Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[TrashMan]

God, how I hate this.

 

You cannot have a reasonable debate on this subject on most forums. The friggin fanaticism boggles the mind. Religious zealots pale in comparison.

It's impossible to stay neutral.

I tried.

But god help you if you post any article the group doesn't agree with. Immediately the writer (and you) are "sitting in the ivory tower", are "mansplaining", etc, etc...

[Meshugger]

More about DiGRA:

 

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

Gaming is the last bastion, the Helm’s Deep of freedom of expression.

 

 

And people say feminists have a victim complex. Wow.

 

 

I presume you noticed the bit about him being a polemicist?

 

I think there's a kernel of truth in James's argument. The liberal consensus that permeates most other aspects of popular culture will conquer gaming next.

[Monte Carlo]

More about DiGRA:

 

 

Ha ha ha a feminist with a PhD in playing the Sims.

[Meshugger]

 

More about DiGRA:

 

 

Ha ha ha a feminist with a PhD in playing the Sims.

 

 

Part two will be about how Silverstring Media and others attended DiGRA's conferences and adopted their ideas. It should be out within a week or two.

 

The pyramid picture was not that of a far fatched scenario

[Longknife]

 

 

...The complaint was about the development team, not the game.

I was on my phone, and quoting on a phone is a pain. I was actually referring to a post of yours on the previous page. My apologies for the lack of clarity.

 

And more importantly, has never been on the table.

 

Just putting it out before we forget it.

When the media can all coordinate reviews to reflect negatively on a product because they didn't have an appropriate female character you start precedence for it in the future.

 

 

Speaking of which, wasn't there some huge backlash on Tomodachi Life for not including gay marriages?

 

 

I found that EXCEEDINGLY odd considering it's Nintendo and they, yknow, typically have kid customers, so including such a feature is potentially going against what their consumer base would want. Likewise as a game mechanic, how the hell would you determine which Miis are gay?

 

When I heard that one I just found it to be the weirdest **** ever. Targeting the Sims or something for not including it, sure, but Tomodachi Life....? It's a goofy game made for goofy fun, not for a political message.... But looking back on it now, it makes sense WHY it got targeted for that. I bet we could look up articles on the subject right now and find the typical "offenders" aka the people in that group and those that coordinate info.

[Monte Carlo]

This is the entire point of the liberal illuminati. Everything has to be political, especially otherwise inconsequential games that influence the young (they are the nu-Jesuits in this regard). Everything has to point towards their Kafkaesque perception of what constitutes 'social justice' (a nebulous concept in the first place, assuming a very broad set of shared assumptions).

 

It's not a conspiracy per se. I'm not a Dark Enlightenment type who believes in 'The Cathedral.' But it is a knowing, nudge-and-a-wink set of assumptions by a broad range of like-minded people who are very very savvy about how to influence and nudge policy and opinion. Advocacy. Yuk.

 

If you disagree with them then by default you are against them. You might (like me) be fairly socially liberal yet if your values don't mimic theirs you're against them. It's classic Gramscian long-marching by other means. I'm sure some think me even making this post means I'm on the side of those who would troll and harass (I'm not, btw).

 

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

...The complaint was about the development team, not the game.

I was on my phone, and quoting on a phone is a pain. I was actually referring to a post of yours on the previous page. My apologies for the lack of clarity.

 

And more importantly, has never been on the table.

 

Just putting it out before we forget it.

When the media can all coordinate reviews to reflect negatively on a product because they didn't have an appropriate female character you start precedence for it in the future.

 

 

Speaking of which, wasn't there some huge backlash on Tomodachi Life for not including gay marriages?

 

 

I found that EXCEEDINGLY odd considering it's Nintendo and they, yknow, typically have kid customers, so including such a feature is potentially going against what their consumer base would want. Likewise as a game mechanic, how the hell would you determine which Miis are gay?

 

When I heard that one I just found it to be the weirdest **** ever. Targeting the Sims or something for not including it, sure, but Tomodachi Life....? It's a goofy game made for goofy fun, not for a political message.... But looking back on it now, it makes sense WHY it got targeted for that. I bet we could look up articles on the subject right now and find the typical "offenders" aka the people in that group and those that coordinate info.

 

 

I think the better question is why does a kid's game need to include an adult concept like marriage in the first place?

 

And if they are going to include it as a goofy concept, then why have a boy/girl limitations on it?  That sounds more political than just letting your mii's marry whatever they want, be it another boy, a goldfish, or a plunger.  

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

...The complaint was about the development team, not the game.

I was on my phone, and quoting on a phone is a pain. I was actually referring to a post of yours on the previous page. My apologies for the lack of clarity.

 

And more importantly, has never been on the table.

 

Just putting it out before we forget it.

When the media can all coordinate reviews to reflect negatively on a product because they didn't have an appropriate female character you start precedence for it in the future.

 

 

Speaking of which, wasn't there some huge backlash on Tomodachi Life for not including gay marriages?

 

 

I found that EXCEEDINGLY odd considering it's Nintendo and they, yknow, typically have kid customers, so including such a feature is potentially going against what their consumer base would want. Likewise as a game mechanic, how the hell would you determine which Miis are gay?

 

When I heard that one I just found it to be the weirdest **** ever. Targeting the Sims or something for not including it, sure, but Tomodachi Life....? It's a goofy game made for goofy fun, not for a political message.... But looking back on it now, it makes sense WHY it got targeted for that. I bet we could look up articles on the subject right now and find the typical "offenders" aka the people in that group and those that coordinate info.

 

 

I think the better question is why does a kid's game need to include an adult concept like marriage in the first place?

 

And if they are going to include it as a goofy concept, then why have a boy/girl limitations on it?  That sounds more political than just letting your mii's marry whatever they want, be it another boy, a goldfish, or a plunger.  

 

 

 

Just to put things in perspective, THIS is the game that got **** for not being politically active enough:

 

 

 

 

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

I think the better question is why does a kid's game need to include an adult concept like marriage in the first place?

 

And if they are going to include it as a goofy concept, then why have a boy/girl limitations on it?  That sounds more political than just letting your mii's marry whatever they want, be it another boy, a goldfish, or a plunger.

 

And there you go. A perfect example of a liberal / relativist switcheroo in action.

 

The kids see marriage all around them. Heaven forfend, some of their parents might even be married! At that point in time gay marriage was (a) rare and (b) not even legal in many countries. Of course the status quo is political (and as Marx insists) everything is political.

 

And so you can safely compare marriage to a plunger or a goldfish. All that is solid melts into air.

 

And you are trusted with tender minds?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I think the better question is why does a kid's game need to include an adult concept like marriage in the first place?

 

And if they are going to include it as a goofy concept, then why have a boy/girl limitations on it?  That sounds more political than just letting your mii's marry whatever they want, be it another boy, a goldfish, or a plunger.

 

And there you go. A perfect example of a liberal / relativist switcheroo in action.

 

The kids see marriage all around them. Heaven forfend, some of their parents might even be married! At that point in time gay marriage was (a) rare and (b) not even legal in many countries. Of course the status quo is political (and as Marx insists) everything is political.

 

And so you can safely compare marriage to a plunger or a goldfish. All that is solid melts into air.

 

And you are trusted with tender minds?

 

 

So if a game depicts stuff in accordance with your worldview, it's just the way things should be, but if others complain that it doesn't fit their worldview, they're horrible political people?

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

I think the better question is why does a kid's game need to include an adult concept like marriage in the first place?

 

And if they are going to include it as a goofy concept, then why have a boy/girl limitations on it?  That sounds more political than just letting your mii's marry whatever they want, be it another boy, a goldfish, or a plunger.

 

And there you go. A perfect example of a liberal / relativist switcheroo in action.

 

The kids see marriage all around them. Heaven forfend, some of their parents might even be married! At that point in time gay marriage was (a) rare and (b) not even legal in many countries. Of course the status quo is political (and as Marx insists) everything is political.

 

And so you can safely compare marriage to a plunger or a goldfish. All that is solid melts into air.

 

And you are trusted with tender minds?

 

 

So if a game depicts stuff in accordance with your worldview, it's just the way things should be, but if others complain that it doesn't fit their worldview, they're horrible political people?

 

 

No, not at all. But if a game doesn't represent 'x' 'y' or 'z' (if one of those represents some subject concerning gender or sexuality or whatever) does it have to mean something (usually pejorative)?

 

I'd argue not. People are free to create whatever they like. Create a Gay dating or parenting sim. I couldn't care less. In fact, the last thing I'd do is wonder aloud why 'a' 'b' or 'c' wasn't in it.

 

And, therein, lies the difference between people like me and Social Justice Warriors. Of course, it is an interesting feature of Western civilization that people can spend many years in ivy-swathed cloisters scribbling theses about how that makes me some sort of blinkered conservative trying to perpetuate their injustice of choice. That's their problem, not mine.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

No, not at all. But if a game doesn't represent 'x' 'y' or 'z' (if one of those represents some subject concerning gender or sexuality or whatever) does it have to mean something (usually pejorative)?

 

 

I don't really follow. Stuff doesn't get created in a vacuum. Creators will have cultural biases. Why is it wrong to point out these biases? 

[Hurlshort]

 

I think the better question is why does a kid's game need to include an adult concept like marriage in the first place?

 

And if they are going to include it as a goofy concept, then why have a boy/girl limitations on it?  That sounds more political than just letting your mii's marry whatever they want, be it another boy, a goldfish, or a plunger.

 

And there you go. A perfect example of a liberal / relativist switcheroo in action.

 

The kids see marriage all around them. Heaven forfend, some of their parents might even be married! At that point in time gay marriage was (a) rare and (b) not even legal in many countries. Of course the status quo is political (and as Marx insists) everything is political.

 

And so you can safely compare marriage to a plunger or a goldfish. All that is solid melts into air.

 

And you are trusted with tender minds?

 

 

What a weird response, and how mature that you question my career as an educator.

 

I'll restate, this is a kids game, why does it need an adult concept like marriage in it at all?  My 4-year old plans on marrying his sister right now.  Instead of being concerned about some some of incestuous intent, I recognize that he is young, and his concepts of marriage are not all that developed.  So if you are going to take a goofy kids game and implement marriage, why not make it goofy?

 

Now I do understand the percentage argument, the majority will choose a boy/girl relationship over same sex, and so why waste resources implementing something that a small percentage of the population may find appealing.  At that point it should be a pretty easy response for a developer to say they were unaware of the demand for such options, and they will take that into account when feature-planning for future installments.  That's how you keep it non-political.  You weigh customer interest against your resources.

[Longknife]

 

 

I think the better question is why does a kid's game need to include an adult concept like marriage in the first place?

 

And if they are going to include it as a goofy concept, then why have a boy/girl limitations on it?  That sounds more political than just letting your mii's marry whatever they want, be it another boy, a goldfish, or a plunger.

 

And there you go. A perfect example of a liberal / relativist switcheroo in action.

 

The kids see marriage all around them. Heaven forfend, some of their parents might even be married! At that point in time gay marriage was (a) rare and (b) not even legal in many countries. Of course the status quo is political (and as Marx insists) everything is political.

 

And so you can safely compare marriage to a plunger or a goldfish. All that is solid melts into air.

 

And you are trusted with tender minds?

 

 

So if a game depicts stuff in accordance with your worldview, it's just the way things should be, but if others complain that it doesn't fit their worldview, they're horrible political people?

 

 

 

No, this is the issue:

 

 

Anita Sarkeesian has a video suggesting a video game plot idea. It's nothing fancy and in all reality has probably been done before, but it's fine. Basically it's a princess gets kidnapped, gets sick of waiting on the knight in shining armor to save her, so she busts out and saves the kingdom herself.

 

  Is that a good game idea? Sure. Nothing wrong with it, so why not?

 

There's absolutely no issue with the games they're suggesting. The problem is there's absolutely nothing wrong with the games they're criticizing either. These are games, not political ads.

 

So the best case scenario would be if the SJWs made games that appealed to them while all companies and their respective developers were allowed to make any game they choose without a need or pressure to cave into political pressure to include certain themes or messages.

 

To take your message directly, a game matching my worldview is fine, a game NOT matching my worldview is also fine (I mean basically ANY fantasy game takes a lot of world views and blows them out of the water), but when a developer of either category A (matching my view) or category B (not matching) tries to insist, coerce and force the other developer into matching their own personal style, THEN we have a problem. That stagnates and censors art, even if that is not the intention.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

No, this is the issue:

 

 

Anita Sarkeesian has a video suggesting a video game plot idea. It's nothing fancy and in all reality has probably been done before, but it's fine. Basically it's a princess gets kidnapped, gets sick of waiting on the knight in shining armor to save her, so she busts out and saves the kingdom herself.

 

  Is that a good game idea? Sure. Nothing wrong with it, so why not?

 

There's absolutely no issue with the games they're suggesting. The problem is there's absolutely nothing wrong with the games they're criticizing either. These are games, not political ads.

 

So the best case scenario would be if the SJWs made games that appealed to them while all companies and their respective developers were allowed to make any game they choose without a need or pressure to cave into political pressure to include certain themes or messages.

 

To take your message directly, a game matching my worldview is fine, a game NOT matching my worldview is also fine (I mean basically ANY fantasy game takes a lot of world views and blows them out of the water), but when a developer of either category A (matching my view) or category B (not matching) tries to insist, coerce and force the other developer into matching their own personal style, THEN we have a problem. That stagnates and censors art, even if that is not the intention.

 

 

Freedom of speech includes a freedom to tell others you think their work doesn't match your worldview, and you doing so doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech.

 

Also, I don't remember any of you crying "CENSORSHIP!" when people (even on this forum) were dogpiling on Quinn's text-based game, being all like "THIS ISN'T EVEN A GAME!", which is, as you might notice, the same ****ing thing Sarkeesian is doing.

Edited September 27, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Hurlshort]

How are developer's supposed to know that the tired trope of the knight saving the princess in the castle is tired if people don't voice their criticisms?

 

 

Also is SJW the new White Knight label?  I try to ignore these silly internet memes that come and go.  

[Volourn]

"Anita Sarkeesian has a video suggesting a video game plot idea. It's nothing fancy and in all reality has probably been done before, but it's fine. Basically it's a princess gets kidnapped, gets sick of waiting on the knight in shining armor to save her, so she busts out and saves the kingdom herself."

 

She's made a lot of money. Why doesn't she make it or hire someone to make it if she feels she doesn't have the skills to make it? And, yeah, her idea is fine plus as you mentioned has been done before.

[Longknife]

 

 

No, this is the issue:

 

 

Anita Sarkeesian has a video suggesting a video game plot idea. It's nothing fancy and in all reality has probably been done before, but it's fine. Basically it's a princess gets kidnapped, gets sick of waiting on the knight in shining armor to save her, so she busts out and saves the kingdom herself.

 

  Is that a good game idea? Sure. Nothing wrong with it, so why not?

 

There's absolutely no issue with the games they're suggesting. The problem is there's absolutely nothing wrong with the games they're criticizing either. These are games, not political ads.

 

So the best case scenario would be if the SJWs made games that appealed to them while all companies and their respective developers were allowed to make any game they choose without a need or pressure to cave into political pressure to include certain themes or messages.

 

To take your message directly, a game matching my worldview is fine, a game NOT matching my worldview is also fine (I mean basically ANY fantasy game takes a lot of world views and blows them out of the water), but when a developer of either category A (matching my view) or category B (not matching) tries to insist, coerce and force the other developer into matching their own personal style, THEN we have a problem. That stagnates and censors art, even if that is not the intention.

 

 

Freedom of speech includes a freedom to tell others you think their work doesn't match your worldview, and you doing so doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech.

 

.....Right, and they have the freedom to not listen to you and not be persecuted or unjustly have a collaberated media backfire occur that doesn't even represent the majority opinion of the people, all just for having an opinion that differs from yours and not acting on your criticism.

 

The point is you can't dictate others. I've said this a thousand times in the course of the thread. I named a very appropriate example of a guy asking EA to include disabled Sims in the next Sims game: he can ask and request, but he cannot demand or dictate.

 

The name of the game and the big issue is coercion. There's a very obvious attempt to coerce the video game industry into meeting a certain agenda.

 

 

 

As for anything regarding Zoe Quinn, I know nothing about the girl beyond any relevance she has in corruption, nor do I know about her game or it's reception. NEVER did I state Sarkeesian is not allowed to provide criticism in a manner such as her videos, I spoke out against coercion.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

How are developer's supposed to know that the tired trope of the knight saving the princess in the castle is tired if people don't voice their criticisms?

 

 

Also is SJW the new White Knight label?  I try to ignore these silly internet memes that come and go.  

 

Nah, "SJW" means "anybody whose opinions on social issues I don't agree with". I mean, they say it's not, but that's what it essentially boils down to.

 

 

 

Freedom of speech includes a freedom to tell others you think their work doesn't match your worldview, and you doing so doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech.

 

.....Right, and they have the freedom to not listen to you and not be persecuted or unjustly have a collaberated media backfire occur that doesn't even represent the majority opinion of the people, all just for having an opinion that differs from yours and not acting on your criticism.

 

(...)

 

The name of the game and the big issue is coercion.

 

Collaborated media backfire in a medium essentially nobody views as having any sort of influence whatsoever is hardly what I'd call coercion.

Edited September 27, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Longknife]

How are developer's supposed to know that the tired trope of the knight saving the princess in the castle is tired if people don't voice their criticisms?

 

 

Also is SJW the new White Knight label?  I try to ignore these silly internet memes that come and go.  

 

Where are you people getting that I have a problem with her voicing her opinion? I never stated that. I have a problem when her opinion unjustly holds a disproportional amount of influence over gaming media and the gaming industry. The very fact we're HAVING this GamerGate backlash suggests it's not the popular opinion. For better or worse, that's how it is, and you cannot force a group of people to like things you do and think the way you do.

 

  Please guys, I don't think these strawman arguments (criticiizing a flaw in an argument your opponent never made instead of attacking the ones they did) are intentional, but it's very hard to get ANYWHERE when I feel I'm not even being properly heard or responded to.

 

 

 

Collaborated media backfire in a medium essentially nobody views as having any sort of influence whatsoever is hardly what I'd call coercion.

 

 

LOL R WE SRS RIGHT NOW????

 

"Collaborated effort to murder a man that ultimately fails is hardly what I'd call murder."

 

There's a reason attempts at crime are also a crime. Here we're not talking actual court orders and crime, mind you, but yes the community has a VERY reasonable reason to be skeptical and wary of this particular group, because it's obvious the attempt is being made.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Longknife

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

How are developer's supposed to know that the tired trope of the knight saving the princess in the castle is tired if people don't voice their criticisms?

 

 

Also is SJW the new White Knight label?  I try to ignore these silly internet memes that come and go.  

 

Where are you people getting that I have a problem with her voicing her opinion? I never stated that. I have a problem when her opinion unjustly holds a disproportional amount of influence over gaming media and the gaming industry. The very fact we're HAVING this GamerGate backlash suggests it's not the popular opinion. For better or worse, that's how it is, and you cannot force a group of people to like things you do and think the way you do.

 

  Please guys, I don't think these strawman arguments (criticiizing a flaw in an argument your opponent never made instead of attacking the ones they did) are intentional, but it's very hard to get ANYWHERE when I feel I'm not even being properly heard or responded to.

 

 

Look, it's not a strawman to point out she doesn't really have a power to force her opinions on you, therefore complaints about her forcing her opinions on you are either misguided, or indeed pointing at the fact that your problem lies in her being able to voice her opinion.

[Malcador]

Nah, "SJW" means "anybody whose opinions on social issues I don't agree with". I mean, they say it's not, but that's what it essentially boils down to.

Well for me it's these people that wasted time taking a gender studies class or something and now resolve to crusade to fix things by ranting about online rather than risking any skin. Fair amount of them out there.

 

When was Quinn's game even brought up here ? Not sure it's really censorship to think her product isn't a game, but as you do.

[Meshugger]

I thought that the issue was that there's a conspiracy of gaming journalists trying to enforce an agenda and how developers should have total artistic integrity without having to do a checklist of certain inclusive elements.

 

The opinions in themselves are irrelevant. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Nah, "SJW" means "anybody whose opinions on social issues I don't agree with". I mean, they say it's not, but that's what it essentially boils down to.

When was Quinn's game even brought up here ? Not sure it's really censorship to think her product isn't a game, but as you do.

 

 

Yes, that's exactly my point. Giving a game bad reviews because the reviewer thinks the game has problems with diversity is censorship exactly as much as large amounts of people crying about how a game "isn't really a game", aka "not at all".