BruceVC

Trust me on this one Amentep, this is a day 1 KS pledge for sure. I will take full responsibility if this game isn't as entertaining as I know it will be

Other than the fact of this being common knowledge for a multitutde of years? Consider Jeff Gerstmann. Fired from his editorial position at Gamespot in late 2007 because he gave a low rating to Kane & Lynch: Dead Men while Eidos, publisher of said game, was heavily advertising said game on Gamespot. This was solely rumor for many years because Gerstmann was legally banned from speaking about it due to a non-disparagement agreement but that was nullified in 2012, when Gerstmann came out and confirmed that this was indeed the reason he was fired. There's many more examples, but that is the most egregious one I can think of right now. However, the fact that game review websites and even magazines when they were still relevant would give favorable scores to publishers paying for advertisement has been common knowledge for well over two decades and is the reason why games journalism was regarded as a joke since far before #GamerGate. You can even tell historically simply from looking at these threads, the most often used argument against #GamerGate so far has been "games journalism was always worthless, why do you care now?" I have never denied that there are a incidents of irregular conduct by some gaming websites or some isolated articles that subjectively attacked gamers ( like the Leigh Alexander article ) Most gaming websites stay open through marketing revenues that the publishers are responsible for. Considering the fact that gaming websites don't actually sell product this is perfectly normal and to be expected. Gaming websites also have costs that somehow have to be paid for. We cannot have an issue with the fact that there is relationship between gaming websites and publisher. I am very interested in how you expect, for example, a website like Gamasutra to pay for its costs without getting money through marketing budgets from various publishers? I have a major issue with the fact that somehow GG is going to change this business model or the suggestion that this now means that this relationship is corrupt or unethical. Yes there will be some examples of a publisher paying for a good score but I would need to see data that suggests this is wide spread. And yes I know you cannot produce this data so how can anyone make this statement if it is not fact ? So this is a subjective accusation Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article? That article and the industry wide reaction to this entire thing is why GG keeps going. The fact that the customers were demonized in linked articles showed that not only was there something going on behind the scenes to control the narrative, Most of the major news websites within the industry were involved in adjusting that narrative. And these aren't people who are just "reviewing" games anymore. The longer and more polarizing this is, the more that you end up examining a review and finding that the review is more about how the reviewer's social values were offended by the portrayal of women. And the sad part is, until gaming becomes TRUELY mainstream, with GTA being discussed on morning talk shows at the same level as Transformers or Avengers, and the reviews begin to move to a non-gaming centric platform, there won't be change because it's a self feeding system. The sad part of it is that Kotaku probably won't go under because it's parent company (Gawker media) owns several other sites. Those other sites do pretty well, although the car site doesn't have the reviewers saying "Don't drive this car because it's not a hybrid" or "I don't feel right about driving this car because it's ad had a woman in a bikini 'washing' it". Kotaku, Polygon, et al don't just want to tell us their impressions of the game, they want to tell us how we feel about the game and how we should be OUTRAGED that Yennifer and Tris in Witcher 3 happen to have their breasts pop out during the course of the game. The thing is, even if we don't use the reviews to buy the game, it's a good way to get a feel for the game's general quality, AND it also pays the bills for the developers to have that higher score. Last I'd heard, a lot of bonuses etc on games moving units were tied not just to those units being moved, but also to the metacritic score of the game itself. This means that a reviewer who whines about "But it has titties in it! BAD GAME!" and gets pandered to, will ultimately put a paycheck in the pocket of the guy who made the game. At the same time, these news sites don't just run reviews, they also do previews and are part of the overall hype machine for various products. So a smaller developer with a smaller publisher backing them probably wouldn't move nearly as many units on their own with their own marketing over having one of these companies hyping up how awesome it's going to be to be a Hacker in Chicago or an Assassin in France... Or a Rainbow Operative... (sorry, Ubi's been disappointing me lately). And unlike movies, you don't have a press junket for your stars, or a series of previews that play before a competitors product to ensure that people know your game even exists. If the industry and the GameJournoPro's mailing list don't like you, you could hit shelves and have the employees of your gamestop/bestbuy/whatever wondering wtf it is that they're selling now. Calax I appreciate the way you can have this debate without feeling the need to insult me. You also spend time making your points in way that make sense, you seem to leave the emotion and hyperbole out of it and make your perspective based on your understanding of the reality Anyway I will comment on this later, I am at a customer at the moment so I don't have sufficient time now

Firstly there were 12 "gamers are dead" articles. That's a dozen not "a few". Those were the second major thing what made GamerGate. The feedback from those articles was so negative even SJWs understood it is bad idea to attack your core demographic and they have tried to downplay those articles ever since, like, "there weren't that many of them", "they weren't that bad", and "you're simply misunderstanding what they meant". The attack on gamers still continues. It isn't a daily occurence, but it is weekly. They have simply changed from directly attacking gamers to attacking games instead. Here's a good example. Frankly, after all this time and people repeatedly telling what GamerGate is about if it still doesn't make sense to you, I think it is a good sign that GamerGate is on a right track. I think the Polygon article was misplaced, Arthur Gies is clearly more interested in a SJ soapbox than reviewing Witcher 3 on the merits of the game But as you acknowledge this is an attack on the game itself and not an attack on gamers so how does this support the narrative that gaming journalists demonize gamers? The two are not related. Also there will always be gaming journalists who review games from the lens of SJ. Sometimes its valid and sometimes its not Can you guys not see that this does not mean that all gaming journalists review games this way which is biased and unhelpful. For example Kotaku ( another enemy of GG)also had a review of Witcher 3 http://kotaku.com/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-the-kotaku-review-1703766283 How did you find it? So once again how does Arthur Gies views support the GG message that " gaming journalists demonize and insult gamers" You need to ask yourselves this because this is something most of you have convinced yourselves is a valid campaign for GG?

Other than the fact of this being common knowledge for a multitutde of years? Consider Jeff Gerstmann. Fired from his editorial position at Gamespot in late 2007 because he gave a low rating to Kane & Lynch: Dead Men while Eidos, publisher of said game, was heavily advertising said game on Gamespot. This was solely rumor for many years because Gerstmann was legally banned from speaking about it due to a non-disparagement agreement but that was nullified in 2012, when Gerstmann came out and confirmed that this was indeed the reason he was fired. There's many more examples, but that is the most egregious one I can think of right now. However, the fact that game review websites and even magazines when they were still relevant would give favorable scores to publishers paying for advertisement has been common knowledge for well over two decades and is the reason why games journalism was regarded as a joke since far before #GamerGate. You can even tell historically simply from looking at these threads, the most often used argument against #GamerGate so far has been "games journalism was always worthless, why do you care now?" I have never denied that there are a incidents of irregular conduct by some gaming websites or some isolated articles that subjectively attacked gamers ( like the Leigh Alexander article ) Most gaming websites stay open through marketing revenues that the publishers are responsible for. Considering the fact that gaming websites don't actually sell product this is perfectly normal and to be expected. Gaming websites also have costs that somehow have to be paid for. We cannot have an issue with the fact that there is relationship between gaming websites and publisher. I am very interested in how you expect, for example, a website like Gamasutra to pay for its costs without getting money through marketing budgets from various publishers? I have a major issue with the fact that somehow GG is going to change this business model or the suggestion that this now means that this relationship is corrupt or unethical. Yes there will be some examples of a publisher paying for a good score but I would need to see data that suggests this is wide spread. And yes I know you cannot produce this data so how can anyone make this statement if it is not fact ? So this is a subjective accusation Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article? So I try to leave the emotion out of this debate when I assess the validity of the GG movement. We are talking about a business model that won't change, unless you can give me solid suggestions on how gaming websites generate revenue, and a few articles that are rare that have "insulted " gamers Also as KP mentioned from his own personal experience I doubt anyone on this forum actually uses the reviews on gaming websites as a benchmark to determine if a game is worthwhile or not. We all use other methods. So now we have a situation where none of us even look at the reviews on gaming websites and this existed long before GG ...yet this seems to be a core foundation of GG..." we object to the fact that reviews are biased and are influenced by publishers " So what is the real purpose and objective of GG? It still doesn't make logical sense to me

Good thinking, yeah that should be effective

Lexx take Monte up on his offer, he is very knowledgeable on writing and he will add value to the overall Mod

He is probably referring to the original Supermen movies and Star Wars?

This is a very interesting post, I learnt something from it

We spent the day at a gourmet Farmers Market, as to be expected it had many delicious food stalls and we gouged ourselves. Also they have a Jam Jar stall which means you can drink awesome ****tails while listening to live music...oh they also have a band that's really good http://www.taste.com.au/recipes/32053/jam+jar+****tails

Well as much as we all really appreciate your insight into this matter you are misunderstanding something fundamental about this debate GG is just the symbol...consider it a metaphorical battleground , this is about the perception and resistance to SJ changes from certain people. Its an unnecessary battle I keep telling my debating foes. Most of the outrage is exaggerated and unnecessary and is more about the fact people are tired of being told what is acceptable in this game or what is offensive Volo is intransigent. He refuses to even attempt to have a rational debate ...but he is entertaining See... this is what gets me. I've always viewed "GamerGate" as being more about the fact that the Journalists in the industry have a tendency to give passes or nitpicks based on how much money the publishing company gave to their particular reviewing website. It was something that was broiling in the industry for a while before a particular event... specifically the fact that Zoe Quinn turned out to have been sleeping with at least one of the guys who gave her game a lot of publicity even though it (by accounts I've read) was A) claiming to donate to charity and B) wasn't actually that good. However, the above has ended up being clouded because the journalistic media doesn't want to lose it's major money pits, so instead of addressing concerns that they aren't being fair to games based on where their **** goes or how much money comes in, they began a full on offensive against their customer base declaring that to care about Quinns personal history and dirty laundry (which is what brought up the revelation of the journalistic fraternization), means that we're sexist **** who are attacking women in the industry and the portrayal within games in general. And it didn't help that Sarkeesian, controversial from the get go, was coming out with a series of badly researched propaganda pieces on the subject. Add in four doses of 3rd wave femenism, mellenial assumption of inherent "The world owes me ****" and general Trolling and you have a giant snowball of bad behavior and extremism being used to characterize entire groups of people on the internet rather than actual disucssion about these two massive incredibly different issues. On one hand you have the issue of games media being incredibly incestuous and to tightly bound to the industry it's supposed to criticize because of targeted advertising and the genre in and of itself slowly maturing. On the other hand you've got the issue of sexism in the industry, being used as a microcosm for sexism at large. Those who have the websites, the views, and the clout in the industry want the first issue to be kept away from the public discussion, so they start tackling the second head on, and in as controversial a way possible in order to create the looming cloud of controversy and fighting amongst people who might agree on the first issue. This also summons those women who feel that the world owes them something because they have breasts and a vagina and, as such, the world needs to bend itself into the shape they personally prefer. we've also seen the media manage to link the two issues to a stupid degree, so that whenever the first is brought up immediately the second appears like the Loch Ness Monster demanding tree fitty. On the journalistic front, due to the nature of the enforced discussion, you won't see a change until a publisher (Or the ESA) comes out against the specialized journalism that has become Gaming. The only way for the reviews to be disconnected from the money is for the reviews themselves to become heavily mainstream. Where every paper/entertainment site has a string of reviews by somebody on staff who reviews games while other products are being sold in that medium. But for that to happen we have to cause a cultural shift to see video games not as a "Child's toy" but rather as an adult entertainment venue (not that way, get your mind out of the gutter). For that latter act to occur then you have to see games grow up a bit about how they reflect the world around them. Which does tie into the sexist aspect, BUT I don't think that you have to totally eliminate sexism. After all, for every thought provoking movie about trashbags in the wind (American Beauty) there's also a sexist jingoist romp that storms through theaters (Transformers1/2/3/4/1000). We should still have our Duke Nukem's and Saint's Rows, but we just need our Portal's and our Tomb Raiders to balance it out. The Zoe Quinn incident was just a catalyst, a section of gamers has been getting steadily more and more annoyed by what they perceive as interference in gaming from " SJW". So now GG really represents this frustration. People are now making a stand , its misplaced and unnecessary but people need to do what they want But going back to your post thanks for sharing your perspective, most people wont do that ( and Noneks grandstanding doesn't count ) You seem to believe that the review score of games is based on how much money a gaming website receives from the publisher or developer? This is a serious accusation that implies the entire system of gaming reviews is corrupt and unethical? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I'm asking you this because I find whenever I have these debates with people part of there argument is based on an assumption or something they can't substantiate ...and if you can at least recognize part of your premise may not be true should that not change your overall view ?

And yet you took time out of your life to whine about it on a videogame forum. That's not the amazing part. The amazing part is that his feelings on any given subject apparently exist in a state of quantum entanglement with Volourn's and their strength on any given subject is directly inverted with his. Yeah judging a posts relevance based on Volo's view does seem strange and will lead to frustration

Well as much as we all really appreciate your insight into this matter you are misunderstanding something fundamental about this debate GG is just the symbol...consider it a metaphorical battleground , this is about the perception and resistance to SJ changes from certain people. Its an unnecessary battle I keep telling my debating foes. Most of the outrage is exaggerated and unnecessary and is more about the fact people are tired of being told what is acceptable in this game or what is offensive Volo is intransigent. He refuses to even attempt to have a rational debate ...but he is entertaining

You're dodging the question. Would you accept an Alien movie with Ripley assigned to a lesser role and played by a much weaker actress than the main male lead? Hardy is nowhere near the same weight class as Theron. How am I dodging the question? I said yes, I would have no issue with a strong male lead in an Alien film. I will judge it by its individual merit. You can already argue that the guy that played the android was a much stronger lead than the female in the newest Alien movie. Although, once again, Charlize Theron was there dominating. (if only she knew how to run sideways!) The crazy thing is Sigourney Weaver can still play a kick butt character, while Mel Gibson is pretty much past that. It's all about the strength of the actor, I don't care what their gender is. Why do you guys make such a big deal of it? Except, once again, you're dodging the question. Prometheus was not an Alien movie. It was an Alternate Universe take on the xenomorphs. There was no Ellen Ripley. So, would you accept an Alien movie in which the script has a perfectly healthy Ellen Ripley relegated to the side stage but present for the majority of the movie and played by a much weaker actress than the actor playing the lead as a proper Alien movie? In case it's unclear, I'd call bull**** on that one too, and be much more upset about it since the Alien movies resonate a lot more with me than the MM movies. Are you sure you are not over analyzing this whole thing because you have become very defensive and unnecessarily sensitive to any changes to things in your life that you are familiar with because of a few changes that SJW really do implement? So you see SJ negative influence everywhere? There are a few people on this forum who already see things like this so it wouldn't be absurd if you having this misperception ?

Not only Muslim, but Christians and anything that can be called religion. That is the basis of DA lore God is bad, He created the world, some dudes get into His city, He is teribly mad, cursing them all, and they turn into ugly monsters that rape women and kill everyone spreading the Blight. God don't care anymore about the world and leave, it is just religious people still want to call Him back to return. No God don't care, He let demons do as they wish and the Blight and everything else to destroy the world. He even send his children the Spirit of Justice to possess a man to blow up His own church. Later a guy/girl have some magic thing on his/her hand, can close the gate to hell, everyone believe he/she is a prophet, a messiah, turn out to be not, he/she just accidntally getting that thing while accidentally getting involved in something he/she shouldn't. So what people believe is false. Religion is just something people want to believe in. And so Mythal, the God of the Elves, turn out to be not a God at all, just a crazy old woman who get possessed by demon. But Elves believe in a God name d Mythal. So what Elves believe in is false and wrong. Religion is just made up of things through time and people believe in. Templars oppressing Mages by what they believe in, their religion say so or it is what they believe about their religion And Qunari...well... And so LGBT stuff... And....and....and...conclusion is religion is bad. I think its good sometimes to get a different perspective about what we believe. So even if what you are saying is true about the motives of the creation of DA, which I doubt, its not like its going to change your faith so why does it bother you if they push a certain agenda? Also you do realize that there are many people who do think religion causes more harm than good? So its not like this is a unheard of perspective ?

Its still funny Doesn't matter. it's wrong. Propagating lies especially under the veil of truth should never be something that you promote in any way shape or form. Wow..okay lets get pedantic I didn't know it was false when I made the post, I now know so I won't propagate it but I still find it funny. Is that statement acceptable ? It's pretty easy to figure out it's false if you know anything about MacArthur during the Post WW2 Japan years, or the simple usage of words then as compared to now. Calax you do realize not everyone knows the story of MacArthur or his personality ? And even less people would know the difference between a fake telegram it was said he created and a real one ? So I'm not sure what your point is ?

LMAO @ at your butthurt tears that a game you don't like might be good. Yeah Volo probably loved the game but because he has been criticizing it for ages now he has to pretend its not good....sorry Volo but you created the situation for yourself

I am going to guess, and its probably wrong, and say you don't like the Dragon Age series?

Considering those were the major points he was making regarding female characters in AC, on what points did you actually agree with him? I don't think any company should be insincere in its marketing or implementation around things like gender equality. But in this case I believe Ubisoft is being sincere and he doesn't

Oh yes I noticed your sig, well played I am surprised more people aren't emulating my wise words and using them in sigs

Sounds good, the asparagus will cook very quick..2-3 minutes I reckon ?

This is the part where I don't agree with the article. He can't say that this was malicious marketing because why wouldn't Ubisoft let people know, this is big news and also what is wrong with them announcing a female character after all the criticism they have received. I don't really care why they are announcing it the point being there is a female playable character, that is what people have been expecting Also what is wrong with the idea of marketing? When did the concept of making your company look progressive become a bad thing? Its only an issue if the marketing is based on a false image and in this case its not because there is a female character, so whats the issue ?

So... They're harassing a game company for posting that they've made a female playable character in this particular game after that particular game series had been yelled at for NOT having those characters before. Sucks to be Ubisoft. No that's not the criticism, I suggest you read the article again to understand the point He is objecting to the fact Ubisoft is using a playable female character as part of the marketing campaign...its like saying " hey everybody ...look we have a female character " The inclusion a of female character should be more natural to make it sincere To quote from the article "'Its s an affectation. If you're using women characters so nakedly as marketing material, I can't possibly believe that you actually care about them " He makes some points I agree with and some I don't

Its still funny Doesn't matter. it's wrong. Propagating lies especially under the veil of truth should never be something that you promote in any way shape or form. Wow..okay lets get pedantic I didn't know it was false when I made the post, I now know so I won't propagate it but I still find it funny. Is that statement acceptable ?

Okay it is looking better, I tell you what. If people on this thread who backed the original game also commit to this KS then I will also pledge additional funds. Nothing hectic, $25 or so