Drama in the indy gaming biz ?

[Malcador]

I am only spectator, at least so I see my relationship with the situation, from perspective of this topic, in the situation, who comments things to his own amusement, so it isn't my intention or purpose to be helpful in this situation.  

 

 

EDIT:

This piece from a journalist about situation fits quite well with my view of the situation.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn

Of course. That article is suprisingly level for the Guardian, was expecting something more inflammatory. Spectating on this is nice, though, amazing how passionate people comment on something virtual

Edited September 3, 2014 by Malcador

[Amentep]

 

But its pretty clear that there are a few incidents where this kind of disclosure hasn't happened (or has happened only now, years after the fact with the two articles that were mentioned changed by the Kotaku writer who has nothing to do with the "Zoe Quinn" bit in one of those videos).

 

Could you be more specific? Because I haven't heard of any articles where someone who has slept with a developer gave that person a good review or anything of the kind.

That's what I found so fascinating about this "scandal" - the facts were entirely made up.

 

 

 

I didn't mean to imply "slept with" just "had a relationship with" in my post; sorry if I wasn't clear.  The reviewer in question is Kotaku's Patricia Hernandez with respect to developer Christina Love and the Hate Plus article from last year and Anna Anthropy/The Hunt for the Gay Planet also from last year.  The Kotaku article was updated to indicate that Patricia and Christina are friend and this relationship wasn't disclosed in the article when published, since its added as an "UPDATE" in the text.  The Gay Planet text also updates that Patricia was housemates with Anthropy the year before the article.

 

When the update happened, I don't know, although the implication of what has been presented is the update is new and coming on the heels of Kotaku's statement that disclosure of relationships are expected.  Whether its new or not, the fact that its added as an update implies an oversight in the process (at least) of disclosure.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Amentep

[Malcador]

He's screaming profanities at the screen about how an industry (in this case, video game journalism) makes profits off him while offering no worthwile products in return and how it's been going on for years now. I'm sorry, but if one continues to feed money to the providers of a service he actively hates, for years after determining how said service is not to his liking, that person is fully deserving of the label "dumb".

Ah, good, much better. It is hard to follow the hobby without wandering on some of these 'press' sites, I suppose one can use aggregators and glean stuff there. Always AdBlock I guess, hah.

[HoonDing]

Meanwhile in real life

 

[kirottu]

 

But its pretty clear that there are a few incidents where this kind of disclosure hasn't happened (or has happened only now, years after the fact with the two articles that were mentioned changed by the Kotaku writer who has nothing to do with the "Zoe Quinn" bit in one of those videos).

 

Could you be more specific? Because I haven't heard of any articles where someone who has slept with a developer gave that person a good review or anything of the kind.

That's what I found so fascinating about this "scandal" - the facts were entirely made up.

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/

 

Granted it's positive press and not a review. There was some other time as well where Nathan Grayson singled out Depression Quest in positive manner, but I don't remember where. 

[Fearabbit]

I didn't mean to imply "slept with" just "had a relationship with" in my post; sorry if I wasn't clear.  The reviewer in question is Kotaku's Patricia Hernandez with respect to developer Christina Love and the Hate Plus article from last year and Anna Anthropy/The Hunt for the Gay Planet also from last year.  The Kotaku article was updated to indicate that Patricia and Christina are friend and this relationship wasn't disclosed in the article when published, since its added as an "UPDATE" in the text.  The Gay Planet text also updates that Patricia was housemates with Anthropy the year before the article.

 

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.

[Malcador]

Grayson wrote on about that reality show that fell apart, but that was about it. Think Grayson also funds her via Patreon so that looks iffy, as well. Snowballed beyond any scandal concerning Quinn directly, what with the initial rumours then the Streisand effect and her and Fish's being "hacked", etc.

[BruceVC]

 

I didn't mean to imply "slept with" just "had a relationship with" in my post; sorry if I wasn't clear.  The reviewer in question is Kotaku's Patricia Hernandez with respect to developer Christina Love and the Hate Plus article from last year and Anna Anthropy/The Hunt for the Gay Planet also from last year.  The Kotaku article was updated to indicate that Patricia and Christina are friend and this relationship wasn't disclosed in the article when published, since its added as an "UPDATE" in the text.  The Gay Planet text also updates that Patricia was housemates with Anthropy the year before the article.

 

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

[Malcador]

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

Does this mean you'll flounce out of this thread ?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

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

Does this mean you'll flounce out of this thread ?

No, chances are he will stay on his soapbox and preach and do mental gymnastics to paint gaming press in a good light.

[Amentep]

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.

Well its only a year later. But it raises the question, did it get updated just now? I didn't double check myself (shame on me) but since you ask - here is the "Hate Plus" page on the internet archive, from June 19 2014 - http://web.archive.org/web/20140619202521/http://kotaku.com/video-game-asks-players-to-bake-real-cakes-for-virtual-1183623826

 

The "Gay Planet" from July 25 - http://web.archive.org/web/20140725153626/http://kotaku.com/5976294/now-there-is-a-whole-game-about-a-gay-planet

 

No "update" in either text. So sometime between June 19, 2014 and now, the update was added for Hate Plus (July 25 and now for Gay Planet).

 

And I'd agree that these articles aren't reviews, but (IMO) it should be important that when a person at a game site recommends the game (and the piece on Hate Plus definitely does that, IMO) that there isn't an appearance of conflict of interest. In this case it'd be very easy to argue that Kotaku as a larger entity is, by publishing the article, endorsing the game via their employee - and that essentially the site is being used to promote the work of family and friends of the employee under the guise of impartial journalism.

 

Maybe its nothing - often I find situations like this in my normal employment involve accidental oversights on follow-through rather than intentional malfeasance (it didn't occur to me to disclose that we were once friends) but maybe its something too. I can't really say unless someone impartial (is there anyone impartial though to do this?) is able to view the facts, divorce them from the "narratives" and the "relationships" (real and imagined) being spun by people with agendas and look and see what - if anything - actually exists.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Amentep

[Amentep]

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.

To be fair, Bruce, this isn't a mathematical formula; people can see the same things and draw vastly different conclusions because we are, ultimately, vastly different cognitive entities who will draw on vastly different life experiences to analyze situations and data.

 

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

Really? Perhaps you'd like to take it up with Merriam-Webster -

1: a player who is game; especially : an athlete who relishes competition

2: a person who plays games; especially : a person who regularly plays computer or video games

 

Maybe the OED?

A person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.

 

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

How can you explain that a word doesn't mean its definition, per the dictionary, but instead means the arbitrarily constructed label that is now being used?

 

I understand the living language changes, but that change is by common usage, not forced usage.

 

But good luck getting people to see the facts

Don't worry, we'll keep trying to get you to see the truth, Bruce. We have faith in you.

[BruceVC]

 

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

Does this mean you'll flounce out of this thread ?

 

 

 

 

 

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

Does this mean you'll flounce out of this thread ?

No, chances are he will stay on his soapbox and preach and do mental gymnastics to paint gaming press in a good light.

 

 

Malc that really made me laugh

 

The truth is I was getting fatigued in this discussion, it felt draining. Part of me was thinking " why do I bother " ..but then I read Alan's post and I now  feel invigorated. But I won't be as active as I normally am as I  want to focus on other discussions for a while

[Fearabbit]

Maybe its nothing - often I find situations like this in my normal employment involve accidental oversights on follow-through rather than intentional malfeasance (it didn't occur to me to disclose that we were once friends) but maybe its something too. I can't really say unless someone impartial (is there anyone impartial though to do this?) is able to view the facts, divorce them from the "narratives" and the "relationships" (real and imagined) being spun by people with agendas and look and see what - if anything - actually exists.

 

This is how I feel about it as well. I actually do not think that you have to disclose friendships unless you're actually reviewing a game though.

But then again I think that people take this way too seriously. I'm not actually paying Kotaku anything for their services, so calling for journalistic standards feels weird from the start. If you want to demand something, pay for it.

 

And yet they actually care about integrity (of course, since it's good for business) and the worst we could find are two articles about games made by friends, both of which were written more in a "well this is interesting, take a look" way and weren't actual endorsements (also one game was a free browser game). I think they're doing quite good. *shrugs*

 

As for the whole "gamers" thing - come on. We all know that lots of people think in terms of "true gamer vs. Candy Crush player". There is an elitist subculture that is actively trying to claim the title "gamer" for themselves. The articles where they say that "gamers are dying" and so on are clearly directed at this subculture. Either you're* part of that group, then you can be offended if you want (but nobody would care and you'd actually be proving the point), or you're just being offended over semantics, which is silly.

But I didn't read the discussion here so I'm not up to date what the problem is.

 

*) General "you", not directed at you, Amentep.

[Meshugger]

 

 

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

Does this mean you'll flounce out of this thread ?

 

 

 

 

 

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

Does this mean you'll flounce out of this thread ?

No, chances are he will stay on his soapbox and preach and do mental gymnastics to paint gaming press in a good light.

 

 

Malc that really made me laugh

 

The truth is I was getting fatigued in this discussion, it felt draining. Part of me was thinking " why do I bother " ..but then I read Alan's post and I now  feel invigorated. But I won't be as active as I normally am as I  want to focus on other discussions for a while

 

 

Apathy is death.

[Orogun01]

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.

The articles are just part in a series of unethical practices, is not that they used their position to promote their friends but the extent to which this promotion goes. They are in many cases patrons to the developer rather than critics, they have rigged  contests with this kind of behavior. So while their little group hogs all the attention because of their politics every other Indie suffers for it.

To put it in context; Papers Please is a game that was well received by both sides of the fence. Papers Please lost in a competition to Depression Quest because of the panel which had close connections to Zoe Quinn.

On top of that they seem to freely censor speech because of political reasons, in the past game developers and journalists have been blackballed because of their views. It is happening right now within this whole debate. 

So like I said, the articles are the least of it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So if gamers are dead, does that mean we are in an afterlife that is identical to life or are we reanimated corpses unaware of our state of unlife? I would like to know so I can prepare for craving human flesh.

[Meshugger]

Sorry, the commendariat at the diversity politbeauro have yet to come to a conclusion on the self-identification process of dead, white, cis males. The percentual ratio of being how equal to being more than equal is still up to debate, sorry.

[kgambit]

So if gamers are dead, does that mean we are in an afterlife that is identical to life or are we reanimated corpses unaware of our state of unlife? I would like to know so I can prepare for craving human flesh.

 

And you'll know you're in hell when all the forum threads are about romance in rpgs. 

[Fearabbit]

@Orogun: Source? Hadn't heard about a contest where Papers, Please lost against Depression Quest because of connections. (And I'm doubtful because both games are quite popular, actually.)

 

So if gamers are dead, does that mean we are in an afterlife that is identical to life or are we reanimated corpses unaware of our state of unlife? I would like to know so I can prepare for craving human flesh.

 

Dying, not dead. You're in your final throes.

[Malcador]

And you'll know you're in hell when all the forum threads are about romance in rpgs.

So, it's not Hell, but we can see it from here then.

 

Malc that really made me laugh

 

The truth is I was getting fatigued in this discussion, it felt draining. Part of me was thinking " why do I bother " ..but then I read Alan's post and I now feel invigorated. But I won't be as active as I normally am as I want to focus on other discussions for a while

Okay, so then yes, that is a flounce then. Come now, you've been on forums long enough to not be tired by the ceaseless batle. Embrace it.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Malcador

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

So if gamers are dead, does that mean we are in an afterlife that is identical to life or are we reanimated corpses unaware of our state of unlife? I would like to know so I can prepare for craving human flesh.

And you'll know you're in hell when all the forum threads are about romance in rpgs.

So hell is BSN. That explains a lot.

[Meshugger]

 

- "How do we better intervene in the industrial logics and disturbe that process?

- "How do we disrupt the capitalist norms"

- "Dismantling masculinic hegenomy"

- "Doing the right way is going to hurt, but it is the only way to make progress"

 

Totally reasonable people. 

[Malcador]

God damned Humanities majors, I bet.

[Meshugger]

Don't worry, they are fighting the good fight for all of us, whether we like it or not.