Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[Fighter]

It's kinda funny but in USSR people could sometimes get away with critical political messages easier than all the other stuff. There are a number of soviet movies that take the piss out of the system. But say sexualazation... forget it.

[Hurlshort]

It's kinda funny but in USSR people could sometimes get away with critical political messages easier than all the other stuff. There are a number of soviet movies that take the piss out of the system. But say sexualazation... forget it.

 

Hence my favorite book, "Master and Margarita" by Bulgakov.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

It's kinda funny but in USSR people could sometimes get away with critical political messages easier than all the other stuff. There are a number of soviet movies that take the piss out of the system. But say sexualazation... forget it.

 

Hence my favorite book, "Master and Margarita" by Bulgakov.

 

 

And basically half the bibliography of the Strugatsky brothers.

[Longknife]

I will side against anyone that tries to point to art as causation for human imperfection. The arguments in use didn't have a leg to stand on when Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and Jack Thompson all tried to prove that video games caused violent behavior.

 

 

Nevermind that.

 

I consider censorship of art to be tantamount to censorship of free speech.

To me, more than anything this is about defending art. It's about the corrupt video game industry too, but that's easy enough to respond to: don't go reading kotaku articles or gaming journalism sites in general. Never needed them, never will. But this idea that we need to meet quotas or criteria for all games and storylines, while certainly good-intentioned, is a devil in disguise.

[HoonDing]

Not Your Sheild.

[Volourn]

Yeah.  The world has had violence and sex way before video games ever existed. To blame games for that stuff is stupid, asanine, and insane. Not to mention extremly evil and nazi like.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

this idea that we need to meet quotas or criteria for all games and storylines, while certainly good-intentioned, is a devil in disguise.

 

 

And more importantly, has never been on the table.

 

Just putting it out before we forget it.

[Volourn]

Yes, it is. Don't lie.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Yes, it is. Don't lie.

 

Do find me a quote asking for it. I'll be waiting.

[Volourn]

 Wait all you want. I have moved on.  I'm not here to babysit you.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 Wait all you want. I have moved on.  I'm not here to babysit you.

 

So you accuse me of lying, then when I ask you to provide proof of my alleged lying, you claim to "have moved on". How cute.

[Malcador]

 

 

this idea that we need to meet quotas or criteria for all games and storylines, while certainly good-intentioned, is a devil in disguise.

 

And more importantly, has never been on the table.

 

Just putting it out before we forget it.

There are some that are like that though. While not directly people tout a percentage of female PCs as good, I get the sense of a threshold in their mind for what is Right. No one here mind you.

[Volourn]

Wow. That's sexist.  Now, you  lower and embase as you only care about my looks. And, you even lie about it since I'm not cute. Anyone who thinks I'm cute can't be trusted. PERIOD.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

this idea that we need to meet quotas or criteria for all games and storylines, while certainly good-intentioned, is a devil in disguise.

And more importantly, has never been on the table.

 

Just putting it out before we forget it.

There are some that are like that though. While not directly people tout a percentage of female PCs as good, I get the sense of a threshold in their mind for what is Right. No one here mind you.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure "people in other places never say they want this, but I think they probably think so, even if they keep silent about it" is something we should be protesting about so vehemently.

[Malcador]

Sure, shirty, but it is a fair deduction in a lot of these places. Outrage at what is not present does indicate some

[Longknife]

 

this idea that we need to meet quotas or criteria for all games and storylines, while certainly good-intentioned, is a devil in disguise.

 

 

And more importantly, has never been on the table.

 

Just putting it out before we forget it.

 

 

 

Yes, it is. Don't lie.

 

 

It is and it isn't. If I recall correctly there was something about the design premise or company structure of TFYC that Zoe Quinn considered transphobic and was demanding change. Something about the company or game was to be focused on women exclusively and did not wish to touch the issue of man-gone-woman-via-operation and thus said women only, and they flipped.

 

  It's not something that's been explicitly stated, but it is something that - via pressure - they're trying to achieve. The overall sense is that when WOULDN'T they pressure a developer into including this many women or this many black guys or whatever, if given free reign?

 

 

That's my point, overall it's good intentioned but when you allow it to run wild, there WILL be games and stories where the genders, races and orientations of characters involved is actually important to the overall story, and thus such censorship needlessly trivializes and creates work for the artistic message.

[Blarghagh]

According to TFYC spokesperson, the requirement was that a transgendered woman should have identified as a woman for a significant amount of time (I don't remember the exact amount, I believe it was 5 years). Not sure how that is objectionable as it was a safety measure to keep men in drag from claiming they identified as a woman to join the Game Jam. It sucks for the few trans women who didn't start identifying earlier, but it seems pretty logical to me.

 

It's not even relevant as a defense for those against GamerGate anyway as they have consistently proved themselves to be extremely transphobic. Ben Kuchera snubbed transgendered game developer Devi Ever when he found out she was supporting GamerGate and later that same developer became a victim of serious doxxing including passwords and bank and credit data.

[Ganrich]

My issue is allowing the media to cross this line, even with good intentions, sets precedence. What happens when the media attacks another social issue like violence, racism, religion, and/or politics? What if the game takes a religious approach and the media doesn't like the message? Should they be the filter for content by giving bad reviews or ignoring games that don't send a message they agree with?

 

I am not saying I don't want more females in the gaming industry or as characters in a game. I am just saying that decision should lie with the developers and the consumers. Never should a creator say "Well there is a market for this game, but the media won't review it or they will give it a crap review. So there is no point in trying to make it." We can't say it cannot happen when a certain Tropico 5 review says otherwise. What if that collusion that came from the "Gamers are Dead" articles happened with the reviewing of a title? That game gets a slew of negative reviews that could leave the developer in the wind, and it might not be because the game is bad.

 

Slippery slopes are slippery.

[Orogun01]

According to TFYC spokesperson, the requirement was that a transgendered woman should have identified as a woman for a significant amount of time (I don't remember the exact amount, I believe it was 5 years). Not sure how that is objectionable as it was a safety measure to keep men in drag from claiming they identified as a woman to join the Game Jam. It sucks for the few trans women who didn't start identifying earlier, but it seems pretty logical to me.

 

It's not even relevant as a defense for those against GamerGate anyway as they have consistently proved themselves to be extremely transphobic. Ben Kuchera snubbed transgendered game developer Devi Ever when he found out she was supporting GamerGate and later that same developer became a victim of serious doxxing including passwords and bank and credit data.

I thought that the TFYC requirement was that you identify before entering the contest, IIRC they actually received question about anonymity from transgendered that didn't want to be outed.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

My issue is allowing the media to cross this line, even with good intentions, sets precedence. What happens when the media attacks another social issue like violence, racism, religion, and/or politics? What if the game takes a religious approach and the media doesn't like the message? Should they be the filter for content by giving bad reviews or ignoring games that don't send a message they agree with?

 

 

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

[Monte Carlo]

I thought some of you might be interested in seeing how this affair is seeping out of the gaming culture bubble, with articles like this popping up in the unlikeliest places:

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/9322382/why-i-love-grand-theft-auto-v-and-the-feminazis-hate-it/

 

OK, James Delingpole is a polemicist who loves nothing more than getting in the faces of the liberal left (he has his faults - this isn't one of them) but he makes some interesting points as a fresh pair of eyes on this affair.

 

Some quotes from the piece...

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

More broadly, the scandal is about militant feminism and left-liberal entryism. Pretty much every games journal in the industry, it seems, is now in thrall to an achingly right-on cabal of writers, editors and bloggers who collude, via a secret mailing list, on how to shape the news agenda for their political purposes. This has led to a slew of stories about sexist bias and misogyny, fuelled by a vocal group of female wannabe games designers playing the professional victim card in order to advance their cause and their careers.

 

So far, so nothing all that scandalous, you might think. But this is what makes the story oddly fascinating. In any other industry but gaming, the antics I’ve described above have become routine: no one is remotely surprised any more, for example, when climate scientists and green activists collude with wildlife charities, politicians and environmental correspondents to put across the ‘correct’ message. As for the feminazis, they’re everywhere aren’t they: all over Twitter and Mums-net and Change.org like a dose of thrush, brandishing like badges of honour the supposed rape threats and death threats from the men they’ve so assiduously goaded. Why should the world of gaming be immune?

‘Because we just should,’ has been the response of the gaming community. They’ve simply looked at what’s happened to the rest of the world — the creeping politicisation of absolutely everything by the cultural Marxists — and decided they want their cloistered play realm to remain sacrosanct. ‘They don’t want their universe invaded by social justice warriors and they’re fighting back as only gamers know how,’ says Yiannopoulos.

 

[Ganrich]

 

...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. Next will be violence, racism, etc until games are as bland as the modern cinema. You don't have to lay this on the table with percentages. They never have to flat out say, "you need a major woman character that isn't objectified and is strong." If they did then people would call foul. They just dump on the game in the review, and it will hurt sales. It is much more subtle that way, but censorship in its own way.

 

You only have to get your way once or twice and eventually it is every time. Then you can move on the next issue on the ideology list.

 

AAA publishers having a multi-million dollar project underperform because of the media railing it for the sole reason that they don't agree with a message means AAA games become even more bland. These publishers have to think about their investors first, and a media crusading against a product because of a message or not being PC enough is going to hit them where it counts. They will completely change their games as a byproduct. Those games will stagnate even more than they have already.

 

When indies are ignored and go unnoticed because they didnt tell the right story you lose developers as most indies can't afford to try 5 times to appease the media. These are major issues to me.

 

This is NOT the purpose of any kind of review oriented media.

 

I think you believe I was referring to TFYC? I support them. I have nothing more to really add to that conversation atm.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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. Next will be violence, racism, etc until games are as bland as the modern cinema. You don't have to lay this on the table with percentages. They never have to flat out say, "you need a major woman character that isn't objectified and is strong." If they did then people would call foul. They just dump on the game in the review, and it will hurt sales. It is much more subtle that way, but censorship in its own way.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I have incredibly strong doubts about the likeliness that a bad review due to "SJW issues" is going to meaningfully impact the buying habits of people who don't give a **** about SJW issues.

 

Also, if you count giving bad reviews as a form of censorship, shouldn't you also count female developers not daring to speak their minds about the whole business due to fear of being harrassed as a form of censorship, too?

 

 

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

 

 

And people say feminists have a victim complex. Wow.

[JadedWolf]

 

 

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. Next will be violence, racism, etc until games are as bland as the modern cinema. You don't have to lay this on the table with percentages. They never have to flat out say, "you need a major woman character that isn't objectified and is strong." If they did then people would call foul. They just dump on the game in the review, and it will hurt sales. It is much more subtle that way, but censorship in its own way.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I have incredibly strong doubts about the likeliness that a bad review due to "SJW issues" is going to meaningfully impact the buying habits of people who don't give a **** about SJW issues.

 

Also, if you count giving bad reviews as a form of censorship, shouldn't you also count female developers not daring to speak their minds about the whole business due to fear of being harrassed as a form of censorship, too?

 

 

 

I think what he meant was that they would give the game a bad review based on other -imagined?- faults to get people who don't necessarily buy into their agenda to not purchase the game.

 

Basically making bad stuff up to hide the fact that the reason they don't like the game is because of their agenda.

 

As to whether that would work? I guess that depends on the game in question. For an AAA game probably not, but for a small game to medium game that really need the publicity so that people even know the game is out there, it would certainly work.

 

Not saying I agree that this actually happens, but it's not a far fetched idea.

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I think what he meant was that they would give the game a bad review based on other -imagined?- faults to get people who don't necessarily buy into their agenda to not purchase the game.

 

Basically making bad stuff up to hide the fact that the reason they don't like the game is because of their agenda.

 

As to whether that would work? I guess that depends on the game in question. For an AAA game probably not, but for a small game to medium game that really need the publicity so that people even know the game is out there, it would certainly work.

 

 

...Well that sounds counter-productive. "This game needs publicity or it tanks, but I hate it, so I will give it bad publicity to make it tank!" is not exactly sound logic.

Edited September 27, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid