Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Perfectly fits to Zoe Quinn.

I don't think that it fully applies to Sarkeesian, however, as she was mainly interested in cash and then pretty much went under the radar after the first impact, being rather quiet about most issues.

Just out of curiousity, where do people find out about everyone's motivations from?

Read her twitter. You can see it is kind of funny really

Can you toss me a linky?

Preferably for both Quinn and Sarkeesian.

I'd preferably see this for myself before I post anything further on the subject.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Perfectly fits to Zoe Quinn.

I don't think that it fully applies to Sarkeesian, however, as she was mainly interested in cash and then pretty much went under the radar after the first impact, being rather quiet about most issues.

Just out of curiousity, where do people find out about everyone's motivations from?

Read her twitter. You can see it is kind of funny really

Can you toss me a linky?

Preferably for both Quinn and Sarkeesian.

I'd preferably see this for myself before I post anything further on the subject.

(Deleted by Request)

Also apparently doublefine got doxxed.

She was for a while seeking attention and going on newsites talking about her misfortune. :/

Though personally I can sympthasiese. But I really stopped caring a while ago about her. Antia or Frem frequency, I won't touch with a 300 meter stick.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Perfectly fits to Zoe Quinn.

I don't think that it fully applies to Sarkeesian, however, as she was mainly interested in cash and then pretty much went under the radar after the first impact, being rather quiet about most issues.

Just out of curiousity, where do people find out about everyone's motivations from?

Read her twitter. You can see it is kind of funny really

Can you toss me a linky?

Preferably for both Quinn and Sarkeesian.

I'd preferably see this for myself before I post anything further on the subject.

https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy

Also apparently doublefine got doxxed.

She was for a while seeking attention and going on newsites talking about her misfortune. :/

Though personally I can sympthasiese. But I really stopped caring a while ago about her. Antia or Frem frequency, I won't touch with a 300 meter stick.

I see.

A shame about Sarkeesian. I'd very much like to see some cold hard proof in either direction regarding her intentions before I provide my own opinion.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Can I just say. I don't care what gender Zoey quinn is. She could of been a dude and this still would of happened.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming that it would not have happened, because it didn't happen. For a long time the game review business has operated under a simple rule: you get copies of games before everyone else so that you have an audience, you return the favor by always giving a favorable review. Everyone with any serious interest in gaming knew perfectly well that "journalistic integrity" was a joke, and they just shrugged and moved on with life. The ONLY thing that has changed in this incident is the gender of the person accused of corruption.

First your argument crumbles when I said there has been more and more hype pieces.

Except there haven't been more hype pieces, unless you consider a bunch of people copy/pasting the same "review" to be a legitimate increase. The prominence of those hype pieces hasn't really changed. They've always been around, and they've always dominated "mainstream" gaming journalism.

You keep saying its nothing new. But not at this scale. Not at this monumentus scale. Where the journalists have gotten to the point where its a pretty big issue and is beyond what it was before.

I really fail to see how anything about this is more "monumentus" than the previous years/decades of game publishers buying favorable reviews for their products. If you think anything about this is new then you really weren't paying attention in the past.

They hold power and it is time for the gamers to take it back.

So why is it time now, when it wasn't 5 or 10 or 15 years ago? If this isn't about the gender of the people involved then why are you suddenly outraged about something you've been quietly putting up with and/or ignoring for years?

They are being replaced by casual players. And thats good. But they still identify as gamers.

Except they don't identify in the same way. There's a difference between being a person who plays games, and a person who defines who they are around their gaming.

The gaming community is huge. If you attack gaming you are attacking every gamer.

Not true. I don't feel at all attacked by any of this, and I play games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy

What happened to your "no twitter" rule you tried to make in your OP?

 Peregrine wrote:


Not true. I don't feel at all attacked by any of this, and I play games.

Agreed!



Also, Quinn's webpage won't load for me, so no gold there. I looked around at her twitter and I could not find anything that made her look like such a bad person.

What happened to your "no twitter" rule you tried to make in your OP?

I'm talking about individual tweets. Someone asked for a link. I gave them a link. If you wish me to I will delete that link then.

Anything vile or with swears and comes into conflict with dakka rules are not permitted. This is a page of someone, not an individual tweet.

It has been deleted due to my concern for Zoe Quinn.

 Asherian Command wrote:

What happened to your "no twitter" rule you tried to make in your OP?

I'm talking about individual tweets. Someone asked for a link. I gave them a link. If you wish me to I will delete that link then.

Unfortunately, your link does not say much. Quinn has made almost 50k tweets, I won't look through all those for whatever evidence you are referring to.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

What happened to your "no twitter" rule you tried to make in your OP?

I'm talking about individual tweets. Someone asked for a link. I gave them a link. If you wish me to I will delete that link then.

Unfortunately, your link does not say much. Quinn has made almost 50k tweets, I won't look through all those for whatever evidence you are referring to.

I have said this at the beginning of the thread. I will not post individual tweets.

You can use google and search it up yourself or hit ctrl F to find criteria or read her replies.

She is not really a target, and nor do I condone anything happening to her.

I am more worried about journalists and their lack of integrity.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

What happened to your "no twitter" rule you tried to make in your OP?

I'm talking about individual tweets. Someone asked for a link. I gave them a link. If you wish me to I will delete that link then.

Unfortunately, your link does not say much. Quinn has made almost 50k tweets, I won't look through all those for whatever evidence you are referring to.

I have said this at the beginning of the thread. I will not post individual tweets.

You can use google and search it up yourself or hit ctrl F to find criteria or read her replies.

She is not really a target, and nor do I condone anything happening to her.

I am more worried about journalists and their lack of integrity.

Then just PM it.

 Ashiraya wrote:


Then just PM it.

I am sorry I cannot do that.

Or you could check the previous thread.

Ever heard of Fine Young Capitalists?
Here's their page for a small project they were trying.
http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/Voting

They took women with no skills in coding or game design but had an idea for a game. They helped them develop these into a pitch that people would then vote on and back. The winner gets their game made, some of it goes to charity and they get some of the money. It was something to help the view of women in games development.

She decided this was oppressing women by forcing them into slave labour. (It is important to note, these games had 0 chance of being made. The people with these ideas could not make the games and it'd be a cold day in hell before a studio would pick them up.) So she decided to crash the entire thing.

This is one of their chappies talking about this. https://soundcloud.com/super-admin/tfyc-confession

To top it all off, you know who came to their rescue? fething 4chan. 4chan helped raise somewhere around $25,000 for a project to help the view of women in game development.

Now do you think she's a bad person? Her reading comprehension seems to leave a lot to be desired.

 Asherian Command wrote:
It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.

You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.

Why is it that when figures are used that say that women make up more than half of gamers, they don't count because they're only playing Candy Crush, then? I mean, it's happened on this very forum; the figures are trotted out, and the response is that no, changes with regards to the portrayal of women shouldn't be made because those figures are flawed because they count anyone who plays candy crush as a gamer, and those people don't count.

Which is it? Casual gamers are gamers and should therefore have their voice heard, but they're gamers so you can't say gaming is dead? Or casual gamers aren't gamers, so gender issues aren't a problem because there aren't enough female gamers for it to be an issue?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


Then just PM it.

I am sorry I cannot do that.

Or you could check the previous thread.

This, again, brings up the same problem as with google. You're pointing me at a 38 page thread and saying that there's my evidence.

But I'd prefer something concise. Or is there really no way to obtain some kind of proof for the claim on Quinn's and Sarkeesian's motivations without digging through countless posts or google results?

I am not making any claims about Quinn or Sarkeesian's motivations, so this time the burden of proof is not actually on me. I don't remember if you have, either, so I am not singling you out for proof, but I'd very much like to see some evidence provided by those who argue this before I continue.

 Goliath wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.

You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.

Why is it that when figures are used that say that women make up more than half of gamers, they don't count because they're only playing Candy Crush, then? I mean, it's happened on this very forum; the figures are trotted out, and the response is that no, changes with regards to the portrayal of women shouldn't be made because those figures are flawed because they count anyone who plays candy crush as a gamer, and those people don't count.

Which is it? Casual gamers are gamers and should therefore have their voice heard, but they're gamers so you can't say gaming is dead? Or casual gamers aren't gamers, so gender issues aren't a problem because there aren't enough female gamers for it to be an issue?

I have made that argument and many times has my point been shot down.

Women make up 2% of senior staff in the game industry.

48% make up games in general.

I will always count casual gamers as they are the most important and most vital part of the games industry. And that sect will continue to grow and grow.

Asherian Command, I would like your opinion on this statement:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
SJWs are attacking geek culture on all fronts and don't seem to be interested in supporting it or its future, unless of course its there version.

- Do you think that there is some kind of attack on geek culture?
- Do you feel that geek culture, or video games, are actually threatened by “SJW”?
- Do you think this is what Gamergates is about? Or what Gamergates should be about?
- Do you think that the main part of video game journalism corruption is linked to “SJW”?

Because personally, I think the answer to all those questions is no, and I think Mechanical Crow is doing a huge disservice to fighting against corruption in video game journalism by making it look like this is all about “SJW”. And he can say I am cherry-picking all he wants, but I would be hard pressed to find any of his message where he rants over game companies, and I can find tons where he rants about SJW. So if you do think, like me, that corruption is mostly about big companies rather than “SJW”, you should see how he is actually derailing from the real problem.
Let me provides some more quote.

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Its the ties of SJWs and Feminists with the journalists and how they often border into unprofessional.

Why are ties with SJW and feminists mentioned but not ties with big companies? Is it not giving the impression that this whole campaign is, at least for Mechanical Crow, about fighting a trend toward more feminists/PC/SJW/inclusive (choose your favorite depending on the connotations you wish) games rather than about fighting, you know, actual “I give you money/services if you give my game a good review” corruption?

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
2) Most of the solutions have been suggested, for journalism all funding to people they know needs to stop or be transparent, or if they have a personal relationship they need to recuse themselves or make it abundantly clear that they know each other. For the devs, critics and silverstring media that are pushing the SJW narrative, they just need to stop, I know you disagree but Art and thinking does not require a check list. If I want to make a game about a man as the main character I shouldn't have to worry about making sure there is playable female characters and that trans people are represented and that Jesus is posted in a positive light. Think of it this way, if I made a historical game about the Civil war, would I need to have a trans soldier, a female soldier and a lesbian Marxist soldier? No. Because that isn't the target audience, to complain those weren't included is intellectually dishonest.

SJWs have gotten into other things and ran the same game, look up the paper on "why gravity is sexist".

Its a backwards restrictive way of thinking that just leads to bland amorphous people, which seems like the point of the extreme political correctness.

Does that make it sound like the problem is game publishers giving money to get better review, or does it make it sound like if this is actually all about social issues, again? I mean, certainly if we read only the first sentence, it applies for actual, usual, expected corruption. But then, everything else is on “SJW”. Everything. Does that make it look like when Mechanical Crow speaks about corruption, he only means “journalists that listen to/agree with “SJW”” ? Yes it does, at least to me. That is why if I had only heard him, every time you would speak about “game journalists corruption”, I would assume you mean “game journalists that care about “SJW” stuff”, hence the cry of misogyny.

 purplefood wrote:
Ever heard of Fine Young Capitalists?
Here's their page for a small project they were trying.
http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/Voting

They took women with no skills in coding or game design but had an idea for a game. They helped them develop these into a pitch that people would then vote on and back. The winner gets their game made, some of it goes to charity and they get some of the money. It was something to help the view of women in games development.

She decided this was oppressing women by forcing them into slave labour. (It is important to note, these games had 0 chance of being made. The people with these ideas could not make the games and it'd be a cold day in hell before a studio would pick them up.) So she decided to crash the entire thing.

This is one of their chappies talking about this. https://soundcloud.com/super-admin/tfyc-confession

To top it all off, you know who came to their rescue? fething 4chan. 4chan helped raise somewhere around $25,000 for a project to help the view of women in game development.

Now do you think she's a bad person? Her reading comprehension seems to leave a lot to be desired.

She is quite despicable. I don't really care how many people she sleeps with anyone claiming I dislike her because she is a woman. Which is clearly not what the movement is about. Anyone with half a brain could figure that out. :.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Or is there really no way to obtain some kind of proof for the claim on Quinn's and Sarkeesian's motivations without digging through countless posts or google results?

You will not find anything worthwhile for Sarkeesian, it all basically amounts to people not liking her deciding she must be a bad person.
For Quinn, apparently she did some pretty bad stuff to the Fine Young Capitalists, that I have some sympathy for. They made some interview in which they speak a bit about it, Asherian Command posted about it, maybe he still have the link around.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.

You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.

Why is it that when figures are used that say that women make up more than half of gamers, they don't count because they're only playing Candy Crush, then? I mean, it's happened on this very forum; the figures are trotted out, and the response is that no, changes with regards to the portrayal of women shouldn't be made because those figures are flawed because they count anyone who plays candy crush as a gamer, and those people don't count.

Which is it? Casual gamers are gamers and should therefore have their voice heard, but they're gamers so you can't say gaming is dead? Or casual gamers aren't gamers, so gender issues aren't a problem because there aren't enough female gamers for it to be an issue?

I have made that argument and many times has my point been shot down.

Women make up 2% of senior staff in the game industry.

48% make up games in general.

I will always count casual gamers as they are the most important and most vital part of the games industry. And that sect will continue to grow and grow.

Fair doos I apologise if that came off as too confrontational, I'm kinda sleepy at the moment, I was just curious about your opinion, because there seems to be a massive dichotomy of people insisting that casual gamers aren't real gamers, which strikes me as absolutely absurd.

I will agree that the gender splits are awful (fearful though I am of being labelled an SJW for expressing such an opinion), but I think that a large part of that issue is that there is still the outside perception of gaming (be it video, war, board or CCG) that it's a boy's club, and that does make it difficult for non-males to get involved. I'd say it's probably a bit easier for people to get involved with video games, due to their presence in almost every shop, but online communities still strike me as a very hostile place (see: 'get back to the kitchen', various rape jokes, a general air of homophobia on most gaming communities, the internet in general), so I think there's still a ways to go.

ITT: people keep trying to make this about zoe and anita, as if they haven't read any of the previous articles. Seriously, no one brought them up before someone else tried to derail the thread by claiming this is all about the women. It IS possible to dislike people who happen to be female without being a misogynist

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Or is there really no way to obtain some kind of proof for the claim on Quinn's and Sarkeesian's motivations without digging through countless posts or google results?

You will not find anything worthwhile for Sarkeesian, it all basically amounts to people not liking her deciding she must be a bad person.
For Quinn, apparently she did some pretty bad stuff to the Fine Young Capitalists, that I have some sympathy for. They made some interview in which they speak a bit about it, Asherian Command posted about it, maybe he still have the link around.

If this thing about TFYC is true, then I highly disagree with this action of Quinn's.

But that is not what I was referring to; I was politely requesting evidence for the motivations of Quinn's general involvement in this commotion.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Asherian Command, I would like your opinion on this statement:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
SJWs are attacking geek culture on all fronts and don't seem to be interested in supporting it or its future, unless of course its there version.

- Do you think that there is some kind of attack on geek culture?
- Do you feel that geek culture, or video games, are actually threatened by “SJW”?
- Do you think this is what Gamergates is about? Or what Gamergates should be about?
- Do you think that the main part of video game journalism corruption is linked to “SJW”?

Because personally, I think the answer to all those questions is no, and I think Mechanical Crow is doing a huge disservice to fighting against corruption in video game journalism by making it look like this is all about “SJW”. And he can say I am cherry-picking all he wants, but I would be hard pressed to find any of his message where he rants over game companies, and I can find tons where he rants about SJW. So if you do think, like me, that corruption is mostly about big companies rather than “SJW”, you should see how he is actually derailing from the real problem.
Let me provides some more quote.

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Its the ties of SJWs and Feminists with the journalists and how they often border into unprofessional.

Why are ties with SJW and feminists mentioned but not ties with big companies? Is it not giving the impression that this whole campaign is, at least for Mechanical Crow, about fighting a trend toward more feminists/PC/SJW/inclusive (choose your favorite depending on the connotations you wish) games rather than about fighting, you know, actual “I give you money/services if you give my game a good review” corruption?

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
2) Most of the solutions have been suggested, for journalism all funding to people they know needs to stop or be transparent, or if they have a personal relationship they need to recuse themselves or make it abundantly clear that they know each other. For the devs, critics and silverstring media that are pushing the SJW narrative, they just need to stop, I know you disagree but Art and thinking does not require a check list. If I want to make a game about a man as the main character I shouldn't have to worry about making sure there is playable female characters and that trans people are represented and that Jesus is posted in a positive light. Think of it this way, if I made a historical game about the Civil war, would I need to have a trans soldier, a female soldier and a lesbian Marxist soldier? No. Because that isn't the target audience, to complain those weren't included is intellectually dishonest.

SJWs have gotten into other things and ran the same game, look up the paper on "why gravity is sexist".

Its a backwards restrictive way of thinking that just leads to bland amorphous people, which seems like the point of the extreme political correctness.

Does that make it sound like the problem is game publishers giving money to get better review, or does it make it sound like if this is actually all about social issues, again? I mean, certainly if we read only the first sentence, it applies for actual, usual, expected corruption. But then, everything else is on “SJW”. Everything. Does that make it look like when Mechanical Crow speaks about corruption, he only means “journalists that listen to/agree with “SJW”” ? Yes it does, at least to me. That is why if I had only heard him, every time you would speak about “game journalists corruption”, I would assume you mean “game journalists that care about “SJW” stuff”, hence the cry of misogyny.

My comments on this are. SJWs are not the enemy. Journalists are with a political agenda or relationship and/or affilation to any movement are. They are constantly attacking young designers for their depictation of young women.

A few weeks ago. I knew a designer who was attacked because he didn't have a female in his game. He was forced by a group of women to put a female character in.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will not mention my colleague, but this is a common thing.

I do think people who act like SJWs are indeed a problem and they are among the radicals of the journalists push back.

But overall I think SJWs are both men and women who are only pushing their political agendas and because they think women are being oppressed and froth at the mouths pretty badly.

The main issue I have is that they are the minority, both sides have a stupid minority group that are trying to do stupid things and harass each other. Now the ones who should be condemning the operations of the radical segments are the journalists. They have an obligation to their consumers. They should deal with it, but they haven't they have had a media black out on it.

Designers are being targeted because of what they are making. See gaming is an art,and the designer has the right and the freedom to make anything he/she wants. As long as it is not propaganda. (Which has happened)

- Do you think that there is some kind of attack on geek culture?
No. I think there is an anti-gamer movement going on by journalists though. That is mostly related to them being a dog backed into a corner with nowhere to go but to try and bite back.
- Do you feel that geek culture, or video games, are actually threatened by “SJW”?
Maybe. If they start their engines and they start coming in by the droves.
- Do you think this is what Gamergates is about? Or what Gamergates should be about?
No. It is not. Gamer Gate has always been about corruption in Video Games and the need for transparency in the Games Media. Also the fact remains that there is censorship of critics.

- Do you think that the main part of video game journalism corruption is linked to “SJW”?

Partially. I think it is mainly with the writing and not disclosing of personal biases.

Sining wrote:
ITT: people keep trying to make this about zoe and anita, as if they haven't read any of the previous articles. Seriously, no one brought them up before someone else tried to derail the thread by claiming this is all about the women. It IS possible to dislike people who happen to be female without being a misogynist

Yes it is. If you accept women as just people. And argue that they are just people. And people are stupid.

But I disagree with Antia on many things. And I have shown my disdain for her, and her not answering a few of my questions.

And then for a feminist started to attack me after I suggested damsels in distress is not only unique to females in gaming.

We all agree the games journalism industry is corrupt as all hell. The shouts of SJW probably arise from the claims of misogyny etc etc from various people saying it wouldn't have happened if it had been a guy.
The whole thing arose from a man posting how his girlfriend cheated on him. Which frankly is pretty crappy even if you do leave out the STI risk. But that's a personal thing which i really do not care about.
The FYC thing makes me angry but mostly because of how unfair it was.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Journalists are with a political agenda or relationship and/or affilation to any movement are.

What is the difference between a journalist with an opinion and a journalist with a political agenda? More precisely, suppose a journalist shares my opinion that women are way too often and too much sexualized in games and that we should get more women that are not sexualized, for instance women in actual heavy armor. If said journalist writes a review about a game in which every female character are sexualized to the highest degree, while none of the male are, and he raise this point as a bad thing about the game. Is it “pushing a political agenda”, and is it bad?

 Asherian Command wrote:
A few weeks ago. I knew a designer who was attacked because he didn't have a female in his game. He was forced by a group of women to put a female character in.

How the hell did they do that?

 Asherian Command wrote:
See gaming is an art,and the designer has the right and the freedom to make anything he/she wants.

Well, live the life of Picasso (i.e. quite poor and miserable) and you will get the artistic freedom of Picasso (i.e. all of it!). Work for a billion-dollar entertainment company, and you will get very few artistic freedom. I am not saying it is a good thing, but of course there is going to be pressure put on you, just like there is in other art forms. Yes, there is pressure on what to do and not to do on other art forms, and there has always been. You can always says you want to break the rules anyway, but it is not an easy choice.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Partially. I think it is mainly with the writing and not disclosing of personal biases.

If by bias, you mean “SJW-like opinions”, then they seem pretty open about it. If you mean it is about, for instance, giving a review of one's partner/family member/friend, I have a hard time imagining it happening a lot, especially compared to what the big companies could leverage for their million dollar games.

 Goliath wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.

You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.

Why is it that when figures are used that say that women make up more than half of gamers, they don't count because they're only playing Candy Crush, then? I mean, it's happened on this very forum; the figures are trotted out, and the response is that no, changes with regards to the portrayal of women shouldn't be made because those figures are flawed because they count anyone who plays candy crush as a gamer, and those people don't count.

Which is it? Casual gamers are gamers and should therefore have their voice heard, but they're gamers so you can't say gaming is dead? Or casual gamers aren't gamers, so gender issues aren't a problem because there aren't enough female gamers for it to be an issue?

I have made that argument and many times has my point been shot down.

Women make up 2% of senior staff in the game industry.

48% make up games in general.

I will always count casual gamers as they are the most important and most vital part of the games industry. And that sect will continue to grow and grow.

Fair doos I apologise if that came off as too confrontational, I'm kinda sleepy at the moment, I was just curious about your opinion, because there seems to be a massive dichotomy of people insisting that casual gamers aren't real gamers, which strikes me as absolutely absurd.

I will agree that the gender splits are awful (fearful though I am of being labelled an SJW for expressing such an opinion), but I think that a large part of that issue is that there is still the outside perception of gaming (be it video, war, board or CCG) that it's a boy's club, and that does make it difficult for non-males to get involved. I'd say it's probably a bit easier for people to get involved with video games, due to their presence in almost every shop, but online communities still strike me as a very hostile place (see: 'get back to the kitchen', various rape jokes, a general air of homophobia on most gaming communities, the internet in general), so I think there's still a ways to go.

Anyone saying Gaming is a Boy's only discussion are idiots.

I am saying that as a designer and a gamer.

If you think its only for boys look around.

But yes I agree with your discussion. Actually I have usually found that in a lot of online games that the minority.

Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that.
The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...

 purplefood wrote:
Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that.
The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...

Here's a hint Funding

He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Journalists are with a political agenda or relationship and/or affilation to any movement are.

What is the difference between a journalist with an opinion and a journalist with a political agenda? More precisely, suppose a journalist shares my opinion that women are way too often and too much sexualized in games and that we should get more women that are not sexualized, for instance women in actual heavy armor. If said journalist writes a review about a game in which every female character are sexualized to the highest degree, while none of the male are, and he raise this point as a bad thing about the game. Is it “pushing a political agenda”, and is it bad?

 Asherian Command wrote:
A few weeks ago. I knew a designer who was attacked because he didn't have a female in his game. He was forced by a group of women to put a female character in.

How the hell did they do that?

 Asherian Command wrote:
See gaming is an art,and the designer has the right and the freedom to make anything he/she wants.

Well, live the life of Picasso (i.e. quite poor and miserable) and you will get the artistic freedom of Picasso (i.e. all of it!). Work for a billion-dollar entertainment company, and you will get very few artistic freedom. I am not saying it is a good thing, but of course there is going to be pressure put on you, just like there is in other art forms. Yes, there is pressure on what to do and not to do on other art forms, and there has always been. You can always says you want to break the rules anyway, but it is not an easy choice.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Partially. I think it is mainly with the writing and not disclosing of personal biases.

If by bias, you mean “SJW-like opinions”, then they seem pretty open about it. If you mean it is about, for instance, giving a review of one's partner/family member/friend, I have a hard time imagining it happening a lot, especially compared to what the big companies could leverage for their million dollar games.

A political agenda is association with a major corporation such as EA, Triarch, or any major gaming company. If you have gone to their jams and are paid to go their events you must disclose that you have.

Personal biases such as donating to the organization, or being friends with the designer.

The journalists must also disclose whether it is an editorial or if it is a news piece. If it is an editorial it must be marked. If it is not then they are not following journalist ethics.

If FOX news can do that. IGN and kotatku should as well.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that.
The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...

Here's a hint Funding

He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.

Well then he should have told them to stuff it and taken his gak home. I don't understand why developers allow publishers to push them around. They might have the money but they need your game to make more of it.
Developers are usually far more plugged into the community (Looking at you Molyneux!!) than publishers are. Developers can also use that as a strength.
Games do not need to be fancy or super magic awesome time, they can use tricks, graphical styles sneaky gameplay mechanics. When they made Silent Hill the draw distance was crap because they wanted better graphics, hence the fog and that friggen rocked it made the game scarier and made it look better.
Developers have the power not the publishers.

 purplefood wrote:
Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that.
The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...

It happens quite often. I would also Point at this game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_in_Fallujah

Its a real shame to. But the media attacked it because it was a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that.
The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...

Here's a hint Funding

He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.

Well then he should have told them to stuff it and taken his gak home. I don't understand why developers allow publishers to push them around. They might have the money but they need your game to make more of it.
Developers are usually far more plugged into the community (Looking at you Molyneux!!) than publishers are. Developers can also use that as a strength.
Games do not need to be fancy or super magic awesome time, they can use tricks, graphical styles sneaky gameplay mechanics. When they made Silent Hill the draw distance was crap because they wanted better graphics, hence the fog and that friggen rocked it made the game scarier and made it look better.
Developers have the power not the publishers.

He need the money for liscenes

And yeah they are pretty expensive. In order to make a game I need a liscense for engines and programs in order to use it for my own purposes of selling it.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Here's a hint Funding

He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.

Do you know what happened when Disney, who was funding Insane Clown Posse, tried to censor them? They left and got funding somewhere else. Other bands have complied. This is standard pressure in the music industry, and the movie industry too. Funders put pressure to get the product they want rather than the product the artist wants. Sad truth, but why expect video game to be in any way different?

So, in my precise example, you would not say the journalist is pushing a political agenda? Good. However, I am pretty sure Mechanical Crow would say it is (he is welcome to confirm or deny), so when you both post on a thread, if you both speak about it makes what both of you are saying less clear. Also, the use of “political” really make it seem more like it is about social issues than about favoring a company that gave you advantages, so I think you would be better understand if you stop using it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Here's a hint Funding

He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.

Do you know what happened when Disney, who was funding Insane Clown Posse, tried to censor them? They left and got funding somewhere else. Other bands have complied. This is standard pressure in the music industry, and the movie industry too. Funders put pressure to get the product they want rather than the product the artist wants.

So, in my precise example, you would not say the journalist is pushing a political agenda? Good. However, I am pretty sure Mechanical Crow would say it is (he is welcome to confirm or deny), so when you both post on a thread, if you both speak about it makes what both of you are saying less clear. Also, the use of “political” really make it seem more like it is about social issues than about favoring a company that gave you advantages, so I think you would be better understand if you stop using it.

In this industry political means many things.

I can see the confusion. Political in this industry is either leaning left or right, or are affilated with a corporation or 'the man'

I actually disagree with bits and pieces of crows argument. Mostly due to my bias of being a designer.

He lost funding because he said he wouldn't put a woman in his game, he said "Thats not what I was going for this is about something else, its a personal story."