Drama in the indy gaming biz ?

[Orogun01]

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9695-Quit-Using-The-Term-Social-Justice-Warriors\

 

Guys I strongly recommend you watch this video. I normally don't support Jim Sterling but he articulates the situation nicely and makes some excellent points

 

I also agree with him when he says certain  people label anyone who has a different opinion than them a SJW. This is often  an exaggeration of someone's view and I see it sometimes on these forums. In other words if I don't condemn Anita and Zoe " I must be a SJW"

 

Anyway watch the video and tell me what you think

 

Guys does no one have a comment about this video?

 

Ok fine, I don't like Jim Sterling. Is not his arguments, I just don't like him and he tends to have problem voicing his stance on internet medium since he leans towards short grandiose statements that can only be interpreted as support or condemnation.

It may be that people just don't like him or his persona. 

[Oerwinde]

 

when a company of the size of Ubisoft doesn't have a female protagonist this is obviously a problem for a large part  of the fanbase

 

 

The way the Assassin's Creed universe works though, you can't have multiple protaganists unless you do a story that spans generations. I wouldn't mind playing a female assassin, but with how reliant the games are on the scripted sequences and such for much of the story, they would essentially have to do two entire sets of sequences for the game in order to give you a choice. The games aren't like Mass Effect where you can just swap male/female characters, its in a historical setting and attitudes towards a male and female character would be entirely different in that setting, and I don't believe that 50% of the Assassin's Creed audience is female, so looking at investment vs return, it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to do twice the work with no expectation of twice the reward

[aluminiumtrioxid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFSYAn6pPFg

 

Wow, that was dumb.

[BruceVC]

 

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9695-Quit-Using-The-Term-Social-Justice-Warriors\

 

Guys I strongly recommend you watch this video. I normally don't support Jim Sterling but he articulates the situation nicely and makes some excellent points

 

I also agree with him when he says certain  people label anyone who has a different opinion than them a SJW. This is often  an exaggeration of someone's view and I see it sometimes on these forums. In other words if I don't condemn Anita and Zoe " I must be a SJW"

 

Anyway watch the video and tell me what you think

 

Guys does no one have a comment about this video?

 

Ok fine, I don't like Jim Sterling. Is not his arguments, I just don't like him and he tends to have problem voicing his stance on internet medium since he leans towards short grandiose statements that can only be interpreted as support or condemnation.

It may be that people just don't like him or his persona. 

 

 

Yeah I hear you, I just think in this case he makes some good points. But it can be hard to distinguish the person from the point, especially if you have bad opinion about someone

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

The way the Assassin's Creed universe works though, you can't have multiple protaganists unless you do a story that spans generations. I wouldn't mind playing a female assassin, but with how reliant the games are on the scripted sequences and such for much of the story, they would essentially have to do two entire sets of sequences for the game in order to give you a choice. The games aren't like Mass Effect where you can just swap male/female characters, its in a historical setting and attitudes towards a male and female character would be entirely different in that setting, and I don't believe that 50% of the Assassin's Creed audience is female, so looking at investment vs return, it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to do twice the work with no expectation of twice the reward

 

 

They already did that in Liberation, though, didn't they?

[Orogun01]

 

Fussy indeed; when you say positive: what's the criteria?

 

 

Competent, independent, heroic(-ish, Female Han Solo would be okay). Bonus points if non-sexualized, but not an absolute requirement.

 

1-Katniss from the Hunger Games

2- Hermione from Harry Potter

3- River Song from Dr. Who

4- Veronica from FalloutNV

5-Daenery from Game of Thrones

6-Tris from Divergent

7-Watson from Elementary

8-Root from Person of Interest

9-Sam from Person of Interest

10-Commander Shepard from Mass Effect

 

Do you want me keep going by format or are you going start complaining now?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Fussy indeed; when you say positive: what's the criteria?

 

 

Competent, independent, heroic(-ish, Female Han Solo would be okay). Bonus points if non-sexualized, but not an absolute requirement.

 

1-Katniss from the Hunger Games

2- Hermione from Harry Potter

3- River Song from Dr. Who

4- Veronica from FalloutNV

5-Daenery from Game of Thrones

6-Tris from Divergent

7-Watson from Elementary

8-Root from Person of Interest

9-Sam from Person of Interest

10-Commander Shepard from Mass Effect

 

Do you want me keep going by format or are you going start complaining now?

 

 

Wow, you've lost me at River Song aka Girl Whose Entire Existence Revolves Around A Man. (Daenerys also suddenly becomes irrational and incompetent in book 5, Commander Shepard's gender is irrelevant to who s/he is, and I'm unfamiliar with everyone else on the list except Hermione who's indeed a cool character. [My feminist friends like Elementary's Watson, though, so I guess that's 2/10.])

[Meshugger]

There hasn't been anything heroic, competent and or someone with any good values on the silver screen since the premiere of "The Dark Knight". Every single one, no matter gender, has been a brooding hyporite that revels in grim darkness.

 

I think that we are forgetting one aspect of this 'conflict': Namely who has better humor. Who can ridicule the other's points through clever satire? Who has the best jokes? Who uses irony to as a counter argument? That side is usually right about things.

[Bos_hybrid]

I don't like certain definitions and labels. For example I don't see why I can't I go to strip clubs but also care about gender equality. I don't see how they are related ?

 

 

I don't like being labeled with certain definitions and labels. But I'm quite happy to support the kill gamer campaign and do so to others. Keep being an SJW. (One rule for me and those with my viewpoint, another for others with a different viewpoint.)

 

[Azure79]

I hadn't heard about this, but from what little I've read so far the greatest tragedy seems to be the shutting down of the Fine Young Capitalist game jam event. I'm not sure what the opposing party found so offensive about the giving women with no programming experience an opportunity to express their ideas, while receiving 8% of the profits with the rest going to charity. 

 

It's hard to find sympathy for either side when ultimately, these are the actions that occur.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Azure79

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

 

Fussy indeed; when you say positive: what's the criteria?

 

 

Competent, independent, heroic(-ish, Female Han Solo would be okay). Bonus points if non-sexualized, but not an absolute requirement.

 

 

1-Katniss from the Hunger Games

2- Hermione from Harry Potter

3- River Song from Dr. Who

4- Veronica from FalloutNV

5-Daenery from Game of Thrones

6-Tris from Divergent

7-Watson from Elementary

8-Root from Person of Interest

9-Sam from Person of Interest

10-Commander Shepard from Mass Effect

 

Do you want me keep going by format or are you going start complaining now?

 

 

I'll add another 10 to Orogun's excellent list.

 

1-Kate Beckett from Castle

2-Anna from Frozen

3-Merida from Brave

4-Lagertha from Vikings

5-Bo from Lost Girl

6-Kiera Cameron from Continuum

7-Helen Magnus from Sanctuary

8-Becca Winstone from Missing

9-Audrey Parker from Haven

10-Veronica Mars from Veronica Mars

 

And I have about another 20 or so.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

The way the Assassin's Creed universe works though, you can't have multiple protaganists unless you do a story that spans generations. I wouldn't mind playing a female assassin, but with how reliant the games are on the scripted sequences and such for much of the story, they would essentially have to do two entire sets of sequences for the game in order to give you a choice. The games aren't like Mass Effect where you can just swap male/female characters, its in a historical setting and attitudes towards a male and female character would be entirely different in that setting, and I don't believe that 50% of the Assassin's Creed audience is female, so looking at investment vs return, it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to do twice the work with no expectation of twice the reward

 

 

They already did that in Liberation, though, didn't they?

 

You play as a female I believe, but you don't have the choice of playing a male or a female I don't think. I'm not sure, I haven't played it yet. Hopefully picking up that and Black Flag during the Steam Winter Sale.

[Elerond]

Two questions. Who the hell is that Sean R. Moorhead? And why his/her/their/its tweets have any actual merit (that make them some other than social media noise from person that just want to get a rise out of other people) in one way or another in what the scandal/conspiracy/what ever of the day currently is?

[Fighter]

No I don't flog myself. I often notice attractive women and even try to talk to them if they in a line at a supermarket. I also go to strip clubs and watch porn. But what does your comment about me noticing an attractive women have to do with the objectification of women in games?

 

Because the so called "objectification" is an integral part of the daily human experience and there is nothing special about the same in video games. Diversity of characters is another matter but nothing wrong with other characters just being there to create a specific atmosphere.

 

What is so damn surprising or malicious that a game made by men aimed primarily at men is filled with nameless (mostly male) enemies to fulfil your power fantasy and scantily clad babes for you to ogle?

 

I will say again no problem with people asking for wider representation and diversity of design. It's not like I don't want better games and more depth to storytelling and characterization. But policing which male fantasies are permitted and which are not is bull****.

[alanschu]

I was curious what you guys are up to regarding all this, and felt compelled enough to log in regarding this:

 

 

 

No, just no. This is just the newest defence by some people in the SWJ crowd. No one is against more games with more diversity. This whole thing is about journalistic integrity and how some indie devs are sometimes literally in bed with reporters. Since they can't defend the act itself this is what they are doing: Gamers are bad. Gamers are misogynist. Gamers are sexist. Gamers are against change.

 

I don't take any offense to an article such as Leigh Alexander's reference to "gamers" (and the quotes is significant) because I know she's not talking about me.  She's not talking about a lot of people that do play video games.

 

Plenty of people are against games with more diversity.  I've seen them on BioWare's boards.  I've seen them on this board.  I see them on Youtube.  I see them on twitter.

 

 

The issue here is, as Bruce points out, there's a very loud group that is very, very particular about the title of "Gamer."  I literally had an exchange today on Twitter with some asshat that got defensive because I commented that I didn't care if someone that loved Candy Crush or other casual games self-identified as a gamer, and in fact welcomed it.  What I got was some exceptionally narrow retort about how it waters down the term and is (his words) "I wouldn't buy a steak from someone who see's beef flavored noodles on the same level as prime rib."  For him, the application of the term "Gamer" bestows some level of cultural capital and he is adamantly against those that do not fit his particularly definition applying the term to themselves.

 

There's a group of people that are very, very resistant towards outside influences that it resembles the proto-fascism that existed in Munich 1918.  That is, if outsiders join the group and try to assimilate, their credibility is questioned ("Fake geek gamer girls").  If they come in with their own ideas, then they are alien and ruining the purity of gaming as it is.  Both cases rely on some mythical, idyllic concept of purity that I question ever actually existed.  But they are loud and can be militant.  I see it on BioWare's message boards all the time.  Heck, with some of the announcements we've made it's all about the "corruption of the SP only experience" and attacking anyone that expresses an enthusiasm or interest in the idea of DAI having multiplayer.  The very idea that not only are we deviating from What Gaming is All About™ but that other people have the incredulity to actually support this?  Oh my god the sanctity of SP gaming is being eroded and I need to call to arms my brethren to ensure that this doesn't happen!

 

 

I identify as a gamer.  I have no issues with anyone that games, regardless of what they play, identifying as a gamer.  I like casual games because I know that some of those casual gamers will end up playing games that I like.  And hey, when I'm waiting in a doctor's office it's nice to play something simple that I can stop at any time and not care.  There's a symbiosis here that I have no issues with.  I like gaming.  I like gamers.  I want more people to become gamers.  But, to me, it was pretty clear whom the media was referring to when they said "gamers" and the particular identity that an insular, don't come into my club group of individuals are.  I can't really estimate how many of these people there are... but in my own anecdotal interactions they do appear to be well represented in a lot of online discourse.  From videos that go off all about how "why can't we make games that heterosexuals like" (we can) and all sorts of other bizarre points of view that I frankly didn't glean from any of Anita's videos but other people are insistent that she is saying in them.  For me, someone like Anita comes across as a pretty tame critique of what I do (and I have literally worked on games she has called out).  Basically "Hey guys, you tend to use a rather narrow range of tropes a lot of the time, and those tropes are kind of sketchy towards women... how about we mix it up a bit?"  But that certainly isn't the impression a lot of other people get.  This isn't even touching on the people that tweet me (or just come right onto the forum) to tell us (and others) how we aren't interested in "just making fun games" anymore and are more interested in pushing a PC agenda or whatever.  And it happens all the time.

 

 

Like almost any topic, the extremists get over represented, and I see someone like Leigh pointing the gun at the "Gamers" who are extremist and insular.  The over representation they have IS bad for the image of gamers to the rest of the world.  So I can understand the articles as being an explicit distancing from those extremist through alienating dialogue and so forth.  The idea of stating to people "these people do not represent us."  Whether or not alienating is better than "taking back the term" is up for debate.  I lean more towards trying to be more proactive as a relative moderate to add my voice to those other moderates.  Though if non-extremists don't join me, I suppose it'll end up being futile.

 

 

As for this all being about corruption in games journalism and whatnot.  Honestly I'm skeptical.  There's plenty of ammunition against games journalism already out there, and the arguments that many people make are rooted in aspects that are completely irrelevant to gaming journalism and instead founded upon the idea of discrediting someone like Zoe or Anita in the hopes that the well will be poisoned and people will find them irrelevant and no longer listen.  Every time someone mentions that Zoe considers cheating to be rape, they are making an argument that is irrelevant towards game journalism.  They're making a personal attack on her character to undermine her character.  Zoe sounds like she could be a pretty awful person, but that is pretty irrelevant.  And I have no real issue with places like Reddit and the likes shutting down the discussion because (as I know by helping out on BioWare's forums) the idea that people would ONLY discuss the relevant bits and NOT start going into her personal stuff is nil.  Unfortunately for those that wanted to discuss the corruption, their reddit forums for discussing were undermined by those that just couldn't wait to stick it to Zoe.  And those existed.

 

The idea that Zoe is already polarizing among some, in particular 4chan, isn't new.  With the Wizardchan controversy the seeds of animosity were already sown.  All it took was an upset ex-boyfriend to deploy the narrative that they wanted to see, and they ran with it.  Confirmation bias is easy to manifest, and hardly unique to 4chan or anyone else really.  Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable thing and the idea of hearing things that already support our views is pretty powerful and reaffirming.  Factor in Anita, a figure that is already quite polarizing in the discussion (hi Chaz!), and you have a group of very outraged individuals that perceive two targets as not only painting gaming as some awful, misogynistic feeding zone (I do not get this impression, but c'est la vie) but that they appear to be profiting off of it as well.  Damn skippy you're going to get some irrationally hateful individuals coming up out of that mess.

 

 

As for her having sex with people.  I think that that goes back to the problematic idea that some people have which makes sex a currency.  So no, I don't consider it equivalent to giving someone like Grayson actual funds.  People focus too much on the sex aspect and I agree with the notion that it's irrelevant and a complete non-sequitur.  Unless your goal is to shame and discredit.  But that's my 2 pennies on the subject and I'll return from whence I came!  It's late so I probably didn't make any sense anyway!

 

 

 

EDIT: I have no issues with Jim Sterling either, and he is frequently taking the company I work for to gears as well.  I don't really consider him an extreme SJW, and agree with him that the term is overused (same with MRA as a pejorative).  That said, in response to his criticism I don't threaten him or harass him online either!

Edited September 3, 2014 by alanschu

[Fighter]

I don't take any offense to an article such as Leigh Alexander's reference to "gamers" (and the quotes is significant) because I know she's not talking about me.  She's not talking about a lot of people that do play video games.

 

I take offence at the inherent hypocrisy. Leigh would not do that to another "oppressed" group and would (ironically enough) label anyone a white male bigot if they do.

[Bos_hybrid]

Two questions. Who the hell is that Sean R. Moorhead? And why his/her/their/its tweets have any actual merit (that make them some other than social media noise from person that just want to get a rise out of other people) in one way or another in what the scandal/conspiracy/what ever of the day currently is?

 

Shows the mental deficiencies that some SJW have. But no one should paint all SJW with the same brush right? Pity it doesn't work that way for 'gamers'.

 

Instead some asshat threatens rape and all of a sudden we are all degenerate women hating chauvinists.

[Malcador]

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFSYAn6pPFg

Wow, that was dumb.

Was expecting more from you than that. Why do you think it is dumb?

[Elerond]

 

Two questions. Who the hell is that Sean R. Moorhead? And why his/her/their/its tweets have any actual merit (that make them some other than social media noise from person that just want to get a rise out of other people) in one way or another in what the scandal/conspiracy/what ever of the day currently is?

 

Shows the mental deficiencies that some SJW have. But no one should paint all SJW with the same brush right? Pity it doesn't work that way for 'gamers'.

 

Instead some asshat threatens rape and all of a sudden we are all degenerate women hating chauvinists.

 

 

Why he/she/it is SJW? And what do you mean with SJW (paint people with same brush so that they are easier to attack?)?

[Bos_hybrid]

 

 

Two questions. Who the hell is that Sean R. Moorhead? And why his/her/their/its tweets have any actual merit (that make them some other than social media noise from person that just want to get a rise out of other people) in one way or another in what the scandal/conspiracy/what ever of the day currently is?

 

Shows the mental deficiencies that some SJW have. But no one should paint all SJW with the same brush right? Pity it doesn't work that way for 'gamers'.

 

Instead some asshat threatens rape and all of a sudden we are all degenerate women hating chauvinists.

 

 

And what do you mean with SJW (paint people with same brush so that they are easier to attack?)?

 

You mean like the term 'gamer'.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Two questions. Who the hell is that Sean R. Moorhead? And why his/her/their/its tweets have any actual merit (that make them some other than social media noise from person that just want to get a rise out of other people) in one way or another in what the scandal/conspiracy/what ever of the day currently is?

 

Shows the mental deficiencies that some SJW have. But no one should paint all SJW with the same brush right? Pity it doesn't work that way for 'gamers'.

 

Instead some asshat threatens rape and all of a sudden we are all degenerate women hating chauvinists.

 

 

And what do you mean with SJW (paint people with same brush so that they are easier to attack?)?

 

You mean like the term 'gamer'.

 

 

Probably, I haven't read any of the so called gamergate articles so I can't be sure how term is used and who it is targeted at. But if I would guess I would say that it probably is similar, although I am bit skeptic that it is used same way to invalidate anything that people with different view of things are tried to silence as SJW is here and many other forums in internet, but paint brush is paint brush and one should try not use one to create group that they can attack, because that will only miss the target it is aimed and cause collateral damage (although many people seem to not mind such thing and some even seem to revel if they success to do so).

[Fighter]

Thunderf00t's videos often rub me the wrong way but this is pretty good:

 

[HoonDing]

I'm glad I'm no gamer.

[Malcador]

 

 

Two questions. Who the hell is that Sean R. Moorhead? And why his/her/their/its tweets have any actual merit (that make them some other than social media noise from person that just want to get a rise out of other people) in one way or another in what the scandal/conspiracy/what ever of the day currently is?

 

Shows the mental deficiencies that some SJW have. But no one should paint all SJW with the same brush right? Pity it doesn't work that way for 'gamers'.

 

Instead some asshat threatens rape and all of a sudden we are all degenerate women hating chauvinists.

 

 

Why he/she/it is SJW? And what do you mean with SJW (paint people with same brush so that they are easier to attack?)?

 

Well consider that anyone that dislikes Sarkeesian is a death threat sending misogynist likewise for Quinn, etc. Happens a lot from people that claim to care about social justice (on the Internet). Labels are convenient, as Alexander (and I guess alanschu et. al) are implementing.

 

Almost close to a Godwin here, too, drats (though I guess Cheong's Nazi postings already did that )

[kirottu]

I don't take any offense to an article such as Leigh Alexander's reference to "gamers" (and the quotes is significant) because I know she's not talking about me.  She's not talking about a lot of people that do play video games.

To me it sounded same as saying muslims are to blame for 9/11. It doesn't make it okay just because we know most of muslims don't fly planes into buildings. It was, for lack of a better term, hate speech. Taking the actions of few and painting everyone to be the same.

 

...and they way it was done, 10 articles on a same day. It was organized hate speech.