DarkNecro wrote:
http://blueplz.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/this-game-supports-more-than-two-players.html

And Discussion like this is why i like TB

Main problem discussing anything like this at moment is the polarisation of the topic so much that is devolves into us vs them too much to even have a proper discussion

ive fallen into the same trap many times and the biggest thing ive taken away from it is Empathy is the most important tool we have
May be time to use it a bit more

 Slarg232 wrote:
TB seems like he's pretty cool, and I 00% agree with this.

 Seaward wrote:
No. Absolutely no one should read that.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
TB seems like he's pretty cool, and I 00% agree with this.

What, you don't agree with at all?

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
TB seems like he's pretty cool, and I 00% agree with this.

What, you don't agree with at all?

Whatchu talking bout willis?

Trondheim wrote:Suppose the dude has a point, TB is a decent enough guy and it was a decent enough read

 Lynata wrote:

Trondheim wrote:Suppose the dude has a point, TB is a decent enough guy and it was a decent enough read

Agreed. Sadly, I don't see those words having much of an effect.

I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What is wrong with you?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nope. Nope. Nope.

You should 100% not read this. Not at all. Ever. In the slightest.

Why?

Because you should listen to it, in the sweet sultry tones of TotalBiscuit himself, maybe with some smooth Jazz in the background.

This game supports more than two players
The last couple of weeks have been very sad for me to witness. When I started gaming at the age of 3 years old I couldn't have imagined any of this. 27 years later I'm 30 and I couldn't have imagined any of this at any point in-between. Gaming moves at a rapid pace and so does the culture and controversy surrounding it. I'm not a very good writer so I apologise if this ends up being a mess, but I don't feel I can express this properly and with the degree of accuracy I desire by simply speaking about it.

Let's look at the current “battleground”. On one side, we have those defending Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. On the other, we have those attacking them. Seems simple doesn't it?

It isn't. Nothing like this is so simple and to boil it down to its bare essentials is to also boil away all the flavour and nuance. It's easy, but it's also the tactic of someone who cannot or is unwilling to understand how complex a discussion really is. Demonizing a large group of people by boiling them down to a single identifiable trait, while also catching those who don't even bear that trait, is the strategy of a coward. Let's not fall into that trap. Let's toss out some of the following terms and let's start thinking.

“SJW” or Social Justice Warrior
“MRA” or Mens Rights Activist

Two terms that share two things in common, they are both used pejoratively and neither of them actually exist, at least not in the context that people claim they do. What is a Social Justice Warrior? Can you define it? It'd be difficult I would imagine. You could probably come up with some defining attributes but then good luck applying them to all the people you want to. At that point you simply have to fudge the truth because it makes your life easier. Dishonesty, both literal and intellectual is required and once you start doing that, you lose my respect. What is a “Men's Rights Activist”? Same thing applies. How are these terms used and who are labeled by them? I've seen Jim Sterling labeled as a “Social Justice Warrior”. This is the guy that makes jokes about cumming on teddy bears and various other bits of flagrantly sexual offensive humour. How does your definition of “SJW” apply to him? It doesn't, because your definition is meaningless. It is a phantom, a construct, a strawperson. I've been labeled as a “Mens Rights Activist”. I have never once advocated for a cause even close to that. A Mens Rights Activist is a thing that could exist, just like a “Social Justice Activist”, but it doesn't exist in the context that people are using it. It is a lazy cop-out to avoid addressing the real issues. It's very easy to fight a battle when the other side is all lined up in a big group and can be shelled with impunity. But they aren't and when you do open fire, you might hit the person you're aiming at but you'll also blow 50 people around them to pieces.

“I beg pardon sire, won't we hit our own troops?”
“Yes, but we'll hit theirs as well!” - Edward Longshanks, Braveheart.

Where does all this trench-digging, black and white, absolute nonsense and nonsense of absolutes come from? I'd say a lack of empathy for the most part, an unwillingness to put yourself in someone elses shoes or perhaps even an inability to do so. It is being perpetrated by anonymous individuals and known writers. It makes me sick. Just a few hours ago an article was published claiming that “Gamers are over” It claims “Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.”. The article seems to revel in this idea of a “gamer”, defining what a “gamer” with terms like “obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers”. I guess it's easy to attack someone once you've labeled them the enemy. It's much easier than trying to understand where all this anger comes from.

I think it's best to explain this with an example of my own life. I grew up in a small English town. My father was a priest and my mother taught at the school, a potent cocktail for bullying. I also grew up on computer games, not console games. While console gaming wasn't all that socially acceptable at the time, computer gaming was even less so. Even the marginalized and oppressed (and I use that term literally rather than liberally, since bullying is indeed prolonged cruel and unjust treatment, the dictionary definition of oppression) had their own class system. Bullying is a virus and it's very contagious. What better way to deal with being bullied than by bullying someone else? That's why most serious bullies come from broken homes, their parents or siblings bullied them and passed the attitude on. Regardless, within that hobby and with the people who shared it, we found acceptance. Our parents may have disapproved of it and limited how much of it we could do and society as a whole may have condemned it with yellow journalism and sensationalist nonsense but it was something that we could use to relate to other people as well as escape from what might otherwise be a fairly mundane or even unpleasant life. I grew up with games being attacked from all fronts. At best they were treated as a curiosity, at worst an outright threat to right-thinking society, a tool for training mass murderers. But I grew up with them in my life, so did millions of other people. Over time some of us decided to defend our hobby. We knew games hadn't had a negative effect on our personalities, that we were reasonable right-thinking individuals and we would do our best to make that known to as many people as possible. We were gamers, games were our passion and the people that made them our idols. We would all stand together and watch this new medium grow as a united front.

But we didn't. Those who play games have always fought amongst themselves just like any other hobby or interest group, but perhaps what many did not see coming was a perceived assault from the people that should be on our side. Games developers we idolized, writers we respected, suddenly they turned their guns on us, we were in the line of fire and we didn't know why. We responded in anger, this was injustice, we hadn't done anything wrong. Why should we be called misogynists and sexist pigs when we knew that wasn't the case? These people were traitors and how do we deal with traitors? We punish them.

Does all of this sound familiar? Does that sound like something that might happen? It's my interpretation of what is currently happening from the perspective of one of these 'brogamers” that articles like this are marginalizing and painting with a broad brush. Despite my distaste for the actions of so many people in this so-called discussion, I want to try and understand where the hatred comes from. Are there genuine donkey-caves involved in this? Yes, some. But why? Is it just because they're donkey-caves or can we actually try and understand why people are reacting in such a way? I believe we can, because that's what empathy is.

What about the so-called “other side”? I've been placed on the opposite side to these people by representatives of these people and the side they supposedly oppose. I did not elect to be there and I decry being on it. I will not take part in such weak-minded labeling and neither should any of you. Where is the hate coming from? Women who have experienced abuse and those that aim to support them? Absolutely. A marginalized group? Definitely. I can't speak from this perspective because I have not experienced it, but I will also not deny that this abuse exists. Unfortunately, the response to it has been to perpetuate a cycle of abuse. As I mentioned earlier, it's so much easier to open fire when you think you can't miss. The reality is, all you are doing is missing. Both “sides” have been spewing hate and poisoning any attempt to discuss this rationally. It's almost as if everyone is bullying everyone else and then acting all surprised when they don't see their point of view. You don't convince people of your point of view by putting them on the defensive with aggressive, absolute language from the very start. An open mind often lacks defenses and if you feel attacked those defenses will go up and in doing so, your mind will close.

It's easy to label Tumblr as a bunch of radfem hypocrites. It's easy to label 4chan as a Cathedral of Misogyny. It's also dishonest. Neither of these places are people. People are different, all of them. They're complex, they have differing opinions that are nuanced and all came to those conclusions in different ways, based on a wealth of experience in their lives. It's easy to condemn a person when your limited exposure to them has been negative. Twitter is an ideal medium to expose yourself to such extreme, absolute behavior. Twitter is incapable of nuance or complexity, it's 140 characters and what fits well in 140 characters? A short, strong absolute opinion. And that's all we get isn't it? Extreme soundbites and those who will judge an entire persons character from just a small sample of them. I've watched Mike Bithells entire character be judged because he voiced support for someone who was being harassed. I've watched Jontrons name get dragged through the mud because he questioned Tim Schafer. (after saying some admittedly stupid things in days prior) I've been called a misogynist thug, an MRA and a nazi for addressing my audience and calling for cooler heads. I've watched Anita Sarkeesian receive death-threats. “You're with us or against us!” is the cry. No, I am not against any of you, because you're not defined by something you said on Twitter. You're people, you have real lives and each a unique set of experiences. I won't side against you forever because of something you've done online at some point but I won't side with you because you think I'm part of whatever group it is you imagine yourself to belong to either. You don't and neither do I.
Boiling this issue down to for, against or neutral is a fallacy. People have been condemned for not taking a side and being “neutral”, some being labeled cowards and all manner of other things for doing so. Neutrality is a myth, there is only nuance and apathy. I often hear the terms “left and right” when US politics is discussed and I despair. Really? We can define a nation of almost 400 million people by putting them into one of two boxes? Maybe that's why our politics are such a mess, because we treat it in such a childish and flagrantly dishonest manner. Most people don't even seem to know what the issue is, they've simply taken a part of it and ran with it, defining the entire thing that way and taking a side accordingly. This discussion that's going on right now and don't worry, there is one, you might not be able to hear it for all the yelling but it does exist and I'm going to do my utmost to make sure you hear it, is multi-faceted. It involves a discussion of journalistic ethics, it involves a discussion of the treatment and/or exclusion of women in gaming, it involves a discussion about videogame writing and the portrayal of minorities, it involves a discussion about the role of games media in our industry, it involves a discussion about hiring practices, it involves a discussion about behavior online and the effect of anonymity, it involves a discussion about critique, it involves a discussion about the influence or lack thereof of media in our daily lives. It involves far more than even all of those things, it's a very complex discussion and one we can't have on twitter or by yelling at each other, which are often one and the same.

It is in fact possible to criticize Anita Sarkeesians videos without being an “MRA”, misogynist or whatever label you might wish to apply. It is in fact possible to find some value from these videos even if you don't agree with everything presented. It is in fact possible to agree with what is being said without being labelled a “SJW”, feminazi or whatever label you might to apply. A shocker perhaps, but it's even possible to dislike a person for reasons valid or invalid and still be able to consume their work. What do we do with people who don't believe that is the case? We ignore them. What I've learned from my career up to this point is that extremists thrive on extreme response. You cannot by nature be an extremist without there being some sort of vehement opposition. If one does not exist, you create one to rage against. Terrorists build up western nations as the great Satan in order to justify their actions. Nations vilify other nations in order to rally their population in favour of conflict. Extreme examples absolutely, but the most important thing is not to allow the reasonable voices to be drowned out. In reality, those reasonable voices I find are the majority, but reasonable people don't want to get involved in a discussion where they can be jumped on by an extremist at any given time. Reasonable people stay out of such things because perhaps their priorities are focused in other areas. I don't blame them for any of that. Plato said “Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” I hesitate to even use the word moderate because of its implications. You don't have to take a “middle-ground” stance to contribute to a valuable discussion, you simply have to not take an extreme one.

If we are to marginalize anyone, let's marginalize those who not only refuse to take part in the discussion but actively seek to ruin it. This “war” is a sideshow distracting us from talking about the real issues and make no mistake, that's exactly what an extremist wants. There are many worthwhile discussions to be had about all the topics I've listed and more besides but some people are vehemently against us even having them. I won't be silenced by people like that and I also will not stop trying to discuss this issue with reasonable people, even if they appear unreasonable because of some 140 character soundbite on Twitter. Some of these people are those I know to be reasonable but have taken an unreasonable action at some point. As someone who has taken many unreasonable actions in my life, especially online, I won't condemn them for that but I will try and offer a perspective.

Many of you are engaging in rallying tactics that make you both a target and a person who is detracting from the discussion. Tim Schafer, when you say you want everyone in games development to watch Anitas video, that's entirely your right. I am sorry that some people will immediately label you as a “SJW” for doing so, or that you've picked a side, but let's try and understand why they do that. Anita has actively condemned some parts of games that others find enjoyable. She was quoted in a lecture as saying she does not like games because she doesn't want to go around blowing peoples heads off. Well a great deal of people like the violence components of videogames, they're often key to the mechanics and it echoes the all too recent negative press coverage that pops up around videogames and their violent content. It also demonstrates a certain level of either ignorance of the medium or pandering to her audience at the time (we do not know if she was sincere when she said that) and some people who play games do not like that. To them she is perhaps another person who has come along to try and make them feel bad about their hobby and some of the people who have either been attracted to or aligned with her are very negative individuals, extremists if you will who actively attack others online. I do not believe this is a good reason to criticize Anitas videos, I would rather discuss them on their merits, but others do not think that way and see you as aligning with Anita and in turn aligning with some sort of “anti-gamer” stance which seems to be held by people who are willing to bully and harass to get their way. Make no mistake, both “sides” have many of these people but there exists a strange asymmetry. Again maybe I'm oversimplifying the whole discussion by doing this but at a cursory glance it looks like we have a large group of anonymous people that have little individual power but the veil of anonymity to hide behind and then a smaller but more influential group of people with large followings who also have known brands and identities that can be attacked. We have seen these advantages and disadvantages exploited. Some with anonymity have chosen to use it as a place to hide from the consequences of their actions and since they have a named target are able to strike at them more personally, as we've seen with doxxing/hacking as well as some of the awful harassment which has now apparently escalated to what could be credible death-threats. The problem is due to its very nebulous nature, it's really impossible to blame a group for it. 4chan didn't hack anything, a hacker hacked something who may or may not post on 4chan, we just don't know. On the flip side while people like say, Tim Schafer can be targeted as individuals, they also have a large audience which they can wield and influence. Tim along with others have weaponised retweeting as a way to “unleash the hounds” on someone whose comment they find unsavoury. Adam Atomic retweeted our entire conversation to his 20,000 followers. I did not retaliate this way because 1) it's completely disproportionate, I have far more supporters than he does, it would not be fair and 2) because I learned after making MANY mistakes with this exact same behavior that it's just simply not a good thing to do. You do not encourage discussion by shouting “sick 'em!” to your own little private army. Make no mistake, that's what is happening. I don't honestly believe any of us was really wired to hold this much power and as irrelevant as it seems in the grand scheme of things, we have power, we have influence and those of us with followings must use it responsibly. While it might feel good to be on what you think is the “right side”, the world is not so black and white, there is no organized hategroup that you can revile as universally bad and attack with absolute moral authority. In reality, some developers and journalists are engaging in actively vilifying, stereotyping and outright attacking the very people who are part of the demographic they create their products for. Likewise some of these people are attacking developers for doing little more than saying “hey yeah so maybe we should have more diversity in game writing” or defending someone who they see being harassed. They all believe their cause is righteous. All I see are reasonable voices being drowned out, discussion derailed and people getting hurt.

Here is the reality. There are very few people, relatively speaking who are in the absolute wrong here. The majority of people have differing opinions that could create a worthwhile dialogue which could help improve this industry. I will say that I do not believe Anita Sarkeesian has any intention nor indeed even the power to destroy the games you know and love. I do not agree with a good amount of what she says or how she presents it and I also do not agree with some of the things she has done in the past, but I will not stop listening to what she has to say just because of those things. I will not stop buying Tim Schafer's games, nor will I stop watching Joss Whedons shows, even though he said something overly aggressive and clearly quite ignorant on the subject. I will not stop reading what people on /v/ have to say just because some of them act like donkey-caves anonymously. I won't engage in condemning any of these people. At least, I will try, because I want to be a better person and be self-aware of my own failings as a human-being. I can at least promise you that I will try.

Why put any of these people on the defensive? Engage with them in a discussion if they're willing. I don't believe videogames are all about chopping up women and I think I can prove that if I'm given the chance to. I don't believe that videogames cause players to develop sexist attitudes, just as I believe they don't cause players to become violent. I also don't believe that everything portrayed in videogames is ok. Lots of videogames are really bad for a wide variety of reasons, mechanical or otherwise. They're often dumb, bull-headed and they pander oh boy do they pander. I want better videogames because I think our hobby can soar even higher than it currently does. I think for the most part, everyone involved in this wants that (or they don't care at all, I don't honestly believe there is a cadre of people trying to destroy videogames, at least, not that we interact with) but we are all approaching it from different perspectives. It is time to view those perspectives as something of value rather than try and shut them down. Experiment, invent, innovate in every aspect of gaming. Sometimes it won't work, it might create something that sucks or simply something that people don't like, but its only by learning from our failures that we create future success. Right now there is nothing creative about this debacle, it is purely destructive. You can call me a hypocrite if you like, after all we all are to greater or lesser extents. I've not only engaged in the very behavior I'm now criticizing but my past is hardly angelic, I've said and done some things I am not proud of, but hey, who better than an alcoholic to tell you not to drink too much alcohol right? We want the same thing, better games. We have different ideas about how to accomplish that goal. We don't need to destroy each other to get there, nor ignore what came before. There is no benefit to trying to be inclusive while simultaneously using exclusionary tactics to achieve your goal. There is no benefit to driving critics out of the industry, even if you don't agree with what they say or even dislike them as a person. Try to realise that these are real people you're going after, on all sides of this thing, try to understand why they feel this way, why they're angry and upset and perhaps common ground can be found. I'm not trying to reach across the aisle. I was never in the other aisle to begin with. I walked into the chamber and it was on fire and people were stabbing each other. It sucked. I have a slant, I have biases and I have things which I believe to be true and things which I do not. You can probably see that in this blog, but my opinion like so many others is nuanced, not neutral. That's ok.

If we can't resolve our differences and videogames are doomed, well. Boardgames are pretty cool too I guess. See ya at the table.



P.S. 30fps still sucks

 Seaward wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What is wrong with you?

Am I really the only one who thinks that dude has one of the most annoying voices on the planet?

I'd rather have Fran Drescher sing me Sweet Caroline.

It is in fact possible to criticize Anita Sarkeesians videos without being an “MRA”

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is in fact possible to criticize Anita Sarkeesians videos without being an “MRA”

 Grundz wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is in fact possible to criticize Anita Sarkeesians videos without being an “MRA”

No it isnt

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nope. Nope. Nope.

You should 100% not read this. Not at all. Ever. In the slightest.

Why?

Because you should listen to it, in the sweet sultry tones of TotalBiscuit himself, maybe with some smooth Jazz in the background.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nope. Nope. Nope.

You should 100% not read this. Not at all. Ever. In the slightest.

Why?

Because you should listen to it, in the sweet sultry tones of TotalBiscuit himself, maybe with some smooth Jazz in the background.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is in fact possible to criticize Anita Sarkeesians videos without being an “MRA”

No it isnt

You can't be serious?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or trolling. Sadly Poe's Law is alive and well, so I can't tell.

Sigvatr wrote:inb4 people calling TB a misogynist.