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.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

nomotog wrote:
Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)

Informing a company that the actions of their advertiser might negatively affect their business is a good thing, at least for the company.

It's like telling someone their fly is undone. EXACTLY like it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
That is sending the wrong message. A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....

I can't the only one here who just thought seriously?

Huh? I have no clue what you're trying to say with this.

I think he's saying consumers demanding that a product change to meet their wants shouldn't always be listened to either.

Its demanding what you want to be enforced in all games.

That is the same argument going on in games journalism they want all specifically their type of game.

But gamers want all types of games to be represented. They want all games to come out.

That is the basic discussion.

You cannot demand a game have multiplayer. Because the creators probably won't make it.

Just imagine how much work would of be diverted from the original Prince of Persia Games if they added multiplayer to their game. Those finite resources they put into the game would of squandered some part of the game.

Just imagine if portal was forced to have multiplayer, the original portal game, just imagine how much of the story or gameplay would of lost something.

Multiplayer is a huge amount of resources to be put into. It is basically a separate game entirely. You may use the same assets but it is completely different and not easy as someone has said in this thread to add.

It is very complicated.

Its not just adding a new player to a game, it is adding balance, testing, modellling, new death animations, support programs, getting servers to run these games, paying for new skins, paying for player customization.

Its a ton of resources.

A game is expensive to make. The sooner Peregrine you realize that the better.

nomotog wrote:
What did they do anyway?

This comes to mind, one of the 12 or so articles landing on the same day declaring "gamers are dead" - but there's no coordination to push an agenda, honest. There are others on Gamasutra just as bad.

So basically:
"Gamers are dead." --Gamasutra
"Okay, if they're dead then we clearly don't need to advertise on your site to the nonexistent demographic you claim to cater to! See ya!" -- Intel
"Gamasutra is dead." --Gamers

 Peregrine wrote:
To the people making those requests for changes.

So in other words, to feminist dictates. Not even close to desirable from where I'm sitting, and I imagine much the same for most gamers.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Its demanding what you want to be enforced in all games.

Kind of like how you want to enforce a policy that every website has to be nice to "gamergate" advocates and never ban discussion, or you'll write to their advertisers and try to destroy their revenue?

But gamers want all types of games to be represented. They want all games to come out.

Some gamers want that. Other gamers just want lots of the kind of game they enjoy and don't care about any other types. Or have you missed things like angry mobs calling for developers to be destroyed because they dared to make a console-only game? That doesn't seem to be showing much concern for representing all types of gamers (which includes gamers who play console games).

You cannot demand a game have multiplayer. Because the creators probably won't make it.

Why not? If the market says "we want multiplayer" and the developers think that the game will sell better with multiplayer then the game will have multiplayer.

Just imagine how much work would of be diverted from the original Prince of Persia Games if they added multiplayer to their game. Those finite resources they put into the game would of squandered some part of the game.

Just imagine if portal was forced to have multiplayer, the original portal game, just imagine how much of the story or gameplay would of lost something.

Multiplayer is a huge amount of resources to be put into. It is basically a separate game entirely. You may use the same assets but it is completely different and not easy as someone has said in this thread to add.

It is very complicated.

I really don't see what your point here is. I understand that multiplayer requires work and might not fit your vision of what a game should be, but how exactly is someone objectively wrong/unprofessional/etc for preferring the hypothetical multiplayer-Portal to the one we actually got? Or even telling the developers to make multiplayer-Portal instead? These are all just matters of opinion, and your argument here seems to be nothing more than "SOMEONE HAS AN OPINION THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH MAKE THEM STOP". And that's pretty far from your supposed "real issue" of corruption in journalism.

A game is expensive to make. The sooner Peregrine you realize that the better.

And where did you get the idea that I don't understand that games require a lot of effort and money to make?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kali wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
To the people making those requests for changes.

So in other words, to feminist dictates. Not even close to desirable from where I'm sitting, and I imagine much the same for most gamers.

And that's your personal opinion. Mine is that games would be improved by making most of those changes. Now we've gone from the supposed "real issue" of corruption in journalism to nothing more than outrage that someone else has a different opinion about what games should be.

 Peregrine wrote:
And that's your personal opinion. Mine is that games would be improved by making most of those changes. Now we've gone from the supposed "real issue" of corruption in journalism to nothing more than outrage that someone else has a different opinion about what games should be.

No, I think that's entirely mischaracterizing this discussion. Gaming journalism is incredibly corrupt, that much was well known long before this present scandal. Of course there are different flavors of corruption, though, and I personally despise the particular agenda attached to this contemporary type.

Of course I responded to you not out of concern for the issue of corruption in the industry, but because you seem to imply that the "feminist" values should be endorsed or passively accepted by "the gaming community."

 Peregrine wrote:
And where did you get the idea that I don't understand that games require a lot of effort and money to make?

Well, on the previous page you did say 'Adding deathmatch multiplayer to a game is trivially easy compared to that' about writing a good story.

Using the terms "trivially easy" in regards to software development is up there with phrase "What's the worst that can happen?" in a sitcom. It's almost. . . triggering

 Yonan wrote:

nomotog wrote:
What did they do anyway?

This comes to mind, one of the 12 or so articles landing on the same day declaring "gamers are dead" - but there's no coordination to push an agenda, honest. There are others on Gamasutra just as bad.

So basically:
"Gamers are dead." --Gamasutra
"Okay, if they're dead then we clearly don't need to advertise on your site to the nonexistent demographic you claim to cater to! See ya!" -- Intel
"Gamasutra is dead." --Gamers

It that it?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And where did you get the idea that I don't understand that games require a lot of effort and money to make?

Well, on the previous page you did say 'Adding deathmatch multiplayer to a game is trivially easy compared to that' about writing a good story.

Using the terms "trivially easy" in regards to software development is up there with phrase "What's the worst that can happen?" in a sitcom. It's almost. . . triggering

The best part was when he said it was trivially easy compared to writing a good story....

Something that a single person can do without any tools except a writing utensil (If we are being literal about "writing").

nomotog wrote:
It that it?

 Yonan wrote:
There are others on Gamasutra just as bad.

I have no desire to wade further into that cesspit, if you want more I'm sure you can find them yourself.

 Bromsy wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And where did you get the idea that I don't understand that games require a lot of effort and money to make?

Well, on the previous page you did say 'Adding deathmatch multiplayer to a game is trivially easy compared to that' about writing a good story.

Using the terms "trivially easy" in regards to software development is up there with phrase "What's the worst that can happen?" in a sitcom. It's almost. . . triggering

The best part was when he said it was trivially easy compared to writing a good story....

Something that a single person can do without any tools except a writing utensil (If we are being literal about "writing").

Yeah... as a code monkey I call shenanigans.

 Kali wrote:
No, I think that's entirely mischaracterizing this discussion. Gaming journalism is incredibly corrupt, that much was well known long before this present scandal. Of course there are different flavors of corruption, though, and I personally despise the particular agenda attached to this contemporary type.

Yes, but the things being mentioned (especially by a certain poster who hates off-topic discussions when they aren't his off-topic discussions) have absolutely nothing to do with corruption. A game reviewer deducting points for a game having sexist costumes/no multiplayer/etc is not a case of corruption, it's a case of someone having a different opinion.

Of course I responded to you not out of concern for the issue of corruption in the industry, but because you seem to imply that the "feminist" values should be endorsed or passively accepted by "the gaming community."

I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it explicitly. As a member of the gaming community I think many, if not all, of those values should be endorsed by the community and by game developers.

 Bromsy wrote:
The best part was when he said it was trivially easy compared to writing a good story....

Something that a single person can do without any tools except a writing utensil (If we are being literal about "writing").

Note the key point in there: writing a good story. Any idiot can throw together a flimsy excuse for there to be enemies for the player to kill, but that's not a good story. Creating a good story takes a lot of work by the few people with enough writing talent to even have a chance of succeeding. There's a reason why most game stories are, at best, bland and quickly forgotten.

Contrast that level of difficulty with copy/pasting the same boring multiplayer modes into a game because the publisher said "add multiplayer". Sure, there's some coding required, but you aren't doing anything innovative, you're just copying the same things that everyone else has already done and doing the bare minimum to adapt it to your particular game engine.

 Yonan wrote:

nomotog wrote:
It that it?

 Yonan wrote:
There are others on Gamasutra just as bad.

I have no desire to wade further into that cesspit, if you want more I'm sure you can find them yourself.

I don't get it then. I mean I have been to cesspools. (Both literal and internet.) That wasn't a cesspool.

 Bromsy wrote:
Can't play chess it's literally the worst game ever, it has a King (Patriarchy)as it's most important piece, a Queen (Tokenism, she's the only female), Bishops (Catholic Hate Mongers and probably child molesters), Rooks (Clearly a phallic symbol for Hetero Male Dominance and sexual identity repression - they only move in straight lines), Knights (Animal abuse much?), and Pawns (Classist propaganda), and not only that, the black side is forced to go last (Pure unadulterated racism).

Were there but room in my sig...

 Peregrine wrote:

Note the key point in there: writing a good story. Any idiot can throw together a flimsy excuse for there to be enemies for the player to kill, but that's not a good story. Creating a good story takes a lot of work by the few people with enough writing talent to even have a chance of succeeding. There's a reason why most game stories are, at best, bland and quickly forgotten.

Contrast that level of difficulty with copy/pasting the same boring multiplayer modes into a game because the publisher said "add multiplayer". Sure, there's some coding required, but you aren't doing anything innovative, you're just copying the same things that everyone else has already done and doing the bare minimum to adapt it to your particular game engine.

Ah, so you meant was coming up with, coding, and making a good story work around the limits inherent to the video game medium is harder than adding a multiplayer mode. Because what you said was writing a good story.Still wrong, but slightly less laughably so.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Not true. I use them all the time. Can't is a shortenning cannot sounds ugly in certain situations and does not make sense in certain contexts.

I am sorry, but I would really not pick you as an example of good formal written English.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think movies have better rating systems in general. I mean when I read a movie review or a book review they are far different from game review. A game review is usually quite unprofessional and very laid back. It should be strict.

But you could hardly find anything less subjective than a movie or book review .

 Asherian Command wrote:
Infact all the systems of rating are completely wonky. They don't make sense mathematically

But they are not supposed to. Do the rating of movies “make sense mathematically”? Hell no!

 Asherian Command wrote:
But listing specific details about the game and what you liked and didn't like and be specific as to why you didn't like the game are very important. When I commentate on a game I list all of its good things that I enjoyed and all the things that I think could improve the game.

For instance “I did not like the fact every female character was sexualized”? Or is that off-limit for some strange reason?

 Asherian Command wrote:

So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product, not because they just hate men and want men to suffer?

You do realize that some are actually trying to do that. They do hate men and do have an agenda to take away the hobby, I remember posting about that a few pages ago.

That is paranoia. You can maybe find one or two lunatics thinking that, but believing they have any kind of power is pure paranoia.

 Asherian Command wrote:
A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....

What is stupid about wanting more chocolate ice-cream if you like chocolate ice cream?
Or, let me put it the other way: a game with a multiplayer mode offers more than the same game without the multiplayer mode. How does that not make the game better? And if that does make the game better, why should this not be reflected by the grade? Also, no corruption, no scandal, no conspiracy: this is so off-topic!

 Bromsy wrote:
The best part was when he said it was trivially easy compared to writing a good story....

Something that a single person can do without any tools except a writing utensil (If we are being literal about "writing").

A single person without any tools except writing utensil can do some crazy hard stuff is that person is, say, Perelman. No man alone without any tool can build a house. Will you therefore conclude that building a house is harder than solving the Poincaré conjecture?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Of course I responded to you not out of concern for the issue of corruption in the industry, but because you seem to imply that the "feminist" values should be endorsed or passively accepted by "the gaming community."

I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it explicitly. As a member of the gaming community I think many, if not all, of those values should be endorsed by the community and by game developers.

So do I, by the way.

Milo has posted a new article:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/02/It-s-been-real-GameJournoPros-prepares-to-close-its-doors

In what might be the last ever #GameJournoPros email thread, games journalists can be seen mocking readers who considered the list to be an unhealthy component in the video games journalism industry's echo chamber. These emails have not previously been seen.

Also, 'Milo' is a chocolate powder you add to milk in Australia to make a nice drink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_%28drink%29

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Kali wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I would agree, except the fact is that some of them were credible.

That's your take on it, I guess, but I completely disagree.

Like Adam Sessler, who was quite credible and is quite intelligent. But after seeing that he had dealings with certain odd people, I can't take that as a trust value.

I am kind of baffled that you think he's intelligent or credible to begin with, but sure, I agree this scandal reduces his credibility.

These websites are given this responsibility

I think the journalistic integrity of all gaming media outlets has always been incredibly suspect, and I find the notion of laying responsibility and power over anything but their subscription base at their feet revolting.

Saying it is bad to want for things to get better and things to change is not a bad thing.

Campaign as you like but the reaction of many "gamers" to the incident has given the impression that "the video gaming community" has been harmed by Gamergate, and I find that laughable.

There is corruption and we want that change.

Personally I'd object to the institutions as a whole rather than their conduct, but I won't hold a grudge against you for demanding a particular brand of disinformative corporate media.

We want them to be better representation of the gaming community, people who have the values of the gamers. Who are gamers, that review the games, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same opinion

I'm not convinced that there's any value at all behind this ambiguous "gamers" identity. People that play video games are diverse and, for instance, though I do play a lot of games myself I certainly haven't felt like games journalism represents me, nor do I feel like I want it to represent me.

i agree on many of your points. Did you join this discussion form to talk on this thread if so. Thank you for doing so.

It is awesome to see people weigh in on this converstation in a respectful manner.

You know, if you want people to be respectful, a good idea might be to not include passive-agressive jabs in your posts. Just a thought.

Any idiot can throw together a flimsy excuse for there to be enemies for the player to kill, but that's not a good story. Creating a good story takes a lot of work by the few people with enough writing talent to even have a chance of succeeding. There's a reason why most game stories are, at best, bland and quickly forgotten.

Hahahaha.
No.

Not just any idiot can logically create lines of code.

Not any idiot can do that. Experienced and well informed coders are not that easy to find. Its a different skill set compared to writing. Not everyone can become a coder.

Not everyone can program.

Not everyone can write hundreds of thousands of lines of code.

See whenever someone makes code the main thing they are making is the can not's. They are most limiting what can happen in that world. Because there are expectations in that world. Such as boundaries a player can walk,

Most lines of coding in a area deal with preventing the player from doing certain things.

Not any idiot can make multiplayer. Anyone can pick up a pen and start writing, whether its good or not is up to the reader. I mean some can be multi-million making. (STephine Meyer)

What is stupid about wanting more chocolate ice-cream if you like chocolate ice cream?
Or, let me put it the other way: a game with a multiplayer mode offers more than the same game without the multiplayer mode. How does that not make the game better? And if that does make the game better, why should this not be reflected by the grade? Also, no corruption, no scandal, no conspiracy: this is so off-topic!

Just because they/you want more chocolate ice cream does not mean other people want the same thing.

This is completely on topic this is dealing with the press. Talking about representation of women is not an issue of gamergate. That is for another time....

really don't see what your point here is. I understand that multiplayer requires work and might not fit your vision of what a game should be, but how exactly is someone objectively wrong/unprofessional/etc for preferring the hypothetical multiplayer-Portal to the one we actually got? Or even telling the developers to make multiplayer-Portal instead? These are all just matters of opinion, and your argument here seems to be nothing more than "SOMEONE HAS AN OPINION THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH MAKE THEM STOP". And that's pretty far from your supposed "real issue" of corruption in journalism.

The games would not be as good as they are because of multiplayer. Multiplayer is a feature that a lot of time and money and something not many people know how to do correctly. Programmers are not as common in the gaming world. Infact they are the most highest paid position in Gaming Industry. (110K per a year, and are the most likely for raises!)

Because portal the original portal was made as a side project by a very small team in valve. They made for fun, because they wanted to make a game. If that team was required to make multiplayer in their game. The game would of suffered because resources would of been allocated into something else.

That is what happens in any game.

Anytime they are given a demand to do a certain feature, they have to devout resources and time in order to fix that or create that feature. And it might takes weeks or even months to implement a feature such as multiplayer.

It is not as easy as typing

add.player(Playername) = String.namedisplay(player);

That is not what happens in these games. That is not adding a new player. A new player is a new varaible in the game that has to run parrell to the game.

It is very expensive to multiplayer in your game. And is in fact the most expensive thing to have in a video game.

Multiplayer is expensive to make and maintain.

Anyone demanding for only what they want are pretty sad excuses and don't understand how the industry works.

If multiplayer was so easy to make we would be seeing alot better multiplayer than we are currently getting in games. A multiplayer portal like I would of said, would of been a shadow of what it is currently.

Just adding multiplayer adds costs to a game.

For a while in gaming history there was a time where there were no multiplayer games.

You know, if you want people to be respectful, a good idea might be to not include passive-agressive jabs in your posts. Just a thought.

So you can tell that I am passive aggressive in all posts. Hmm.

Funny thing. I was actually happy this poster came onto the thread and discussed it. And I agree with all their logic. I felt like they argued it quite well.

And wanted to recognize that fact.

Note the key point in there: writing a good story. Any idiot can throw together a flimsy excuse for there to be enemies for the player to kill, but that's not a good story. Creating a good story takes a lot of work by the few people with enough writing talent to even have a chance of succeeding. There's a reason why most game stories are, at best, bland and quickly forgotten.

Contrast that level of difficulty with copy/pasting the same boring multiplayer modes into a game because the publisher said "add multiplayer". Sure, there's some coding required, but you aren't doing anything innovative, you're just copying the same things that everyone else has already done and doing the bare minimum to adapt it to your particular game engine.

I am going to call BS.

Because every coder has their own way of doing things.

In every programming language you have to do something else differently. And some are more efficient. Some are not.

Some coders do coding in a certain way, while others do it another.

Programming can be done in anyway. As far as I remember from my programming class, there are about a thousand different computer languages. Blizzard Entertainment has it's own computer language. Infact most companies have it's own computer language. And then there will be differences between lines of code compared to another.

Writing a story is easy compared to learning how to apply and write in a different language.

A good story is difficult to write. But at the same time so is writing a well thought out line of code, that is tested for months on end by the programmers.

Programmers have to plan out what they do before they actually type code. It is not as quick as everyone thinks. It takes a lot of planning and the Designer has to help plan it and budget it.

None of the articles Gamasutra posted is even remotely in the wheelhouse of hate speech.

 CorporateLogo wrote:
None of the articles Gamasutra posted is even remotely in the wheelhouse of hate speech.

Who said anything about hate speech? Regardless, they attacked gamers repeatedly however you want to call it, and the authors threw a lot of insults over twitter too. Misogynerds was one of Leigh Alexanders?

edit: yep.

One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly. It's about replacing gamer culture with their own, so if you imagine an article about replacing black culture instead... but it's fine if it's only those misogynerds?

 Yonan wrote:

 CorporateLogo wrote:
None of the articles Gamasutra posted is even remotely in the wheelhouse of hate speech.

Who said anything about hate speech? Regardless, they attacked gamers repeatedly however you want to call it, and the authors threw a lot of insults over twitter too. Misogynerds was one of Leigh Alexanders?

edit: yep.

One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly. It's about replacing gamer culture with their own, so if you imagine an article about replacing black culture instead... but it's fine if it's only those misogynerds?

I think that is a good point.

I mean Corporate I can see your point of view it would be correct under normal circumstances, but if we do see companies that literally post articles saying. "We don't need gamers and heres why." Is a pretty good indication that they have no idea what tehy are talking about/

 Yonan wrote:

 CorporateLogo wrote:
None of the articles Gamasutra posted is even remotely in the wheelhouse of hate speech.

Who said anything about hate speech? Regardless, they attacked gamers repeatedly however you want to call it, and the authors threw a lot of insults over twitter too. Misogynerds was one of Leigh Alexanders?
edit: yep.
One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly. It's about replacing gamer culture with their own, so if you imagine an article about replacing black culture instead... but it's fine if it's only those misogynerds?

I had to hunt down that article just not believing the title existed:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DevinWilson/20140828/224450/A_Guide_to_Ending_quotGamersquot.php
I obviously fell asleep at some point so now a "gamer" is an "obvious" bad label? (I did see articles of the "death" of the gamer culture but this relabeling is interesting)
A call-out that "game culture" is in a radical need for change because of a vocal minority?
That is like calling out for feminists to change their ways because some are pushing their agenda "too aggressively" and are hurting feelings... (throw baby out with bathwater).
I am sure the butt-hurt media will come up with a new name for the newer better breed of gamer, a "re-boot" if you will: an App-er? Gameist? Inclusi-gamer? Modern gamer?

I am insane now obviously, so "gaming culture" in a vacuum has become a huge source for abuse to others?
We watch TV, movies, these self-same reviewers, read on the net in general and the latest news: these are not also full of the same material outlined?
How convenient.

18 points that look like they addressing symptoms rather than root-cause. It is also VERY
I feel my intelligence has been insulted.
The main takeaway is to practice conscientious consumerism: not to support those who behave badly with our dollars: smarten up people!
Your immaturity and lack of thought is supporting the bad guys!
In this day and age it would never occur to us to apply to software what we do for devices and clothes?

The funny thing is that it fails to mention that applies to the media around the games.

Bah, problems do not tend to go away by being ignored but this is increasingly looking like the solution: the added press is too good to pass-up so everyone is jumping on it.

I had to hunt down that article just not believing the title existed:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DevinWilson/20140828/224450/A_Guide_to_Ending_quotGamersquot.php
I obviously fell asleep at some point so now a "gamer" is an "obvious" bad label? (I did see articles of the "death" of the gamer culture but this relabeling is interesting)
A call-out that "game culture" is in a radical need for change because of a vocal minority?
That is like calling out for feminists to change their ways because some are pushing their agenda "too aggressively" and are hurting feelings... (throw baby out with bathwater).
I am sure the butt-hurt media will come up with a new name for the newer better breed of gamer, a "re-boot" if you will: an App-er? Gameist? Inclusi-gamer? Modern gamer?

I am insane now obviously, so "gaming culture" in a vacuum has become a huge source for abuse to others?
We watch TV, movies, these self-same reviewers, read on the net in general and the latest news: these are not also full of the same material outlined?
How convenient.

18 points that look like they addressing symptoms rather than root-cause. It is also VERY
I feel my intelligence has been insulted.
The main takeaway is to practice conscientious consumerism: not to support those who behave badly with our dollars: smarten up people!
Your immaturity and lack of thought is supporting the bad guys!
In this day and age it would never occur to us to apply to software what we do for devices and clothes?

The funny thing is that it fails to mention that applies to the media around the games.

Bah, problems do not tend to go away by being ignored but this is increasingly looking like the solution: the added press is too good to pass-up so everyone is jumping on it.

Wait so your saying the best way is to ignore these sites? I.E. Boycott these sites?

Because we can do more. And criticism them for what they do. If they want to insult us we can say. "Okay lets write about how journalists are dead then. Come on man!"

 Asherian Command wrote:
Just because they/you want more chocolate ice cream does not mean other people want the same thing.

No, it means I want it, and therefore I am justified in wanting more of it, and liking better restaurant that propose chocolate ice cream over restaurants that do not have it on the menu.

 Asherian Command wrote:
This is completely on topic this is dealing with the press.

But this is not about corruption, or conspiracy, or anything else. So, not related to gamergate. Actually this is an issue you are the only one bothered about here. Nobody else cares if some game get a lesser score because it has no multiplayer. There is a reason female representation is mentioned in tons of video and articles about gamergate, but none of those speaks about adding multiplayer mode to games or not adding multiplayer mode to games.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Talking about representation of women is not an issue of gamergate.

Gamergaters talk a whole lot more about it than about games loosing point for no multiplayer, hence it is way less off-topic, actually.

 Asherian Command wrote:
The games would not be as good as they are because of multiplayer. Multiplayer is a feature that a lot of time and money and something not many people know how to do correctly.
[…]Because portal the original portal was made as a side project by a very small team in valve. They made for fun, because they wanted to make a game. If that team was required to make multiplayer in their game. The game would of suffered because resources would of been allocated into something else.

But players will just look at the end result. Yes, it requires more resources to create a better end result. Not really surprising, if you ask me. The only thing players will care about is how good the end result is, not how much resources it required, or the development history. And multiplayer, while requiring resources, makes the game undeniably better.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Multiplayer is expensive to make and maintain.

Not the players problem. Your problem.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Just adding multiplayer adds costs to a game.

Still not the players problem. Your problem.

 Yonan wrote:
One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly.

And if it was about “A guide to end racism”, it would certainly do perfectly well, thank you. So, your point? Is it that gamers are an oppressed minority that deserve protection?

 Talizvar wrote:
I am sure the butt-hurt media will come up with a new name for the newer better breed of gamer, a "re-boot" if you will: an App-er? Gameist? Inclusi-gamer? Modern gamer?

Players. BANG! Instant success!

 Yonan wrote:

 CorporateLogo wrote:
None of the articles Gamasutra posted is even remotely in the wheelhouse of hate speech.

Who said anything about hate speech? Regardless, they attacked gamers repeatedly however you want to call it, and the authors threw a lot of insults over twitter too. Misogynerds was one of Leigh Alexanders?

edit: yep.

One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly. It's about replacing gamer culture with their own, so if you imagine an article about replacing black culture instead... but it's fine if it's only those misogynerds?

You read more then just the titles right?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
They can still be heard, but if all they are speaking is hate speech people will indeed pull from them. I mean you can insult your consumerbase all you want but Advertisers aren't going to be thrilled at learning you are burning your bridges while cackling like a loon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamers are a minority group now? In that case, gamergate is thinking small time. Zoe Quinn isn't just racketeering, she's contributing to the destruction of an entire subculture. Gamergate needs to appeal to the United Nations to investigate genocide.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Just because they/you want more chocolate ice cream does not mean other people want the same thing.

No, it means I want it, and therefore I am justified in wanting more of it, and liking better restaurant that propose chocolate ice cream over restaurants that do not have it on the menu.

 Asherian Command wrote:
This is completely on topic this is dealing with the press.

But this is not about corruption, or conspiracy, or anything else. So, not related to gamergate. Actually this is an issue you are the only one bothered about here. Nobody else cares if some game get a lesser score because it has no multiplayer. There is a reason female representation is mentioned in tons of video and articles about gamergate, but none of those speaks about adding multiplayer mode to games or not adding multiplayer mode to games.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Talking about representation of women is not an issue of gamergate.

Gamergaters talk a whole lot more about it than about games loosing point for no multiplayer, hence it is way less off-topic, actually.

 Asherian Command wrote:
The games would not be as good as they are because of multiplayer. Multiplayer is a feature that a lot of time and money and something not many people know how to do correctly.
[…]Because portal the original portal was made as a side project by a very small team in valve. They made for fun, because they wanted to make a game. If that team was required to make multiplayer in their game. The game would of suffered because resources would of been allocated into something else.

But players will just look at the end result. Yes, it requires more resources to create a better end result. Not really surprising, if you ask me. The only thing players will care about is how good the end result is, not how much resources it required, or the development history. And multiplayer, while requiring resources, makes the game undeniably better.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Multiplayer is expensive to make and maintain.

Not the players problem. Your problem.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Just adding multiplayer adds costs to a game.

Still not the players problem. Your problem.

 Yonan wrote:
One of their articles was "A guide to ending gamers". If it was instead "A guide to ending blacks"... pretty sure that wouldn't fly.

And if it was about “A guide to end racism”, it would certainly do perfectly well, thank you. So, your point? Is it that gamers are an oppressed minority that deserve protection?

 Talizvar wrote:
I am sure the butt-hurt media will come up with a new name for the newer better breed of gamer, a "re-boot" if you will: an App-er? Gameist? Inclusi-gamer? Modern gamer?

Players. BANG! Instant success!

I am explaining as to why it can't happen players will want it, but it will not always be delievered. to the player. just because you demand something does not mean you are entitled to have that delivered.

But this is different from journalism. Journalism you can demand it. But if we demand for better performance that is fine.
But not for a single feature that only adds to a minorities

I am explaining the problems behind that frame of thought. Just wanting something just because you want it, does not mean that the Designer has to do that because you want it. That is beyond entitlement and I will not stand for people who only want the same thing over and over. Repition in fine amounts is fine but all the time is just stagnation!

It is completely related by the way. Because the journalists are demanding for more games like Depression Quest, Home. But then that is fine, but demanding all games follow their critera for what a good game is. Is just beyond insane. Any gamer that demands something similar to wanting just these types of games, just multiplayer games, just those types of games because you enjoy them. Is stupid and just chilidish. I am on my own when it comes to this because I think demanding the designer to make what the gamer wants all the time. Is just dumb. Game designers are the creators and can do whatever they want.

You will get certain types of games by the mood of the creators, whatever they want to create, this creates variance and variety in the industry. Just like for books. But we have long periods of time that we do not release that many things (the North American Summer for example is quite dry in terms of games that come out). But the indie scene on the other hand usually releases it all the time. Which is a problem and a good thing at the same time as this could stifle the market

And if it was about “A guide to end racism”, it would certainly do perfectly well, thank you. So, your point? Is it that gamers are an oppressed minority that deserve protection?

No. Its that why would you even write the article. Why would you take the time to write an article called. "How Gamers are dead."

Why would you even write it?

What is the point? What childish idea do you have to even want to post that? What is the point other than marginalizing your audience? Attacking your audience is completely unprofessional.

What is the point of doing that?

A journalists should be able to write and be thoughtful.

That is a breach of ethical concerns if they do so.

 CorporateLogo wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
They can still be heard, but if all they are speaking is hate speech people will indeed pull from them. I mean you can insult your consumerbase all you want but Advertisers aren't going to be thrilled at learning you are burning your bridges while cackling like a loon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamers are a minority group now? In that case, gamergate is thinking small time. Zoe Quinn isn't just racketeering, she's contributing to the destruction of an entire subculture. Gamergate needs to appeal to the United Nations to investigate genocide.

Yep, we can go the whole nine yards!

Also I have bad usage of words at times, I know this.

Though there's been quite a bit of racism and abuse against those in gamergates #Notyourshield

Is the politics of all this as interesting to anyone else as it is to me? For example this guess at political leanings from Milo:

(Wardell has since said he's more libertarian)

Also just in general the interplay between people and factions such as comicgate, schisms in feminism (Sommers pro-gg, Sarkeesian anti-gg), left-right cooperation etc.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I am explaining as to why it can't happen players will want it, but it will not always be delievered. to the player.

Aaaaand that is why games that deliver it get better marks than those that do not.

 Asherian Command wrote:
It is completely related by the way. Because the journalists are demanding for more games like Depression Quest, Home. But then that is fine, but demanding all games follow their critera for what a good game is. Is just beyond insane.

Nobody except you cares about that, because everybody else understand how having a very fun multiplayer mode should get a game a higher grade than not having any multiplayer mode. You are completely off-topic and you know it.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Game designers are the creators and can do whatever they want.

Game players are the consumers and can buy whatever they want. Game journalists are the reviewers and will emphasis things that will help game players decide which games they want to buy, including giving information on multiplayer modes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Why would you take the time to write an article called. "How Gamers are dead."

I have no idea and I do not really care.

 Asherian Command wrote:
That is a breach of ethical concerns if they do so.

Yeah, ethical, right…


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:

Is this completely random, or is it just me?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Wait so your saying the best way is to ignore these sites? I.E. Boycott these sites?
Because we can do more. And criticism them for what they do. If they want to insult us we can say. "Okay lets write about how journalists are dead then. Come on man!"

But you know as well as I that "criticism" can be labeled as hate mail and be ignored out of hand or pointed to (with some quoting out of context) to show how out of line gamers are.
It is a mass call-out for "do not feed the troll", we have an ignore button, why not apply to the increasingly irrelevant gaming "journalists"?

I am trying to figure out a way to take away that title of "journalists" they like to use, I think they make the real ones angry.
Rather helpful site: http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/

Nice quote here:
Gil Thelen, the former publisher and president of The Tampa Tribune, believes the journalist has a very specific role in society. He calls it the “committed observer.”
What he means by that, Thelen explains, is that the journalist is not removed from community, though at times may stand apart from others so as to view things from a different perspective.
Rather, says Thelen, journalists are “interdependent” with the needs of their fellow citizens. If there is a key issue in town that needs resolution and is being explored by local institutions, “we have a commitment to reporting on this process over the long term, as an observer.” The journalist helps resolve the issue by being a responsible reporter who supplies background, verifies facts, and explains the issues involved.

So it is rather comical that a "journalist is not removed from the community" but they have attempted to remove the community from the journalist instead!