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.

Well if he can't do it alone and he can't get it crowdfunded he can only debate and reason with those people. Hell he could even start his own ad campaign to get people to show they agree with him rather than what his funders say.
At the end of the day he's either willing to make a compromise in his work or he isn't. The line is how far you let them push it.

Incidentally the 6 Day in Fallujah thing was the publisher pulling out because they're a wimpy arsehole. Media storms about games are always laughable.
That being said this scandal isn't even about games...

 Asherian Command wrote:
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."

Stuff like that happens. I mean, just look at movies: even big director only get to use their “director's cut” on the DVD, because the guy with the money says he want the movie cut that way and not this way. And look at what happens when a band come out of the underground and start signing with a major record company .

Oh christ yeah...
You look at a list of films/tv shows that were simply one persons nod from going ahead. People had spent thousands just preparing for it and it gets canceled.

 purplefood wrote:
Well if he can't do it alone and he can't get it crowdfunded he can only debate and reason with those people. Hell he could even start his own ad campaign to get people to show they agree with him rather than what his funders say.
At the end of the day he's either willing to make a compromise in his work or he isn't. The line is how far you let them push it.

Incidentally the 6 Day in Fallujah thing was the publisher pulling out because they're a wimpy arsehole. Media storms about games are always laughable.
That being said this scandal isn't even about games...

Much to late with that. :(

But 6 days of Fallujah is a sad story. Its a historical game basically sharing the stories of Fullajah which the average person knows nothing about.

Stuff like that happens. I mean, just look at movies: even big director only get to use their “director's cut” on the DVD, because the guy with the money says he want the movie cut that way and not this way. And look at what happens when a band come out of the underground and start signing with a major record company .

I can see that. It happens often.

I am currently at a game jam.

And I will be able to answer questions for 12 more hours. *sigh*

 Mechanical Crow wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.

1) IIRC it had to do with DLCs and the super positive reviews that were essentially bought. And the journalists attacking people that called them out.

It was mostly due to the ending. For a very long time the people at Bioware had been extolling the virtues of their third game and telling everyone how the decisions they had made throughout all three games would impact the ending. They even specifically said that the ending wouldn't be a "Pick A, B or C" ending.

And what was the ending to Mass Effect 3? An A, B or C ending, where the main difference was a colour filter over the ending cutscene (blue, red or green).

When people complained about this games journalism stepped in and started accusing gamers or being the problem, talked about artistic integrity and how "entitled" everyone was. And what happened with this latest kerfuffle? The games websites came out in a 48-hour spree of articles declaring "gamers are dead".

And still people still think this is about Zoe/misogyny.

Yes, I can personally attest that I didn't really start caring until after all that. I assumed this would be another flash in a pan thing, the media guys would act sheepish and it would all blow over, back to the status quo. But the "gak on everyone who allow us to do this job" tactic they went with irritated me.

That, and 'sexist' not being bad enough anymore so the rhetoric has embraced 'misogynist' as the new buzzword. That also annoys me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.

1) IIRC it had to do with DLCs and the super positive reviews that were essentially bought. And the journalists attacking people that called them out.

It was mostly due to the ending. For a very long time the people at Bioware had been extolling the virtues of their third game and telling everyone how the decisions they had made throughout all three games would impact the ending. They even specifically said that the ending wouldn't be a "Pick A, B or C" ending.

And what was the ending to Mass Effect 3? An A, B or C ending, where the main difference was a colour filter over the ending cutscene (blue, red or green).

When people complained about this games journalism stepped in and started accusing gamers or being the problem, talked about artistic integrity and how "entitled" everyone was. And what happened with this latest kerfuffle? The games websites came out in a 48-hour spree of articles declaring "gamers are dead".

And still people still think this is about Zoe/misogyny.

The reason for that is because so much of the comment is focussed on Quinn, who isn't a journalist or a big time developer, and Sarkeesian, who isn't a reviewer, whose crime is to criticise the depiction of women in games. Attacks on Sarkeesian started months before Gamergate.

Therefore every time the focus of criticism is put on these women it looks as if the focus is on the women because they are women. Why pick on them especially? It certainly looks like misogyny.

You yourself said that Anita attracted criticism way before this started so please explain how this even supports your assumption that this is about them specifically and misogyny? Let's be honest here, Anita wasn't even part of this issue until she started talking about how she got death threats she claimed to have reported but never did. Zoe was out of this until she posted pictures of what she claimed was 4chan irc logs conspiring against her. These people keep trying to milk the drama for all its worth and constantly try to push themselves into the spot light and you wonder why people seem to be criticising them?

Also your statement again is misguided at best. Are people picking on them? Probably, but as someone said they're also picking on Phil fish and Ben kuchera and no one is crying misandry over that. Are people not supposed to criticise the behaviour of people who happen to be women now


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be honest I don't want to talk about zoe or Anita at all. I don't agree with their actions but they're so irrelevant now except for the people who think they are; their defenders and themselves.

So honestly you can keep thinking this is about misogyny, that those two are poor defenceless victims or you can read the previous articles linked about what developers, bloggers or game reviewers think about the whole issue. If you keep thinking it's about misogyny after that, then fair enough, we probably can't change your mind and frankly I'm not inclined to bother trying because that might suddenly lead to this thread being shut down again due to derailment

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason for that is because so much of the comment is focussed on Quinn, who isn't a journalist or a big time developer,

Incorrect. Much of the commentary isn't focused on Quinn. Much of the commentary is focused around collusion between various developers, journalists and a PR firm. Most of the commentary is about the inherent mistrust people have for "gaming journalism" and the way that gaming journalists mistread and strawman their readership, claiming that "gamers are over", and how everyone talking about corruption is just a misogynist.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
...and Sarkeesian, who isn't a reviewer, whose crime is to criticise the depiction of women in games.

Her "crime" wasn't to criticise the depiction of women in games. The criticism of her work is the way she cherry-picks examples, presents examples without context and misrepresents the games she's arguing against.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Attacks on Sarkeesian started months before Gamergate.

And have nothing to do with this event.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Therefore every time the focus of criticism is put on these women it looks as if the focus is on the women because they are women. Why pick on them especially? It certainly looks like misogyny.

Again, incorrect. This isn't about them. Zoe was the catalyst for this event, but that is all. It has moved so far beyond her in the past three weeks that she's hardly worth mentioning. As far as Anita goes, well she has nothing to do with it.

Sining wrote:
You yourself said that Anita attracted criticism way before this started so please explain how this even supports your assumption that this is about them specifically and misogyny? Let's be honest here, Anita wasn't even part of this issue until she started talking about how she got death threats she claimed to have reported but never did. Zoe was out of this until she posted pictures of what she claimed was 4chan irc logs conspiring against her. These people keep trying to milk the drama for all its worth and constantly try to push themselves into the spot light and you wonder why people seem to be criticising them?

...
...

Sarkeesian had attracted a lot of anti-anti-misogynist attention months ago, so the current attention looks merely like a continuation, especially as she isn't a journalist or reviewer and has nothing to do with the core scandal.

As for the "death threats", why would "gamers" bother to make them an issue? They aren't anything to do with dodgy reviews of games. They are all to do with alleged "anti-anti-misogynist" pressure.

Why are you worried about women "milking the drama"?

It is completely tangential to what you claim is the real core of the matter, so harping on it makes it seem as if your primary concern is not journalistic corruption but some women's behaviour you disapprove of.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Sining wrote:
You yourself said that Anita attracted criticism way before this started so please explain how this even supports your assumption that this is about them specifically and misogyny? Let's be honest here, Anita wasn't even part of this issue until she started talking about how she got death threats she claimed to have reported but never did. Zoe was out of this until she posted pictures of what she claimed was 4chan irc logs conspiring against her. These people keep trying to milk the drama for all its worth and constantly try to push themselves into the spot light and you wonder why people seem to be criticising them?

...
...

Sarkeesian had attracted a lot of anti-anti-misogynist attention months ago, so the current attention looks merely like a continuation, especially as she isn't a journalist or reviewer and has nothing to do with the core scandal.

As for the "death threats", why would "gamers" bother to make them an issue? They aren't anything to do with dodgy reviews of games. They are all to do with alleged "anti-anti-misogynist" pressure.

Why are you worried about women "milking the drama"?

It is completely tangential to what you claim is the real core of the matter, so harping on it makes it seem as if your primary concern is not journalistic corruption but some women's behaviour you disapprove of.

You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion and I wish you all the best.

 Valion wrote:
Gamers didn't.

Really? So this is the one case where an unpopular woman on the internet didn't receive a campaign of abuse and death threats? Claiming that there were no death threats is about as reasonable as responding to someone's claim that the sky is blue by spending the next week desperately searching for signs that it was photoshopped.

Edit: let's look at it another way. Which is the more plausible explanation here:

1) People at the center of a controversy created fake death threats to add even more controversy, in the hope that it would increase donations. Yet they did it in such a clumsy way that the brave heroes of the gaming community were able to see all the clues that it was faked and reveal to the whole world that it was a scam. And they did this knowing perfectly well that their reputations, something very important in the journalism profession, would be utterly destroyed if anyone caught them.

or

2) The same people that harass and threaten other women they don't like did what they usually do.

I'll let you decide.

Death threats aren't the issue at all. Anita isn't the issue at all. She probably does receive death threats but the reason why this has even coming up is because there are allegations that she didn't make a police report like she claimed, at which point you have to wonder how much of her story about that night is true. The same story that has been parroted by gaming press and people like you. Then you have to wonder how much of a monkey show it is when people who call themselves journalists don't bother to fact check by apparently doing a simple thing and just calling the pd to check. In fact why is no one in the gaming blog press doing this? A simple yes we've checked with the pd and Anita did make a police report and here are the facts to prove it would help. Instead we get a monkey show

 Peregrine wrote:
Really? So this is the one case where an unpopular woman on the internet didn't receive a campaign of abuse and death threats?

Don't be dense. Of course she received abuse, but she's not unique. Abuse has been thrown constantly by both sides in this. Death threats and the Internet go hand in hand (reviewers get death threats for not giving games a certain score by the people who love the game, as one of the many petty examples of this). Death threats are nothing new on the Internet, and whilst I don't say that to excuse it (because abuse of any type is stupid) but I say it only to say that what happened to Anita is nothing different to a whole lot of other people. And, for the 80 millionth time: Anita has nothing to do with GamerGate.

Sining wrote:
Death threats aren't the issue at all. Anita isn't the issue at all. She probably does receive death threats but the reason why this has even coming up is because there are allegations that she didn't make a police report like she claimed, at which point you have to wonder how much of her story about that night is true. The same story that has been parroted by gaming press and people like you. Then you have to wonder how much of a monkey show it is when people who call themselves journalists don't bother to fact check by apparently doing a simple thing and just calling the pd to check. In fact why is no one in the gaming blog press doing this? A simple yes we've checked with the pd and Anita did make a police report and here are the facts to prove it would help. Instead we get a monkey show

But why does any of this matter? Why are you so obsessed with finding out if the death threats were real or not? If it's all about the legitimacy of the game journalism industry then why not focus on the legitimate issues (like the honesty of reviews) and let the death threats incident be forgotten just like every previous incident like that?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Really? So this is the one case where an unpopular woman on the internet didn't receive a campaign of abuse and death threats?

Don't be dense. Of course she received abuse, but she's not unique. And, for the 80 millionth time: Anita has nothing to do with GamerGate.

I wouldn't bother trying to correct people whose opinions are already set

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
Death threats aren't the issue at all. Anita isn't the issue at all. She probably does receive death threats but the reason why this has even coming up is because there are allegations that she didn't make a police report like she claimed, at which point you have to wonder how much of her story about that night is true. The same story that has been parroted by gaming press and people like you. Then you have to wonder how much of a monkey show it is when people who call themselves journalists don't bother to fact check by apparently doing a simple thing and just calling the pd to check. In fact why is no one in the gaming blog press doing this? A simple yes we've checked with the pd and Anita did make a police report and here are the facts to prove it would help. Instead we get a monkey show

But why does any of this matter? Why are you so obsessed with finding out if the death threats were real or not? If it's all about the legitimacy of the game journalism industry then why not focus on the legitimate issues (like the honesty of reviews) and let the death threats incident be forgotten just like every previous incident like that?

Because the death threats were reported by the games industry without proper fact checking? It makes people wonder just how shoddy their work is?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And, for the 80 millionth time: Anita has nothing to do with GamerGate.

Really? Because the OP made it perfectly clear that they do consider it part of "gamergate" incident by including it in their summary of the events.

The SFPD have confirmed that she didn't contact them. That's not the same thing as lying about reporting it to the authorities. She could have gone to the FBI.

 Peregrine wrote:
Really? Because the OP made it perfectly clear that they do consider it part of "gamergate" incident by including it in their summary of the events.

She is a convenient smokescreen, a "gotcha!" counter-argument to throw at someone whenever they try to talk about what GamerGate is actually about.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Valion wrote:
Gamers didn't.

Really? So this is the one case where an unpopular woman on the internet didn't receive a campaign of abuse and death threats? Claiming that there were no death threats is about as reasonable as responding to someone's claim that the sky is blue by spending the next week desperately searching for signs that it was photoshopped.

Edit: let's look at it another way. Which is the more plausible explanation here:

1) People at the center of a controversy created fake death threats to add even more controversy, in the hope that it would increase donations. Yet they did it in such a clumsy way that the brave heroes of the gaming community were able to see all the clues that it was faked and reveal to the whole world that it was a scam. And they did this knowing perfectly well that their reputations, something very important in the journalism profession, would be utterly destroyed if anyone caught them.

or

2) The same people that harass and threaten other women they don't like did what they usually do.

I'll let you decide.

May I say this sounds like you have only listened to one side and ran with it with your head cut off?

Really? Because the OP made it perfectly clear that they do consider it part of "gamergate" incident by including it in their summary of the events.

She was dragged into the event, but she is not apart of gamer gate.

I only provided a source for her. I didn't delve into detail about her. Because she is only made a brief appearance.

The source was confirming something from the previous thread, whether or not she contacted the los angelous police department, but it does discredit her for making many people believe that she had contact LA branches police department.

She willingly used as means to gain supporters for her cause.

Though she is apart of silverstring media who are a well known feminist organization that are associated with many journalists inside the gaming media.

But I stopped caring about her for a while.

She is always used as someone's scapegoat for the gamergate issue.

Sining wrote:
Because the death threats were reported by the games industry without proper fact checking?

Why do they need to do proper fact checking? Why is it so important that this claim be investigated thoroughly? Why can't we leave it at "this is a typical case of online harassment" and accept that even the details of this particular story aren't accurate the broader issue of online harassment certainly does exist?

It makes people wonder just how shoddy their work is?

We know it's garbage, and we've known it for years (or even decades!). That's the point I've been trying to make, "game journalism is a corrupt mess" is something that has been true for as long as I can remember. Everyone already knew that a major publisher could sell an empty box and the game magazines/review sites would say "interesting concept but needs a little polish, 8/10". If you're seriously outraged about any of the problems that have been suggested recently then you're either new to the hobby and not aware of anything that happened in the past, or need to give some serious thought to why an ongoing problem that nobody cared about until an unpopular woman was involved is suddenly the subject of a major crusade.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
Because the death threats were reported by the games industry without proper fact checking?

Why do they need to do proper fact checking? Why is it so important that this claim be investigated thoroughly? Why can't we leave it at "this is a typical case of online harassment" and accept that even the details of this particular story aren't accurate the broader issue of online harassment certainly does exist?

It makes people wonder just how shoddy their work is?

We know it's garbage, and we've known it for years (or even decades!). That's the point I've been trying to make, "game journalism is a corrupt mess" is something that has been true for as long as I can remember. Everyone already knew that a major publisher could sell an empty box and the game magazines/review sites would say "interesting concept but needs a little polish, 8/10". If you're seriously outraged about any of the problems that have been suggested recently then you're either new to the hobby and not aware of anything that happened in the past, or need to give some serious thought to why an ongoing problem that nobody cared about until an unpopular woman was involved is suddenly the subject of a major crusade.

Because if she did not properly report it and did not have any evidence other than a very suspicious activity it could be possible she used as a PR stunt.

Now please stop rattingly on about her. Your embarrassing your opinions.

Maybe people have gotten sick of it, of just accepting it. Maybe this was just the straw that broke the camels back. Oh wait, no it's much easier to blame this on misogynist. I guess all the people who think this is a valid issue is a misogynist and it's not like we have any females on our side at all. Oh wait...

Well now that you've caught onto our grand plan by the internet misogyny high council , we'll just have to come up with another one.

Or you can accept the fact that a lot of different people think this is a valid issue for very different reasons, which may not even be similar to one another

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do they need to do proper fact checking?

Why do journalists need to do proper fact-checking?

Hmm... good point. I dunno. Now that I think about it, you're right. Journalists don't need to check anything. It's not as if it's their job or anything. I mean, we could look to the time that The Escapist ran an article about the "abuse" that Zoe Quinn was getting from a devilish place called Wizard Chan. Escapist later admitted that they published the story without checking any of the sources, or even whether it was true: They just went with what Zoe said and nothing else.

But now that you bring it up, that sounds reasonable. I mean really, who checks facts, amirite?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Sining wrote:
You yourself said that Anita attracted criticism way before this started so please explain how this even supports your assumption that this is about them specifically and misogyny? Let's be honest here, Anita wasn't even part of this issue until she started talking about how she got death threats she claimed to have reported but never did. Zoe was out of this until she posted pictures of what she claimed was 4chan irc logs conspiring against her. These people keep trying to milk the drama for all its worth and constantly try to push themselves into the spot light and you wonder why people seem to be criticising them?

...
...

Sarkeesian had attracted a lot of anti-anti-misogynist attention months ago, so the current attention looks merely like a continuation, especially as she isn't a journalist or reviewer and has nothing to do with the core scandal.

As for the "death threats", why would "gamers" bother to make them an issue? They aren't anything to do with dodgy reviews of games. They are all to do with alleged "anti-anti-misogynist" pressure.

Why are you worried about women "milking the drama"?

It is completely tangential to what you claim is the real core of the matter, so harping on it makes it seem as if your primary concern is not journalistic corruption but some women's behaviour you disapprove of.

Because a lot of high media folk attacked gamers and used it as ammo against the Gamergate peeps.

Joss Whedon and several others have used it as a reason as to why gamergate is run by misogynists.

This a rhetoric for throwing it back in their face and shedding some light that she was not the victim here and also to discredit her.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
Because the death threats were reported by the games industry without proper fact checking?

It makes people wonder just how shoddy their work is?[/qu
Now please stop rattingly on about her. Your embarrassing your opinions.

This. The only reason the two even appear this much on the thread has cause people defending them keep bringing them up.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do they need to do proper fact checking? Why is it so important that this claim be investigated thoroughly? Why can't we leave it at "this is a typical case of online harassment" and accept that even the details of this particular story aren't accurate the broader issue of online harassment certainly does exist?

Because if you're going to claim to be a journalist, every now and then you have to do a little journalism. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone suggest that a story that may or may not be true should be printed regardless just because it fits a general narrative.

We know it's garbage, and we've known it for years (or even decades!). That's the point I've been trying to make, "game journalism is a corrupt mess" is something that has been true for as long as I can remember. Everyone already knew that a major publisher could sell an empty box and the game magazines/review sites would say "interesting concept but needs a little polish, 8/10". If you're seriously outraged about any of the problems that have been suggested recently then you're either new to the hobby and not aware of anything that happened in the past, or need to give some serious thought to why an ongoing problem that nobody cared about until an unpopular woman was involved is suddenly the subject of a major crusade.

The whole narrative about nobody having cared before this is one of the more frustrating attempts at stopping discussion I've seen. Plenty of people cared. People weren't endlessly mocking the Dewritos Pope and the Tomb Raider journalist giveaway campaigns because they didn't care.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because if she did not properly report it and did not have any evidence other than a very suspicious activity it could be possible she used as a PR stunt.

Again, who cares? The amount of attention being paid to whether or not the death threats are real is vastly disproportionate to the impact the answer to that question has on anyone here. You seriously need to ask yourself why the fact that someone claimed to have received death threats and might not be 100% honest about it is so important to you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do they need to do proper fact checking?

Why do journalists need to do proper fact-checking?

Hmm... good point. I dunno. Now that I think about it, you're right. Journalists don't need to check anything. It's not as if it's their job or anything. I mean, we could look to the time that The Escapist ran an article about the "abuse" that Zoe Quinn was getting from a devilish place called Wizard Chan. Escapist later admitted that they published the story without checking any of the sources, or even whether it was true: They just went with what Zoe said and nothing else.

But now that you bring it up, that sounds reasonable. I mean really, who checks facts, amirite?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because if she did not properly report it and did not have any evidence other than a very suspicious activity it could be possible she used as a PR stunt.

Again, who cares? The amount of attention being paid to whether or not the death threats are real is vastly disproportionate to the impact the answer to that question has on anyone here. You seriously need to ask yourself why the fact that someone claimed to have received death threats and might not be 100% honest about it is so important to you.

Please do not take my quote of context!

Read the full quote.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do they need to do proper fact checking?

Why do journalists need to do proper fact-checking?

Hmm... good point. I dunno. Now that I think about it, you're right. Journalists don't need to check anything. It's not as if it's their job or anything. I mean, we could look to the time that The Escapist ran an article about the "abuse" that Zoe Quinn was getting from a devilish place called Wizard Chan. Escapist later admitted that they published the story without checking any of the sources, or even whether it was true: They just went with what Zoe said and nothing else.

But now that you bring it up, that sounds reasonable. I mean really, who checks facts, amirite?

It's like totally misogyny not to take them at their word