Nonek

Just returned from the Lakes and a self imposed media blackout, may I be so humble as to recommend this to all holidaying forum goers, quiet contemplation, good conversation, an interesting collection of reading matter, fine vittles, and a daily wander lonely as a cloud over simply breathtaking scenery. It was the very definition of relaxation and the lack of all electronic communications devices certainly added to that, one forgets how demanding and shackling these things are.

Haven't we moderates been arguing for more impartial criticism from the beginning? With the principles of journalistic integrity upheld, games judged impartially by critics who have no personal connection to the industry, who maintain only associates and acquaintances in the industry not friends, who will not accept cash gifts, prizes or awards from the industry, who will not act as pr for publishers hype, who most certainly will not appear in developers games, who will not have sexual relations with developers without recusing themselves from any matter pertaining to them, who will declare any friendships or potential conflicts of interest as a matter of course, who will try and suppress any bias and maintain objectivity at all times. Ideally we would also have an independent body to oversee this and levy financial fines and worse against anybody whom flaunts these very basic guidelines, that should come naturally to anybody with a journalism degree. Anybody interested in integrity should be asking for the same, instead of thinking that they are free to pick and choose what ethics they adhere to. Until some semblance of this is achieved, I will continue to argue that games journalism is unfit for purpose.

I don't really care what either group of hate mongers want the word to mean, however I will not stand idly by when I am accused of things I have not done or supported. Especially not from the corrupt and unethical, one should not countenance their bullying and demonisation, in my opinion.

First off, the bolded. This statement is untrue. Both Mandarin and Spanish are spoken by more people than English. Your perspective is, however, consistent with eurocentricism and ideology that the subset of gamers that these articles refers to. Why do we need more black people in our games? Ugh who cares about LGBT in games? I just want to play games! God damn SJW are ruining gaming!!! As though gaming is some pure thing that should be sheltered from outside influences and untainted by those that just don't understand what it means to be a true gamer! God forbid some article points out that older women now outnumber teenage boys. In fact, lets make sure we point grill them on "what types of games" because if they don't fit a particular idea (which is a moving set of goalposts depending on who you ask) then we can dismiss this and speak out against articles that state this as being bogus for... reasons. I question the intentions of anybody who lectures people on the proper use of words while in the immediately not following their own standards. The same things you bitch about gaming journalism about you exempt yourself from. Gaming Journalism is RIFE (click baiting, link chaining, industry sponsored award shows, etc.) with bad things and I don't, in general, care too much for it. You're absolutely correct in your other paragraph that there's dozens upon dozens of huge issues with gaming journalism. But when someone like Dan Golding states the following: ------------- When, over the last decade, the playing of videogames moved beyond the niche, the gamer identity remained fairly uniformly stagnant and immobile. Gamer identity was simply not fluid enough to apply to a broad spectrum of people. It could not meaningfully contain, for example, Candy Crush players, Proteus players, and Call of Duty players simultaneously. When videogames changed, the gamer identity did not stretch, and so it has been broken. ------------- then you're just being obstinate about the usage of the term gamers. Don't claim to be moderate in this issue. You dislike gaming journalism and you're insistent on this because in your views you want as much as possible against them so much so that you're splitting hairs over the usage of the term because failing to do so would mean conceding a talking point against gaming journalism. For all the ills of gaming journalism, them pointing out that the term "gamer" applies to so much more people than those that are so adamantly defensive about it is hardly an indictment against it compared to other things. But hey, like you, I have my own biases and since I've already been pretty indifferent towards the term being applied more liberally it's hardly a shock that I have less issues with them calling out the old, rigid gamer clique and illustrating that times are indeed changing. If someone were to, however, have a particular agenda against gaming journalism it doesn't surprise me that they'd opt on being wilfully obstinate towards the nuanced use of the term in this case because hey, you have a pile of stuff you want to build up against gaming journalism and the thought of taking something off that pile isn't something you're keen on doing. But that's not a moderate view. If you're going to rag on gaming journalism, I'd consider your argument to have more weight if it wasn't insisting that media telling people that the ownership of the term has evolved beyond what the old school insist it is. The subset of gamers that these articles refer to view the label as so sacred that they actively go on "hate speech" (since you used the term) campaigns to push out and discredit anyone that threatens to change the status quo. Depression Quest isn't a game. Anita isn't even a gamer. Allan you don't understand the gamer identity and the co-opting of our culture capital (yes, this has been said to me, as though I haven't been a gamer for 30 years that even competed in online leagues). The same group that shat all over Tim Schafer for "betraying" them because he simply said "I think everyone who makes games should watch this video from start to finish." I mean, he wasn't even talking to gamers (of any kind) when he said this - he was talking to the developers. But that's the issue the subset of gamers that these articles refer to. Anita is poisoning gaming through lies and all sorts of other scandalous terms. If Tim has now bought in... we have to mobilize and be even louder because otherwise true games won't be made anymore. Especially given that Anita's video basically comes across as "Stop being lazy and use different tropes." As though the subset of gamers that these articles refer to are actually encouraging game developers to be stagnant. 1. English is the largest language in the world, not the most used, it has the most words and is growing and thriving. The rest of your rant is pointless outrage. I am a gamer, one who plays games recreationally, there is no other definition as much as you wish there to be. Choose a different more apt term or expect the millions who play games recreationally to be upset when they are accused of things they are innocent of. 2. Yes I have a problem with game journalism in that it is unfit for purpose, this does not mean that I am not a moderate, it simply means that looking at the subject objectively they are not adhering to the basic codes of journalistic integrity. Once again the rest of your rant is pointless, try a little brevity next time, rather than the outraged word vomit. I have actively asked for more in depth, original and innovative fresh content in games for years in the face of a steady degeneration of content, features and scope, but I am only a gamer, one who plays games recreationally, and cannot influence developers. So equating me with the group that are currently being targeted for seperation and demonisation seems rather out of place, and there is no reason to do so. I am a gamer and have no group identity, culture or axe to grind except with poor practises that serve to misinform me or poor games that are not worth their price. As such a consumer I expect to be respected and not demonised along with millions of others for things I have not done. That is a reasonable aim I think. I also do not think that it is anyones right to talk down to me in a condescending manner, preach at me about their biased agenda and say that I am the problem in gaming when I simply buy games, have never once pirated and have supported a number of Kickstarters. I find such lecturing highly insultive and wonder at anyone whom takes part in it, and their arrogance to think that they have a right to do so. This is my personal opinion.

I think it's a bit far-fetched to say that they could have added these updates years later. In fact, they often update their articles minutes/hours after publishing them. Also it's not like the articles praised the games in any way. They're not reviews, they just inform you that these games exist and feature a strange idea or silly premise. I don't see the scandal here. @kirottu: That article was written months before they even had the affair. Again... all the facts are entirely made up and there really is no scandal. You won't come right with people on these forums who criticize the stance gaming journalists have taken around Zoe Quinn. They refuse to see reason or use logic. Most people are debating from a perspective of outrage because of the usage of the word "gamers". Despite the fact the word doesn't apply to all gamers they chose to ignore this and take it as a personal insult. I have tried and people just want to believe what they want, irrespective of the explanations given But good luck getting people to see the facts The word gamer applies to anybody who plays games recreationally this is a fact Bruce, even a child can understand this. I am not outraged, or lacking reason or logic and dislike my points being dismissed because you say that I wish to believe what I wish to believe. I see the facts, I have seen the corrupt nature of the gaming press for years, from major publications having their reporters appear in games and then giving those games near perfect scores, to thousands of preview pieces being blatant hype for games without any attempt at objectivity and criticism, and on to this latest debacle where the gaming press have tried to censor any evidence of their nepotism, corruption and flagrant lack of integrity. If you choose to not see any of this that is your perogative, but don't blame others for being awake and aware.

After the childrens six weeks off Mrs Nonek and I have decided to follow suit now that they're back at school, a quiet week in a rustic cottage in the Lakes awaits, with hopefully no calls from the mother in law. I still don't understand how I have one small handhold with everything I need while the wife is busy filling two large suitcases. Edit: Well done Mr Raithe and good luck Mr Parker.

Yes I did Bruce, and to me it was an apologist statement for the hate mongers, bought into their demonisation of gamers as the problem, and handwaved away game journalists and developers bearing any responsibility or having any basic journalistic integrity. Okay then I give up trying to convince you that you have an overly negative outlook on this whole matter. I'm not saying you are wrong in everything you say because I know there are extremist views on both sides and I do understand how you think you are being treated with contempt by gaming journalists. I don't agree with it but I understand that's how you feel But question, how is that people like me and many others don't see the negative description around the word " gamers" , we know it refers to certain gamers only? Why is it you feel its an attack on all gamers despite all the explanations given? Because there is only one definition of gamer Bruce, and that's what they mean, the millions of us whom play games recreationally. English is the largest language in the world, there are plenty of other words to choose. They have proved over many years that they have no respect for their audience, have no qualms about preaching at them like they are dumb children, forcing their own intellectually bankrupt and untruthful agendas on their readers, all while exercising no journalistic integrity, ethical behaviour or reasonable seperation from their source maater. They are unfit for purpose, my view is not negative but moderate and critical. When one practises journalism in politics one does not take money, prizes and awards from politicians, nor do you become their friends. You gain acquaintances and associates, whom you must report on and use, but not whom you act as a mouthpiece for. If this happens then you are facing a conflict of interest and must recuse yourselves. This is basic journalistic integrity, that these people do not obey nor see any need to. I question the intentions of anybody who handwaves this away and apologises for the hate speech they are now propogating against millions, if they choose to be blind towards any negative aspects of the movement they are serving as a mouthpiece for that is their priority, but to me this makes them mindless puppets parroting their masters dogma.

Do the monks of Poe use easten martial arts? I was personally hoping that they would use something like Pankration, the old Spartan form of hand to hand combat or other wrestling moves, rather than the usual Bruce Lee stuff.

Yes I did Bruce, and to me it was an apologist statement for the hate mongers, bought into their demonisation of gamers as the problem, and handwaved away game journalists and developers bearing any responsibility or having any basic journalistic integrity.

Oh I do apologise if I was not specific enough, but I was advocating no kill xp at all, just an xp reward when one has completed a quest to gain full knowledge of the type of creatures one is fighting. So all one would get from killing such creatures is an increasing number on a counter, so one feels that they are progressing.

As a moderate and a gamer (one who plays games recreationally, there is no other definition) I am fairly sure now that of the two sides: Those whom allegedly send death and rape threats, and those whom are trying to silence any dissenting voices to their lies, corruption and nepotism, while condemning millions of gamers as subhumans and in need of extermination, that the latter are more of a problem. Mainly because the former have done nothing, while the latter are complicit in censorship, corruption and nepotism on a massive scale. With their juvenile agendas, self righteous preaching, total lack of ethics or accountability, a total failure to see why they need ethical or moral guidelines, and yet a firm belief that they are doing what is right, they present an utterly unpleasant and disgusting movement that propogates hate, untruths and the worst kind of currently fashionable political correctness. Obviously some developers whom are in bed with them, and have garnered perfect scores for clearly degenerate products will support them, as they can expect more perfect ten out of ten "professional" reviews. That and they propogate the same blunt, clumsy stereotyping and preaching at the audience, that shows a basic lack of respect for ones customers. Once again as a moderate and a gamer I cannot turn a blind eye to such rampant corruption, nepotism, hate speech, and demonisation of me and millions of others whom are innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever. I especially resent this accusation coming from unethical, corrupt, bullying, censoring liars, whom are leeching off the industry we pay for, and yet see fit to criticise us. Henceforth I shall withold my custom from anybody whom has dealings with these hate mongers, and if any petition arises that asks for us millions of gamers to be shown some basic respect, have a journalistic industry that is ethical and fit for purpose and stands up for integrity, freedom of speech and expression (which these people obviously hate) then I shall sign it without hesitation.

There also remains creativity and innovation in even the largest most mainstream game, to add to that list I made earlier i'd add the latest Wolfenstein, which had some quite unique features and content, while in no way filtering itself or being affected by clumsy attempts at political correctness. Adding the censorship of unethical liars would hardly improve the AAA industry.

What they did not do, however, was actively curtailing the artistic integrity and vision of anyone, and given the fact that they have no power to do so in the current climate, we have no way of knowing what they would do if they had it. I feel justified in extrapolating from the example of a similarly geeky medium where the influence of SJWs (or whatever) is also rearing up its head and has no noticeable effect on what the affected medium is about. I think you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Maybe I am, and I have similarly no experience of modern pen and paper gaming systems, but by their own actions these people have proven themselves to be immoral, unethical and untrustworthy, so I think taking a stand against them is entirely logical, from my point of view. There are problems with gaming I admit, inclusivity is not one of them, stats now prove this, and Kickstarter is more of an answer to those problems than this little corrupt crusade. I do not see their mandate as being anything but harmful and restrictive, and they cannot be trusted at all, so I will not.

Diablo had randomized map design in order to facilitate replayability, Dear Esther had randomized storytelling in order to widen possible interpretations of the story. I think the two have very little in common. Well, without context, I imagine it might seem blunt and clumsy (and in the case of Pathfinder's gender change potion as opposed to belts of gender change being cursed items it does seem like engaging in childish one-upmanship with Wizards), but regardless of how it comes across (IMHO: D&D okay, Exalted okay but expected nothing less, Pathfinder kinda dumb), it's actually tangential to my point: regardless of having "politically correct" material, the core of these games hasn't changed. If this clique is indeed conspiring and ends up being able to dictate how video games must be done (an unlikely occurence, if you ask me), I can't imagine them having more influence on content than what is happening in tabletop RPGs now - and I personally think that having a trans or lesbian NPC in a game, or looting a gender-changing potion wouldn't detract from my fantasy adventuring. No Diablo had different story and quests for each playthrough, whether one met LacDanaan (if I remember the name correctly) for instance and learned various plot points or not was entirely randomised. I had lesbian characters (thanks to a bisexual university friend called Cory) and non human genders in my games thirty years ago, the corrupt game journalists forcing their mandate upon gaming is not needed and would in my opinion be harmful for subtelty of presentation, nuance, authenticity, realism or depth of setting. They have proven they wish to censor, constrain and shape according to their currently fashionable sensibilities, I can do nothing but oppose them, based upon their own actions and hate mongering.

Not particularly innovative in my view, and certainly not worth the massive trade off of removing almost every other feature. Why is there transexual material in D&D? One can be the gender one wishes to be, there is no point in having a transitory point when a low level spell can change ones gender in an instant, and a moderate level spell can do so permanently, as well as a myriad of items in the game. One could do this when AD&D was first introduced, this is nothing new. There have always been different races of humanity, species (their races) and a vast variety of difference and diversity in gameworlds, this is not a new thing again. This sounds like just blatant and clumsy pandering that personally i'd be insulted by, one can do all this in every edition, and it was not remarked upon as something new and innovative, it simply was accepted as sexuality and race should be. It has randomized bits of narration, making the experience different on subsequent playthroughs; this, paired with the unreliable narrator, the intentional vagueness of the situation and the clues the environment provides allows for a rather wide range of possible interpretations. I can respect the opinion of someone who doesn't seek that kind of experience (read: academic wankery) from their video games, but that doesn't make it any less innovative. Aaand there is no "transsexual material" in D&D. There is a paragraph in the chargen chapter on character gender acknowledging that your character may not fit into the male/female binary, mentioning androgynous/possibly hermaphroditic elves, exotic races that might reproduce asexually, or that they might be trans (5E isn't big on abundant magic items, so belts of gender change are not a resource available for anyone willing to fork out the cash). I'm not sure how you could take the existence of a single paragraph in a 400-ish pages long rulebook as blatant and clumsy pandering. Same with Pathfinder, there's about 2 or 3 pages' worth of material devoted to the matter in the entire gameline. My point about how the existence of said paragraph/few pages bears no relevance whatsoever to the core of the material still stands. A touch of randomisation in storytelling is hardly innovative, there was randomistaion in the first Diablo, and I actually managed to complete that unlike Dear Esther. If you like it that's fine but it's hardly innovative, more feature stripped and degenerative. The example you posted above sounded like blunt and clumsy pandering, I have nothing against diversity in race, species, gender or details, so long as it makes sense within the gameworld and is not passed off as something innovative, new and progressive when it was being done decades ago. They're frantically trying to backpeddle now, and state that when they said "gamer" they meant only that miniscule minority who were (allegedly) sending death and rape threats, but it was a basic misstep. They revealed their true contempt for the hobby and the players themselves, who are just normal people like everybody else. Like you say Mr Parker it is basically illogical hate mongering and demonisation, mainly to lionise themselves. Can you clarify who exactly is backpedalling? Right from the beginning the criticism was towards " gamers " who are resistance to change in the industry. The term " gamers" refers primarily to white, male gamers who resist inclusivity. Please provide links that indicate that when anyone said "gamer" they meant every single white male gamer. Please provide links that indicate contempt for every single gamer, as far as the various blogs and journalist articles are concerned they only talk about people who refuse to accept changes. You are putting words in peoples mouths and formulating your own conclusions about what gaming journalists are concerned about. Its disappointing that you have such a myopic view of these developments. You are only seeing it in a negative light The corrupt gaming press. All moderates and right minded people are resisting the change, constraint, censorship and preaching that these corrupt liars are trying to force upon the medium, as they have proven that they are guilty of far too many moral and ethical abuses to be trusted with even being game journalists. I am using their own words and actions against them Bruce, like when you tried to belittle people by portraying them as children, such toxic and inflammatory demonisation of the supposed opposition (whom are in reality moderates seeking discussion) is a hallmark of this campaign. Whether it is Anita Sarkeesian lying about game content, Zoe Quinn condemning those pointing out her unethical behaviour or Leigh Alexander portraying gamers as nerds and menchildren. It is blatant hate mongering, disgusting and wholly negative. If they wish to use a term that means anybody who plays games recreationally then they must accept that those who do will be outraged when they are accused of various infractions they have never commited, especially when it is a corrupt, hateful, and immoral minority whom are doing so. Edit: I have absolutely no idea what happened with these quotes, I do apologise the editor seems to have had a tizzy. Ah that's better.

They're frantically trying to backpeddle now, and state that when they said "gamer" they meant only that miniscule minority who were (allegedly) sending death and rape threats, but it was a basic misstep. They revealed their true contempt for the hobby and the players themselves, who are just normal people like everybody else. Like you say Mr Parker it is basically illogical hate mongering and demonisation, mainly to lionise themselves.

You see this is a perfect example a young man, so self righteous and fixated on his role as a mouthpiece that he attacks moderates who are discussing the matter reasonably, and tries to belittle them as children. I wish I was a child, but having seen half a century I certainly cannot say that I am. The fact that ten articles are published on the same day, on the same matter and by the same demographic as have been caught up in this scandal of corruption, nepotism, lack of objectivity and impartiality, basic failings of integrity and ethics, and hate mongering, is fairly clear evidence that this is an attack against people who play games recreationally and wish to continue doing so. Not particularly innovative in my view, and certainly not worth the massive trade off of removing almost every other feature. Why is there transexual material in D&D? One can be the gender one wishes to be, there is no point in having a transitory point when a low level spell can change ones gender in an instant, and a moderate level spell can do so permanently, as well as a myriad of items in the game. One could do this when AD&D was first introduced, this is nothing new. There have always been different races of humanity, species (their races) and a vast variety of difference and diversity in gameworlds, this is not a new thing again. This sounds like just blatant and clumsy pandering that personally i'd be insulted by, one can do all this in every edition, and it was not remarked upon as something new and innovative, it simply was accepted as sexuality and race should be. *** At the end of the day as a free thinking moderate (or subhuman in game journalist parlance) I am not willing to stand aside for these corrupt and self interested untalented and unethical people, they are fanatics, equally as comfortable with hate speech and demeaning their audience as the opposition whom (allegedly) send death and rape threats. They are seeking to diminish the industry with their toxic opinions and agendas, and force blunt, clumsy and preachy sermonising into every game. They are a force of censorship and constraint, and should be opposed for that reason alone. Gaming is already massively inclusive, anybody can and does play, to say any different is a simple lie. Stats prove this. Gamers (those who play games recreationally) are on the whole not bad people, they are witty, thoughtful and moral. They shouldn't stand for this continued assault on them, their likening to those who (allegedly) send death and rape threats or being portrayed as immoral, corrupt, sexist, violent or racist. They are being accused of such things by those who are liars, corrupt, guilty of nepotism, lack integrity, lack ethics and are a perfect example of what they are supposedly preaching against. This is simple ugly hate mongering by the unethical.

C'mon, dude, Dear Esther was way more innovative than any of the more commercial games you mentioned. Also, "blatant preaching and obvious examples" it contained not. (It was also kind of a horrible game, but creative bankruptcy and enforced PCness are not accusations that could be levied against it.) I'm sorry but i'm not aware that walking around and solving basic puzzles is particularly innovative, I was doing that in games twenty plus years ago. With the games I listed you get much more, this is simply an objective fact. If games followed Dear Esthers path we would be removing what little content is left in them. I agree that Dear Esther did not suffer from political correctness, but it would almost certainly have been forced to if Silverstring media and their consultants were mandating content. That is their avowed aim, to push their currently fashionable agenda.

I dont want to sound paranoid, but I've heard guys like Richard Garriot and Chris Avellone complaining that there are too many white people in their games and that they should be more inclusive yada yada yada. I completely disagree but it's not that bad if they want to do that of their on volition, what bothers me in when devs and artists are harrassed, pressured and strong armed into doing this things things by SJW, feminists and the nutjobs at Gaming Media, like what happened with Divinity Original Sin What Sven ought to have done there is simply ask the backers with a public poll, and let democracy decide, he'd have still faced attack from these fanatics but he would be in the right. Meh, it's not like there's a huge emphasis on artistic expression in gaming right now. Personally, I see no difference between freedom of artistic expression being curtailed in the name of profit by risk-averse publishers and what you propose these people are getting up to. I disagree, yes there are many creatively bankrupt publishers twisting the arms of developers out there, but there are advances made and innovations tried with even the most mundane of games. The surprising choice and consequence of Black Ops 2, the startlingly original and yet simple use of co-op madness in Dead Space 3, the pleasing difficulty and narrative subtlety of the Souls series, the branching narrative of the Witcher 2 etcetera. If controlled by these untalented and unimaginative people, who want blatant preaching and obvious examples in every game, as well as seemingly spitting upon any form of challenge or fun, we would be mostly getting non games. Graphical picture books like Dear Esther and Gone Home. I would be utterly against that personally, these are not to my liking at all, i'm too old to be preached at by wet behind the ears children. Edit: Also their central premise is simply wrong, sexism, racism and violence in games does not cause copycat behaviour in the real world, mankind can and does easily tell reality from the simulated, it's is one of our most basic senses. There is no causal link between such things and there never will be, violence, racism and sexism fall steadily year after year.

Personally I find Mr Salvatore's prose to be quite torturous, i'm afraid that free is not quite good enough, i'd have to be paid to listen to or read his works.

Now let's just hope that your favorite Game Dev Studio (like Obsidian or InXile) is not beign adviced by the lunatics at Silverstring media or someone like them. I doubt old industry veterans like Mr Urquhart or Fargo would be taken in by these frauds, it would more likely be a younger less sceptical demographic who fall for such chicanery.

It does make sense that these, lets face it, untalented and unscrupulous people would try and leech onto one of the largest, growing industries in the modern world. In print media, television and film they'd be eaten up and spat out by the professionals, who maintain somewhat of a stranglehold. However with the relative newness of this medium, and the lack of representation, responsibility and oversight that gamers and developers have, it must seem like an open biscuit jar.

Yes the case does seem to be forming that this is their endgoal Messr's Chaz and Fighter, especially with their current vocation as Game Journalists being so undermined and devalued at the moment, and this may have been their goal for some time. I'm just naturally sceptical when it comes to conspiracy theories however. Certainly it does not herald a bright future if this succeeds, with corrupt, unethical, liars paid to enforce a code of conduct upon artistic expression, Mary Whitehouse obviously springs to mind, though these people are far less palatable or moral.

So does anybody else think that these zealots are trying to enforce a politically correct creative checklist for games, with jobs built in for "consultants" (i.e. themselves) and their agendas, in other words to try and censor and control any kind of artistic output according to their own currently fashionable sensibilities?