a 10/10 means a game that is as close to perfect as you can reasonably expect. And why are you even mentioning this as a problem? There's no difference between a 0-10 scale where 10 is not allowed as a score and a 0-9 scale where 9 is the highest possible score. This isn't even remotely close to an issue, you're just complaining that reviewers don't write their reviews the way you want them to.
Sadly some reviewers don't see it that way. When they give it a 10/10 they sometimes say. It is a perfect game. And there is nothing wrong with it. Which is fine they can believe that, but again they are projecting to an audience. You need to be professional. As a Reviewer you have to review and give an opinion that is true, but you have to address the entire audience and make light of why it is good, why is it your favorite game, what does it offer to the player? And the reviewer has to remember that they are giving a recommendation to a game. Because ever since it is investment they must know that what they say may have positive or negative reception to it.
Giving a 10/10 on a score table doesn't mean anything without the review itself. Its just a number system. If you do not clearly define what those numbers mean. By showing a table and showing how it is good. Or what you liked about the game they are just numbers.
I mean look at my review of skyrim. I deconstructed it as a game designer. I looked at the game. And gave it a 8.6. Because I felt like it was a great game. And I said that there is no perfect game, so I said a 10 point score is near perfection, and I said that has yet to happen that is my opinionated score piece. And that can be taken with a grain of salt.
But I approached it professionally. I played the game for 10 hours. I don't play games the day they are released and review it. Because games change over time. Because sometimes there are bugfixes that go into a game. Sometimes problems that happen in the game a year down the line are fixed. Sometimes you need to revisit your article and re-release it back to the public.
But I think that we need to move away from the moron who can't compare to other games and start comparing to other games. And start writing as a professional, list other games and be critical. I believe Extra Credits had an excellent video on this. And talked about this.
Asherian Command wrote: Nope. It is still about corruption it is a side thing to journalism it is an issue, but it is not corruption. It is not a big thing, but it should change.
silencing their opposition, criticism, and being paid to review a game by the company or doing a favor for a friend that worked on the game they are reviewing is corruption. Giving publicity without acknowledging you personally know or have contacts with the Game Developer or anyone involved with that game is corruption. You must acknowledge that you have a personal bias, other wise you are breaching journalistic integrity and ethics.
Those are legitimate issues, but you aren't talking about those things now. You're just ranting about how unfair it is that reviewers take off points for reasons that you don't agree with. That's not corruption, that's just you not liking someone's opinion.
Yes but why is that a good thing?
Why should a journalist be allowed to do that?
That is a bad thing! That stifles creatiing anything in the medium.
A journalist should be allowed to do that because that's their opinion. You might as well ask why journalists should be allowed to take off points for poor game balance, because it stifles the artist's ability to make an overpowered AK-47.
No. We want criticisms of the game.
And a game's art choices are part of the game.
But that criticism of sexualization is something that shouldn't be docked by, it should be based around the six major parts of a video game, Story, Sound, Mechanics, Gameplay, Theme, and Graphics. Those are the things they must focus on.
Those are things that must be focused on IN YOUR OPINION. Again, this is not about corruption, this is just you complaining that reviewers don't rate games the way you want them to be rated.
Asherian Command wrote: Nope. It is still about corruption it is a side thing to journalism it is an issue, but it is not corruption. It is not a big thing, but it should change.
silencing their opposition, criticism, and being paid to review a game by the company or doing a favor for a friend that worked on the game they are reviewing is corruption. Giving publicity without acknowledging you personally know or have contacts with the Game Developer or anyone involved with that game is corruption. You must acknowledge that you have a personal bias, other wise you are breaching journalistic integrity and ethics.
Those are legitimate issues, but you aren't talking about those things now. You're just ranting about how unfair it is that reviewers take off points for reasons that you don't agree with. That's not corruption, that's just you not liking someone's opinion.
Yes but why is that a good thing?
Why should a journalist be allowed to do that?
That is a bad thing! That stifles creatiing anything in the medium.
A journalist should be allowed to do that because that's their opinion. You might as well ask why journalists should be allowed to take off points for poor game balance, because it stifles the artist's ability to make an overpowered AK-47.
No. We want criticisms of the game.
And a game's art choices are part of the game.
But that criticism of sexualization is something that shouldn't be docked by, it should be based around the six major parts of a video game, Story, Sound, Mechanics, Gameplay, Theme, and Graphics. Those are the things they must focus on.
Those are things that must be focused on IN YOUR OPINION. Again, this is not about corruption, this is just you complaining that reviewers don't rate games the way you want them to be rated.
I think we agree it is not as important as the corruption in games, but it is something irks me personally as a game designer. They should redesign things so they represent the best interests of those that want to read game reviews.
Gamersgate is a very silly thing to be worked up about. What's at stake is the credibility of games journalism. Did anyone ever respect the opinion of Kotaku? Has anyone ever actually based their purchase of a game on traditional "gaming news" sites? I can't take someone seriously if they have, given the notorious levels of corruption present in the industry and obvious difficulty in assigning video games concrete "scores." This controversy can't do a lot to destroy the credibility of those reviewers, given that there's simply not a lot (any?) left to destroy.
Kali wrote: Gamersgate is a very silly thing to be worked up about. What's at stake is the credibility of games journalism. Did anyone ever respect the opinion of Kotaku? Has anyone ever actually based their purchase of a game on traditional "gaming news" sites? I can't take someone seriously if they have, given the notorious levels of corruption present in the industry and obvious difficulty in assigning video games concrete "scores." This controversy can't do a lot to destroy the credibility of those reviewers, given that there's simply not a lot (any?) left to destroy.
I would agree, except the fact is that some of them were credible.
Like Adam Sessler, who was quite credible and is quite intelligent. But after seeing that he had dealings with certain odd people, I can't take that as a trust value.
These websites are given this responsibility
Saying it is bad to want for things to get better and things to change is not a bad thing.
There is corruption and we want that change.
We want them to be better representation of the gaming community, people who have the values of the gamers. Who are gamers, that review the games, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same opinion
Asherian Command wrote: I think we agree it is not as important as the corruption in games, but it is something irks me personally as a game designer.
So you admit that you're happy to go off-topic and make arguments that aren't related to corruption as long as it's something you agree with, but when someone else makes an argument about something that you think is off-topic you respond with "THIS IS ABOUT CORRUPTION" and tell them to get out of your thread if they won't stick to your topic.
They should redesign things so they represent the best interests of those that want to read game reviews.
You're making the mistake of assuming that "the best interests of game review readers" and "the best interests of Asherian Command" are the same thing. A game reviewer that deducts points from a game's score over sexy costumes/lack of multiplayer/etc might not agree with you, but that doesn't mean that nobody else wants to read that review.
So you admit that you're happy to go off-topic and make arguments that aren't related to corruption as long as it's something you agree with, but when someone else makes an argument about something that you think is off-topic you respond with "THIS IS ABOUT CORRUPTION" and tell them to get out of your thread if they won't stick to your topic.
I think it is an offshoot of corruption. It is showing the problem as a whole in games journalism
You're making the mistake of assuming that "the best interests of game review readers" and "the best interests of Asherian Command" are the same thing. A game reviewer that deducts points from a game's score over sexy costumes/lack of multiplayer/etc might not agree with you, but that doesn't mean that nobody else wants to read that review.
So are you saying that game reviewers should not be more professional, and should not represent the best interest of the gaming community?
And I don't know write better than they currently are?
Do you want them not to change.
I am merely giving an idea of how to change. it is not the way to change it.
But it should change for the better.
I want more professional Journalists, who follow journalistic ethics. Which is entirely related to games journalism. I want journalist who are ethical and do not go into a game with a perceived agenda bias such as of being a feminist and knowing ahead of time that they are going to rail on this game because they think this game is pandering to males. And so they want to show it as proof for their political agenda against games.
That's your take on it, I guess, but I completely disagree.
Like Adam Sessler, who was quite credible and is quite intelligent. But after seeing that he had dealings with certain odd people, I can't take that as a trust value.
I am kind of baffled that you think he's intelligent or credible to begin with, but sure, I agree this scandal reduces his credibility.
These websites are given this responsibility
I think the journalistic integrity of all gaming media outlets has always been incredibly suspect, and I find the notion of laying responsibility and power over anything but their subscription base at their feet revolting.
Saying it is bad to want for things to get better and things to change is not a bad thing.
Campaign as you like but the reaction of many "gamers" to the incident has given the impression that "the video gaming community" has been harmed by Gamergate, and I find that laughable.
There is corruption and we want that change.
Personally I'd object to the institutions as a whole rather than their conduct, but I won't hold a grudge against you for demanding a particular brand of disinformative corporate media.
We want them to be better representation of the gaming community, people who have the values of the gamers. Who are gamers, that review the games, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same opinion
I'm not convinced that there's any value at all behind this ambiguous "gamers" identity. People that play video games are diverse and, for instance, though I do play a lot of games myself I certainly haven't felt like games journalism represents me, nor do I feel like I want it to represent me.
Who pays attention to the gaming press? The mainstream press it seems considering they seem to like to republish the same stuff about internet harassment campaigns
Asherian Command wrote: I think it is an offshoot of corruption. It is showing the problem as a whole in games journalism
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with corruption. A reviewer taking off points for sexy costumes/no multiplayer/etc because it's their genuine opinion is not a corrupt reviewer, they're just a reviewer with an opinion that you disagree with.
So are you saying that game reviewers should not be more professional, and should not represent the best interest of the gaming community?
You're making the mistake of assuming that "professionalism" and "representing the best interests of the gaming community" mean reviewing games according to your opinions about what makes a good game. A game reviewer that takes off points for lack of multiplayer is not unprofessional, they just have an opinion that you disagree with.
Do you want them not to change.
I don't really care very much about it either way (I don't read many reviews and get most of my "reviews" from friends), I just disagree with how you're trying to turn a legitimate issue of corruption into your personal crusade against opinions you don't agree with.
I want journalist who are ethical and do not go into a game with a perceived agenda bias such as of being a feminist and knowing ahead of time that they are going to rail on this game because they think this game is pandering to males.
EVERY REVIEWER HAS AN AGENDA.
Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? Every single reviewer has their opinions about what makes a good game and will review a game based on those opinions. Criticizing a game because you're a feminist and disagree with what you consider "pandering to men" is perfectly legitimate criticism. The fact that you don't agree with that criticism doesn't make it inappropriate.
And so they want to show it as proof for their political agenda against games.
So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product, not because they just hate men and want men to suffer?
That's your take on it, I guess, but I completely disagree.
Like Adam Sessler, who was quite credible and is quite intelligent. But after seeing that he had dealings with certain odd people, I can't take that as a trust value.
I am kind of baffled that you think he's intelligent or credible to begin with, but sure, I agree this scandal reduces his credibility.
These websites are given this responsibility
I think the journalistic integrity of all gaming media outlets has always been incredibly suspect, and I find the notion of laying responsibility and power over anything but their subscription base at their feet revolting.
Saying it is bad to want for things to get better and things to change is not a bad thing.
Campaign as you like but the reaction of many "gamers" to the incident has given the impression that "the video gaming community" has been harmed by Gamergate, and I find that laughable.
There is corruption and we want that change.
Personally I'd object to the institutions as a whole rather than their conduct, but I won't hold a grudge against you for demanding a particular brand of disinformative corporate media.
We want them to be better representation of the gaming community, people who have the values of the gamers. Who are gamers, that review the games, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same opinion
I'm not convinced that there's any value at all behind this ambiguous "gamers" identity. People that play video games are diverse and, for instance, though I do play a lot of games myself I certainly haven't felt like games journalism represents me, nor do I feel like I want it to represent me.
i agree on many of your points. Did you join this discussion form to talk on this thread if so. Thank you for doing so.
It is awesome to see people weigh in on this converstation in a respectful manner.
I have always had a respect for adam sessler in fact he is my major inspirations to become a game designer. I want him to eat his words, when I make my game. I want all reviewers to play it and say that this game did something others haven't attempted. And I will simply do it by telling a story.
I agree with some of the journalists on certain points. But raising a single like Depression quest above others and saying it is the only that has ever done this is a bit of a stretch. Hell my game idea I think has been done and I will say at the end of my game saying this is not the first game to try this, and then list the games that inspired it to become what it was.
I think that wanting to have change in the field is a good thing. I want journalists to be around, but I want them to be better at critiquing and reviewing. Sometimes I think they are not hard enough on a certain game, and too hard on other games. I think we should be hard on all games. But they should also be informed on how to make a game.
I respect Zero Punctuation because Yahtzee did make video games for a limited time and understands what he is saying. He is also a great writer, and can commentate on that subject. And it makes him credible. I trust him more than other game reviewers and hell I base my game choices around his thoughts on a game. If he didn't like the game for multiple reasons. It means I shouldn't give it a try and it is not worth full price. So I go away from it. But if he says that game is worth playing. I want to support this type of game because it is a good game, and I want more games like this.
Like I want more spec ops: The line games and I want drama to be a new genre in gaming. I want true dramas that are good and entertaining. But I do not want only spec ops: the line games. I want a vast market offering all types of games.
I think that reviewers should know that. Instead of generalizing and saying all of this genre because of X.
I mean I don't hate all shooters, because I dislike call of duty. Generalizing will not get us anywhere. It discredits the opinion of the reviewer.
But listing specific details about the game and what you liked and didn't like and be specific as to why you didn't like the game are very important. When I commentate on a game I list all of its good things that I enjoyed and all the things that I think could improve the game.
Journalists in general should be an average writer, not a fan that picked up a pen and is being paid by the publisher to write a review, they should be paid, but they should not be paid for what score they give it. They should be honest. The publisher should realize that game reviews are there to critique and praise certain areas of the game.
If a reviewer didn't like part of a game, they should criticize it and make it a point. But they should also say this is what you did right. Because the game designers read game reviews. We do. WE read the review because we are looking for ways to improve our craft.
And this is also important for the consumer because they need to know what to buy and ever since a game cost 60$. Then they need to know if a certain game is really worth the money or the resources to play.
So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product, not because they just hate men and want men to suffer?
You do realize that some are actually trying to do that. They do hate men and do have an agenda to take away the hobby, I remember posting about that a few pages ago.
I think that game reviewers need to be better writers, they have to be experienced in the field in order to write a review.
A movie reviewer can't walk up to a book and review it. Because they probably don't understand the medium. With film they understand what goes into the film. They understand the techniques used. They criticize certain parts of the film for working and some parts that don't work.
A Game reviewer should be similar they should talk about these things in a similar vein.
ARe you saying they shouldn't be?
I care mostly because I am in the field and I am looking for criticisms of my craft. So I can improve my craft. Because sometimes your peers are not good enough to give you an objective review of a game without being completely biased.
Just like how I don't ask my mother to grade my paper or edit it. Because she is thinking in best interest of me. But that doesn't help my case she is too nice to me. If I want criticisms I go to a complete stranger and say. Criticize this, be as mean as possible to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sining wrote: Who pays attention to the gaming press? The mainstream press it seems considering they seem to like to republish the same stuff about internet harassment campaigns
I think we do listen to them. Because there are some good parts of it. As a whole there are some parts that are good, like every industry. But right now the majority of game reviewers are crap and don't understand games at all. They are disconnected to games, and don't understand the medium.
I think in this field you need to have experience in the field in order to write reviews about games.
We need them to understand those processes that go into a game.
But they don't need to know everything. just the basics.
Peregrine wrote: So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product
I took a mild interest in this gamergate thing or at least the boycott advertising aspect of this whole ordeal. It seems like bad PR or the appearance of being associated with something negative still holds weight. Intel pulled advertising on gamasutra.
Perhaps one person can't do something but a large enough crowd or a single person in a large enough forum can. Look at Married with Children, Rush limbaugh, Don Imus and others.
If you are a commentator, writer or just in the public eye you have to walk a tightrope if you are depending on ad revenue.
Asherian Command wrote: I care mostly because I am in the field and I am looking for criticisms of my craft. So I can improve my craft. Because sometimes your peers are not good enough to give you an objective review of a game without being completely biased.
I like this philosophy and respect you for having it.
Intel is pulling their ads off of Gamasutra due to the 'shifts in editorial positioning'. Ex-cel-lent. Who would have thought that attacking a large demographic for your advertisers products would result in said advertisers being unhappy. I have already thanked them for their cutting of support to anti-gamer sites, make sure you do too.
Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.
Sexualization is seen as negative. Not a good thing. I don't think someone is going to say. "OH THEY HAVE SEXUALIZED CHARACTERS OH MAN I AM TOTALLY GOING TO BUY THAT GAME!"
Really? where have you been living all these years sex sells
more communication with sonico
Spoiler:
Dream C club
Spoiler:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Spoiler:
Reviews are always biased but so many are blatantly promotion pieces instead of critiquing the game.
And about ESRB, 18+ rating should be enough, if your are still offended, one should go play checkers or chess (trees were killed to make these play pieces).
or should every game come with a booklet of disclaimers, on who it might offend?
Yonan wrote: Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.
So how exactly does the "gamergate" side justify complaining about censorship when "SJWs" try to persuade game developers that removing certain things from their games is good for business? There seems to be a double standard here where whether or not an action is censorship depends on whether "your" side agrees with it.
Peregrine wrote: So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product
And about ESRB, 18+ rating should be enough, if your are still offended, one should go play checkers or chess (trees were killed to make these play pieces).
or should every game come with a booklet of disclaimers, on who it might offend?
Can't play chess it's literally the worst game ever, it has a King (Patriarchy)as it's most important piece, a Queen (Tokenism, she's the only female), Bishops (Catholic Hate Mongers and probably child molesters), Rooks (Clearly a phallic symbol for Hetero Male Dominance and sexual identity repression - they only move in straight lines), Knights (Animal abuse much?), and Pawns (Classist propaganda), and not only that, the black side is forced to go last (Pure unadulterated racism).
Asherian Command wrote: You do realize that some are actually trying to do that. They do hate men and do have an agenda to take away the hobby, I remember posting about that a few pages ago.
Nobody, other than a tiny and completely irrelevant minority of extremists, wants to take away games just because they hate men and want men to suffer.
I care mostly because I am in the field and I am looking for criticisms of my craft.
But only when that criticism is done from a perspective that you agree with. You've stated that criticizing "art decisions" is off-limits because it hinders creativity, whether it's in a context of "SJWs" objecting to a game's portrayal of women or multiplayer lovers criticizing a single-player game.
Yonan wrote: Intel is pulling their ads off of Gamasutra due to the 'shifts in editorial positioning'. Ex-cel-lent. Who would have thought that attacking a large demographic for your advertisers products would result in said advertisers being unhappy. I have already thanked them for their cutting of support to anti-gamer sites, make sure you do too.
Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.
Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)
Asherian Command wrote: You do realize that some are actually trying to do that. They do hate men and do have an agenda to take away the hobby, I remember posting about that a few pages ago.
Nobody, other than a tiny and completely irrelevant minority of extremists, wants to take away games just because they hate men and want men to suffer.
I care mostly because I am in the field and I am looking for criticisms of my craft.
But only when that criticism is done from a perspective that you agree with. You've stated that criticizing "art decisions" is off-limits because it hinders creativity, whether it's in a context of "SJWs" objecting to a game's portrayal of women or multiplayer lovers criticizing a single-player game.
.......
You have no idea the amount of what went through my brain when I read what you said.
Antia Sarkessan is an extremist. This is extremists we are talking about they are the minority facing the minority currently.
That and the last thing you said are the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life.
That is sending the wrong message. A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....
I can't the only one here who just thought seriously?
Really?
Okay let me say something. Criticizing someone for their the things that they do, their ideas is fine,
But they way that they do artistically.....
No. That is the dumbest statement you have ever said Peregrine.
That is the most ignorant and most selfish and dumbest and most insulting thing you can say.
You really think I am that self centered. That I do not take criticisms for my work?
Umm have you read my threads? My gaming club thread? My Book thread?
My Blacked Inked Thread and all my other thread which literally asks people to talk to me and say how good my work is, and do your worst to me?
Criticize me? I am fine with it?
I have said that so many times, that people who literally follow me, ask me If I enjoy being criticize, which I respond with yes. Yes I do enjoy getting criticized because I want to improve. The only way to improve is to be criticized, to become something more. To evolve, to adapt.
Because in this line of work you need to mallable, adaptable, and ever evolving. If you can't you might as well not work in this industry.
This goes double for journalists.
I'll share with you some details of a post I have been writing up as a response to this whole fiasco...
Whenever I tell someone to critique me. It does not mean I want you to be nice to me, I want you to tear my thing apart and be critical about me. Because I will not do that to you. I will tell you where you are wrong and what you can improve on. I will find weaknesses and I will tell you where you fail and what you can improve on.
If someone takes that as an insult. They do not understand the difference between a critique and harassment.
Critique is constructive, while harassment is not.
In any professional field you must understand the difference and be willing to accept any criticism. If it is ill-informed criticism that is not constructive feel free to ignore parts of it but use bits and pieces from the criticism to better your craft.
This goes double to game designers who have to combine the abilities of artistry, programming, writing and several other forms. It is paramount to understand this. As the entire point of being a game designer is to entertain your audience. In order to understand how to entertain someone you need basic training in all fields. You need to understand philisophy, psychology, world religions, sociology and be well read in myth and story structures.
How people don't get this is beyond me. Of course as sad as it is to live the life a cynic who criticizes every bit of society and everything that goes on, and finds strands of falsities and error in all thought processes. That is what happens. Cynics like me decide and look at things in a critical way. We judge and think, and express our feelings on the matter. Not caring what people think of our opinion. We like to be criticized, but others do not share our sentiments or our agreement on certain matters.
Though I am surprised to see that many outside of my field of work take criticism hard. Where in a professional world you must take criticism in order to evolve your craft. No matter what it is, you could be a firemen and still be criticized for how you do your job. How do you improve? You simply do something else, you evolve and adapt. And then I see 'professional' journalists confusing legitimate criticism with harassment and using blanketing and generalizations. We as human beings must be critical of each other. As each and every single idea. no matter how well thought out will be flawed because it is produced by a human being. (Basic psychology and philosophy talking here.)
Knowing how to take criticism, and how to apply it is a challenge, but it becomes easier the more you ask to be criticized.
If you can take criticism you are leagues ahead of your peers. Be able to criticize constructively is a skill set that not everyone can develop. But if you choose to live the life of the cynic you must understand how to be one, and can criticize because you can criticize and you have an opinion. You have to share it at the right time and know what is right and what is wrong to say.... Either to a crowd or to a writer.
You must be willing to adapt to any situation. You must wear criticism as a badge. You must look ahead and use the criticism upon yourself and improve yourself with it.
In this line of work you either adapt or you will not survive.
Sexualization is seen as negative. Not a good thing. I don't think someone is going to say. "OH THEY HAVE SEXUALIZED CHARACTERS OH MAN I AM TOTALLY GOING TO BUY THAT GAME!"
Really? where have you been living all these years sex sells more communication with sonico
Spoiler:
Dream C club
Spoiler:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Spoiler:
Reviews are always biased but so many are blatantly promotion pieces instead of critiquing the game.
And about ESRB, 18+ rating should be enough, if your are still offended, one should go play checkers or chess (trees were killed to make these play pieces). or should every game come with a booklet of disclaimers, on who it might offend?
Yes lets ignore games that use it negatively.
there are some games that sexualize women in such a way that show them to be weak. That does happen in games. Ignoring that sub genre is forgetting some parts of the market.
Like Custard's revenge or Propaganda games in general.
Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)
What you think attacking your fanbase is fine, but immedately when gamers start talking to publishers and asking them to pull funding that is a bad thing?
Really? You think that gamers taking a stand and doing stuff about it and basically boycotting and getting people behind their banner is a bad thing.
Asherian Command wrote: Antia Sarkessan is an extremist. This is extremists we are talking about they are the minority facing the minority currently.
No she isn't. She isn't even close to an extremist. All of her criticism is fairly mainstream stuff that has been said about movies, TV, etc, by many people. And none of it is motivated by hatred of men and desire to make them suffer (or at least, if it is, she's doing a very good job of hiding it). If you want to see extremism go look at the "feminists" who want to turn men into slaves and create a matriarchal "utopia" where everything will be perfect because women are flawless special snowflakes and everything wrong with society is because of men. That's actual hatred of men.
That is sending the wrong message. A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....
I can't the only one here who just thought seriously?
Huh? I have no clue what you're trying to say with this.
Yonan wrote: Intel is pulling their ads off of Gamasutra due to the 'shifts in editorial positioning'. Ex-cel-lent. Who would have thought that attacking a large demographic for your advertisers products would result in said advertisers being unhappy. I have already thanked them for their cutting of support to anti-gamer sites, make sure you do too.
Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.
Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)
They can still be heard, but if all they are speaking is hate speech people will indeed pull from them. I mean you can insult your consumerbase all you want but Advertisers aren't going to be thrilled at learning you are burning your bridges while cackling like a loon.
nomotog wrote: Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)
Informing a company that the actions of their advertiser might negatively affect their business is a good thing, at least for the company.
It's like telling someone their fly is undone. EXACTLY like it.
Asherian Command wrote: That is sending the wrong message. A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....
I can't the only one here who just thought seriously?
Huh? I have no clue what you're trying to say with this.
I think he's saying consumers demanding that a product change to meet their wants shouldn't always be listened to either.
Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)
What you think attacking your fanbase is fine, but immedately when gamers start talking to publishers and asking them to pull funding that is a bad thing?
Really? You think that gamers taking a stand and doing stuff about it and basically boycotting and getting people behind their banner is a bad thing.
K.
I am not sure. It feels wrong because it seems like an effort to kind of silence a voice then to deliver a rebuttal or counter argument.
Yonan wrote: Intel is pulling their ads off of Gamasutra due to the 'shifts in editorial positioning'. Ex-cel-lent. Who would have thought that attacking a large demographic for your advertisers products would result in said advertisers being unhappy. I have already thanked them for their cutting of support to anti-gamer sites, make sure you do too.
Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.
Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)
They can still be heard, but if all they are speaking is hate speech people will indeed pull from them. I mean you can insult your consumerbase all you want but Advertisers aren't going to be thrilled at learning you are burning your bridges while cackling like a loon.
nomotog wrote: Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)
Informing a company that the actions of their advertiser might negatively affect their business is a good thing, at least for the company.
It's like telling someone their fly is undone. EXACTLY like it.
Asherian Command wrote: That is sending the wrong message. A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....
I can't the only one here who just thought seriously?
Huh? I have no clue what you're trying to say with this.
I think he's saying consumers demanding that a product change to meet their wants shouldn't always be listened to either.
Its demanding what you want to be enforced in all games.
That is the same argument going on in games journalism they want all specifically their type of game.
But gamers want all types of games to be represented. They want all games to come out.
That is the basic discussion.
You cannot demand a game have multiplayer. Because the creators probably won't make it.
Just imagine how much work would of be diverted from the original Prince of Persia Games if they added multiplayer to their game. Those finite resources they put into the game would of squandered some part of the game.
Just imagine if portal was forced to have multiplayer, the original portal game, just imagine how much of the story or gameplay would of lost something.
Multiplayer is a huge amount of resources to be put into. It is basically a separate game entirely. You may use the same assets but it is completely different and not easy as someone has said in this thread to add.
It is very complicated.
Its not just adding a new player to a game, it is adding balance, testing, modellling, new death animations, support programs, getting servers to run these games, paying for new skins, paying for player customization.
Its a ton of resources.
A game is expensive to make. The sooner Peregrine you realize that the better.
This comes to mind, one of the 12 or so articles landing on the same day declaring "gamers are dead" - but there's no coordination to push an agenda, honest. There are others on Gamasutra just as bad.
So basically: "Gamers are dead." --Gamasutra "Okay, if they're dead then we clearly don't need to advertise on your site to the nonexistent demographic you claim to cater to! See ya!" -- Intel "Gamasutra is dead." --Gamers
Kind of like how you want to enforce a policy that every website has to be nice to "gamergate" advocates and never ban discussion, or you'll write to their advertisers and try to destroy their revenue?
But gamers want all types of games to be represented. They want all games to come out.
Some gamers want that. Other gamers just want lots of the kind of game they enjoy and don't care about any other types. Or have you missed things like angry mobs calling for developers to be destroyed because they dared to make a console-only game? That doesn't seem to be showing much concern for representing all types of gamers (which includes gamers who play console games).
You cannot demand a game have multiplayer. Because the creators probably won't make it.
Why not? If the market says "we want multiplayer" and the developers think that the game will sell better with multiplayer then the game will have multiplayer.
Just imagine how much work would of be diverted from the original Prince of Persia Games if they added multiplayer to their game. Those finite resources they put into the game would of squandered some part of the game.
Just imagine if portal was forced to have multiplayer, the original portal game, just imagine how much of the story or gameplay would of lost something.
Multiplayer is a huge amount of resources to be put into. It is basically a separate game entirely. You may use the same assets but it is completely different and not easy as someone has said in this thread to add.
It is very complicated.
I really don't see what your point here is. I understand that multiplayer requires work and might not fit your vision of what a game should be, but how exactly is someone objectively wrong/unprofessional/etc for preferring the hypothetical multiplayer-Portal to the one we actually got? Or even telling the developers to make multiplayer-Portal instead? These are all just matters of opinion, and your argument here seems to be nothing more than "SOMEONE HAS AN OPINION THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH MAKE THEM STOP". And that's pretty far from your supposed "real issue" of corruption in journalism.
A game is expensive to make. The sooner Peregrine you realize that the better.
And where did you get the idea that I don't understand that games require a lot of effort and money to make?
Peregrine wrote: To the people making those requests for changes.
So in other words, to feminist dictates. Not even close to desirable from where I'm sitting, and I imagine much the same for most gamers.
And that's your personal opinion. Mine is that games would be improved by making most of those changes. Now we've gone from the supposed "real issue" of corruption in journalism to nothing more than outrage that someone else has a different opinion about what games should be.
Peregrine wrote: And that's your personal opinion. Mine is that games would be improved by making most of those changes. Now we've gone from the supposed "real issue" of corruption in journalism to nothing more than outrage that someone else has a different opinion about what games should be.
No, I think that's entirely mischaracterizing this discussion. Gaming journalism is incredibly corrupt, that much was well known long before this present scandal. Of course there are different flavors of corruption, though, and I personally despise the particular agenda attached to this contemporary type.
Of course I responded to you not out of concern for the issue of corruption in the industry, but because you seem to imply that the "feminist" values should be endorsed or passively accepted by "the gaming community."
Peregrine wrote: And where did you get the idea that I don't understand that games require a lot of effort and money to make?
Well, on the previous page you did say 'Adding deathmatch multiplayer to a game is trivially easy compared to that' about writing a good story.
Using the terms "trivially easy" in regards to software development is up there with phrase "What's the worst that can happen?" in a sitcom. It's almost. . . triggering
This comes to mind, one of the 12 or so articles landing on the same day declaring "gamers are dead" - but there's no coordination to push an agenda, honest. There are others on Gamasutra just as bad.
So basically:
"Gamers are dead." --Gamasutra
"Okay, if they're dead then we clearly don't need to advertise on your site to the nonexistent demographic you claim to cater to! See ya!" -- Intel
"Gamasutra is dead." --Gamers
Peregrine wrote: And where did you get the idea that I don't understand that games require a lot of effort and money to make?
Well, on the previous page you did say 'Adding deathmatch multiplayer to a game is trivially easy compared to that' about writing a good story.
Using the terms "trivially easy" in regards to software development is up there with phrase "What's the worst that can happen?" in a sitcom. It's almost. . . triggering
The best part was when he said it was trivially easy compared to writing a good story....
Something that a single person can do without any tools except a writing utensil (If we are being literal about "writing").
Peregrine wrote: And where did you get the idea that I don't understand that games require a lot of effort and money to make?
Well, on the previous page you did say 'Adding deathmatch multiplayer to a game is trivially easy compared to that' about writing a good story.
Using the terms "trivially easy" in regards to software development is up there with phrase "What's the worst that can happen?" in a sitcom. It's almost. . . triggering
The best part was when he said it was trivially easy compared to writing a good story....
Something that a single person can do without any tools except a writing utensil (If we are being literal about "writing").
Kali wrote: No, I think that's entirely mischaracterizing this discussion. Gaming journalism is incredibly corrupt, that much was well known long before this present scandal. Of course there are different flavors of corruption, though, and I personally despise the particular agenda attached to this contemporary type.
Yes, but the things being mentioned (especially by a certain poster who hates off-topic discussions when they aren't his off-topic discussions) have absolutely nothing to do with corruption. A game reviewer deducting points for a game having sexist costumes/no multiplayer/etc is not a case of corruption, it's a case of someone having a different opinion.
Of course I responded to you not out of concern for the issue of corruption in the industry, but because you seem to imply that the "feminist" values should be endorsed or passively accepted by "the gaming community."
I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it explicitly. As a member of the gaming community I think many, if not all, of those values should be endorsed by the community and by game developers.
Bromsy wrote: The best part was when he said it was trivially easy compared to writing a good story....
Something that a single person can do without any tools except a writing utensil (If we are being literal about "writing").
Note the key point in there: writing a good story. Any idiot can throw together a flimsy excuse for there to be enemies for the player to kill, but that's not a good story. Creating a good story takes a lot of work by the few people with enough writing talent to even have a chance of succeeding. There's a reason why most game stories are, at best, bland and quickly forgotten.
Contrast that level of difficulty with copy/pasting the same boring multiplayer modes into a game because the publisher said "add multiplayer". Sure, there's some coding required, but you aren't doing anything innovative, you're just copying the same things that everyone else has already done and doing the bare minimum to adapt it to your particular game engine.
Bromsy wrote: Can't play chess it's literally the worst game ever, it has a King (Patriarchy)as it's most important piece, a Queen (Tokenism, she's the only female), Bishops (Catholic Hate Mongers and probably child molesters), Rooks (Clearly a phallic symbol for Hetero Male Dominance and sexual identity repression - they only move in straight lines), Knights (Animal abuse much?), and Pawns (Classist propaganda), and not only that, the black side is forced to go last (Pure unadulterated racism).
Note the key point in there: writing a good story. Any idiot can throw together a flimsy excuse for there to be enemies for the player to kill, but that's not a good story. Creating a good story takes a lot of work by the few people with enough writing talent to even have a chance of succeeding. There's a reason why most game stories are, at best, bland and quickly forgotten.
Contrast that level of difficulty with copy/pasting the same boring multiplayer modes into a game because the publisher said "add multiplayer". Sure, there's some coding required, but you aren't doing anything innovative, you're just copying the same things that everyone else has already done and doing the bare minimum to adapt it to your particular game engine.
Ah, so you meant was coming up with, coding, and making a good story work around the limits inherent to the video game medium is harder than adding a multiplayer mode. Because what you said was writing a good story.Still wrong, but slightly less laughably so.
Asherian Command wrote: Not true. I use them all the time. Can't is a shortenning cannot sounds ugly in certain situations and does not make sense in certain contexts.
I am sorry, but I would really not pick you as an example of good formal written English.
Asherian Command wrote: I think movies have better rating systems in general. I mean when I read a movie review or a book review they are far different from game review. A game review is usually quite unprofessional and very laid back. It should be strict.
But you could hardly find anything less subjective than a movie or book review .
Asherian Command wrote: Infact all the systems of rating are completely wonky. They don't make sense mathematically
But they are not supposed to. Do the rating of movies “make sense mathematically”? Hell no!
Asherian Command wrote: But listing specific details about the game and what you liked and didn't like and be specific as to why you didn't like the game are very important. When I commentate on a game I list all of its good things that I enjoyed and all the things that I think could improve the game.
For instance “I did not like the fact every female character was sexualized”? Or is that off-limit for some strange reason?
So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product, not because they just hate men and want men to suffer?
You do realize that some are actually trying to do that. They do hate men and do have an agenda to take away the hobby, I remember posting about that a few pages ago.
That is paranoia. You can maybe find one or two lunatics thinking that, but believing they have any kind of power is pure paranoia.
Asherian Command wrote: A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....
What is stupid about wanting more chocolate ice-cream if you like chocolate ice cream?
Or, let me put it the other way: a game with a multiplayer mode offers more than the same game without the multiplayer mode. How does that not make the game better? And if that does make the game better, why should this not be reflected by the grade? Also, no corruption, no scandal, no conspiracy: this is so off-topic!
Bromsy wrote: The best part was when he said it was trivially easy compared to writing a good story....
Something that a single person can do without any tools except a writing utensil (If we are being literal about "writing").
A single person without any tools except writing utensil can do some crazy hard stuff is that person is, say, Perelman. No man alone without any tool can build a house. Will you therefore conclude that building a house is harder than solving the Poincaré conjecture?
Of course I responded to you not out of concern for the issue of corruption in the industry, but because you seem to imply that the "feminist" values should be endorsed or passively accepted by "the gaming community."
I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it explicitly. As a member of the gaming community I think many, if not all, of those values should be endorsed by the community and by game developers.
In what might be the last ever #GameJournoPros email thread, games journalists can be seen mocking readers who considered the list to be an unhealthy component in the video games journalism industry's echo chamber. These emails have not previously been seen.
Also, 'Milo' is a chocolate powder you add to milk in Australia to make a nice drink:
That's your take on it, I guess, but I completely disagree.
Like Adam Sessler, who was quite credible and is quite intelligent. But after seeing that he had dealings with certain odd people, I can't take that as a trust value.
I am kind of baffled that you think he's intelligent or credible to begin with, but sure, I agree this scandal reduces his credibility.
These websites are given this responsibility
I think the journalistic integrity of all gaming media outlets has always been incredibly suspect, and I find the notion of laying responsibility and power over anything but their subscription base at their feet revolting.
Saying it is bad to want for things to get better and things to change is not a bad thing.
Campaign as you like but the reaction of many "gamers" to the incident has given the impression that "the video gaming community" has been harmed by Gamergate, and I find that laughable.
There is corruption and we want that change.
Personally I'd object to the institutions as a whole rather than their conduct, but I won't hold a grudge against you for demanding a particular brand of disinformative corporate media.
We want them to be better representation of the gaming community, people who have the values of the gamers. Who are gamers, that review the games, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same opinion
I'm not convinced that there's any value at all behind this ambiguous "gamers" identity. People that play video games are diverse and, for instance, though I do play a lot of games myself I certainly haven't felt like games journalism represents me, nor do I feel like I want it to represent me.
i agree on many of your points. Did you join this discussion form to talk on this thread if so. Thank you for doing so.
It is awesome to see people weigh in on this converstation in a respectful manner.
You know, if you want people to be respectful, a good idea might be to not include passive-agressive jabs in your posts. Just a thought.
Any idiot can throw together a flimsy excuse for there to be enemies for the player to kill, but that's not a good story. Creating a good story takes a lot of work by the few people with enough writing talent to even have a chance of succeeding. There's a reason why most game stories are, at best, bland and quickly forgotten.
Hahahaha. No.
Not just any idiot can logically create lines of code.
Not any idiot can do that. Experienced and well informed coders are not that easy to find. Its a different skill set compared to writing. Not everyone can become a coder.
Not everyone can program.
Not everyone can write hundreds of thousands of lines of code.
See whenever someone makes code the main thing they are making is the can not's. They are most limiting what can happen in that world. Because there are expectations in that world. Such as boundaries a player can walk,
Most lines of coding in a area deal with preventing the player from doing certain things.
Not any idiot can make multiplayer. Anyone can pick up a pen and start writing, whether its good or not is up to the reader. I mean some can be multi-million making. (STephine Meyer)
What is stupid about wanting more chocolate ice-cream if you like chocolate ice cream? Or, let me put it the other way: a game with a multiplayer mode offers more than the same game without the multiplayer mode. How does that not make the game better? And if that does make the game better, why should this not be reflected by the grade? Also, no corruption, no scandal, no conspiracy: this is so off-topic!
Just because they/you want more chocolate ice cream does not mean other people want the same thing.
This is completely on topic this is dealing with the press. Talking about representation of women is not an issue of gamergate. That is for another time....
really don't see what your point here is. I understand that multiplayer requires work and might not fit your vision of what a game should be, but how exactly is someone objectively wrong/unprofessional/etc for preferring the hypothetical multiplayer-Portal to the one we actually got? Or even telling the developers to make multiplayer-Portal instead? These are all just matters of opinion, and your argument here seems to be nothing more than "SOMEONE HAS AN OPINION THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH MAKE THEM STOP". And that's pretty far from your supposed "real issue" of corruption in journalism.
The games would not be as good as they are because of multiplayer. Multiplayer is a feature that a lot of time and money and something not many people know how to do correctly. Programmers are not as common in the gaming world. Infact they are the most highest paid position in Gaming Industry. (110K per a year, and are the most likely for raises!)
Because portal the original portal was made as a side project by a very small team in valve. They made for fun, because they wanted to make a game. If that team was required to make multiplayer in their game. The game would of suffered because resources would of been allocated into something else.
That is what happens in any game.
Anytime they are given a demand to do a certain feature, they have to devout resources and time in order to fix that or create that feature. And it might takes weeks or even months to implement a feature such as multiplayer.
That is not what happens in these games. That is not adding a new player. A new player is a new varaible in the game that has to run parrell to the game.
It is very expensive to multiplayer in your game. And is in fact the most expensive thing to have in a video game.
Multiplayer is expensive to make and maintain.
Anyone demanding for only what they want are pretty sad excuses and don't understand how the industry works.
If multiplayer was so easy to make we would be seeing alot better multiplayer than we are currently getting in games. A multiplayer portal like I would of said, would of been a shadow of what it is currently.
Just adding multiplayer adds costs to a game.
For a while in gaming history there was a time where there were no multiplayer games.
You know, if you want people to be respectful, a good idea might be to not include passive-agressive jabs in your posts. Just a thought.
So you can tell that I am passive aggressive in all posts. Hmm.
Funny thing. I was actually happy this poster came onto the thread and discussed it. And I agree with all their logic. I felt like they argued it quite well.
And wanted to recognize that fact.
Note the key point in there: writing a good story. Any idiot can throw together a flimsy excuse for there to be enemies for the player to kill, but that's not a good story. Creating a good story takes a lot of work by the few people with enough writing talent to even have a chance of succeeding. There's a reason why most game stories are, at best, bland and quickly forgotten.
Contrast that level of difficulty with copy/pasting the same boring multiplayer modes into a game because the publisher said "add multiplayer". Sure, there's some coding required, but you aren't doing anything innovative, you're just copying the same things that everyone else has already done and doing the bare minimum to adapt it to your particular game engine.
I am going to call BS.
Because every coder has their own way of doing things.
In every programming language you have to do something else differently. And some are more efficient. Some are not.
Some coders do coding in a certain way, while others do it another.
Programming can be done in anyway. As far as I remember from my programming class, there are about a thousand different computer languages. Blizzard Entertainment has it's own computer language. Infact most companies have it's own computer language. And then there will be differences between lines of code compared to another.
Writing a story is easy compared to learning how to apply and write in a different language.
A good story is difficult to write. But at the same time so is writing a well thought out line of code, that is tested for months on end by the programmers.
Programmers have to plan out what they do before they actually type code. It is not as quick as everyone thinks. It takes a lot of planning and the Designer has to help plan it and budget it.
CorporateLogo wrote: None of the articles Gamasutra posted is even remotely in the wheelhouse of hate speech.
Who said anything about hate speech? Regardless, they attacked gamers repeatedly however you want to call it, and the authors threw a lot of insults over twitter too. Misogynerds was one of Leigh Alexanders?
One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly. It's about replacing gamer culture with their own, so if you imagine an article about replacing black culture instead... but it's fine if it's only those misogynerds?
CorporateLogo wrote: None of the articles Gamasutra posted is even remotely in the wheelhouse of hate speech.
Who said anything about hate speech? Regardless, they attacked gamers repeatedly however you want to call it, and the authors threw a lot of insults over twitter too. Misogynerds was one of Leigh Alexanders?
One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly. It's about replacing gamer culture with their own, so if you imagine an article about replacing black culture instead... but it's fine if it's only those misogynerds?
I think that is a good point.
I mean Corporate I can see your point of view it would be correct under normal circumstances, but if we do see companies that literally post articles saying. "We don't need gamers and heres why." Is a pretty good indication that they have no idea what tehy are talking about/
CorporateLogo wrote: None of the articles Gamasutra posted is even remotely in the wheelhouse of hate speech.
Who said anything about hate speech? Regardless, they attacked gamers repeatedly however you want to call it, and the authors threw a lot of insults over twitter too. Misogynerds was one of Leigh Alexanders?
edit: yep.
One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly. It's about replacing gamer culture with their own, so if you imagine an article about replacing black culture instead... but it's fine if it's only those misogynerds?
I had to hunt down that article just not believing the title existed:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DevinWilson/20140828/224450/A_Guide_to_Ending_quotGamersquot.php I obviously fell asleep at some point so now a "gamer" is an "obvious" bad label? (I did see articles of the "death" of the gamer culture but this relabeling is interesting)
A call-out that "game culture" is in a radical need for change because of a vocal minority?
That is like calling out for feminists to change their ways because some are pushing their agenda "too aggressively" and are hurting feelings... (throw baby out with bathwater).
I am sure the butt-hurt media will come up with a new name for the newer better breed of gamer, a "re-boot" if you will: an App-er? Gameist? Inclusi-gamer? Modern gamer?
I am insane now obviously, so "gaming culture" in a vacuum has become a huge source for abuse to others?
We watch TV, movies, these self-same reviewers, read on the net in general and the latest news: these are not also full of the same material outlined?
How convenient.
18 points that look like they addressing symptoms rather than root-cause. It is also VERY I feel my intelligence has been insulted.
The main takeaway is to practice conscientious consumerism: not to support those who behave badly with our dollars: smarten up people!
Your immaturity and lack of thought is supporting the bad guys!
In this day and age it would never occur to us to apply to software what we do for devices and clothes?
The funny thing is that it fails to mention that applies to the media around the games.
Bah, problems do not tend to go away by being ignored but this is increasingly looking like the solution: the added press is too good to pass-up so everyone is jumping on it.
I had to hunt down that article just not believing the title existed:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DevinWilson/20140828/224450/A_Guide_to_Ending_quotGamersquot.php I obviously fell asleep at some point so now a "gamer" is an "obvious" bad label? (I did see articles of the "death" of the gamer culture but this relabeling is interesting)
A call-out that "game culture" is in a radical need for change because of a vocal minority?
That is like calling out for feminists to change their ways because some are pushing their agenda "too aggressively" and are hurting feelings... (throw baby out with bathwater).
I am sure the butt-hurt media will come up with a new name for the newer better breed of gamer, a "re-boot" if you will: an App-er? Gameist? Inclusi-gamer? Modern gamer?
I am insane now obviously, so "gaming culture" in a vacuum has become a huge source for abuse to others?
We watch TV, movies, these self-same reviewers, read on the net in general and the latest news: these are not also full of the same material outlined?
How convenient.
18 points that look like they addressing symptoms rather than root-cause. It is also VERY
I feel my intelligence has been insulted.
The main takeaway is to practice conscientious consumerism: not to support those who behave badly with our dollars: smarten up people!
Your immaturity and lack of thought is supporting the bad guys!
In this day and age it would never occur to us to apply to software what we do for devices and clothes?
The funny thing is that it fails to mention that applies to the media around the games.
Bah, problems do not tend to go away by being ignored but this is increasingly looking like the solution: the added press is too good to pass-up so everyone is jumping on it.
Wait so your saying the best way is to ignore these sites? I.E. Boycott these sites?
Because we can do more. And criticism them for what they do. If they want to insult us we can say. "Okay lets write about how journalists are dead then. Come on man!"
Asherian Command wrote: Just because they/you want more chocolate ice cream does not mean other people want the same thing.
No, it means I want it, and therefore I am justified in wanting more of it, and liking better restaurant that propose chocolate ice cream over restaurants that do not have it on the menu.
But this is not about corruption, or conspiracy, or anything else. So, not related to gamergate. Actually this is an issue you are the only one bothered about here. Nobody else cares if some game get a lesser score because it has no multiplayer. There is a reason female representation is mentioned in tons of video and articles about gamergate, but none of those speaks about adding multiplayer mode to games or not adding multiplayer mode to games.
Gamergaters talk a whole lot more about it than about games loosing point for no multiplayer, hence it is way less off-topic, actually.
Asherian Command wrote: The games would not be as good as they are because of multiplayer. Multiplayer is a feature that a lot of time and money and something not many people know how to do correctly. […]Because portal the original portal was made as a side project by a very small team in valve. They made for fun, because they wanted to make a game. If that team was required to make multiplayer in their game. The game would of suffered because resources would of been allocated into something else.
But players will just look at the end result. Yes, it requires more resources to create a better end result. Not really surprising, if you ask me. The only thing players will care about is how good the end result is, not how much resources it required, or the development history. And multiplayer, while requiring resources, makes the game undeniably better.
Yonan wrote: One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly.
And if it was about “A guide to end racism”, it would certainly do perfectly well, thank you. So, your point? Is it that gamers are an oppressed minority that deserve protection?
Talizvar wrote: I am sure the butt-hurt media will come up with a new name for the newer better breed of gamer, a "re-boot" if you will: an App-er? Gameist? Inclusi-gamer? Modern gamer?
CorporateLogo wrote: None of the articles Gamasutra posted is even remotely in the wheelhouse of hate speech.
Who said anything about hate speech? Regardless, they attacked gamers repeatedly however you want to call it, and the authors threw a lot of insults over twitter too. Misogynerds was one of Leigh Alexanders?
One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly. It's about replacing gamer culture with their own, so if you imagine an article about replacing black culture instead... but it's fine if it's only those misogynerds?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: They can still be heard, but if all they are speaking is hate speech people will indeed pull from them. I mean you can insult your consumerbase all you want but Advertisers aren't going to be thrilled at learning you are burning your bridges while cackling like a loon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gamers are a minority group now? In that case, gamergate is thinking small time. Zoe Quinn isn't just racketeering, she's contributing to the destruction of an entire subculture. Gamergate needs to appeal to the United Nations to investigate genocide.
Asherian Command wrote: Just because they/you want more chocolate ice cream does not mean other people want the same thing.
No, it means I want it, and therefore I am justified in wanting more of it, and liking better restaurant that propose chocolate ice cream over restaurants that do not have it on the menu.
But this is not about corruption, or conspiracy, or anything else. So, not related to gamergate. Actually this is an issue you are the only one bothered about here. Nobody else cares if some game get a lesser score because it has no multiplayer. There is a reason female representation is mentioned in tons of video and articles about gamergate, but none of those speaks about adding multiplayer mode to games or not adding multiplayer mode to games.
Gamergaters talk a whole lot more about it than about games loosing point for no multiplayer, hence it is way less off-topic, actually.
Asherian Command wrote: The games would not be as good as they are because of multiplayer. Multiplayer is a feature that a lot of time and money and something not many people know how to do correctly. […]Because portal the original portal was made as a side project by a very small team in valve. They made for fun, because they wanted to make a game. If that team was required to make multiplayer in their game. The game would of suffered because resources would of been allocated into something else.
But players will just look at the end result. Yes, it requires more resources to create a better end result. Not really surprising, if you ask me. The only thing players will care about is how good the end result is, not how much resources it required, or the development history. And multiplayer, while requiring resources, makes the game undeniably better.
Yonan wrote: One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly.
And if it was about “A guide to end racism”, it would certainly do perfectly well, thank you. So, your point? Is it that gamers are an oppressed minority that deserve protection?
Talizvar wrote: I am sure the butt-hurt media will come up with a new name for the newer better breed of gamer, a "re-boot" if you will: an App-er? Gameist? Inclusi-gamer? Modern gamer?
Players. BANG! Instant success!
I am explaining as to why it can't happen players will want it, but it will not always be delievered. to the player. just because you demand something does not mean you are entitled to have that delivered.
But this is different from journalism. Journalism you can demand it. But if we demand for better performance that is fine. But not for a single feature that only adds to a minorities
I am explaining the problems behind that frame of thought. Just wanting something just because you want it, does not mean that the Designer has to do that because you want it. That is beyond entitlement and I will not stand for people who only want the same thing over and over. Repition in fine amounts is fine but all the time is just stagnation!
It is completely related by the way. Because the journalists are demanding for more games like Depression Quest, Home. But then that is fine, but demanding all games follow their critera for what a good game is. Is just beyond insane. Any gamer that demands something similar to wanting just these types of games, just multiplayer games, just those types of games because you enjoy them. Is stupid and just chilidish. I am on my own when it comes to this because I think demanding the designer to make what the gamer wants all the time. Is just dumb. Game designers are the creators and can do whatever they want.
You will get certain types of games by the mood of the creators, whatever they want to create, this creates variance and variety in the industry. Just like for books. But we have long periods of time that we do not release that many things (the North American Summer for example is quite dry in terms of games that come out). But the indie scene on the other hand usually releases it all the time. Which is a problem and a good thing at the same time as this could stifle the market
And if it was about “A guide to end racism”, it would certainly do perfectly well, thank you. So, your point? Is it that gamers are an oppressed minority that deserve protection?
No. Its that why would you even write the article. Why would you take the time to write an article called. "How Gamers are dead."
Why would you even write it?
What is the point? What childish idea do you have to even want to post that? What is the point other than marginalizing your audience? Attacking your audience is completely unprofessional.
What is the point of doing that?
A journalists should be able to write and be thoughtful.
That is a breach of ethical concerns if they do so.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: They can still be heard, but if all they are speaking is hate speech people will indeed pull from them. I mean you can insult your consumerbase all you want but Advertisers aren't going to be thrilled at learning you are burning your bridges while cackling like a loon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gamers are a minority group now? In that case, gamergate is thinking small time. Zoe Quinn isn't just racketeering, she's contributing to the destruction of an entire subculture. Gamergate needs to appeal to the United Nations to investigate genocide.
Yep, we can go the whole nine yards!
Also I have bad usage of words at times, I know this.
Though there's been quite a bit of racism and abuse against those in gamergates #Notyourshield
Is the politics of all this as interesting to anyone else as it is to me? For example this guess at political leanings from Milo: (Wardell has since said he's more libertarian)
Also just in general the interplay between people and factions such as comicgate, schisms in feminism (Sommers pro-gg, Sarkeesian anti-gg), left-right cooperation etc.
Asherian Command wrote: I am explaining as to why it can't happen players will want it, but it will not always be delievered. to the player.
Aaaaand that is why games that deliver it get better marks than those that do not.
Asherian Command wrote: It is completely related by the way. Because the journalists are demanding for more games like Depression Quest, Home. But then that is fine, but demanding all games follow their critera for what a good game is. Is just beyond insane.
Nobody except you cares about that, because everybody else understand how having a very fun multiplayer mode should get a game a higher grade than not having any multiplayer mode. You are completely off-topic and you know it.
Game players are the consumers and can buy whatever they want. Game journalists are the reviewers and will emphasis things that will help game players decide which games they want to buy, including giving information on multiplayer modes.
Asherian Command wrote: Why would you take the time to write an article called. "How Gamers are dead."
Asherian Command wrote: Wait so your saying the best way is to ignore these sites? I.E. Boycott these sites?
Because we can do more. And criticism them for what they do. If they want to insult us we can say. "Okay lets write about how journalists are dead then. Come on man!"
But you know as well as I that "criticism" can be labeled as hate mail and be ignored out of hand or pointed to (with some quoting out of context) to show how out of line gamers are.
It is a mass call-out for "do not feed the troll", we have an ignore button, why not apply to the increasingly irrelevant gaming "journalists"?
Nice quote here:
Gil Thelen, the former publisher and president of The Tampa Tribune, believes the journalist has a very specific role in society. He calls it the “committed observer.”
What he means by that, Thelen explains, is that the journalist is not removed from community, though at times may stand apart from others so as to view things from a different perspective.
Rather, says Thelen, journalists are “interdependent” with the needs of their fellow citizens. If there is a key issue in town that needs resolution and is being explored by local institutions, “we have a commitment to reporting on this process over the long term, as an observer.” The journalist helps resolve the issue by being a responsible reporter who supplies background, verifies facts, and explains the issues involved.
So it is rather comical that a "journalist is not removed from the community" but they have attempted to remove the community from the journalist instead!
Aaaaand that is why games that deliver it get better marks than those that do not.
A very small amount of them do and they happen to be IGN and Polygon.. They mark down for not having multiplayer which is kind of stupid in my honest opinion. And yet again that should not be a factor in the first place. i do not mark skyrim down because it does not have multiplayer.
But you know as well as I that "criticism" can be labeled as hate mail and be ignored out of hand or pointed to (with some quoting out of context) to show how out of line gamers are. It is a mass call-out for "do not feed the troll", we have an ignore button, why not apply to the increasingly irrelevant gaming "journalists"?
Nice quote here: Gil Thelen, the former publisher and president of The Tampa Tribune, believes the journalist has a very specific role in society. He calls it the “committed observer.” What he means by that, Thelen explains, is that the journalist is not removed from community, though at times may stand apart from others so as to view things from a different perspective. Rather, says Thelen, journalists are “interdependent” with the needs of their fellow citizens. If there is a key issue in town that needs resolution and is being explored by local institutions, “we have a commitment to reporting on this process over the long term, as an observer.” The journalist helps resolve the issue by being a responsible reporter who supplies background, verifies facts, and explains the issues involved.
So it is rather comical that a "journalist is not removed from the community" but they have attempted to remove the community from the journalist instead!
I completely agree.
And Think I wrote about how criticism is sometimes mistaken for harassment which is kind of dumb. If you are well seasoned writer, you know what criticism is and you accept it.
You are in a position, and you can be criticized and that is a good.
I have no idea and I do not really care.
If you don't care. Then why are you on this thread? If you don't care about these journalists writing these things. Then why are you even here in the first place?
You have claimed your dislike for the movement and that you really don't care about the movement itself and find it uninspiring. So why would you want to comment on something that you don't care for?
Is it because you do in someway care about it. Are you interested in it?
Just saying I do not care about something, just makes me think you don't care about anything related to this issue.
Bromsy wrote: Can't play chess it's literally the worst game ever, it has a King (Patriarchy)as it's most important piece, a Queen (Tokenism, she's the only female), Bishops (Catholic Hate Mongers and probably child molesters), Rooks (Clearly a phallic symbol for Hetero Male Dominance and sexual identity repression - they only move in straight lines), Knights (Animal abuse much?), and Pawns (Classist propaganda), and not only that, the black side is forced to go last (Pure unadulterated racism).
Were there but room in my sig...
I'll do it.
Taking one for the team.....
Is the politics of all this as interesting to anyone else as it is to me? For example this guess at political leanings from Milo:
(Wardell has since said he's more libertarian)
Also just in general the interplay between people and factions such as comicgate, schisms in feminism (Sommers pro-gg, Sarkeesian anti-gg), left-right cooperation etc.
Interestingly enough that is quite correct. But I think it is quite correct. Interesting find. I mean it doesn't really tell us anything different. Other than there are opinions from people from the same sect.
Peregrine wrote: And that's your personal opinion. Mine is that games would be improved by making most of those changes. Now we've gone from the supposed "real issue" of corruption in journalism to nothing more than outrage that someone else has a different opinion about what games should be.
No, I think that's entirely mischaracterizing this discussion. Gaming journalism is incredibly corrupt, that much was well known long before this present scandal. Of course there are different flavors of corruption, though, and I personally despise the particular agenda attached to this contemporary type.
Of course I responded to you not out of concern for the issue of corruption in the industry, but because you seem to imply that the "feminist" values should be endorsed or passively accepted by "the gaming community."
I agree completely on that argument Kali!
I mean there are certain bits and pieces in the gamer gate issue that are corrupt.
Not doing anything and ignoring them is a great start but the next step is to force them to change.
Asherian Command wrote: A very small amount of them do and they happen to be IGN and Polygon.. They mark down for not having multiplayer which is kind of stupid in my honest opinion. And yet again that should not be a factor in the first place. i do not mark skyrim down because it does not have multiplayer.
And, again, this is YOUR OPINION. You have a perfectly legitimate opinion that multiplayer is not essential and a game can be "perfect" without it. Another person might have an equally legitimate opinion that multiplayer is the most important part of gaming and therefore a game that doesn't have it will be mediocre at best. If you both review a game with no multiplayer you will probably give it very different reviews. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS SITUATION. The fact that someone else rates a game according to standards that you don't agree with is not a problem. The appropriate reaction to this is to say "well, I guess I should read a review from someone else whose preferences match mine", not to turn this into some bizarre internet crusade against game reviewers.
Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with corruption. You claim to be only talking about corruption (a legitimate issue) and complain when anyone you disagree with makes an "off topic" comment, but here you are continuing on your crusade against reviewers who commit the horrible crime of giving a game the "wrong" score.
Asherian Command wrote: A very small amount of them do and they happen to be IGN and Polygon.. They mark down for not having multiplayer which is kind of stupid in my honest opinion. And yet again that should not be a factor in the first place. i do not mark skyrim down because it does not have multiplayer.
And, again, this is YOUR OPINION. You have a perfectly legitimate opinion that multiplayer is not essential and a game can be "perfect" without it. Another person might have an equally legitimate opinion that multiplayer is the most important part of gaming and therefore a game that doesn't have it will be mediocre at best. If you both review a game with no multiplayer you will probably give it very different reviews. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS SITUATION. The fact that someone else rates a game according to standards that you don't agree with is not a problem. The appropriate reaction to this is to say "well, I guess I should read a review from someone else whose preferences match mine", not to turn this into some bizarre internet crusade against game reviewers.
Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with corruption. You claim to be only talking about corruption (a legitimate issue) and complain when anyone you disagree with makes an "off topic" comment, but here you are continuing on your crusade against reviewers who commit the horrible crime of giving a game the "wrong" score.
I do have a legitmate opinion thank you for pointing that out.
But lets get back on topic. Read back a few pages.
I am trying to get a summary written up of the entire situation.
Now perhaps you could learn a lesson from this and stop responding to "off-topic" statements from people you disagree with (but not people you agree with) by demanding that they shut up and get out of your thread because THIS IS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN JOURNALISM.
* Game journalists spend the past 20+ years being the equivalent of celebrity gossip magazines, and nobody really cares.
* Zoe Quinn does some questionable stuff that nobody would even know about if they weren't looking for a pet cause to get angry about.
* Anita Sarkeesian criticizes video games with the intent of improving them.
* The internet explodes, death threats are made, etc.
* Game websites post articles generalizing a bit too much and criticizing gamers as a whole for their behavior instead of including lots of disclaimers about "not all gamers are like this".
* Internet explodes even more.
* Game websites post articles saying "wow you people are a bunch of spoiled children", for understandable reasons.
* Twitter drama happens.
* Game websites say "screw this, we're done here" and start deleting/locking discussion of the whole mess.
* Internet explodes because OMFG CENSORSHIP.
* Anyone who has even a superficial understanding of censorship and free speech issues eyerolls at the above and wishes that the "free speech" crusaders would stop to understand the issues they're protesting.
* MOAR TWITTER DRAMA.
* MOAR FLAME WARS.
Here's my prediction for the future:
* Because hardly anyone cares about any of this stuff beyond having an excuse to be united in outrage they eventually get tired of it and stop participating.
* The internet's next pet cause arrives, and "gamergate" is completely forgotten because the new thing is so much more interesting.
* Certain websites may or may not recover the traffic they lost.
* The game journalism industry as a whole goes back to business as usual, because none of the things that caused corruption have changed.
* Nobody cares beyond occasionally laughing at how stupid game reviews are.
You forgot the most important thing: video game reviews with marks still give better marks to a game with a good multiplayer mode over a similar game with no multiplayer.
Peregrine wrote: Now perhaps you could learn a lesson from this and stop responding to "off-topic" statements from people you disagree with (but not people you agree with) by demanding that they shut up and get out of your thread because THIS IS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN JOURNALISM.
* Game journalists spend the past 20+ years being the equivalent of celebrity gossip magazines, and nobody really cares.
* Zoe Quinn does some questionable stuff that nobody would even know about if they weren't looking for a pet cause to get angry about.
* Anita Sarkeesian criticizes video games with the intent of improving them.
* The internet explodes, death threats are made, etc.
* Game websites post articles generalizing a bit too much and criticizing gamers as a whole for their behavior instead of including lots of disclaimers about "not all gamers are like this".
* Internet explodes even more.
* Game websites post articles saying "wow you people are a bunch of spoiled children", for understandable reasons.
* Twitter drama happens.
* Game websites say "screw this, we're done here" and start deleting/locking discussion of the whole mess.
* Internet explodes because OMFG CENSORSHIP.
* Anyone who has even a superficial understanding of censorship and free speech issues eyerolls at the above and wishes that the "free speech" crusaders would stop to understand the issues they're protesting.
* MOAR TWITTER DRAMA.
* MOAR FLAME WARS.
Here's my prediction for the future:
* Because hardly anyone cares about any of this stuff beyond having an excuse to be united in outrage they eventually get tired of it and stop participating.
* The internet's next pet cause arrives, and "gamergate" is completely forgotten because the new thing is so much more interesting.
* Certain websites may or may not recover the traffic they lost.
* The game journalism industry as a whole goes back to business as usual, because none of the things that caused corruption have changed.
* Nobody cares beyond occasionally laughing at how stupid game reviews are.
If you think this will end like the way you described it. I will give you three and a half hours to prove to me that there isn't change from this movement.
As you have forgotten about the ethical changes at kotaku and polygon and escapist. The three major groups. Gamers won basically and they will still continue to win. Ignoring that is acting like you didn't even read anything.
Asherian Command wrote: If you think this will end like the way you described it. I will give you three and a half hours to prove to me that there isn't change from this movement.
I GIVE YOU THREE AND A HALF HOURS EXACTLY (NOT FOUR, NOT TWO) TO PROVE THAT THE FUTURE WILL HAPPEN THE WAY YOU THINK IT WILL. BE A PSYCHIC OR ADMIT DEFEAT.
As you have forgotten about the ethical changes at kotaku and polygon and escapist. The three major groups. Gamers won basically and they will still continue to win. Ignoring that is acting like you didn't even read anything.
Again, I'm talking about long-term changes. For example, has all this drama caused game publishers to change their policies on giving out early copies of games for reviewers to review? No? Well then guess what, reviewers are still going to have the same choice of "give this game a good score or risk losing access to the early copies I need to do my job" that they've had for the past 20+ years. And the trend of a major publisher being able to sell an empty box and get a "interesting potential but needs a bit of polish, 8/10" review will continue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Also Intel pulling their ads from Gamasutra is no small thing
You're right, it isn't small. It's ridiculously, almost inconceivably, TINY. One advertiser pulling ads from one website (that already lost traffic numbers and made those adds a less appealing investment for purely business reasons) is barely even worth mentioning because it doesn't make any long-term changes. Someone else will probably buy the ad space, and Intel will continue to buy ads elsewhere. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Intel goes right back to buying the same ad space once people forget about the current drama.
And this is the biggest problem with "gamergate"*: it's focused on superficial appearances instead of substance. There's lots of short-term anger and demands for specific people/websites to at least pretend to change, but there's no productive solution to any of the real problems. Anger can't last forever, and once the anger goes away there will be nothing left.
*Well, the biggest problem that isn't the painfully stupid name.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: Or Escapist pulling out of the debcale and allowing conversations of it on their forums.
Except that's a trophy victory, not a meaningful long-term accomplishment. In 40k terms it's the equivalent of celebrating making a successful armor save while your opponent controls all of the objectives and the game is about to end. You "won", but in the big picture that win means nothing.
Hehehe, no, some of it is from me. I feel you should give me credit for the link and quote "for the uninformed" what it is to be a journalist...
I still maintain that ignoring key media outlets, removing some of their relevance and choosing more representative media is the ethical way to go.
I can't edit it :(
But thank you. I enjoyed the article.
Also..... Slate:https://archive.today/V6Rbc
Yeah. I read this. And thought well then...
And then in related note. I talked to
About Discover Games This is the personal site of Shawn Trautman. Here I discuss videogames: why I love them; what we can do to make them better; and why it matters. Visit the tabs below to check out my reviews and other writing, and to ask questions or comment. Feel free to drop me a line and join the conversation.
I had a disagreement with him on a few things.
stormwarriors2:
discovergames:
gamejournosbehavingbadly:
Kotaku back in late 2011 attacking criticism of Call of Duty with a CLEAR bias. I had to check the blog to make sure this isn’t satire, and it looks like it isn’t. This person apparently honestly thinks that a short piece about a widespread thing in gamer culture, which is very clearly marked “OPINION” in bold, capital letters at the start, is an example of “bias” in games “journalism.”
Dude. It’s an editorial. A culture piece. It’s not supposed to be objective. It’s fine to disagree with the content, of course, but it’s not “biased” - it’s an opinion piece. You guys get that, right? You get that clearly-marked opinion pieces are allowed to state an opinion, right? Sometimes I wonder if the whole #GamerGate thing isn’t just an enormous and elaborate piece of satirical performance art. Umm.. Question then why the hell would you post all this stuff with advertisements on your opinion piece? I know it is an opinion. But why? Can’t you literally say. “Do not post on opinion pieces these types of advertisements?”
It is extremely poor taste.
IS that not dumb?
It is not wrong to criticize call of duty. As it is not wrong to defend it. But you should not advertise the game on your opinion piece.
It would be like doing the following:
"I hate you people who hate chocolate (Brought to you by dove chocolates)."
Really that seems like a satire?
K. You can believe that. But that is your opinion and that does not mean you have to force that opinion on others. Just look at and think would a professional journalist do this?
What is a journalist?
What makes a journalist a journalist?
How should a journalist act?
[snip]
It discounts your entire opinion if you have advertisements for the game you are clearly defending. It shows you be a fanboy and then your opinion falls at the seems.
[snip] For the sake of my followers’ mental health, I cut out parts of this response comparing GamerGate to the civil rights movement, and talking about how feminists want to kill all the men so they can “rule” (no, I’m not kidding), and I’ll just respond to the stuff above.
I’ve talked about this before, but apparently people don’t understand the way media works. Advertising and editorial departments have nothing to do with each other. The people writing editorials have no control over which ads appear around their pieces, and advertisers (typically) do not get to dictate which content anchors their ads.
I get how you might view a positive opinion about Call of Duty (it’s not really as straightforward as that, but whatever) being put next to an ad for CoD as being hypocritical or inappropriate, but to get there would be to ignore the “church and state” separation between editorial and advertising which is a sacred cow in media. It also ignores that this is a bad photoshop job that has clearly moved things around to suit the narrative. It also ignores the fact that this shows an ad for Best Buy, not Call of Duty. And that whoever programmed the ad to run likely either did not know about the connection and couldn’t have changed it.
For someone who lectures so much on what proper journalism should be, you might want to think about and emulate the skills and province of truly great journalists: looking beyond what appears on the surface and using research and critical thinking to discover what’s really happening.
My response again
I think great journalism is removing yourself and becoming an observer.
(and You took me out of context)
I said some believe not all. I do not generalize. but they are a minority that do.
You misrepresented me in that way. If you are going to talk about my entire quote please have the entire quote. Misrepresenting facts when discussing with someone is a problem and is something that is a terrible thing to do. Journalists must take criticism to heart, they must improve their writing in order to be a journalist. They must be willing to observe both sides. See it from both sides look at it and deconstruct it. There is always that middle ground people who do not take both sides.
Should a journalist follow that path and be unintentionally biased? I knew it was photoshopped because I work with photoshop and thought it was bad. But I see sometimes certain occurances in games media or any media featuring games journalism.
Lets look up definitions then
"Journalism - the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television.
Journalism is gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience. The word applies to both the method of inquiring for news and the literary style which is used to disseminate it.[1] [2]
The media through which journalism is conducted vary diversely to include content published via newspapers and magazines (print), television and radio (broadcast), and their digital versions published through digital media — news websites and applications.
In modern society, the news media is the chief purveyor of information and opinion about public affairs. Journalism, however, is not always confined to the news media or to news itself, as journalistic communication may find its way into broader forms of expression, including literature and cinema. In some nations, the news media is still controlled by government intervention, and is not fully an independent body.[3]
In a democratic society, however, access to free information plays a central role in creating a system of checks and balance, and in distributing power equally amongst governments, businesses, individuals, and other social entities. Access to verifiable information gathered by independent media sources, which adhere to journalistic standards, can also be of service to ordinary citizens, by empowering them with the tools they need in order to participate in the political process.” (sources used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism,https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS601US601&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=journalism%20meaning)
Understanding journalism and being a journalist is a hard thing to do. I will not debate that. But being a good journalist means you must present news and opinion seperately. Which this author clearly did. (and thank you for point out the seperation line, as I had no idea that was a thing until you told me thank you)
But what we are seeing with these articles are not that.
I mean I looked on the twitter feed and I see people who aren’t attacking journalists I see people united under a banner. I mean you can believe all you want that notyourshield is just sock puppet accounts. But you also must be aware of the other side. (the journalistic side) And its blaring issue, being it is publishing articles like:
These are not news pieces. These are opinion. But why would you write these? What is the point? Other than to get a rise from your audience?
This is terrible journalism. The point of a journalist is to be thought provoking. To prove a point for the good of who you represent. This is not good. This is objectifying or exclusionary, this is attacking a large demographic. This is attacking the people who supported you.
This entire thing did not start with zoe quinn, she was the straw that broke the camels back. Along with the large censorship on Reddit. That is something I was angry over. Why can’t people talk about it? I really don’t care who sleeps with who as long as it doesn’t affect your career. I don’t think there is a giant conspiracy, but the way the news reacted, and generalizing that was insulting. That was stupid.
In all honesty the games media is not needed for gamers. This may be hard to hear, but as long as they continue to create articles like ‘gamers are dead’ is showing a vast immaturity.
You may threaten me as some people have done. And this is not from my side of the debate. People have threatened to destroy my lifestyle because I believe generalizing is a bad thing to do. There have been some very terrible things happening. And only acknowledging one side of the debate is willful ignorance. It shows that you did not take the time to research. To take a step back. and Think. What is right here. I am representing the people of this community. What do they want. Not what a select few want.
I do agree on many points. Women are misrepresented in gaming, But in the industry we have groups like The Fine Young Captalists, we have leading females in the industry. We just need better representations of women in games in terms of video game characters. We need to appeal to a larger audience and be better. To write better.
That is a good issue and one that I support. Adding more women to the industry will do wonders. I work with women every day. And I know they are skilled and well informed. And Must say that I enjoy my company because they are new viewpoint.
You took my example out of context by the way. Because I said originally that every movement has a crazy person in it. The minority of people who only job is to hurt other people. I do not condone this action. And neither should you. But that minority is on both sides. Address and act like journalists. And the gamers will flood to your side. Become more professional. Be something better. Learn and grow. And the community will follow suite.
But labeling everyone (A community that is) as Misogynists or nerds or insulting or flaming them or calling them worse than isis. Is a misunderstanding of great lengths and a sidestep in the wrong direction. That is not right. Leigh Alexander and several others need to stop, they need to apologize, even if they don’t know what for and say. We are sorry, you were right. We are sorry for insulting you. Now lets all get together and talk about the minority who have been insulting each other.
Anyway I respect the games media as someone in the industry as well, even as student I deal with you guys because I admire what you do. I admire Adam Sessler, Yahtzee Croshaw, and several others because of what they say. But you must be grown up and act professional in your daily lives. You can take a break. but becareful what you say on twitter.
I think we should all come from this and be rational. and Be good and follow ethical standards. On either side. I am neutral in this debate. I see both sides. Historically this is very similar to many movements. And a simple reading of history would show you that.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Also Intel pulling their ads from Gamasutra is no small thing
You're right, it isn't small. It's ridiculously, almost inconceivably, TINY.
Ha ha sure, advertisers pulling their money out is no big deal. I believe you Peregrine.
Why are you face palming?
Also I got an interesting conversation with a reviewer going and While I agree with him I think there should be standards they live up to.
stormwarriors2 said:
Though I agree on several points. I do have to say I do like having well manner debate or discussion on matters Thank you for talking to me, even if you did not believe me on the Fem-theist thing. But did you willfully paint me as someone who doesn't like women on purpose? Because that was not my intent. i said there are extremes in every movement. That is a true statement hopefully. Please know I am not harassing, just observing and giving criticisms of both sides.
No, I know this is not harassment. And no, I didn’t willfully misrepresent you. Cutting your response to just the topic at hand was a space (and headache) saving measure. People were perfectly free to look at your full post.
Here’s the thing: at the end of the day, I’m not sure our positions are actually all that opposing. It’s just that we seem to be talking about different things. You go on and on about what good journalism should be, and that’s fine. I probably agree with most of it. The problem is that you (and GG people) want to apply those journalistic concepts to all kinds of writing where they don’t belong.
It’s like we’re talking about painting. You link me to a bunch of articles about how commercial house painters should perform and behave, and while all of that may be perfectly true, it’s irrelevant because the larger conversation we’re talking about is individual, artistic paintings. The proper equipment or or techniques to paint a house are inappropriate standards when we’re talking about an artist working on a canvas. You may be right, but you’d be right about the wrong thing. Your discussion of journalism may be fine, but it’s irrelevant when we’re talking about reviews or opinion pieces, because they operate by different rules. See what I mean?
And just to clarify, since you used the word to refer to me several times, I am not a “journalist.” I’ve never once described myself that way, because it would be inaccurate. I write reviews. I write opinion pieces. I write criticism. I write personal essays. I do not write journalism. The fact that you would use that word to describe me only underscores that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what journalism is (and more importantly, what it is not).
I agree to a certain extent.
But I think posting articles like 'gamers are dead' are gross exaggerations and do far more harm than good.
Ok, I'm sick of hearing every single controversy have the "-gate" name attached by people who probably have no clue where the term came from. So, time to invent a new definition for the former "gamergate" side:
Gamer Justice Warrior (GJW): this is the gaming counterpart of the Social Justice Warrior (SJW). Like the SJW stereotype they are very concerned with winning online arguments and attacking anyone they perceive as The Enemy, but have little offline presence and seldom accomplish anything that requires more effort than making an angry blog post. Like SJWs, GJWs claim to be concerned with virtues like "fairness" and "free speech", but their actions demonstrate that these words are little more than a pretense to attack anyone who dares to say anything even the slightest bit offensive to them. When GJWs participate in an issue the debate is almost instantly derailed into keeping score in personal vendettas, and any legitimate issues that started the debate are quickly forgotten. Despite this lack of substance in their arguments GJWs can potentially force changes. Anyone on the wrong end of a GJW crusade will find themselves under constant attack by an angry mob and buried under accusations of "censorship" and "man-hating feminism". As a result community owners with less tolerance for pointless drama will often give in to the GJW's demands and at least put up a public appearance of agreeing with their cause.
From now on the term "gamergate" is abolished. Please use the appropriate term "GJW" to represent the enemies of the SJWs.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Ha ha sure, advertisers pulling their money out is no big deal. I believe you Peregrine.
Some advertisers pulling their money out of some websites for some time. So you cost a website some money, assuming they don't just fill that ad space with different ads. You've sent your message loud and clear, "don't say mean things about me or I'll destroy your income". But what constructive changes have you accomplished? The websites you've attacked are unlikely to change their minds, and even if they go bankrupt and shut down someone else will just replace them. And who knows, they might not even suffer any long-term loss from your "victory". It's nice if you want a trophy victory to brag about, but if you're concerned with meaningful change and not just keeping score in some stupid twitter vendetta then you've accomplished almost nothing.
And you haven't done anything about corruption, the supposed goal of your crusade, with this "victory".
Peregrine wrote: I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it explicitly. As a member of the gaming community I think many, if not all, of those values should be endorsed by the community and by game developers.
Please explain in greater detail what exactly you think should change, I'd like to avoid straw-manning you.
Peregrine wrote: Again, I'm talking about long-term changes. For example, has all this drama caused game publishers to change their policies on giving out early copies of games for reviewers to review? No? Well then guess what, reviewers are still going to have the same choice of "give this game a good score or risk losing access to the early copies I need to do my job" that they've had for the past 20+ years. And the trend of a major publisher being able to sell an empty box and get a "interesting potential but needs a bit of polish, 8/10" review will continue.
Peregrine wrote: seldom accomplish anything that requires more effort than making an angry blog post.
Well, they do angry email. Every time you post something here. Are you scared now?
Its better then impotently arguing here and filling the board with off topic banter. At least Gamergate is achieving something where as you 3 supporting rapists, fraudsters and racketeers.
You forgot the end of your sentence, I guess it was “are not”.
Impotently? What would you have us try to do exactly? What is our supposed objective?
[edit]Oh, yeah, I know: destroying video games because we hate men! Of course that is what I am trying to do. Just 4 more games and I will be level 25 in Strife, I hope they will open Ranked. Because I want to destroy video games![/edit]
Mechanical Crow wrote: Its better then impotently arguing here and filling the board with off topic banter. At least Gamergate is achieving something where as you 3 supporting rapists, fraudsters and racketeers.
I guess you still have trouble understanding the concept of "both sides are wrong"? Are you aware that it is possible to criticize GJWs without simultaneously deciding that Zoe Quinn is a flawless saint to be worshiped and obeyed without question? I mean, I've pretty clearly stated that game journalism is the equivalent of celebrity gossip magazines, so I don't see how any reasonable person could interpret that as support for their offenses.
Peregrine wrote: Ok, I'm sick of hearing every single controversy have the "-gate" name attached by people who probably have no clue where the term came from. So, time to invent a new definition for the former "gamergate" side.
Since Adam Baldwin coined the term, I'll give him a call and see if he's ok with changing it.
. . .
Hello, Adam? Some guy wants to change what we refer to GamerGate supporters.
. . .
I don't know, he might be serious.
. . .
Oh ok. Thanks Adam.
But what constructive changes have you accomplished?
Hopefully we've informed certain websites that actions have consequences. Calling your audience names is hilariously stupid. They can if they want (as indeed they did) but getting off scott free wasn't part of the deal.
Peregrine wrote: The websites you've attacked are unlikely to change their minds, and even if they go bankrupt and shut down someone else will just replace them.
Pure "hopeful" speculation on your part.
Peregrine wrote: And who knows, they might not even suffer any long-term loss from your "victory".
Again, pure hopeful "speculation".
Peregrine wrote: It's nice if you want a trophy victory to brag about, but if you're concerned with meaningful change and not just keeping score in some stupid twitter vendetta then you've accomplished almost nothing.
It's another rung on the ladder of victory! That being, with luck, transparency and ethics in video "game" journalism.
Peregrine wrote: And you haven't done anything about corruption, the supposed goal of your crusade, with this "victory".
A corrupt website getting punished for anti-consumer practices isn't a "victory"?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: A corrupt website getting punished for anti-consumer practices isn't a "victory"?
If what you want is a corrupt website that also licks the boot of its consumer, then yeah, great move, awesome, gg!
If what you want is an honest, above corruption website that will never shy away from saying inconvenient truth to their audience… you got it all wrong, you will get the above instead! Awesome, great move, gg!
VorpalBunny74 wrote: A corrupt website getting punished for anti-consumer practices isn't a "victory"?
If what you want is a corrupt website that also licks the boot of its consumer, then yeah, great move, awesome, gg!
If what you want is an honest, above corruption website that will never shy away from saying inconvenient truth to their audience… you got it all wrong, you will get the above instead! Awesome, great move, gg!
Are you referring to Gamasutra as honest and above corruption? Oh you sweet summer child.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Hopefully we've informed certain websites that actions have consequences. Calling your audience names is hilariously stupid. They can if they want (as indeed they did) but getting off scott free wasn't part of the deal.
IOW, "don't say mean things about me or I'll punish you". What happened to talking about legitimate issues instead of stupid blog drama about who called who a mean name? If the huge brag-worthy victory of the GJWs is possibly punishing someone for being mean to them then I'd say the whole thing is a miserable failure.
Pure "hopeful" speculation on your part.
Well yes, that's the entire point I was trying to make: it's all speculation right now. It's way too early to declare victory just because one advertiser dropped their ads on one website.
It's another rung on the ladder of victory! That being, with luck, transparency and ethics in video "game" journalism.
But this has nothing to do with ethics and transparency, it's all about "THEY WERE MEAN TO ME".
A corrupt website getting punished for anti-consumer practices isn't a "victory"?
Saying mean things about GJWs is not corruption, nor is it really anti-consumer.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Are you referring to Gamasutra as honest and above corruption?
Nope, I am just laughing at the fact you did nothing to make it so. You just made sure it was also licking your boots on top of being corrupt. Good job. Congratulation. What are you going to do with your corrupt bootlicker now?
(And that is supposing you actually succeeded in making them into a boot-licker. Because that is all this angry fit of rage was about.)
Peregrine wrote: seldom accomplish anything that requires more effort than making an angry blog post.
Well, they do angry email. Every time you post something here. Are you scared now?
Its better then impotently arguing here and filling the board with off topic banter. At least Gamergate is achieving something where as you 3 supporting rapists, fraudsters and racketeers.
Okay, I've not posted in this thread for ages, because I couldn't be bothered dealing with your gak, but seriously, just stop. You have repeatedly called the opposition "rape supporters" or "supporting rapists" based on one particular person's skewy definition of rape, as if you just uttering those magic words means their arguments are suddenly invalid, because 'rape supporters'.
That is not how a discussion works.
You want to be taken seriously as a cause? Or at least a slight bit more seriously than the 'SJWs' that you vilify so much? Then stop calling everyone that disagrees with you a fething rape supporter!
Do you seriously think that you're going to open up a polite discourse that might lead to positive changes in the gaming industry when your response to people disagreeing with you is to call them a rape supporter?
The sheer, unbridled smugness exuding from your posts is even irritating me, and I actually agree with a good portion of the GamerGate argument. I can't imagine how obnoxious it comes across as to someone who disagrees with you, or that's on the fence.
Going "Well nyuh nyuh, I'm better than you" every time Peregrine posts helps the advancement of gaming or gaming journalism not one iota, so please, for the sake of the moral high ground you seem so keen to obtain, just stop.
All of you. And I am talking to all of you. Be respectful. Follow dakka rules.... Now. If this thread descends any further... .*sigh*
I was taking a nap for an hour and I come back to this shesh.
Now to get back on topic.
Also Peregrine that post about GJW is kind of stupid and does not help your cause. Mechanical Crow: Please refrain from that language and calling the otherside as rapist supporters. They aren't. Zoe Quinn is Deplorable but she is not a primary concern of Gamer Gate.
#GamerGate: What do you want? Published on Tuesday, September 30, 2014 By Frogboy In PC Gaming Last week I wrote about the Escalation of #GamerGate. I recommended that advocates of #GamerGate come up with a set of objectives while momentum was in their favor.
A Recap For the uninitiated, #GamerGate is a schism that has formed between the enthusiast gaming press and core gamers. The schism was largely the result of the gaming media allowing their platforms to be utilized by the more radical elements within their ranks to denigrate core gamers as “dead” and “nerds” and “misogynists” in response to a handful of gamers targeting an outspoken feminist game developer who they believed had received unmerited coverage due to her personal relationships with the gaming press.
#Gamergate was coined by Adam Baldwin in response to the gaming media’s aggressive stance towards gamers who expressed their concerns regarding what they believed to be inappropriate collusion between developers and journalists and now represents those who passionately want to see changes in the way the gaming media approaches its subjects.
Jack Thompson II The situation reminds me of when activist lawyer, Jack Thompson argued against violence in video games. Back then, the enthusiast gaming press and core gamers ridiculed Thompson’s arguments and at times, targeted him with substantial harassment. Eventually his movement petered out and everything went back to normal.
This time, the crusade against core gaming is being led by self-identified “social justice” activists who believe that video games are inherently hostile to women, minorities, etc. Core gamers have reacted the same as they did in 2003 with open ridicule and at times, substantial harassment of their foes. However, this time, the enthusiast press decided to brand core gamers as “misogynists” on the basis that the targets of ridicule and harassment are feminists instead of a male lawyer.
Many core gamers believe that the reason the gaming media has been backing this agenda is because unlike in 2003, they are in bed with the other side financially, politically and sometimes literally. Meanwhile, some in the enthusiast press think that the vocal elements #gamergate are just a bunch of misogynistic lunatics.
What do you want out of this? I suggested that the #GamerGate advocates come up with 5 objectives to rally around. With a week of reflection, I’m not sure that’s really a good idea as it would likely just splinter those who support #Gamergate into smaller factions.Nevertheless, a lot of interesting suggestions were made.
Below are some representations of the objectives people believe #gamergate should have
Insist on a full disclosure of relationships (Financial, personal, or otherwise) between the developer/publisher and journalist/publication. Fair and professional representation of all sides during debate (Including twitter and other social media directly related to a journalists writing persona) without censorship of opposing opinions. Where disagreement over facts is present both sides should be represented with relevant proof where available. Fact checking of all articles. Do not report on issues like harassment and bomb threats without first checking the story is real, then also read into all parties involved and relay histories of similar incidents if a pattern is present. Proper representation of gaming's diverse multi-cultural elements. Don't blame 'straight, white, males' for everything. It's extremely unprofessional and deeply offensive. A full apology from all involved in Twitter campaigns, 'gamers are dead' articles, and other anti-GG attacks. A end to journalist collusion in regards to the omission of stories that do not fit in with ideology Report on what games are like, not what they are lacking in terms of perceived social justice.
Quit censoring topics based on your personal political biases. If you have a stated policy, stick to that. Don’t pull the rug out because your ideology is losing the debate.
Those sites that published articles attacking gamers should publish an editorial apologizing for those attacks.
Stop game sites from injecting a political agenda into content, especially things like reviews or interviews. Opinion pieces are fine as long as they are clearly marked as opinion and the comments left open so that respectful, dissenting points of can be heard.
Game sites should abandon articles that character assassinate individuals or groups that are related to the gaming industry.
The practice of blackballing developers for the kind of games they make, their political opinion or something they might have said needs to stop, everyone should be given a fair chance.
Game Sites should have an ethics policy which is easy to find and which clearly lays out policies regarding journalistic standards.
Game sites should post a complete renunciation of the claim that Gamergate was "based in misogyny and harassment".
Cut off all ties with Silverstring media as well as Patreon support for those who work with/use it.
Force the removal of the most egregious actors in the gaming press.
Game Magazines and sites need a stated, public policy regarding how they define a conflict of interest. For instance, a conflict of interest is may be defined as any romantic, sexual, or platonic relationship; additionally, any economic relationships through services such as Patreon or Kickstarter.
Censorship is not acceptable. We expect to be able to discuss our grievances with your websites openly, so long as the conversation is polite and respectful.
All news articles must meet the Ms. Walters standards- at MINIMUM two reasonably unbiased sources, with at least one from both sides, must be present. If two sources cannot be found, this must be clearly stated in the article.
If your website believes in advocating for a political cause, be open about it.
Full disclosure on relationship of journalist and game developer. IE Patreon, Kick Starter, Friend, Lover, Roommate, where did you get the game, etc.
This is by no means a comprehensive list.
Reality vs. Fantasy A lot of the objectives, demands and hopes I read are fantasy. Demands without leverage are just a form of groveling. Only objectives that the #gamergate proponents can enforce are, in my opinion, realistic.
I’m friends with a lot of people in the gaming media. I know they’re good people. They’re also honest, trustworthy and full of integrity. They are also convinced that #gamergate is a thinly veiled front to attack women in gaming. I think they’re wrong. Terribly wrong. But they will not be convinced otherwise.
I’m also friends with a lot of game developers. And most of them have been horrified by what they see as the self-destruction of the enthusiast press when it comes to their relationship with their most loyal supporters. Most game developers I’ve talked to about this issue cannot fathom why the gaming press would be attacking their own readership.
As one fairly well known game developer said to me last week, “What’s really odd is that some of these guys forget that when Cracked or whatever gets back to their usual beat, the gaming press still has to live with these guys [the hard core gamers that make up a large % of the daily page views of these game sites]”.
What I’d like to see the gaming media do I’m just an old game developer. So I might as well wish for it to rain donuts. Mind you, I cringe even reading the below points because I hate preachiness and anything that seems coercive. That said, I think the below points would be helpful to them.
Professionalism. Create a policy based on the Society of Professional Journalists. Have your writers and freelancers read it and sign it before accepting work from them. This would cover disclosures of excessive personal or financial relationships between the writer and the subject. Transparency and Fairness. Create a mission statement for your site and put it in the about area. This would be useful both for readers and those who would submit content to your magazine/site. Self-Enforcement. Encourage your editors to be on the look out for writers who are trying to pass their political agenda as “news”. Don’t let your platform be used to advocate some cause that deviates from the general mission of site. House Cleaning. Discourage or eliminate moderators/editors who allow personal political biases to determine what topics are allowed on your forums/website. (For example if you have a policy against topics that might encourage “harassment of game developers” then make sure it’s enforced equally and not just game developers who you politically agree with.) What I’d like to see #Gamergate do Vigilance. Support and encourage those maintaining vigilance, providing constructive criticism and doing due diligence on how games are covered. Resistance. Continue to resist those who would wrongly believe inclusion means one group has to “die”. This means using various channels to disseminate information. Don’t allow your hobby to be turned into “Hobby+” Inclusiveness. Vigorously discourage any repeat of the August 28 “Gamers are dead” series of articles by vigorously reminding the media that you’re not going anywhere. Gamers want everyone to play games. Support journalists who support actual inclusiveness – you want more people playing games not just “the correct” people. Support. Actively support and defend those who are being marginalized for purely political reasons.
Natural Allies As a reminder: The gaming media’s natural purpose is to be the advocate of the gamer. The media is supposed to be the watchdog making sure we game developers aren’t screwing over gamers. I feel like we’re in this bizarro situation where the game developers are the ones having to defend gamers from the media. It’s backwards. Stop it.
Gamers, by definition, want to play games. They want games to be reviewed based on how fun the reviewer thinks the game will be to their audience. They don’t care what the reviewer’s personal political hang ups are. Game sites aren't supposed to be a therapy couch for narcissism. I have lots of opinions on life too but I don’t inject them into my games. Maybe it’s easier for me to keep my whacko views out of my games because the financial punishment would be swift and unmistakable. Either way, knock it off.
What’s next I don’t think #gamergate will be going away any time soon. Given the general unpleasantness of the whole affair, I think editors and journalists in general will be more self-aware of their relationships and take more care in what gets published in the future. Only time will tell.
Peregrine wrote: seldom accomplish anything that requires more effort than making an angry blog post.
Well, they do angry email. Every time you post something here. Are you scared now?
Its better then impotently arguing here and filling the board with off topic banter. At least Gamergate is achieving something where as you 3 supporting rapists, fraudsters and racketeers.
Okay, I've not posted in this thread for ages, because I couldn't be bothered dealing with your gak, but seriously, just stop. You have repeatedly called the opposition "rape supporters" or "supporting rapists" based on one particular person's skewy definition of rape, as if you just uttering those magic words means their arguments are suddenly invalid, because 'rape supporters'.
That is not how a discussion works.
You want to be taken seriously as a cause? Or at least a slight bit more seriously than the 'SJWs' that you vilify so much? Then stop calling everyone that disagrees with you a fething rape supporter!
Do you seriously think that you're going to open up a polite discourse that might lead to positive changes in the gaming industry when your response to people disagreeing with you is to call them a rape supporter?
The sheer, unbridled smugness exuding from your posts is even irritating me, and I actually agree with a good portion of the GamerGate argument. I can't imagine how obnoxious it comes across as to someone who disagrees with you, or that's on the fence.
Going "Well nyuh nyuh, I'm better than you" every time Peregrine posts helps the advancement of gaming or gaming journalism not one iota, so please, for the sake of the moral high ground you seem so keen to obtain, just stop.
Yeah, I gotta agree here. You need to stop calling the 'other side' rape supporters. That's embracing the worst aspects of their tactics. Now fraudsters and racketeers I can get behind.
Asherian Command wrote: Also Peregrine that post about GJW is kind of stupid and does not help your cause.
So let me get this straight: calling people you disagree with SJWs is ok and you'll gladly present articles containing "SJW" accusations as legitimate sources, but applying the same stereotype to you is "kind of stupid" and "doesn't help my cause"?
Oh good, more complaining about "censorship" (there is none) and insisting that the real problem has very little to do with corruption and is almost entirely about GJWs not getting their ideas published frequently and prominently enough. Oh, and a little bonus nonsense about "keeping politics out of it" while overlooking the fact that saying "everything is ok right now" is also a political position.
Asherian Command wrote: Also Peregrine that post about GJW is kind of stupid and does not help your cause.
So let me get this straight: calling people you disagree with SJWs is ok and you'll gladly present articles containing "SJW" accusations as legitimate sources, but applying the same stereotype to you is "kind of stupid" and "doesn't help my cause"?
Oh good, more complaining about "censorship" (there is none) and insisting that the real problem has very little to do with corruption and is almost entirely about GJWs not getting their ideas published frequently and prominently enough. Oh, and a little bonus nonsense about "keeping politics out of it" while overlooking the fact that saying "everything is ok right now" is also a political position.
Did you willfully ignore what this article said? Are you that willing to throw it away because you think it has nothing to do with corruption this is a game developer talking about the issue.
And you are willing to throw it to the side because it does not fit your narrative of what is going on.
Please tell me how are you able to throw it to the side.
A good reporter or journalist is an observer and does not take sides.
So let me get this straight: calling people you disagree with SJWs is ok and you'll gladly present articles containing "SJW" accusations as legitimate sources, but applying the same stereotype to you is "kind of stupid" and "doesn't help my cause"?
There is nothing for pushing for social justice. But being a proponent and pushing it down peoples throats because you are offended by it is something else entirely.
But again I am talking to you who is writing their own narrative for the scene.
And only believe what they write as fact and glory above all. And that their opinion is above all others.
Okay guys, an acronym was floated, agree or disagree with it, please return to discussing what this thread is about. You may certainly use the term "Gamergate" if you wish (it's in the thread title and is rather what this thread is about, after all!).
If you don't wish to use it, please agree to disagree at this point and move on to discussing the actual topic at hand, rather than what to call it.
Further off-topic posts will, as always, result in the appropriate warnings / etc.
The game industry as been ablaze for, really, the last couple of years about misogyny within its ranks. This really came to a head in the past couple weeks when an outspoken “indie” game developer was accused of some sordid activities in exchange for media coverage.
Online culture has a serious toxicity problem. It gets worse every year. Here are 3 things that are driving it:
#1 The tabloidiziation of the gaming media.
First, I want to emphasize that the gaming media isn’t some monolithic thing. There are a lot of good publications and journalists in the game industry. But at the same time, they, like you, know who and what I’m referring to, are often appalled by them, so I think they, and you, will forgive me if I simply describe the usual suspects as “the gaming media”.
It’s not just that the gaming media publicizes every tawdry rumor or speculation about the individuals involved in making games. It’s that they actively take sides and drive the narrative. This is extremely divisive and thus creates a constituency of people waiting “their turn” to air their grievances.
The gaming media likes to create heroes, villains and victims. I’ve been portrayed as all 3 even though I’ve never been any of the 3:
I was a “hero” because I refused to put copy protection on our games. But I wasn’t really a hero. I believed that we would generate more sales by not inconveniencing our customers.
I was a “villain” because I was accused of “sexually harassing” our marketing manager. But I wasn’t really a villain. I hadn’t actually done anything beyond sending a mean email to an insubordinate employee who happened to be female (and she later apologized publicly).
I was a “victim” when Demigod got released on Good Friday by GameStop and our lack of copy protection allowed hundreds of thousands of people to jam up our servers keeping people from playing. But I wasn’t really a victim because if I had planned better, we would have had a more robust multiplayer infrastructure up before release.
The problem is that the gaming media gets more hits from demonizing game makers which makes their audience angry and causes them to lash out at the appointed villain. So contextless articles are written designed to make you hate someone, usually people that the article writer already has a problem with. Those articles then live on via search engines perpetuating people being mad and going after the appointed villain. Toxicity is created, spread and maintained.
This is easy to demonstrate. Right now, Google my name. “Brad Wardell”.
On Google, you’ll find my Wiki entry, twitter and my blogs and probably linked in. But right after that? Slime.
Note that I’ve been in the tech/game industry for over 20 years. I’ve done a lot of stuff in that 20 years ranging from writing the first commercial 32bit computer game to designing Start8.
Now, Google search someone the media has exceptional…sympathy for. Go ahead. Look at the top entries there. Compare.
For me, the really frustrating parts is how out of context and biased the actual coverage can get depending on what is being covered. The media and the subsequent trolls loved to take snippets or something without any curiosity of the larger context (such as incredibly insubordinate comments from someone – “you need to make an appointment with me before coming to my office area”) in order to create the narrative they want to incite their readership.
The point is, the gaming media is perfectly happy to profit from spreading toxicity into Internet culture. The only difference now is that people are able to push back against the narratives being foisted.
#2 Professional Victims
The professional victim is an individual who takes advantage of good hearted people. This is particularly the case in the game industry. If someone’s media coverage / social media influence greatly outstrips their actual accomplishments, they might be a professional victim.
I’ve been getting death threats and online flames since the beginning. I didn’t go around complaining about it because, like most people, I know that the world is full of jerks and idiots and if they’ve heard of you, they will sometimes target you. The professional victim, by contrast, will convert trolling into media gold which just so happens to get coverage for their new game or new project.
The professional victim is purposely trying to ruffle feathers and then gain exposer for their project by the outpouring of abuse they take. But only some people are allowed to be victims. If some gruff man were to start critiquing the fashion industry, any complaints he had regarding the “harassment” he received due to the inevitable insults directed his way would be ignored.
Professional victims rely on the fact that we don’t condemn intolerance and abuse universally. Because of that, like issue #1, the culture becomes more divisive, more toxic. When people feel they haven’t gotten a fair shake or that their beliefs are being misrepresented, they get angry.
Lastly, a reminder: Trolls customize their insults just for you. They will pick what they think will upset you the most and use that. If you wear your grievances on your sleeve then it’s just that much easier.
#3 Unaccountability
The typical stereotype of the online “troll” is that they’re some kid. But the nastiest of the trolls tend to actually be people who actually work IN THE INDUSTRY (or close to it) posting anonymously.
Sometimes they post as themselves but because they have the correct “politics” they get a pass. One of the worst trolls I’ve had to deal with was the founding editor of Kotaku. He even made a YouTube video comparing me to Hitler (it’s still up if you search for it). Imagine if the former editor in chief of Kotaku posted a video comparing a female game developer with Hitler. What do you imagine the coverage would be? What does that tell you about the attitudes of some people in “activist” media?
The fact that Twitter and YouTube still allow anonymity for their users is [A] Not surprising but [B] a major reason why we have so much gak on the Internet. People are a lot more reasonable when they are posting as “themselves”.
No easy answers
I wish there was an easy answer. In a click-bait driven Internet, toxicity sells. I suspect we’ll be forced to live with that. But people don’t have to sit back like sheep and be manipulated by it. They can push back when some “journalist” posts a hit piece and call out hypocrisy on those who complain about “harassment” when in fact they’re part of the culture that cultivates and profits from it. In the meantime, grow a thick skin and try not to let it affect you.
So that’s my 2 cents anyway for what it’s worth.
TL;DR version:
The tabloid parts of the gaming media gak out a lot of toxicity that lives on forever via search engines. Unaccountable trolls read up on this and then perpetuate the original toxicity by keeping it alive, thus perpetuating the cycle. Meanwhile some cynical people capitalize on the gaming media bias to get career boosting publicity despite their meager real world accomplishments.
Asherian Command wrote: Did you willfully ignore what this article said? Are you that willing to throw it away because you think it has nothing to do with corruption this is a game developer talking about the issue.
I read the article, and I saw a bunch of whining about "censorship" that isn't censorship, and demands for "fairness" as if everyone is obligated to help other people publish their ideas. The author says very little about corruption, and their biggest problem seems to be that SJWs get to have an opinion and nobody wants to listen to the poor oppressed GJWs.
Please tell me how are you able to throw it to the side.
Like this:
*picks up the article and throws it to the side*
A good reporter or journalist is an observer and does not take sides.
And again you're under the assumption that game journalism is about Real Serious Journalism and Finding The Truth. It isn't. It's a bunch of people who have managed to turn writing about their favorite toys into a paying job.
Also, taking sides is the entire point of most game writing! If you read a review of a game you don't want a listing of neutral facts like the price and system requirements, you want to know the critic's opinion of it. And that means taking a side and saying X is good/bad. A world in which game journalism is dominated by wikipedia-style forced "neutrality"* would be a world in which game journalism is too boring for anyone to bother reading it.
*Which very often consists of creating an obligation to give equal time to raving lunatics on issues that are not even close to being up for debate.
There is nothing for pushing for social justice. But being a proponent and pushing it down peoples throats because you are offended by it is something else entirely.
IOW, "calling my enemies SJWs is ok, but don't you dare apply a similar label to me". If all the SJWs are so evil for "pushing it down peoples' throats" then how exactly do you justify things like trying to punish websites that say mean things about gamers? That sounds an awful lot like trying to push your GJW agenda down their throats.
Peregrine wrote: IOW, "don't say mean things about me or I'll punish you". What happened to talking about legitimate issues instead of stupid blog drama about who called who a mean name? If the huge brag-worthy victory of the GJWs is possibly punishing someone for being mean to them then I'd say the whole thing is a miserable failure.
Yes, if you insult me as a customer, I will not consumer your product. Pretty basic stuff. They aren't "entitled" to our business. Do you think they should be?
Well yes, that's the entire point I was trying to make: it's all speculation right now. It's way too early to declare victory just because one advertiser dropped their ads on one website.
I declared a minor victory, not an overall victory. This geek tragedy has a long way to go
But this has nothing to do with ethics and transparency, it's all about "THEY WERE MEAN TO ME".
Al Capone was brought down by tax evasion
Saying mean things about GJWs is not corruption, nor is it really anti-consumer.
Indeed, insulting the customer is a brand new marketing technique
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Are you referring to Gamasutra as honest and above corruption?
Nope, I am just laughing at the fact you did nothing to make it so. You just made sure it was also licking your boots on top of being corrupt. Good job. Congratulation. What are you going to do with your corrupt bootlicker now?
(And that is supposing you actually succeeded in making them into a boot-licker. Because that is all this angry fit of rage was about.)
Sorry I forgot websites only have a binary state between insulting and pandering. I was hoping for more options. Why are you trying to take options away Hybrid?
Which is a good point, but it applies just as well to both sides. Much of the GJW crusade is nothing more than tabloidization and a desire to make the "villain" pay for being mean to the heroic GJWs. And let's not forget that the whole thing started by singling out specific people as "villains" after decades of the whole industry doing the exact same things without comment.
#2 Professional Victims
And this is just impressive irony. "Look what a martyr I am, quietly suffering harassment instead of being a professional victim". Perhaps he should consider the fact that he has the privilege of ignoring the occasional idiot making death threats, while women tend to face more threads and harassment in general and be much more vulnerable to someone deciding to take their violence offline? Or maybe he should think about how his silence and saying "it's no big deal" encourages harassment, while someone posting their harassment and saying "this is not ok" might actually get people to change?
#3 Unaccountability
Again, something that applies equally well to GJWs. Or does anyone really think that the people harassing "SJWs" would be doing it if their employers/family/etc could see it under their real name?
I read the article, and I saw a bunch of whining about "censorship" that isn't censorship, and demands for "fairness" as if everyone is obligated to help other people publish their ideas. The author says very little about corruption, and their biggest problem seems to be that SJWs get to have an opinion and nobody wants to listen to the poor oppressed GJWs.
I read it more inciteful As funny thing that had very little to do what he was talking about he was objective and talked about and gave examples and you know gave reasoning as to why it is a good cause. The very fact you said that tells volumes that you didn't read the full article.
And again you're under the assumption that game journalism is about Real Serious Journalism and Finding The Truth. It isn't. It's a bunch of people who have managed to turn writing about their favorite toys into a paying job.
Also, taking sides is the entire point of most game writing! If you read a review of a game you don't want a listing of neutral facts like the price and system requirements, you want to know the critic's opinion of it. And that means taking a side and saying X is good/bad. A world in which game journalism is dominated by wikipedia-style forced "neutrality"* would be a world in which game journalism is too boring for anyone to bother reading it.
*Which very often consists of creating an obligation to give equal time to raving lunatics on issues that are not even close to being up for debate.
Because they use the word journalism which means they have to follow the critera for journalism or being a journalist the fact that you don't know that is pricely what gamers want. They want it to be informative. If you want a review to cover it in your opinion then make an opinion section in your review. Talk about the game and what you liked about it.
Otherwise review it and see what it takes to run the darn thing. The fact that some places actually lack that is stupid.
If you want to talk about the game write and editorial alongside it that is more personal.
Which is a good point, but it applies just as well to both sides. Much of the GJW crusade is nothing more than tabloidization and a desire to make the "villain" pay for being mean to the heroic GJWs. And let's not forget that the whole thing started by singling out specific people as "villains" after decades of the whole industry doing the exact same things without comment.
We were told not to use that term at all Peregrine.
Its called being good to your consumer and kind to them. Like you know anything about being kind as you have clearly shown.
And this is just impressive irony. "Look what a martyr I am, quietly suffering harassment instead of being a professional victim". Perhaps he should consider the fact that he has the privilege of ignoring the occasional idiot making death threats, while women tend to face more threads and harassment in general and be much more vulnerable to someone deciding to take their violence offline? Or maybe he should think about how his silence and saying "it's no big deal" encourages harassment, while someone posting their harassment and saying "this is not ok" might actually get people to change?
Yes but this time the journalists use it for their own benefit. We don't have people who are making money from being a professional victim. Acting groups of people and then using their cause to benefit themselves. I.E. Zoe Quinn and Antia Sarkessan.
The fact that you are saying gamers played the professional victim card is a gross stupidity on your part. Because I have yet to see a gamer that for personal benefit used their victimization as means for monetary gain and turning everyone to DDOS or attack a group of people.
When the other side has done that quite often. With attacking the gamers and labelling them and come crying and start massing up emails and such saying how can we do this. "Lets play the victim card peeps!" And then they do and other journalists join in because they want to protect their business partners or friends. Or white knighting as the term goes.
Again, something that applies equally well to GJWs. Or does anyone really think that the people harassing "SJWs" would be doing it if their employers/family/etc could see it under their real name?
Well, if you want accountablility you need to list all things that you have done and say yes we did that. And there has been from the gamergate side. There have been people who attack the trolls and silence their voice because they thing it is undermining the movement. And that is a good thing. They label the trolls and get rid of them, because we don't want those types of people in our community.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Yes, if you insult me as a customer, I will not consumer your product. Pretty basic stuff. They aren't "entitled" to our business. Do you think they should be?
Of course that's basic, and obviously they're not entitled to GJW business if GJWs decide to stop buying. But that's not some noble ideological point being made, it's just petty drama about who called who a mean name. If that's the final goal of the GJW crusade then that's a pretty big disappointment.
Indeed, insulting the customer is a brand new marketing technique
You're making the assumption that GJWs are the target customers. Perhaps the sites in question just decided that SJWs were a more profitable market?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: I read it more inciteful As funny thing that had very little to do what he was talking about he was objective and talked about and gave examples and you know gave reasoning as to why it is a good cause. The very fact you said that tells volumes that you didn't read the full article.
IOW, "you disagree with me about this article, you didn't read it".
Because they use the word journalism which means they have to follow the critera for journalism or being a journalist
According to who?
the fact that you don't know that is pricely what gamers want.
Really? As a gamer I think I have a pretty good idea what I want, and it has nothing to do with your hypothetical world of treating toy reviews as Serious Ethical Journalism.
They want it to be informative. If you want a review to cover it in your opinion then make an opinion section in your review. Talk about the game and what you liked about it.
EVERY REVIEW IS AN OPINION.
Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? The entire point of a review is to find a critic that likes the same things you like, and then see what their opinion of a new product is. If they liked it then you probably will too, and you should buy it. If they don't like it then their review will probably give you reasons not to buy it. Trying to take that opinion factor out of the review makes it absolutely useless to the reader, since it no longer provides any information that you can't get from the back of the box.
Otherwise review it and see what it takes to run the darn thing.
Which is boring. I have zero interest in reading a "review" that consists of nothing more than neutral facts like what FPS the author got on their PC at what detail settings.
According to the definition of the word by Merriam
Really? As a gamer I think I have a pretty good idea what I want, and it has nothing to do with your hypothetical world of treating toy reviews as Serious Ethical Journalism.
The fact you compared video games to toys is pricely why you are not knowledgable in these events.
IOW, "you disagree with me about this article, you didn't read it".
No because you proved to me that you didn't read it all. You didn't read all the articles I have posted. And you have yet to articulate it.
As you have been known to take a position and not do very well.
EVERY REVIEW IS AN OPINION.
Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? The entire point of a review is to find a critic that likes the same things you like, and then see what their opinion of a new product is. If they liked it then you probably will too, and you should buy it. If they don't like it then their review will probably give you reasons not to buy it. Trying to take that opinion factor out of the review makes it absolutely useless to the reader, since it no longer provides any information that you can't get from the back of the box.
Not all the time. A review does not always have to be an opinion.
It doesn't always have to be an opinionated piece.
Which is boring. I have zero interest in reading a "review" that consists of nothing more than neutral facts like what FPS the author got on their PC at what detail settings.
Knowing that is alot of information. Knowing the specs required to play the game, And allowing the gamers to know exactly if there is performance issues or bugs that they encountered in the game.
You're making the assumption that GJWs are the target customers. Perhaps the sites in question just decided that SJWs were a more profitable market?
Hahaha Yes the group of 90 people is more profitable than the 200,000 people.
Yep totally makes sense.
Of course that's basic, and obviously they're not entitled to GJW business if GJWs decide to stop buying. But that's not some noble ideological point being made, it's just petty drama about who called who a mean name. If that's the final goal of the GJW crusade then that's a pretty big disappointment.
you are sounding like a parody of yourself now. Please stop before I can't stop laughing too hard at your opinions.
PJW wrote: Of course that's basic, and obviously they're not entitled to GJW business if GJWs decide to stop buying. But that's not some noble ideological point being made, it's just petty drama about who called who a mean name. If that's the final goal of the GJW crusade then that's a pretty big disappointment.
It's a good thing that's not the final goal of GamerGate then!
You're making the assumption that GJWs are the target customers. Perhaps the sites in question just decided that SJWs were a more profitable market?
I guess I am assuming that gamers are the target customers of video game websites. If they want to switch to other audiences, they are free to do so, and not be supported by their previous audience. If they succeed, more power to them.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: It's a good thing that's not the final goal of GamerGate then!
Then why are you presenting it as such an important "victory"?
I guess I am assuming that gamers are the target customers of video game websites. If they want to switch to other audiences, they are free to do so, and not be supported by their previous audience. If they succeed, more power to them.
I guess I am assuming that gamers are the target customers of video game websites. If they want to switch to other audiences, they are free to do so, and not be supported by their previous audience. If they succeed, more power to them.
GJWs =/= all gamers.
Yet you said in your statement they were catering towards SJWs. So with that frame of logic they were not catering to gamers in anyway.
And so we had no context clues to point to it being gamers as well.
Asherian Command wrote: Yet you said in your statement they were catering towards SJWs. So with that frame of logic they were not catering to gamers in anyway.
Are you aware that some of the people you call "SJWs" are also gamers?
Asherian Command wrote: Yet you said in your statement they were catering towards SJWs. So with that frame of logic they were not catering to gamers in anyway.
Are you aware that some of the people you call "SJWs" are also gamers?
Did you know that is a minority... And you are trying to drag this conversation off topic? Its a minority in gaming and it is not a good thing. The fact you keep calling gamers apart of gamer gate GJWs is just showing how much of a childish argument you are proposing. You are doing the. "Oh well if they call me this, then I call them this." Type of argument. Real mature Peregrine. real Mature.
So, About Them Gamers and Their Silly Games! What is a man? Well, the answer is quite obvious that he is naught but a pile of secrets.
However, what about a gamer? The answer to that question is... well, rather nebulous. Shrouded in confusion from ignorance, fear, or simple variance of opinion. And indeed, there are many opinions on the idea, ranging from the valid and informed to the uneducated, ignorant, and wildly, accusingly untrue.
Many people who look at facts see gamers by what news outlets or scientific studies show them. I mean, gamers simply... play games. Right? If you own a smartphone and play simple little puzzle games involving the repeated destruction of edible delights, does that make you a gamer? Statistically, people who play games are some of the brightest people in the world. We might be a little socially awkward once in a while, but we can't all roll a natural 18 charisma. Many of us are incredibly artistic and uniquely intelligent. People who play games are businessmen, musicians, politicians, scientists, artists... The list goes on. Still, people that play games, whether they be World of Warcraft, Minecraft, or whatever -craft you call your poison--are they gamers? What is it that makes a person truly a 'gamer'?
To me, and many others, a more philosophical approach seems appropriate. Being a gamer isn't about something you do. It's about who you are. Gaming is something that defines you as a person. Many people like me grew up playing games, but how or when do you transition from playing games to being a gamer? Anyone with an intelligent answer would easily be able to turn heads and make people quietly utter, "Clever girl."
Again... it's rather difficult to answer. Perhaps there is no answer; people are allowed to have their own opinions. One of my friends said today that it's about playing games and enjoying them as your escape from the real world. Another told me she played games to be social, to enjoy time with her friends. Personally, I believe that it's not about playing games, but more simply about loving them, living them; whether you play them, write about them, talk about them, design them, or take some inspiration from them, being enthused about games... being enthralled by the artistic style, the composition of the music, the mechanical workings of games. That's what it's about.
There is no doubt in anybody's mind, either, that games are by their very nature artistic creations; some of the most wonderfully artistic things in this world are games. Many similarities exist between classical art and games: some are created by true geniuses of the medium, people tend to disagree on which ones are better than others and rather enjoy their personal tastes, and some go misunderstood, despite the inner beauty.
What makes art, though? Is it definable by some sort of mechanical understanding, or some solid quantity or quality? Absolutely not. Anything and everything has an effect on a final product. Much the same can be said of video games; everything has an effect on video games. Simple things like time, money, and tools available, complex and unquantifiable things like personal beliefs and opinions, and even unexpected things like levels of experience...
Ubisoft's Rayman, for example. He doesn't have arms or legs simply because the development team had difficulty rendering limbs; when removed, they experimented with ideas such as firing fists across the screen, and he eventually became their famous flagship persona, even stretching his limbless hands out of the gaming world to become the mascot for the French soccer team in the World Cup.
Earthworm Jim, too. Whether it was the silly humor, the unique art style, or the laughable and lovable characters, everyone's favorite cow-loving worm still turns a few heads whenever he shouts out "GROOVY!" with a big, goofy smile on his face. Did you know his entire universe was designed by a rabid creationist? Doug TenNapel, indeed, is a Christian and a conservative, and his views on gay marriage might make not make liberals or moderates say "Way Cool!" However, as opinionated as Doug is, Jim isn't; Doug's personal beliefs undoubtedly influenced every artistic design choice he's made in his games, but the games aren't designed around pushing an agenda. While Professor Monkey-for-a-Head is designed around an old high school biology teacher discussing evolution, the beliefs and opinions instead enrich the designs, improving the narrative and providing players with much stronger immersion.
Now, does it matter to some how a developer or journalist performs their job? Do the personal lives and beliefs of a person affect how the public views their works of art? Absolutely. Should it matter? Not necessarily. It's always up to a person's opinion, and I certainly won't cast the first stone. Someone's personal beliefs and opinions are theirs and theirs alone; while they may derive inspiration from it, it does not necessarily mean their art demands attention to that belief. Some people who feel strongly enough about another person's beliefs, however, will indeed be biased in regards to their work, whether for or against. A game or a piece of art should only be judged based on its own merits, or by the merits of the universe it takes place in. If a person feels like Blizzard and Activision are the second and third most evil companies ever to exist, they should voice their opinions and try to reason with people, but I would urge someone to give one of their games a try, if it's their preferred genre. Sometimes, the most wonderful gems can be found in the strangest of places. Gems, gems are truly outrageous. They are truly, truly, truly, outrageous.
As #GamerGate continues forward, I urge everyone to remember to step back briefly and take a breath. Remember who you all are and what you stand for. Your love for games is what brought you together, your true calling as gamers.
P.S.: Bonus points if you can catch all the references. Take notes, there's going to be a quiz later.
Asherian Command wrote: The fact you keep calling gamers apart of gamer gate GJWs is just showing how much of a childish argument you are proposing. You are doing the. "Oh well if they call me this, then I call them this." Type of argument. Real mature Peregrine. real Mature
And let me guess, you and the other GJWs constantly throwing around "SJW" labels is the height of maturity? If you don't like the GJW label then perhaps you should get the point and stop talking about SJWs?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Because it. . .is? A sponsor has dropped a corrupt website over anti-consumer practices.
And, as I've pointed out, it's:
1) A completely hypothetical victory, because we don't know what the final effect will be. If the website replaces the ads immediately then they've lost nothing.
2) A "victory" that is all about petty blog drama instead of legitimate issues. This isn't about corruption, it's about having a riot because someone said a mean thing about GJWs.
"Gamers don't have to be your audience, Gamers are over" doesn't ring a teeny tiny little bell?
And if you read the articles in question you'll notice that "gamers" is referring to a specific group of people (GJWs) that are a subset of "people who play games". The better title would be "GJWs don't have to be your audience, GJWs are over". It's nothing more than an article advocating focusing on the non-GJW gamers.
1) A completely hypothetical victory, because we don't know what the final effect will be. If the website replaces the ads immediately then they've lost nothing.
2) A "victory" that is all about petty blog drama instead of legitimate issues. This isn't about corruption, it's about having a riot because someone said a mean thing about GJWs.
That's true neither yourself, nor myself, have a crystal ball.
However if more advertisers get involved it could cause a repeat of what happened to News of the World:
And if you read the articles in question you'll notice that "gamers" is referring to a specific group of people (GJWs) that are a subset of "people who play games". The better title would be "GJWs don't have to be your audience, GJWs are over". It's nothing more than an article advocating focusing on the non-GJW gamers.
Maybe you should email them to change the article title?
PJW wrote: Then why are you presenting it as such an important "victory"?
Because it. . .is? A sponsor has dropped a corrupt website over anti-consumer practices.
GJWs =/= all gamers.
"Gamers don't have to be your audience, Gamers are over" doesn't ring a teeny tiny little bell?
So, from what I understand is this:
The people that have actively said that all gamers are horribly people, now pretend to represent the gamer community and speak for them? Um....okay.
PJW wrote: Then why are you presenting it as such an important "victory"?
Because it. . .is? A sponsor has dropped a corrupt website over anti-consumer practices.
GJWs =/= all gamers.
"Gamers don't have to be your audience, Gamers are over" doesn't ring a teeny tiny little bell?
So, from what I understand is this:
The people that have actively said that all gamers are horribly people, now pretend to represent the gamer community and speak for them? Um....okay.
PJW wrote: Emphasis on "could". Maybe it's a petty "victory" in a blog vendetta that has nothing to do with any legitimate issues, maybe it's not even that.
Also, you'll notice that the News of the World incident involved something much more serious than saying something mean about GJWs.
I chose it as an example of of what happens when advertisers stop giving their sweet, sweet ad money. Not as an example of severity after all, I don't recall News of the World falling foul of the consumer, instead falling foul to privacy laws
Why? If you read the article instead it's perfectly clear what they're talking about.
So you're fine with an innacurate article title? That's fair enough if you are.
Peregrine wrote: Ok, I'm sick of hearing every single controversy have the "-gate" name attached by people who probably have no clue where the term came from. .
Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.
Yonan wrote: Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.
Oh good, now the next thing to defend from the evil SJWs is awful comic book covers. What kind of miserable hellworld would it be if comic book artists had to have actual talent instead of just making porn for easy sales! It's a good thing we have nice safe "feminists" like Sommers to tell us that everything is ok, and not to listen to those awful man-hating extremists.
Yonan wrote: Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.
Wait, I don't read comics? Then what have I been spending all my money on these past two years?
Seriously. It is possible to be involved in something and still think it can be improved. Not everyone that disagrees with you is some hideous SJW bogeyman coming in from outside gaming to ruin your hobbies because they hate fun.
Yonan wrote: Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.
Wait, I don't read comics? Then what have I been spending all my money on these past two years?
Seriously. It is possible to be involved in something and still think it can be improved. Not everyone that disagrees with you is some hideous SJW bogeyman coming in from outside gaming to ruin your hobbies because they hate fun.
OH GOD THE SKY IS FALLING A SJW DIDN'T RESEARCH EVERY EXAMPLE OF TERRIBLE COMIC BOOK ART BEFORE POINTING OUT THAT A COMIC BOOK COVER IS TERRIBLE.
Seriously though, this is why the GJW crusade is such a joke. It's all just vague rage about how evil man-hating feminists want to destroy everything men love, just because someone dared to criticize the GJWs' beloved hobbies.
Bromsy wrote: You need to stop calling the 'other side' rape supporters. That's embracing the worst aspects of their tactics.
So, uh, where did I (or Peregrine, or anyone that is annoyed by thos GJW rants) called anyone “rape supporters”, or use any similar tactics?
Asherian Command wrote: All of you. And I am talking to all of you. Be respectful. Follow dakka rules....
[…]
Also Peregrine that post about GJW is kind of stupid and does not help your cause.
So, you want people to be respectful and polite to each other, and then you tell Peregrine that what he posted was “kind of stupid”?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Sorry I forgot websites only have a binary state between insulting and pandering. I was hoping for more options. Why are you trying to take options away Hybrid?
Are you missing the point that you did nothing to make them less corrupt (because you only worked on having them not hurt your little feelings by calling you mean names) on purpose ?
Gamergate is about corruption like violent hooliganism is about football .
By the very definition, it has. Else, it would be called a description, not a review.
Asherian Command wrote: Hahaha Yes the group of 90 people is more profitable than the 200,000 people.
There are that many GJW? Where did you get those numbers from?
Asherian Command wrote: you are sounding like a parody of yourself now. Please stop before I can't stop laughing too hard at your opinions.
Whatever happened to “Be polite and respectful to your fellow dakkanauts” you were preaching a few messages ago…
Is this yet one more examples of you wanting to apply your rules on others but not on yourself?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: So you're fine with an innacurate article title? That's fair enough if you are.
Did Peregrine not make it crystal clear that he thought video game press was just tabloid? I think it was pretty clear. Do you expect non-click-bait titles?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Are you missing the point that you did nothing to make them less corrupt (because you only worked on having them not hurt your little feelings by calling you mean names) on purpose ?
Gamergate is about corruption like violent hooliganism is about football
You had no point. You looked down at your hands, and the point was gone. Maybe you left it on the bus? Maybe the point was inside you all along.
Did Peregrine not make it crystal clear that he thought video game press was just tabloid? I think it was pretty clear. Do you expect non-click-bait titles?
What part of "That's fair enough if you are" didn't you understand?
And yeah, so, Intel pulled their ads. Well, that makes sense. When the company you've chosen to pay to broadcast your advertisements starts actively attacking the people you're trying to advertise to - and especially when it's Leigh Alexander doing the attacking - it's time to hit that ol' ejector button.
Compel wrote: To be honest, I don't really know if there is a way to answer his arguments without sounding like a pantomine.
Honestly, this isn't a very convincing argument. The political test shows a lot of libertarians (in line with Reddit's overall political bias), but the left/right bias is a lot shakier. For example, is legalization of drugs a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue? It depends on how you present it. It could be a case of ending a pointless war on drugs that disproportionately impacts minorities and poor people, which would be a left-wing framing. Or you could present it as deregulating business and removing obstacles to making a profit from drugs, a clear right-wing framing. In my experience this is something political tests get wrong, people who are clearly right-wing libertarians score far left of where they should because the tests label various "small government" issues as left-wing.
And then you have Sommers, the GJW idol, who is a member of a right-wing organization and eagerly quotes right-wing ideology about "gender feminism" vs. "equality feminism". So even if GJWs score left of the republican party they seem quite happy to embrace right-wing arguments as long as they favor video games.
Now let's just wait and see how long it takes for you to be given a "STOP GOING OFF TOPIC WITH THIS DISCUSSION OF WOMEN IN GAMES" lecture. Also, all of your links after the first one are broken.
(We all know it's not going to happen, but it's a safe bet that it would if I started responding to those arguments.)
Yonan wrote: Given the uproar over the spider man alternate cover from non-comic reader SJWs it's understandable they're pissed too. You can see why the factual feminist frequently calls out the radical feminists on their shenanigans, they do far more harm than good.
Oh good, now the next thing to defend from the evil SJWs is awful comic book covers. What kind of miserable hellworld would it be if comic book artists had to have actual talent instead of just making porn for easy sales! It's a good thing we have nice safe "feminists" like Sommers to tell us that everything is ok, and not to listen to those awful man-hating extremists.
Are we referring to the Spider Man Comic that featured a female Spider Woman in a so called "sexualised" ass-up pose?
The pose that also had a direct equivalent cover for the male Spiderman, but which SJW's conveniently overlook?
? I really wonder, not.
.
.
storm?
