Overwritten.net
Games => General Gaming => Topic started by: gpw11 on Wednesday, August 20, 2014, 08:24:46 PM
-
Right on the tail of the other post in here about gamers, indie developers, and everyone else being absolute shitheads, this gem pops up.
So, I'm at work yesterday and decide to check out Reddit. It's a fucking warzone and I can't figure out why or what the fuck is going on because it all seems so convoluted and doesn't seem like anything anyone should care about. So, obviously, I tried to get to the bottom of it - there's a mystery to be solved: The Case of Why Reddit is so Fucked Right Now. I'm going to save you the hours of reading that I did and just sum it up:
-Maybe years ago, maybe not, some indie developer claims she's getting harrassed and bombarded by 4chan and something called Wizardchan - which is 4chan...for virgins....which seems redundant and dumb, but whatever. Apparently the two image boards actually go out of their way to prove it was all bullshit, because the only thing they like more than trolling is trolling people who faked them trolling them originally. Industry chumps stand up for this Zoe Quinn girl, as do grrrrrl gamers and internet feminists. Everyone else thinks she's a shit head or doesn't care care. Whatever.
-Chick becomes somewhat well known in the niche market of people involved in indie games who are also feminists. There's probably some controversy somewhere. Who the fuck knows.
-Chick releases a free game. It gets on Steam
-Chick and her boyfriend broke up. He gets all pissy and writes (I'm not shitting you here) 15,000 on a blog describing how much of a piece of garbage she is. He posts chat logs, reveals secrets, and lets it out that she's banged five or so industry insiders who I guess are pretty well known.
-I get the idea in my head that she might be hot. She's not, it's a huge let down. The guys she banged are likewise awkward and weird looking. Eh.
-Someone puts two and two together and figured out that some of those dudes gave her shitty free game a lot (or some) coverage. Also, one guy is her boss.
-Internet blows up. "She's banging for reviews!" "Can't trust any games journalist!" "Women are all sluts!" "Men always blame the victim!". Mods everywhere start deleting threads when people start revealing personal information.
-Internet blows up again. "The industry is incestuous, right down to mods!" "Censorship!!" I check again to see if she's hot. Nope, still hideous. I don't get it.
-I go to reddit to try to look at funny pictures of cats and Russian dash cam videos. I'm blue balled because the top thirty threads are retweets from some indie fucktard's thoughts on the situation or how some shit head blogger thinks this is all unfair.
-I waste hours trying to find out why this is so interesting to people. A bunch of ugly people bang, some guy spills the shit and releases his (seriously pathetic, but very revealing) chat logs about his girlfriend who probably has a mental disorder, people cry foul everywhere from every which side and I still can't figure out the interesting part.
-THERE IS NO FUCKING INTERESTING PART. THAT'S IT - UGLY PEOPLE BANG, SOME GUY GOT CHEATED ON AND HANDLED IT TERRIBLY. HIS UGLY GIRLFRIEND IS A BITCH AND SOME AWKWARD DUDES GOT LAID. GIVE ME MY FUCKING DASH CAMS.
And here's the thing about the culture around the games industry: All it is is bitching. Journalists bitch about the moves developers make, developers bitch about fans, fans bitch about journalists and developers being in bed, developers bitch about journalists not giving indies the time of day, journasdfkl ioj df ;sdf iosda f AAAAAGH! Fuck!
These aren't all unified groups, of course, but occasionally, in just the right shit-storm environment, they'll get all their panties in a collective bunch and converge in a whirlwind of idiocy in order to take away my goddamn dash cams. And for that I hate them.
-
Video games man, at some point or another we have all taken this hobby serious and hold it very dear to our hearts.
I almost feel like this community has helped us vent out and even discuss shit like this in a healthy and mature manner even if it has gone out of hand a little from time to time. Take this situation for example, who else has exposed some female drama on a public forum such as this, I have for one, even so far as the person in question found out and even made an account to write a response if any of you remember. Even reading that whole blog rang so much familiarity with me, I've even had some close friends tell stories eerily similar. Now we are watching shit go down with kids that did stupid shit we did but with today's social media making it available to everyone. It seems like the common response is to condemn them, but I really don't have any right to judge. They are young, naive and I'm sure they will look back on this and face palm themselves into more maturity. Everyone else will grab the popcorn and pretend to be better, but one day I'll end up reading their blog.
-
Although this thread hasn't gotten many responses, I found your post to be an amusing read. Anyway, I skimmed through her boyfriend's blog, and clearly she had some issues, but really who cares?
http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/
Upon Googling her I realize it has turned into a shit storm, when really, who cares so much?
-
It's been impossible to avoid this shitstorm for the past several days. All gaming sites seem affected by it, not just the reddit/4chan epicenter. Since I don't delve into reddit (or 4chan, or wizardchan) I found this page (http://gamesnosh.com/zoe-quinn-scandal/) interesting, in particular Quinn's Response (scroll down) and the comments (scroll down further). She paints herself as a complete victim, while everyone else seems to think she's just a manipulative bitch, who led some game journalists to prostitute their integrity in her favor. Ugh! Yeah, I've been giving this as much attention as it deserves, which is why I haven't posted a word about it here, until now that gpw made a thread about it. I'm sure it will die down eventually. Even if the worst of the rumors are true, would it be a shock to anyone here?
-
It's been impossible to avoid this shitstorm for the past several days. All gaming sites seem affected by it, not just the reddit/4chan epicenter. Since I don't delve into reddit (or 4chan, or wizardchan) I found this page (http://gamesnosh.com/zoe-quinn-scandal/) interesting, in particular Quinn's Response (scroll down) and the comments (scroll down further). She paints herself as a complete victim, while everyone else seems to think she's just a manipulative bitch, who led some game journalists to prostitute their integrity in her favor. Ugh! Yeah, I've been giving this as much attention as it deserves, which is why I haven't posted a word about it here, until now that gpw made a thread about it. I'm sure it will die down eventually. Even if the worst of the rumors are true, would it be a shock to anyone here?
Makes me realize I haven't been to a gaming website in months!
-
It's funny, these "big internet things" that are "everywhere" I almost never see. I know about this because of IRC, and this post, and that's it. Fuck the internet. Such a waste of time, because too often it seems to be all about this kind of crap. As a collective entity it's just ... ugh. So frustrating. I hate the fact that we get caught up in this stuff ("we"), and it makes no sense to me why people feel it's any of their business. I guess because the dumbasses involved end up making it their business.
Anyway. Yeah, this situation is weird. I don't get it either. Thankfully, the only websites I visit are this one and Giant Bomb.
-
I am obviously way out of touch because this thread is the first time I've heard about any of this.
All I can say is "LOL Internet"
-
Suddenly I don't feel so out of touch.
-
The only other mention of her I've seen was a post on NeoGAF from the forum owner. Had screencaps of emails bitching about Zoe Quinn topics being locked/deleted. One of the support people responded to one saying he understood his rage, and that he no doubt wanted to fire his proton torpedo directly up her thermal exhaust port. (That metaphor is the best thing to come out of the topic, no doubt.) A couple posts in, someone sumed it up nicely: female indie dev cheats on her BF with industry people, possibly for coverage of her game, then the internet took over the case.
-
The internet has made us assholes.
(https://i.imgur.com/2EeTsKj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/g7fKnQr.png)
These hackers were pretty vindictive. The site is down now, but as one person on neogaf described what was edited onto their web page:
Think of every-single important piece of information you don't want people to know.
Now imagine all of that on a webpage for everyone to see.
Bank numbers, phone numbers, passwords, everything.
EDIT: Here is a screencap
(https://i.imgur.com/oS54fpp.png)
-
How do people even get this shit?
Also, why isn't anyone else commenting on how ugly everyone involved is??
-
@PHIL_FISH 11:15 PM
i would like to announce that POLYTRON and the FEZ IP are now for sale. no reasonable offer will be turned down. i am done. i want out.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/SIlbaSV.jpg)
And it is deleted.
-
The internet has made us assholes.
. . .
Mmm . . . I think more like the internet has empowered some people already predisposed to be assholes, and sped them along that path.
Phil Fish has been painting a neon target on his back for years now, and he has the nerve to act surprised when someone manages a bullseye.
Edit: My quote of the day.
. . . teasing a lion and getting eaten is not justice, but it's what happens.
Brill. I wish I had come up with it.
-
Yeah, fuck that. I don't care how trite and vindictive you are, nothing the guy did warrants that. Sorry, if you're laughing at this, you're an asshole.
-
Heheh! How very appropriate. I know. You hate that I hate this guy. It's been clear to me for a while. I don't condone what happened to him, but it is what happens. That was the point of my quote. I wasn't laughing. I am now, for some reason. I guess being called an asshole during the conversation about internet assholes was too ironic for a straight face.
-
For the record, I wasn't speaking about you specifically, and I don't hate that you hate him. I don't really get why you hate him so much. I understand the distaste, but I have no feelings about the guy whatsoever nor do I feel personally invested in the thing at all. I just don't understand why we all need to take up arms against some guy who was too dumb to keep his mouth shut. He may be a bit of a jerk, but it seems to me this is a step too far, and isn't gloating about it basically the attitude that's causing the problem? I'm not attempting to be judgmental, here. I'm attempting not to be. Because this isn't "what happens", not to anyone, not until the age of the Internet when somebody can hold a stupid grudge against you for being an idiot (or hell, for them deciding you're an idiot whether you are one or not by any realistic standard, since they're judge and jury) and decide that maybe they should ruin your life (or at least fuck it up pretty well for a considerable period, in a very public way) because of that. That doesn't seem like just recompense to me. That's not "what happens", because it's not a law of physics. That's what a few particular people choose to do when they have the power to and feel that justice is on their side. I'm generally behind what Anonymous does, but this is just unnecessary. Can any of them say they haven't fucked up or done something bad in their time on the earth? Slighted people? Been selfish? Had a dunderheaded opinion others didn't share? They can claim it, sure, and even if they did, who would question? Since by their own banner they have the advantage of anonymity. We aren't allowed to judge them except based on these limited actions.
I don't know. This just all seems like too much.
(And you know what, since the way I phrased my clarification above still bothered me ... just because we have somewhat different opinions about Phil Fish doesn't mean I think you're an asshole.)
-
Again, I'm not condoning what happened. I'm rather horrified by it, in fact, because it could happen to anyone. And the quote was not meant to make light of it; rather, it was sort of a cautionary phrase, like "if you try to be a savior, you end up crucified". It captures the essence of the action, reaction, and relative power of the parties involved.
I didn't think you were calling me an asshole--not really. I figured it was just an off-the-cuff comment. I'm sorry if I pushed the wrong buttons. And I shouldn't let Phil Fish's scathing personality get my goat either. I don't know the man personally, so you're right in saying I have no reason to hate him on a personal level. We throw words around like "hate" too lightly perhaps. I know you don't really hate me for any reason either, particularly not for how I feel about someone neither of us knows.
-
Heh, I just edited my post to make that more clear in case it wasn't.
It's somehow really easy to get caught up in all this. Maybe it's just the nature of human drama and the Internet sucks us into that on a larger-scale because it makes more of it available. I honestly don't know. Either way, this is part of the reason I want to get off Facebook and such. I feel sort of surrounded by this kind of thing a lot (even if about totally different topics and other divisions of the world), and it just seems unnatural and wrong the more of it I see. Like Phil, I kind of feel like I want out. We've talked about this in IRC a few times.
-
Oh yeah. I've never been on Facebook. I'm afraid to be. It's instant exposure to a bit that you see, and a lot you don't see. I've tried to think up some way to be there with less exposure, but I haven't succeeded. You can't really be anonymous or shielded when you're involving real-life family and friends.
-
You can just not interact, and you can ignore your feed, but in practice I've found the latter doesn't work very well for me. Inevitably I get a bit curious and then regret it, or get engaged in useless conversations with people. I like the networking in the sense of potential business/writing contacts, but that's about it. And even that I'm beginning to wonder if I can't do without.
-
Back to Phil Fish: I think people like that need to have a PR person to handle all their social media. No exceptions. It should be part of his contract with whoever is providing him with money. Seriously, all the whining and bitching. I don't agree with what happened to him, but like Cobra mentioned he had a huge target on him for a long time.
Oh and gpw, your original post was the best tl;dr I've read in years. Thanks!
-
Heh, I just edited my post to make that more clear in case it wasn't.
It's somehow really easy to get caught up in all this. Maybe it's just the nature of human drama and the Internet sucks us into that on a larger-scale because it makes more of it available. I honestly don't know. Either way, this is part of the reason I want to get off Facebook and such. I feel sort of surrounded by this kind of thing a lot (even if about totally different topics and other divisions of the world), and it just seems unnatural and wrong the more of it I see. Like Phil, I kind of feel like I want out. We've talked about this in IRC a few times.
You know what I think it is? That it's safe to get invested in. There is so much information out there that we're constantly bombarded with what's going on and a lot of it is pretty fucking disturbing or depressing on some level. ISIS, ebola, the Ukraine, NSA, civil unrest, etc. It gets to a certain point where it's likely that it's subconsciously morally exhausting. You could spend all day arguing how you feel Russia is in the wrong, Kiev is, how ebola efforts have been mismanaged and the tragedy that the people affected aren't culturally aware of the impact of exposure to infected loved ones, etc etc etc, and at the end of it you don't feel any better for it - you feel worse, because it makes you realize that the world is this giant shit storm grey area where there really isn't an objective right or wrong, just a lot of heartache for people you don't know.
And then something like this happens and people who are even minimally invested go all in, because it's simple and it's easy, and - most importantly - it doesn't matter at all. People jump on it and can freely spout their opinions, indignation, or support without really having to question themselves at all ...because who gives a shit? It's a lot easier to say "Girl is a skank and Phil Fish deserves what he got" than say "Israel can do whatever the fuck they want in Gaza because they have a right to protect their boarders and citizens from potential aggressors", because even people who whole heartily believe in the second argument are also generally empathetic enough to realize that there's a lot of fucking heartache involved there, and really who wants to spend all their time thinking about that?
This is the perfect hybrid for a lot of people, especially those predisposed to really like video games, enough to read industry news. There's enough false controversy there to make people think that they're contributing to a discussion on pertinent issues there, but light enough for them to be able to just turn it off in their minds minutes later and not have to think about the fact that there are a lot of people out there suffering an awful lot.
Also, a lot of people are just fucktards.
Oh and gpw, your original post was the best tl;dr I've read in years. Thanks!
It was deep and important and needed to be said.
-
Israel can do whatever the fuck they want in Gaza because they have a right to protect their borders and citizens from potential and very real aggressors.
Russia shot down a passenger jumbo jet, whether directly, or indirectly through the black-ops forces that are destabilizing Ukraine. Putin is a narcissistic fucktard.
Ebola sucks, but I understand there have been some promising developments very recently.
Phil Fish's and Zoe Quinn's problems don't amount to a hill of beans in that crazy world.
-
Israel can do whatever the fuck they want in Gaza because they have a right to protect their borders and citizens from potential and very real aggressors.
Russia shot down a passenger jumbo jet, whether directly, or indirectly through the black-ops forces that are destabilizing Ukraine. Putin is a narcissistic fucktard.
Ebola sucks, but I understand there have been some promising developments very recently.
Phil Fish's and Zoe Quinn's problems don't amount to a hill of beans in that crazy world.
Hahaha. To be honest, you and I aren't the type of people I'm talking about here. I mean, I used to get in arguments about world events on the internet in university, but then we left AOG and I lost the ability to take pleasure out of giving Madzim and whoever else high blood pressure.
-
people who whole heartily believe in the second argument are also generally empathetic enough to realize that there's a lot of fucking heartache involved there, and really who wants to spend all their time thinking about that?
Yet these same people aren't empathetic enough to realize the heartache involved when you tear somebody's life down publicly on the Internet, and make them think that the entire world (even though it's probably just a tiny fraction of it) hates them and thinks they're garbage? This has very real consequences for someone, just like anything else. Your average citizen of the US has no personal ties to Israel or the middle east, so why is one thing different than another? Yeah, it isn't somebody getting gunned down in the street, or children becoming casualties of war, but it's still pretty fucking awful for someone.
-
Yeah, I was probably off base about that.
-
Either that or it's just that something like this doesn't feel "severe" to people. Or they're just like "that cunt deserved it" because they aren't thinking about the actual consequences for that person. Which is entirely possible.
-
I can't tell if this is some sort of parody or if these "adults" actually believe what they are saying. It seems like its the latter... which oddly makes it funnier if not really fucking sad.
-
I am just amazed how seriously people took this nonsense.
-
What sparked this thread certainly is nonsense, and the guys in that last video look like total goofballs. But there really is a threat to artistic freedom in games from that totalitarian doctrine that is political correctness, in particular from militant feminism. No one may like the man who coined the term "feminazi", but it's the perfect label for Sarkeesian and her ilk.
-
I can't tell if this is some sort of parody or if these "adults" actually believe what they are saying. It seems like its the latter... which oddly makes it funnier if not really fucking sad.
Bald guy is a walking joke. Like, not even just on the internet - his life is a punchline. Long story short, a guy I met at a stag came across this guy somehow in the professional world; he applied for a position or solicited for something. In either case, his resume came across stag guy's desk and instantly became an office joke - it was like 3 pages and had shit like moderating an online forum and "driving long distances" on there. Stag guy pulled up bald guy's Linked-In on the golf course and everyone had a laugh. Then Stag guy explained someone in the office Googled bald guy's name and his youtube videos popped up, the first of which being titled "The Jew Question".
If you look at his Linked-In now, he's currently "self-employed".
We watched a few of his videos and you just want to punch him. "About to make a video, let me just light this cigarette so I can wave it around like a sophisticated man would".
Cobra has a point about militant feminism, but these clowns are too fucking ridiculous to be taken seriously at all. The answer lies elsewhere.
-
Something I've learned over the past year when surfing the interwebs and reading these kinds of discussions on feminism and other over serious topics on video games is that the issue with a lot of it is the judgmental and prosecuting tone... or just perhaps how we perceive it to be that way.
Gpw's thread title is the perfect example, because I used to feel the way, and any sort of comment just felt like a finger pointing straight at me, but now it is more along the lines of, "Hey I know you play a lot of video games, but did you ever think about this?" Perhaps if some people could learn to readjust their approach, there wouldn't be half as much backlash as there is. Because honestly, if you actually do start feeling oppressed by feminism, then that's like the first step out a couple that puts you uncomfortably close to MRA, and nobody likes those people.
-
Something I've learned over the past year when surfing the interwebs and reading these kinds of discussions on feminism and other over serious topics on video games is that the issue with a lot of it is the judgmental and prosecuting tone... or just perhaps how we perceive it to be that way.
Gpw's thread title is the perfect example, because I used to feel the way, and any sort of comment just felt like a finger pointing straight at me, but now it is more along the lines of, "Hey I know you play a lot of video games, but did you ever think about this?" Perhaps if some people could learn to readjust their approach, there wouldn't be half as much backlash as there is. Because honestly, if you actually do start feeling oppressed by feminism, then that's like the first step out a couple that puts you uncomfortably close to MRA, and nobody likes those people.
MRA's are terrible. Not like terrible people, but terribly annoying and.....no, don't get me started. But I think generally if people just knew how to frame their statements and/or questions to not be inflammatory as you say we'd be a lot better off in general. The thing is that most of the people who do know that and bother to do it just aren't involved in these kinds of things - they're doing classy stuff in classy hats.
-
This shit is simmering instead of cooling down. (http://gamesnosh.com/gamergate-silly-sounding-sincere-call-fair-representation-gamers-within-media/) Apparently, some publications are bringing it up to a boil.
-
Such dumb shit. I feel even better today, then, about my decision to get rid of Facebook. Yet another channel of useless bullshit I can completely ignore now.
-
I have no idea what all this fuss is about. I've been reading the comments and some of the articles and I still don't get it.
I consider myself an avid gamer and I have next to zero exposure to this particular discourse. Maybe it's because I'm keeping busy with work and playing games. When I head to game media sites it's usually for reviews, previews, let's plays, or commentary on games. I rarely ever look at articles about drama.
When it comes to identifying as a "gamer" it's not as challenging as some of the over-the-top stuff I've read in some of these articles. And this is coming from someone who grew up in a society that generally viewed gaming as a children's activity; it was easy to mock. Long before the internet and networking, we found a way to make gaming a social affair, whether we were playing together or trading cartridges.
I guess I just don't get why "gamers" as a social group are in the spotlight for the drama of a few attention-seekers.
-
I don't understand some peoples complaints. If you aren't one of the people sending threats, posting personal information, or just generally being an asshole then those articles aren't talking about you! I am a "gamer" and I don't feel threatened by those articles because I am not one of the people they are talking about and shaming. If you are, then perhaps you should rethink your behavior.
-
@X:
I'll map out the prevailing theory:
(1) Aggressive feminist challenge to traditional videogame "tropes" (there's a snake's word if I ever heard one).
(2) Alleged corruption of game media by this Zoe Quinn [edit: meaning she did the corrupting], who apparently also belongs to #1 above.
(3) Backlash by some common folk against #2, and by extension, #1.
(4) Counter-backlash by so-called beta-male (or white-knight) game-pub journos and group #1.
(5) Loop around into a scalding frenzy.
-
@X:
I'll map out the prevailing theory:
(1) Aggressive feminist challenge to traditional videogame "tropes" (there's a snake's word if I ever heard one).
(2) Alleged corruption of game media by this Zoe Quinn, who apparently also belongs to #1 above.
(3) Backlash by some common folk against #2, and by extension, #1.
(4) Counter-backlash by so-called beta-male (or white-knight) game-pub journos and group #1.
(5) Loop around into a scalding frenzy.
Thanks for the brief, Cobra ;D
-
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-death-of-the-gamers-and-the-women-who-killed-them/
Ars Technica falls too. I don't even . . .
-
Sarkeesian's perspective is quite biased. I'm not saying female characters aren't sometimes portrayed as victims or sexualized, it happens depending on the themes and the artists creating them. Plus she clearly neglected so many of the positive portrayals of females in games, playable and non-playable.
Her criticisms can be just as easily applied to books, films, and even paintings. I don't think 50 Shades of Grey necessarily portrayed women in a good way either, as popular as it is with women. I know, it's a cheap shot at a poorly written book :P
-
I dont know, we all made a collective sigh as we heard about her project starting, and we sighed again when she put out her first video. But now... its not even about that anymore, I honestly stopped caring so much and now I'm at the point where I hope she doesn't stop. Since she put the spotlight on all the disgusting man babies out there so everyone else can tell them to grow the fuck up.
-
Thats kind of the ultimate irony. If people were just giving calm normal reactions and rebuttals then they would just be some videos that showed up online and got maybe a few thousand views. But the hate that came pouring out in her direction ended up just giving her more exposure and helped prove her point.
I don't necessarily agree with some of the games she chooses to demonstrate her point but there are enough actual examples to make you stop and go "Hey, that does sorta happen often." So the dialog should be "Is this a real problem, can we do something about it? Should we do something about it?" Instead its turned into "Holy fuck there are a lot of real assholes coming out of the woodwork over some criticism."
Being a gamer has become such a strong portion of a persons identity that criticism or perceived attacks on gaming is seen as a personal attack on themselves, so they lash out. Maybe this is the real problem and we should be talking about it? I don't know but these kinds of reactions aren't acceptable.
-
No question that there are some scathing assholes out there, but there is something more serious happening here. Allegations of corruption, nepotism and basically sleeping around to get review scores first were attempted to be censored, then were answered with a concerted backlash of articles (within 48 hours of each other) to shift all the blame to gamers and bash them for it. It seems to me the game media themselves are feeling threatened, and overreacting.
I don't know if I've ever posted my position on the freedom I think all art forms must be given (including games, of course), so let me make it plain now, because it's at the heart of my horror over what's happening. Artistic freedom is nearly absolute. Art needs not adhere to anyone's political or religious beliefs. Pixels and polygons have no human rights. If I want to write a game where the player goes to his harem of large-breasted submissive blondes after clubbing baby seals to death, I have every right to do so. The feminist spearhead is more than just simple criticism. It's aiming to suppress and repress, with its main weapon already well-known, the fear of being labeled misogynistic, or a bigot. Bring those guns to bear against developers, publishers and media, and soon we have artists and writers shuffling their feet, looking down and perhaps abandoning their freedoms. Fuck that. This needs a retort, and while I agree that it could be more mature than it has been so far, at least it has finally come.
-
I honestly don't see any attack on artistic freedom, more just calling out what some of it actually is, which is insensitive and misogynistic. It's more of a shift of perspective on the art form. Sarkeesion may use bad examples, but the heart of the issue is there.
-
I already answered that viewpoint, but to reply specifically to your post, artists are free to be as misogynistic as they want to in fiction. It's fine to criticize such fiction. It's not at all fine to try to censor it, or otherwise suppress it.
-
Which is an extreme case scenario, not the goal in any sound feminist arguments I've read.
-
I guess what initially bothered me about her perspective is that it doesn't address the idea that some of themes in videogames are reflective of our society rather influencing it. She assumes that all videogames are purely influential and have not been influenced at all by society.
Ungh, why do I waste my mind on this?! ::)
Ok, this is not directly related but there's a parallel.. Remember a few years back when some guy in Denmark made those offensive cartoons and "muslims" had a massively disproportionate overreaction? Yep, man-babies going apeshit.
Muslims is in quotes because it was an ironically non-islamic reaction, fueled by rage and violence. Much like this scenario.
I think it has to yield the same reaction from me: shun it calmly and walk away. Just walk away.
-
The thing is that gaming is escapism, to many of us. The last thing we want is for it to reflect the social ugliness we deal with every day, in the real world. I'm in the game to immerse myself and escape, not be indoctrinated into the prevailing social agenda.
Here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/01/the-gamer-is-dead-long-live-the-gamer/) is the best article I've read yet about the whole (as he calls it) kerfuffle. If you read nothing else on the subject, read this. I don't agree with everything he said, but it's quite expository and insightful. This Forbes author is also one of us.
-
That was a good one, thanks for pointing it out.
-
http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/21/7462/sides-screen-adam-baldwin-talks-integrity-journalism-transparency-gamergate
-
https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb (https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb)
-
Neither of those addresses the key issue that has me paying attention, namely the use of colluding game media to intimidate studios and developers into compliance with leftist agendas, which aim to force artists to modify their art to suit a politically correct view of humanity and human activities. These people want to impose on fiction--on words, pixels and polygons--their social mandates and restrictions. Criticism of books or other media is a noble tradition in our society, and I don't begrudge anyone for doing so, even if I disagree with their politics. Bullying those who create them into altering their artistic vision to suit an elitist ethic is only a tradition in places like The Third Reich.
I’m going to paraphrase Dennis Prager, where he talks about [when] you see the term social justice you have a modifier on the term justice. So, politely ask your social justice friends what is the difference between social justice and justice, and see how they answer that. Prager goes on to say there’s justice or injustice, and he describes social justice as the egalitarian ideal; equality. I like to call it, “sameness.” None of us are the same. We’re all individuals. I’m a firm believer in the individual and individual liberties, individual rights and individual sovereignty. The egalitarian ideal is that everyone is the same and controlled by a vanguard elite.
From the Adam Baldwin interview (http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/21/7462/sides-screen-adam-baldwin-talks-integrity-journalism-transparency-gamergate)
The issue of the corruption money brings into everything is not what gets me. That has been happening forever, across the board, most shamefully in government. What gets my attention is the social elitism, enforced by a group who has acquired the power to do so through corruption and collusion (if it's fair to separate those two words).
Are there trolls out there? Yes. On both sides? Yes. We don’t know who they are, as most of them are anonymous. You can’t name them in real life or know who they are, so I ignore them. They are not a part of the story, and you can’t hide behind them.
From the Adam Baldwin interview (http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/21/7462/sides-screen-adam-baldwin-talks-integrity-journalism-transparency-gamergate)
Saying that criminals and trolls define the #GamerGate movement is like saying that abusive priests define Catholicism, or terrorists define Islam. Define, or invalidate? Take your pick. Both are equally wrong.
-
We are actually on the same page here. My only issue with your stance is the way you are perceiving the threat... which is exaggerated with words like Third Reich, changes that come from people with fanatical and often insane propositions to change in culture and political environments. And when I read that, and sit here and knowing we are discussing videos games, I just can't take the threat you are talking about seriously, at all.
I also I read that interview, and its Adam Baldwin. Not sure if you have kept up with him over the years, but the dude is known to be quite the asshole. Everything I took from it just felt attention seeking and egotistical.
-
I have no desire to start reading about this debacle in detail, so I have not. I truly don't even know what the crux of it is and I truly don't care. I've spent way too much of my life getting involved with shit like this and I'm tired of it. There's only so much activism and outrage I'm willing to bear the burden for, and this is out of my sphere, at least at the moment. But I agree with what Cobra is saying, even if I don't know exactly the relation, and Pyro, I think it's wrong to say "well, it's just videogames". Firstly, videogames are huge now. There is no "just" to soften the impact of what they are. For a lot of people going forward, people under 30, this will be one of their primary frontiers for new art and ideas. IDEAS. Games don't always do so much, just like movies don't always, but there will be plenty of them that move and push in distinct philosophical or moral directions, and those will be all the more powerful due to the interactivity. Interactive art is going to be a true battleground for a lot of this sort of thing in the future, and it absolutely doesn't pay to dismiss it.
-
Well right, I perfectly understand the significance of the medium. I will admit I laid out the dismissive comment (even though it's thrown around in arguments constantly here, by almost everyone, and even recently). My point is the mob mentality that I read subtlety in Cobra's comments, and that's probably mostly on me. But I'm trying to say is let's wait with the pitch forks and see what happens before condemning people looking for a change albeit sometimes incorrectly, it doesn't mean we need to start the war. It's the emotional reaction that has created such terrible backlash, and it needs to be checked.
-
We are actually on the same page here. My only issue with your stance is the way you are perceiving the threat... which is exaggerated with words like Third Reich, changes that come from people with fanatical and often insane propositions to change in culture and political environments. And when I read that, and sit here and knowing we are discussing videos games, I just can't take the threat you are talking about seriously, at all.
I also I read that interview, and its Adam Baldwin. Not sure if you have kept up with him over the years, but the dude is known to be quite the asshole. Everything I took from it just felt attention seeking and egotistical.
Well, it was Adam Baldwin who apparently came up with the #GamerGate hashtag. Asshole or not, it's his prominence and involvement that pushed the backlash into critical mass. The interview I quoted is a prime source in the ongoing drama, not some random jackass spouting off his personal bile.
The Third Reich was an extreme example. I was just making a point, and obviously Nazis killing Jews by the millions makes the subject here pale to insignificance (as do terrorism and child abuse by priests). I'm not trying to blow it out of proportion. Having said that, persecution of artists by an elite group determined to impose their views, with the power to do so, cannot be ignored. It flies in the face of freedoms we take for granted, and if allowed to grow unchecked, would result in de facto censorship across the board. Rather than Nazis, a better-fitting analogy might have been McCarthyism .
-
Completely agreed, but let's find a better example than that of the recent events that transpired.
-
Well said on all counts.
-
Wow, I really do not keep up in videogame news. I have never heard of the #gamergate thing before and don't really have a good sense if what it is about. Some girl slept with some guy and her boyfriend raged on the Internet and something about how females tend to be portrayed in games? I guess I don't see what all the hoopla is about.
-
Wow, I really do not keep up in videogame news. I have never heard of the #gamergate thing before and don't really have a good sense if what it is about. Some girl slept with some guy and her boyfriend raged on the Internet and something about how females tend to be portrayed in games? I guess I don't see what all the hoopla is about.
Haha that was me until Cobra enlightened me on the situation :P
The story is totally blown out of proportion.
Also, I'm getting sick of the "#[insert topic]gate" mimicking "Watergate" memes.
I wonder if this has impacted GamersGate.com (http://www.gamersgate.com/) at all.
-
Probably worth a read. (https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb)
-
Yes it was. But reading the articles on labor exploitation and gender divide linked in that piece--which the author uses to say that we must accept them if we want better games journalism--reveals a complete schism in validity. While the labor-exploitation article deals with a subject that should trouble any fair-minded reader. the article on "gender divide" is really no such thing. A valid article on gender divide, equivalent in merit to the one on abuse of labor, would focus on the balance of men and women working in the industry at all its levels, from grunt to CEO. This article (in Polygon--what a surprise) is pushing for the art of videogames and the marketing of videogames to fall in line with the politically correct ideals imposed on so much of society.
So, no, L. Rhodes. I reject your argument that I must embrace both these articles if I sincerely want higher journalistic standards. The first reports abuse; the second pushes an agenda. You make good points, but please choose your examples more carefully, and never use an article from one of the publications under fire to make a point to supporters of #GamerGate. You'll lose them in a heartbeat.
-
Sure the article links to a publication that is questionable, fair enough, I'm sure its not going to win any Gamergate hearts over, but being as that is, your article associating Gamergate with Adam Baldwin is the other side of that coin.
-
#GamerGate is Adam Baldwin's hashtag. He came up with it. I don't see how the center can suddenly become the fringe.
-
It doesn't even matter. You're much more interested in the political side of it, which I fully respect and you are more aware of it than I am. I just completely feel the human side of gamersgate has completely lost touch and any sort of ideal they are striving for, they have completely lost it in an entangled mess of shitty behavior. Adam Baldwin can keep it.
-
Now you're generalizing, which is the opposition's best defense for the indefensible. I already used two examples of generalization about much more tragic issues, and I'm not going to bring them up again.
It's funny that you should think I'm interested in the politics of it. The irony is that politics is precisely what I want to see get away from my videogames. Games should be about fun, talent and creativity, not social agendas. Those who disagree are free to create their own games to compete in the marketplace. They are not free to disrupt or suppress others, which is why I got somewhat involved. As I said before, the corruption alone would not galvanize me like this, because corruption is everywhere, and I've sadly become numb to it.
-
Now you're generalizing, which is the opposition's best defense for the indefensible.
Except I'm not really defending you from anything. Just going over and over with the same point which I know you acknowledge. I'm also trying to skirt away from politics of the whole issue, yet it's your prerogative to remind everyone, except everybody gets it. Your issue is shrouded around a bigger one which again.. I have went over and over again. There's nothing else to discuss. This whole thing isn't really complicated.
-
You seem even more determined to call me out, as if I'm doing something wrong, or saying something extremely contentious. I'm doing neither. I found your comments in the other thread irritating, because (1) it's not your call what I discuss in which thread, and (2) my response was to a topic being brought up in the linked article, and by the thread's author. Also, I don't keep harping on something I've already said, except as needed to reply to the constant challenges from you. Otherwise, every post I've made in this thread has contained new information, and relates to the topic of the thread.
And there will be more to come, I'm sure.
-
I've followed this thread and clicked links. I have no idea what anyone is talking about.
I even Google searched terms I've come across in in the posts and still have no idea. I'm missing something vital here. Something key to understanding why anyone really gives a shit. It's mind boggling.
-
I've followed this thread and clicked links. I have no idea what anyone is talking about.
I even Google searched terms I've come across in in the posts and still have no idea. I'm missing something vital here. Something key to understanding why anyone really gives a shit. It's mind boggling.
Ditto.
-
I've followed this thread and clicked links. I have no idea what anyone is talking about.
I even Google searched terms I've come across in in the posts and still have no idea. I'm missing something vital here. Something key to understanding why anyone really gives a shit. It's mind boggling.
Yeah what the hell is everyone talking about?
-
Intel removes ads from Gamasutra in wake of GamerGate (http://techraptor.net/2014/10/01/gamasutra-intel/)
Our ads were not a reflection of supporting certain article stances or shifts in editorial positioning. We have since decided to pull our current ad campaign off Gamasutra.
@BuckSexington Yes, our partners at @intel were flooded with complaints over a recent opinion piece, and they did pull an ad campaign.
https://twitter.com/gamasutra/status/517415198492467202
That's part of what they're talking about, anyway.
-
If someone can summarize everything in a few lines I would appreciate it. It seems significant enough for Cobra and Pyro to be upset at each other.
-
I posted this in the thread a while back. It's sketchy, but it will do as a starting point.
@X:
I'll map out the prevailing theory:
(1) Aggressive feminist challenge to traditional videogame "tropes" (there's a snake's word if I ever heard one).
(2) Alleged corruption of game media by this Zoe Quinn [edit: meaning she did the corrupting], who apparently also belongs to #1 above.
(3) Backlash by some common folk against #2, and by extension, #1.
(4) Counter-backlash by so-called beta-male (or white-knight) game-pub journos and group #1.
(5) Loop around into a scalding frenzy.
As an illustration to point #4, take a look at this (http://gamesnosh.com/gamergate-silly-sounding-sincere-call-fair-representation-gamers-within-media/). It also serves as a brief, if biased intro to the topic.
My interest is strictly the backlash against the aggressive feminist movement to dictate social policy in videogames (not videogame production, or developer staffing--I mean the content of the free art form known as videogames). Everything else is someone else's cross to bear.
-
Here you go, Pug. (http://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting) Its not a short summary, but this is a topic that will be very hard to give a short explanation for without simply painting one side or the other has "the enemy". But there are no "neutral" articles so you might need to read a few before you come to any conclusions.
-
There are those who are fighting, sure. Then there are those of us playing and enjoying games.
-
Counter-backlash by so-called beta-male (or white-knight) game-pub journos and group #1
This is the worst term on the internet - beta-male. It's always thrown around by the most socially inept retards out there with their panties in a bunch; guys who subscribe to philosophies like "MRA", "PUA", or "The Red Pill". Guys who go on internet forums trying to break down life to a science and series of formulas in order to get what they want because they generally just can't do it on their own and aren't happy being themselves. Yeah, those are real alpha motherfuckers right there. That's the definition of being alpha - whining, complaining, and being something you're not.
"You either don't give a fuck or are somewhat defending something I don't like? You're so beta"
No, motherfucker, I'm just content. You know, probably because I already have all that shit you're spending your life trying to get. Grow up.
-
Man, this (http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html) should tell you how far this has spiraled out of control.
A Linux kernel developer is refusing to fix Intel bugs after Intel pulled their advertising from Gamasutra because they hosted an article written by Leigh Alexander who was outraged over the backlash and harassment that Zoe Quinn received after her ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post detailing their breakup.
Welcome to #GamerGate.
-
Man, this (http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html) should tell you how far this has spiraled out of control.
A Linux kernel developer is refusing to fix Intel bugs after Intel pulled their advertising from Gamasutra because they hosted an article written by Leigh Alexander who was outraged over the backlash and harassment that Zoe Quinn received after her ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post detailing their breakup.
Welcome to #GamerGate.
It goes to show that it's all-out war, with bad people on both sides, anger and fear on both sides. I see it as a boiling-hot offshoot of the general cultural war in the country.
. . . anti-women #GamerGate campaign . . .
That's where I stopped reading his opinion.
Edit: Did you mean the opinion piece that leads off with this headline: 'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over. (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php) Now why would that upset gamers? (Yeah, OK. Sarcasm, obviously.)
I went on to read it in full. This guy is no better than the trolls he likes to bash. He lumps everyone in the same category of infantile misogynists, and tells gamers everywhere that their identity is done, because their pastime in its traditional form is done. They don't own anything, and they're out of touch. He's raging just as much as the lowest common denominator.
Now remember, this is a gaming magazine, a gaming magazine telling gamers that they'll soon go the way of the dodo. Think about it, man. This is going to transfix a lot of people, many of whom won't be basement infantile sexist trolls.
Edit 2: Read some of the comments to the article. You don't have to read far to see where my particular concern about artistic freedom comes in.
-
Man, this (http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html) should tell you how far this has spiraled out of control.
A Linux kernel developer is refusing to fix Intel bugs after Intel pulled their advertising from Gamasutra because they hosted an article written by Leigh Alexander who was outraged over the backlash and harassment that Zoe Quinn received after her ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post detailing their breakup.
Welcome to #GamerGate.
Haha. I laughed out loud at this.
-
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12384-Xbro-GamerGate-Interview
I've personally been against the phenomena of 'social justice warriors', as well as the path certain gaming publications have taken in recent years (more and more discussions on morals, feminism, misogyny and other non-game related issues, and less talk about actual games and the industry). Initially I didn't want to speak out, thinking it was just another drama, but I think it has reached a point where gamers became fed up with being called all those things.
. . .
If you think your idea is special/unique/deserving of attention and fame, go out there and give it life. But don't slander, harass or criticize game devs for not making it for you. It's not how the world works.
. . .
. . . I believe that ultimately the game devs coming out in support of the gamers is what will end this whole scandal, or at least tip the balance so much in our favor that they (the SJWs and other groups of 'special snowflakes') will simply stop trying to interfere with our games and culture in such an aggressive way.
. . .
If you think the gaming industry needs a different story, they go and write one, but don't impose your agenda on existing games.
-
If you think the gaming industry needs a different story, they go and write one, but don't impose your agenda on existing games.
Funny, that's exactly what Zoe Quinn is doing. Look at the reaction she got.
Also, someone pointing out things they have an issue with in your game is not them imposing on you. Having critics agree with the person pointing out those things is also not imposing. That's just how criticism works. They are still totally 100% free to make any game they want. It may not sell well but that is hardly the critics fault if the customers agree as well.
If the game appeals to people, it will be a success. If there are a lot of people out there that don't like such content, it will be criticized and the sales will be low.
Yes, exactly! If you make a game that appeals to a lot of people then good on you! But if you make a game and it turns out, oh hey this is pretty offensive, I don't like it, I'm not going to buy it, and I will tell others about it...that's fine too! That's how the market works. No one is being censored. If a big AAA company isn't going to make Big Titty Blasters HD because critics will pan it and no one will buy it, that isn't censorship that's just business.
That being said, a game should get a low review score if the story and script is bad (at the end of the day, there are people that enjoy Saw very much). Review scores should not be low if the game has violent or misogynistic themes.
See, this is wrong. Declaring a story or script "bad" is subjective, it is the reviewers opinion. It being violent or misogynistic might be the reason the reviewer thinks it is bad (maybe it glorifies those things, maybe it handles them in a way they feel is insensitive, whatever). Considering the score is a reflection of the reviewers opinion, why wouldn't (or apparently shouldn't) those things affect it?
-
What if your game is about a white family in the suburbs. The dad is a secret agent, and the wife stays at home and raises the kids. The game is action-heavy, but also has homey moments with the happy family the dad is proud to be out there protecting from the nefarious dark forces that are trying to take over the world. The better he does his job, the better his home environment remains. Poor performance would mean crime in the neighborhood streets, or school shootings where he loses a son or daughter, or his wife gets abducted, and he has to go save her.
Is that offensive? Would that justify a lower score for (a) not being diverse, (b) not featuring alternate lifestyles, and (c) embracing traditional family roles?
You're right. A reviewer for Polygon can go ahead and bash this game however he or she wants. As long as the rationale is spelled out clearly, there is no deception.
This is unrelated to what drew me to that piece, though. My focus remains sharp. It's harassment and blacklisting of developers in the name of social agendas that has me sticking this out. No one has the right to impose their views on artists or their creations.
-
Completely spot on. At this point if Anita Sarkeesian announced she was making a game oriented around feminism I would wonder if she would be actually capable of doing that with so many people ripping information out from her and stopping her in her tracks inside and outside the online domain. It's why I'm sticking this out.
-
A review has some subjective elements, of course, but it has to assess a product objectively. Naturally, any reviewer will have an opinion and share it; that's why we read reviews and try to match up with the reviewers with whom we most identify. However, the facts are a critical part of any review.
It doesn't need to be a controversial issue that brings this to light, it happens just as easily when a journalist has to review a game of a genre he doesn't even like. Take a look at the Gamespot reviews of Dead Rising 3 on XBone (score 7/10) and on PC (score 3/10). The game is practically identical on both platforms but was reviewed by two very different people. When you read the PC review it's evident that the reviewer marked the game down based on his opinions alone; he knocked down aspects that were praised by other reviewers including Gamespot's Xbox One review. His issues were with overt sexism and extreme violence etc.
Here's a an excerpt of my comments on that specific review:
I'd understand if it got a lower score due to overwhelming technical issues but Nick's [the reviewer's] gripes with the game are not related to that at all, in fact the Xbox One version was criticized for poor performance issues and it still got a 7/10. Nick's comments contradict what was praised in the Xbox One version, which was reviewed by Martin Gaston.
This seems like a case of assigning the reviewer to a genre he's not even interested in. It would be like getting someone who loves shooters like Call of Duty but never plays turn-based strategy games to review a game like Civilization 5 then criticizing it of being boring, having zero headshots, and being offensively slow-paced.
You can't review a product solely based on an opinion, otherwise reviews may as well just be "loved it, totally appealed to me, had a lot of boobs" or "hated it, totally offended me, had too many boobs." A reviewer needs to assess the factual and technical aspects of a game as well "how's the story? How's the gameplay? Does it run well? Are framerates/resolutions restricted? How are the controls? Texture quality? Do you think the developers could have done something differently?" Y'know, constructive criticism.
The point is with videogame journalism having a political agenda will only stir up people for all the wrong reasons (never underestimate NerdRAGE). I'd say that applies to any kind of entertainment journalism!
-
Is that offensive? Would that justify a lower score for (a) not being diverse, (b) not featuring alternate lifestyles, and (c) embracing traditional family roles?
Not to me. It probably wouldn't affect the score I gave the game unless it was...I dont know, strangely whitewashed. Like they went out of their way to NOT have those things. But thats a weird fuzzy line so it would depend on the game. And maybe a different reviewer would see it differently and that would change their score.
A good example is that new trailer for Hatred. You play as an angry dude that goes out to kill civilians just because. The trailer feels gross and not appealing. On the other hand...is it that different from Hotline Miami which I loved and am stoked for the sequel? Ultimately you're murdering digital people but its the tone and style that can make a difference in how that feels.
This is unrelated to what drew me to that piece, though. My focus remains sharp. It's harassment and blacklisting of developers in the name of social agendas that has me sticking this out. No one has the right to impose their views on artists or their creations.
Do you have examples of this actually happening?
"how's the story? How's the gameplay? Does it run well? Are framerates/resolutions restricted? How are the controls? Texture quality? Do you think the developers could have done something differently?"
The thing is most of those are still subjective. I might think the story sucks where someone else loves it. Like Braid. I liked how it played but didn't like the story outside of that one last level twist that I thought was clever. Does it run well? That depends, you ok with 30FPS with some dips or are you full on 180p 60FPS or nothing kind of person? I think the controls of Monster Hunter are pretty shit but fans of the series wouldn't have them any other way. You get the idea.
I think part of this is going to be up to getting to better know the reviewers themselves. If you know their likes and dislikes then you will have a better sense of what they are meaning in their reviews. Tom Chick is a very controversial reviewer and has given low scores to games that were GOTY at other sites. But thats because it is Tom Chick, he likes games a certain way and doesnt seem to get into the hype machine. I Like his reviews, even if negative about games I like, because he will point out flaws where others might gloss over them because everything else is good. There is room for both. Find a reviewer that you trust and has similar taste in games and then you pay more attention to their reviews.
I still when looking at games on metacritic I read one positive review and at least one negative review. I want to know what people see in the game.
-
Oh yeah, Idol they are subjective but the facts have to be stated so that the reader can make an informed decision. Like you said about Monster Hunter, the fans love the controls, so if the controls were changed it in any way would be prudent of the reviewer to mention that. The idea is to present the facts then share an opinion on them e.g. "The game is locked at 30 fps but it runs flawlessly; locking the framerate combined with the film-grain effect works in its favor giving it an authentic film visual style. The option to disable film grain is available in the options."
If I were to write a review on Dark Souls I'd be listing things as negatives which everyone else praises about the game; you would likely walk away from that review thinking "He doesn't like that?! Really? That's what I want in the game!" So if I give it a 3/10 anyone who disagrees with my opinions on it would read that as a 7/10 because what I dislike about it is what they actually like about it. Which further illustrates why review scores are pointless. Also why the reviewer must at least be interested in a genre otherwise the review is heavily biased.
I usually do the same thing with Metacritic; I need to know what the nature of positive/negative reaction is. Sometimes something that one reviewer found negative is something another reviewer considered a positive.
I like IGN's summaries of "+ and -" at the end of each review which help illustrate the major points highlighted by the reviewer.
So far my favourite reviews are from GameTrailers; the reviewers get into the details and address the various aspects of a game in review, sometimes with special mentions to fans of a series or newcomers.
-
A good example is that new trailer for Hatred. You play as an angry dude that goes out to kill civilians just because. The trailer feels gross and not appealing. On the other hand...is it that different from Hotline Miami which I loved and am stoked for the sequel? Ultimately you're murdering digital people but its the tone and style that can make a difference in how that feels.
sbto YoungZer0 • a day ago
I am a polish gamer. I did not know about this game existence until yesterday. Never mind what I think about this title for now.
What is important is that this organisation that those devs are a part of, is straight up white supremacist. By that I mean that they hate everyone who is not polish, white and Catholic. It is not about simply not liking Muslims, this organisation causes riots every year on Polish Independence Day. Stateing that Poland is being controlled by communist Jews from West Europe - that is UE.
So you really don't have a full picture here. But knowing this maybe explains why they are making a game about Breijvik, I think it is a key to this travesty.
http://www.vg247.com/2014/10/17/epic-distances-itself-from-mass-shooting-spree-game/
I read about Dennaton Games, its two founders, and I read the entire synopsis of the Hotline Miami storyline. I'd say they're in a very different place from Destructive Creations. But I still would not deny either of these studios their artistic expression.
But then there's the question of moral equivalence, which perhaps you're suggesting? That's a long and arduous conversation, one I'm not eager to join. Disdain for a game over politically incorrect plot or characters is a far cry from something as universally revolting as the premise for Hatred.
It boils down to what I said earlier: As long as the reviews include the rationale for low (or high) ratings, there is no deception, and I have no problem with them.
-
Oh wow, I didn't follow up on Hatred after seeing the trailer. That sure is....something.
It boils down to what I said earlier: As long as the reviews include the rationale for low (or high) ratings, there is no deception, and I have no problem with them.
Guess we're in total agreement then. High five!
-
You and I are in agreement about almost everything, man. I guess I've gone off the reservation somewhat with this GamerGate thing, but I haven't lost it, really. Not yet anyway. :)
Edit: Speaking of going off the reservation:
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-nowhere-on-my-site-does-it-say-we-are-journalists-says-destructoid-owner/
You can follow the hyperlink bread crumbs down the rabbit hole as far as you care to go. I'm not going to elaborate, except to say that this shit really is happening. The longer it gets swept under the rug, the more it festers.
-
Yeah some dumb shit going around. Leigh Alexander made her own partial list (http://leighalexander.net/list-of-ethical-concerns-in-video-games-partial/) of stuff that people should be concerned with. Hopefully everyone can move past the last 2 months and actually make progress on some of it.
-
You and I are in agreement about almost everything, man. I guess I've gone off the reservation somewhat with this GamerGate thing, but I haven't lost it, really. Not yet anyway. :)
Edit: Speaking of going off the reservation:
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-nowhere-on-my-site-does-it-say-we-are-journalists-says-destructoid-owner/
You can follow the hyperlink bread crumbs down the rabbit hole as far as you care to go. I'm not going to elaborate, except to say that this shit really is happening. The longer it gets swept under the rug, the more it festers.
I'm just going to chime in here and say that the Game Journos Pros thing is a giant biggest circle jerk witch hunt that has yet to produce a smoking gun, this included. Pretty much everyone who is talking about this doesn't really quite understand what illegal collusion entails and seems to think that people involved in an industry aren't allowed to talk to to each other and associate. Fun exercise, take any profession or even professional role, type that into Google, and then type in "association" or "society" after it. Wow. A lot more formal AND out in the open than this mailing list.
As someone involved in a few associations regarding my industry and a few mailing lists of personal contacts with these associations, I find the reaction to this amazing. Editors of Kotaku and Destructoid talk to each other? How fucking surprising. You know what I talk to with other project managers from other companies in my industry? Who the fuck to avoid or what you do in a given situation. Mind blowing.
I remember the Pinsof story pretty well and the guy dug his own professional grave as soon as he tweeted and outed someone. And I even totally agree that THAT whole situation is kind of bullshit. It was a scam and the people who were buying into it had a right to know. But, and here's the thing, he works for a company that relies on advertisers and has to try it's best to not rock the boat. That company came under a lot of flack for that and when faced with the decision, they decided that cutting him was the best option. I don't necessarily think that that part is bullshit - the bullshit part in my mind is that that they'd receive a lot of flack for it in the first place. But fair enough, I don't make the rules on these things and that happens, and as his boss said - he has an obligation to protect his brand - punishing Pinsof was a way of doing it. So he was put on probation or temporary leave, but he just couldn't stop tweeting about it - rocking the boat further. So he was fired. Kind of a shit situation for the guy but I'm sure numbers were crunched and the shit storm he brewed among certain special interest groups was deemed as more detrimental than letting this particular employee go.
But you know that part above where I said he dug his own professional grave as soon as he tweeted and outed that trans person? I fucking lied. No one would give a shit about that in six months. It's a controversial topic, but everyone gets it - special interest groups rattled pitchforks, he was let go to quell them. The company saved face. He really dug his own grave the days after when he just wouldn't shut the fuck up and got in a very public bitching match with his previous employer and his previous co-workers. Game Journo Pros aside, you know why he can't get a job? Because the second someone Googles his name, which is pretty much the second the short list of applicants is made, the first thing that comes up is that he loves airing dirty laundry. Even if I don't have any dirty laundry I don't fucking want him. Now, take into account that the places he's applying were probably running the story when he was in the middle of this dramatic shit storm. No one is touching him. Rightly so - there's about a thousand other people applying to write about videogames for a living that are probably just as talented and don't have the risk of bringing all that baggage with them.
What is very telling is his conversation with Shu, who I somehow remember from reading EGM in the late 90's and not since at all. Basically, (and I'm half cut and can't remember if I just saw this on your post or a tweet that it was linked to) he's looking for a job and asking Shu, who's telling him he can't help him out. No biggie, but the screen shot is pretty obviously (unless I'm completely wrong - which happens an amazing amount of the time) at the tale end of a conversation where the guy was denied and then brought up how Shu hired someone else who was controversially fired from one of the big player blogs. Shu's response was "Yeah, well, I knew Gary and had worked with him. There wasn't any risk there and it was different. Best of luck finding something else, man!" And that was used as Pinsof's example of how he's been blacklisted. Someone else was hired because they knew someone.
And that's the thing - he hasn't been blacklisted in anything close to the traditional sense - he's just proven himself to be undesirable very publicly. Getting back to Game Journo Pro, the smoking gun here is literally (It's not, I'm paraphrasing everything after the first sentence) some guy saying "Hey, can't tell you what to do, but I can tell you what you shouldn't do...this guy is contacting people looking for a job. Think back six months or use Google." That's it. That isn't collusion, that's pretty much an email or conversation I have every third week and then we laugh about some idiot in our industry. THAT'S THE SMOKING GUN. This fucking guy who released nothing but tweet after tweet of emails he had with his co-workers and boss regarding his suspension, which then lead to his termination, which then led to more public tweets and hissy fits is looking for a job at your organization. Think about it. Oh, and also, a special interest group known for shitting bricks and mobilizing hates him. Specifically. Just maybe think about it.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a lawyer in Florida, but in my pursuit of two different degrees I've done a fair amount of work and case studies regarding market manipulation. Specifically price setting and illegal collusion. My professors weren't rockstars or judges, but I like to think that I have a better grasp than most when it comes to what exactly illegal collusion consists of, even in this case. A casual email group of industry professionals is not a conspiracy and "Hey, I can't tell you what to do, BUT....." is not illegal collusion. As powerful as
"Wrongful combinations against workers.—If two or more persons shall agree, conspire, combine or confederate together for the purpose of preventing any person from procuring work in any firm or corporation, or to cause the discharge of any person from work in such firm or corporation; "
sounds, the real truth is that "conspire, combine, or confederate" has a deeper implication of willing parties in pre-existing illegal action. So, the way I interpret this to mean is the same as how you interpret pretty much any law dealing with illegal collusion in circumstances like this, which is to mean with the presence of duress, undue influence, promotion, or offered compensation. Well, that and the semi-colon really leads way to the meat of the law they referenced. Because realistically, in any common law system (of which Florida is one), no judge can say that it's illegal for two or more people to get together and say X shouldn't have Y job. Because, you know, that's how every judge who isn't singularly appointed (as well as board executives, and other executives, and ...well, a shitload of people) are granted their jobs. Ever sat through an interview with two or more managers and not been hired? You have a fucking case!
To put it simply, in order to prove that someone is blacklisting in my jurisdiction, you have to prove that they're forcing you to make that decision in some way. Not that a bunch of like-minded individuals are causally sitting around and discussing why no one in their right mind should hire this notorious and now publicly known individual who has shown he has difficulty getting along with co-workers and management. Beyond that, due to the nature of journalism in general, you'd be hard pressed to prove Gary Webb was blacklisted, let alone some kid from Destructoid.
Again, it's a shitty situation for that guy. I don't feel he did anything wrong from the start - it's how he handled it in the aftermath that fucked him over. That said, I can't blame his boss for giving him flack or eventually letting him go, it's just a combination of the politics and the nature of the industry that he's in. He should have known that.
What I do find a little bit ridiculous is that this is brought up a year fucking later as evidence of conspiracy in the industry and that this guy has gotten right back on board. Good job buddy, I'm sure this will open some doors for you. Go back to school. Seriously. Because even if you want to switch sectors of journalism no one will want you.
But all of this is kind of splitting fucking hairs hairs of a sort. The real issue here is that HASHTAG gamersgate is so concerned with finding conspiracy that's it has turned into another kind of witch hunt. If you read any of my posts you know I have pretty much zero respect for Games Journalists as a profession and even I think this is retarded.
And you know what it is? I don't get it. Who cares? Cobra, I get what you're saying, and I respect you for saying it because we absolutely need people like you to get angry or just fed up with other people trying to impose their way of life and their ethical value on everyone through mob rule and guilt exploitation. It's a counterbalance to what they put out there and it's awesome. At the same time, I can't get into it because I come across these sites and just can't stop focusing on the flaws.
I find that in life, no matter what you're doing, you will find an endless amount of people who have a problem with it for whatever reason. It's gory, it's sexist, it's homophobic, no, it's homoerotic, no I DON'T KNOW, I JUST DON'T LIKE IT. The trick is just to tell them to fuck of, and I appreciate that you guys are doing that, because I'm waaaaay too caught up in my own shit to do it. Just don't get too carried away, or else you start sounding like them a bit.
-
Cobra, I get what you're saying, and I respect you for saying it because we absolutely need people like you to get angry or just fed up with other people trying to impose their way of life and their ethical value on everyone through mob rule and guilt exploitation. It's a counterbalance to what they put out there and it's awesome. At the same time, I can't get into it because I come across these sites and just can't stop focusing on the flaws.
I find that in life, no matter what you're doing, you will find an endless amount of people who have a problem with it for whatever reason. It's gory, it's sexist, it's homophobic, no, it's homoerotic, no I DON'T KNOW, I JUST DON'T LIKE IT. The trick is just to tell them to fuck of, and I appreciate that you guys are doing that, because I'm waaaaay too caught up in my own shit to do it. Just don't get too carried away, or else you start sounding like them a bit.
Hence my "off the reservation" introspection comment.
I read every bit of your WoT. I always love to read what you have to say when you put your heart into it. I wish I had that facility to let it all pour out so intelligibly. It sometimes takes me hours to get a decent-sized post [I just edited right here, for example] to get close to what's in my head. Maybe that's why I shy away from IRC. Too immediate. Stage fright? Too stressful.
Thanks for recognizing the good fight in the midst of the clusterfuck. That's all I ask. But about collusion, tell me that this (https://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/) isn't. I picked that link out of a Google search for "gamers are dead articles collusion". You may find better hits if you care to take the time. This is just a quick example, and I'm not sure who's behind the "analysis" or what his/her tilt is on the whole thing.
I'm not naive. I know when the press gets a particular button pressed, they all join in a focused feeding frenzy, leading to similar articles. But this "death of the gamer" theme did not originate with the external events. This was something arrived at internally, and all emerged in print in a period of 48 hours or so.
-
Thanks, that actually means a lot - I think the trick to it is to drink 6 IPAs without eating first and just roll with it.
I just wrote the longest fucking post (well, less lengthy than the last one) and lost it. To sum it up, this whole thing reminds me of 2001-2002, being in 200 level political science classes where 80% of the people knew just enough to put strings of thoughts together and had a general impression that they needed to be incensed about SOMETHING to be relevant. The end result being that I'd sit there and listen, only to find out that even if I agreed with the base principle of what they were saying, they had alienated me with how they were saying it or some periphery information and I really didn't give that much of a shit anyway.
The core principles of #gamersgate as I see it is don't let special interest groups dictate content - games media, get your shit together and stand up for yourself or you will be irrelevant and useless. I get that and agree with it. Special interest groups have every right to voice displeasure and do what they can to promote their goals, the flipside is that everyone else does to. Market dictates who ends up on top. General consensus is that the media is currently very one sided in that whole battle right now. I don't entirely disagree, and even if I did I would recognize that #gamersgate would still be well within reason - as voicing displeasure is how it works.
That said, the pseudo-intellectual bent and cloak and dagger accusations behind both sides really alienates me and makes me not give a shit. That's kind of my thing - I get the main principle, but I can go into an article and not know what the fuck anyone is talking about. I get what you're saying with the article you posted, I have my reservations about that point, but still could get behind it.....but the tone of the whole "movement" just really makes me want to not care. I promise you I could aggregate an equal amount of articles with buzzwords about Michael Sam getting cut from the Cowboys practice squad in the next 48 hours to lead you to believe that sports journalism thinks its related to him being gay, but that's not the reality of the situation. And you know what? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if a bunch of junior journalists sat down and decided to write that gamers as a culture are dead, because there is no end game there, or at least one that I can see.
"Gaming culture is dead. We're all wearing skirts now"
How about just saying no? And yes, I get that posting about it IS saying no, but everyone is making it seem deeper than I figure it is, and that's what really makes me want nothing to do with any of it.
-
Well said. I pretty much share gpw's opinions as expressed so far. This is a debate I just haven't wanted to put the energy into. It's annoying enough having to catch so much of it by proxy.
-
I still don't know what's going on with it, but I can't shake the overall feeling of "I really don't give a shit".
I can't even bring myself to even begin reading on it.
-
I'm kind of right there too, K-Man. I guess it's because I found video game journalists to be mostly garbage and not worth paying any attention to a decade ago and I don't really consider myself a gamer anymore, so that aspect doesn't have me worked up either.
I do agree with Cobra's stance that games, like books or movies, are a form of art and who cares what the mainstream thinks of the art you want to create and people shouldn't try to censor art, but I'm just not invested enough to care at this point.
-
haha the whole saga has been summarized down to a few pages on the internet for people like us but I still can't be bothered to read it. I find OW so interesting, like that whole discussion about resolutions on the Assassin's Creed thread. I identify with you guys on so many levels and consider you to be my friends, but I feel like I just don't care about any of these things any more to this degree.
I am sure the feeling will come back. It always does. But for now, I just find it all fascinating.
I feel like living in a third world country has taken away the luxury of caring about these things so much. Maybe when I am back in Canada.
-
Pug, I think it's hard to get excited about stuff like this when you have experienced a series of real problems. The death of my parents profoundly changed my general outlook on life. I'd imagine what you've experienced has changed you in much the same way, probably even more so than me.
-
Well, that's a bit unfair. My family transplanted itself from a different culture 44 years ago, when I was 16; then my father, the sole real breadwinner in the family, died 19 years after that. He was only 63. My ex-wife took my girls and moved to New York, under the pretext of a vacation. After much trying to fix that, I finally gave up about 5 years later. 9/11/01 stopped the flow of money to the smallish IT companies in this area, and one after another, my opportunities dried up. Companies folded, or were swallowed up by others, or downsized. It felt very much like being in a roomful of dominoes.
We all go through personal hell in this sad world. That doesn't mean we stop caring about the things we find important. There's a lot to it, all spelled out that-a-way ^^^ somewhere.
I don't care about resolution either. I grew up on games with pixels the size of dice. I'm thrilled to get 720p as a minimum.
-
I am sorry Cobra. Not trying to dilute anyone's pain or personal struggles.
-
Well, that's a bit unfair. My family transplanted itself from a different culture 44 years ago, when I was 16; then my father, the sole real breadwinner in the family, died 19 years after that. He was only 63. My ex-wife took my girls and moved to New York, under the pretext of a vacation. After much trying to fix that, I finally gave up about 5 years later. 9/11/01 stopped the flow of money to the smallish IT companies in this area, and one after another, my opportunities dried up. Companies folded, or were swallowed up by others, or downsized. It felt very much like being in a roomful of dominoes.
We all go through personal hell in this sad world. That doesn't mean we stop caring about the things we find important. There's a lot to it, all spelled out that-a-way ^^^ somewhere.
I don't care about resolution either. I grew up on games with pixels the size of dice. I'm thrilled to get 720p as a minimum.
Hm, OK. First of all my post wasn't meant to offend. I personally found that after dealing with so much personal tragedy in the past few years that my tendency and desire to get worked up over things that ultimately don't deserve that level of attention lessened. Not trying to belittle anyone else's situation because I know there are billions of people on this planet that are less fortunate than I am.
That being said. This "movement", or whatever it's being called, seems to be the absolute shittiest parts of the internet conglomerating under a "cause". And everything I've read suggests that I don't need to waste significant amounts of time participating in it.
-
Oh, whoa! No offense taken here, guys. Simple point: personal stuff gets heavy for all of us eventually. We should still care about whatever is worthy. I didn't mean for it to be a guilt trip. Sorry I went overboard with the personal examples.
Yeah, there are a lot of assholes involved in this movement. I would argue that the other side can get just as vicious, but that doesn't excuse anything. My only argument would be that any heated cause attracts more than its share of crazies. They're not the story, although they're very much what the opposition tries to make the story. This much of a sustained fight doesn't come from spoiled brats. They don't have the attention span.
-
More Cobra fodder here (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/stephen-colbert-speaks-truthiness-to-gamergate-interviews-anita-sarkeesian/).
I think a big problem with Internet pseudo-anonymity is the hyperbole. It's not isolated to this GamerGate thing, but here is an example from the linked article:
So goddamn disappionted [sic] in you, Stephen, for giving this charlatan the time of day. it looks like my greatest fear has finally been realized.
Source: Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/stephen-colbert-speaks-truthiness-to-gamergate-interviews-anita-sarkeesian/)
Seriously? Your greatest fear? Some blowhard appearing on Stephen Colbert's show? Come on.
It's like something else I read about some actress in New York recording 10 hours of harassment she experienced just walking around New York. A short documentary was made about it and they were getting all kinds of death and rape threats.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
-
The link on that address seems to display weird Scott, even when I got to that page the address bar even puts it up incorrectly. But here's the link that will bring you there:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/stephen-colbert-speaks-truthiness-to-gamergate-interviews-anita-sarkeesian/ (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/stephen-colbert-speaks-truthiness-to-gamergate-interviews-anita-sarkeesian/)
-
Fixed it. I had quotes around the URL.
-
More importantly, who the fuck says "charlatan" in this day and age? Seriously.
-
:-\
Uh . . . what's wrong with "charlatan"? It fits the lady to a tee, and I can't think of a perfect synonym offhand. ("Demagogue" is worse, and not a synonym.)
-
Its just kind of dated - I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the word in natural speech.
-
Speaking as the resident self-appointed language nazi, I don't think it's an uncommon term. Not one you use in everyday speech too often (mostly because subject doesn't frequently call for it), but common enough in everyday writing about relevant topics.
-
I think we've used terms like "draconian" so frequently that it warrants terms like "charlatan." :P
-
I AM TERRIBLE AT JUDGING PEOPLE.
-
Its just kind of dated - I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the word in natural speech.
-
VINDICATION!
-
I think you guys live sheltered lives.
-
We're just from a hipper, younger generation
-
Yeah, a generation of CHARLATANS.
-
I don't know why this word has gone out of fashion. It would especially be useful in this part of the world.
-
I still maintain that it hasn't.
-
haha OK sure we are different people with different experiences. I write for several publications and read a lot of newspapers from across the world and I rarely come that word.
On the other hand, you publish a lot of work and read a lot as well, but you come across it more often. We just have different experiences. In my experience the word seems to have gone out of fashion, and in your experience it hasn't.
That being said, I've made it my mission to somehow include the world charlatan more in my writing.
-
Well, and to be fair it's not the kind of word you'd come across commonly in a newspaper as it clearly renders a firm opinion on something. Not that the global news media is exactly the prime example of unbiased reporting it might once have been, if it ever was, but it's still the sort of thing you'd read more commonly in an opinion piece or in personal conversation or in fiction. But you know it can't be too far from common use since I bet almost everybody here, despite probably not having had much reason to use the word very often, knows what it is without having to look it up. You say "charlatan" and the average person knows exactly what you're trying to evoke by using the word. So it may not be something you see all the time, but infrequency doesn't put it outside of the general English vernacular.
(And yes, I know, useless debate ... I just like talking about languages.)