Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[aluminiumtrioxid]

...Wow, looks like the forum couldn't handle the length and ate most of my previous post. Here's the rest:

 

 

 Losing the weird, polarizing, indie voices from game development means losing variety, which in turn means fewer new ideas circulating. This means the games you actually do love and want to play become stagnant and dull. It means more sequels where the only new feature is a few more polygons and larger textures. It means some of the talented men and women who work on the games you actually do play may also no longer be a part of the industry.

 

(...)

 

More important, though, if game development is a terrible place to work, more of us will stop doing it -- and that goes for both men and women. Having angry people arguing with you all the time on Twitter and knowing that speaking out gets you on the harassment radar makes it easy to quit a line of work that's already challenging. And you don't want any of us to quit, even the ones who make games you think are awful, because you never know where those breakthroughs that improve games are going to come from. Remember: Minecraft started as an indie game.

 

These tiny indie games and indie developers are no threat to you or to AAA games, regardless of their point of view. Neither are the media sites that cover them. If you don't want to play their games, don't play them. If you don't want to read diversity articles, don't go to those sites. Let them have their space. Let them develop games you think are stupid or terrible. Let them speak and just ignore it. It doesn't have to be a part of your life -- the player's life -- for it to be a part of the game development ecology.

 

(...)

 

You decide instead to talk about the reality of how games are developed. Indies make whatever they want, so the question is really about mainstream development. Does social pressure change the content you make? Ultimately, you make what your bosses tell you to make. Commercial game development is a complex machine, largely driven by marketing and PR. It's all about what will sell. Half-naked ladies in games are safe -- those games sell, and if it sells it will get made. If changes happen, like having more female protagonists or avoiding some of the "tropes" in the Sarkeesian videos, it's for one of two reasons (or both): Because marketing believes it will sell more games, or because marketing believes it will put the company in a better light, which will sell more games.

 

You've never had your artistic freedom trampled in your work because there's no such thing as artistic freedom in your work if it's work done for a company. You're there to make the game they pay you to make. They tell you all the time that the shade of green is not right, that the animation is too sexy or not sexy enough, that the character needs more or less clothes, that the blood isn't shiny enough. It's a part of the job: that's the reality of game development.

 

 

 

 Controversial games should be available, sure. A game about anything should be available if there is someone out there who wants to make a statement about something. But let me be clear: your game will always be making a statement about something. If your game is a rape simulator, your statement is that you are an **** who doesn't take rape seriously and you will deserve the negative attention coming your way. Your right to make a game doesn't negate the right of other people to think you're an ****. And obviously kids don't need to have unrestricted access to games with mature content. But there's also a lot to be learned from "controversial" games like Anna Anthropy's Dys4ia, which puts you in the shoes of someone dealing with gender identity disorder. As far as social issues interacting with my work, mostly they have just influenced conversations about inclusion and character diversity with race and gender. Progress is frustratingly slow but it is there.

 

 

 When I look at the hate thrown at SJW (and indeed the hate thrown back, since I certainly wouldn't suggest that it goes all one way) I wonder what the hell it's all about. What do gamers think SJWs can actually do when it comes to games? Developers already have hundreds of clamoring voices, many of whom pay their wages, to listen to before internet critics. From a developer's point of view it's maybe getting a team to put a bit more thought into their female characters, from what they look like to who they are and how they relate to the game world (something I push for anyway.) We might get another couple of heroines, a few unusual gaming scenarios and some better realized female secondary characters. That's really it. And is that so bad?

 

 

 

 Personally, I think the problem with the overused and outdated tropes can be remedied by having more women working in the game industry itself and those changes have been happening. Going to GDC each year, I have noticed the number of women in attendance rise from next to none in 2004, to hundreds in 2013. We are and have been on the path to improvement.

Edited September 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Zoraptor]

But Rantic should get fined from false and unethical marketing which was aimed to slander another company's product and it users.

 

There's more to it than that- assuming that Watson was not aware that it was a hoax. Dirty tricks is one thing, it's pretty low but not anything all that unexpected. And assuming it gets disseminated widely it's also counter productive when caught out, as it was just about immediately obvious that it was a scam campaign (the Apache info, hundreds of smurf twitter accounts sending identical messages etc) so it was both poorly hidden and near immediately exposed, showing they are incompetent as well as nasty. But, once you start using innocent third parties for your dirty tricks it gets to be a whole new type of low as you're involving them without their consent in something that may have bad repercussions, and making a hoax which may cause significant anxiety and worry to that 3rd party. It's that that should really get them sanctioned. Sheesh, if it really were a GG/ 4chan type doing it there'd be all sorts of accusations of misogyny, rape culture and the like; those accusations are exactly as relevant- if not more so- when it's a false flag attack.

[Volourn]

"is good for everyone in the industry."

 

No. Someone creating the new shooter is NOT good for me which means it is not good for 'everyone' unless your definition of 'everyone' is broken. Then again, you support the idea that gamer = white male bigot so your opinion on definitions is useless garbage anyways.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Volourn

[Fighter]

"is good for everyone in the industry."

 

Except for that guy who liked as is the thing that you forced to be changed "for everyone".

 

EDIT:

 

Edited September 25, 2014 by Fighter

[Bryy]

I'm also tired of hearing the word "organized" when it comes to harassment. There is nothing organized there, it's completely sporadic. The only things organized are some of the GG podcasts. That and some people spreading boycott and mailing lists on their own initiative.

It was organized.

 

Poorly organized, but organized just the same. 

 

Let's not defend BS because of semantics. There are no Moral Olympics here.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

"is good for everyone in the industry."

 

No. Someone creating the new shooter is NOT good for me which means it is not good for 'everyone' unless your definition of 'everyone' is broken. Then again, you support the idea that gamer = white male bigot so your opinion on definitions is useless garbage anyways.

 

I love how you've completely cut away anything from the quote that might provide context as to what is said to be good for everyone in the industry.

 

Also, while I fully support the idea that you, personally, are a white male bigot (and a not very bright one at that), I'm not as arrogant as to include every gamer in this definition.

 

"is good for everyone in the industry."

 

Except for that guy who liked as is the thing that you forced to be changed "for everyone".

 

 

You too. Provide actual quote saying "[stuff] being changed in games is good for everyone in the industry", otherwise you're arguing with a strawman there.

[Malcador]

Volourn is a bigot ? Hm, I must not have noticed it, the hell do you always get so shirty about anyway ?

 

And that quote isn't necessarily true, at least in the diverse it seems to indicate (rather than interest, it being based on minorities or oppressed groups or whatever). You can have morons that like watered down gameplay and them being brown, wheelchair bound and transsexual, after all.

 

What do gamers think SJWs can actually do when it comes to games? Developers already have hundreds of clamoring voices, many of whom pay their wages, to listen to before internet critics. From a developer's point of view it's maybe getting a team to put a bit more thought into their female characters, from what they look like to who they are and how they relate to the game world (something I push for anyway.) We might get another couple of heroines, a few unusual gaming scenarios and some better realized female secondary characters. That's really it. And is that so bad?

She forgets, or chooses to, what makes the SJWs earn their W aspect. They aren't tolerant of anyone on the 'wrong side of history', so really these liberal arts folk being effective isn't all that good - see Bruce's approach to ideas he deems bad.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

She forgets, or chooses to, what makes the SJWs earn their W aspect. They aren't tolerant of anyone on the 'wrong side of history', so really these liberal arts folk being effective isn't all that good - see Bruce's approach to ideas he deems bad.

 

 

Except even if they were interested in doing that (which I find unlikely), they have zero power to enforce it.

[Malcador]

Based on the nannering on that list, they might if they infest the media around the industry or the industry itself. Heh, wonder how legitimate this article is anyway, all anonymous people that are supposedly devs. I've read enough 'devs' posting stuff over the last while.

[Volourn]

"Also, while I fully support the idea that you, personally, are a white male bigot (and a not very bright one at that),"

 

L0L That's the most hilarious thing I've been told. But, hey, you got 2/3rds of your insult right because we all know white male is an insult in 2014  in PC talk. Can't be white male. That makes you evil.

 

Well.. I am evil. I am no bigot. Bigotry implies bias. I hate everyone. No bias there.

 

But, hey, tell me how I hold minorities down or treat them differently than other white males.

 

But, hey go on, accuse others of bigotry when you and Bruce (and that Russian punk) are two of the biggest bigots on this board. Hatin' on a specific group because of their skin colour and gender. LMAO

 

 

R00fles!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Volourn

[licketysplit]

Wow. They really do hold gamers in low regard if that lineup is to be believed. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wow. They really do hold gamers in low regard if that lineup is to be believed.

Shut your mouth, subhuman male.

[Orogun01]

"is good for everyone in the industry."

 

No. Someone creating the new shooter is NOT good for me which means it is not good for 'everyone' unless your definition of 'everyone' is broken. Then again, you support the idea that gamer = white male bigot so your opinion on definitions is useless garbage anyways.

You're not in the industry.

[Volourn]

Yes, I am.

[Malcador]

Volo is Gabe Newell.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Volo is Gabe Newell.

Volo is Feargus Urquhart.

[BruceVC]

Yes, I am.

 

What do you do in the industry Volo?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Double post, but Rantic confirms they faked the threat against Emma Watson.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/emma-watson-threats-actually-stunt-to-shut-down-4chan/5766882

 

Look, an actual source!

 

Yes this is much better than Twitter comments, well done young grasshopper

 

But I'll be honest I am missing the reason for all this attention on this issue, I'm not sure what you are saying this proves or means. This is how I understand the chain of events

 

• the 4chan forums leaked photos of nude celebrities
• the celebs are now hurt, embarrassed and angry  ensure there publicists start doing anything to close down or harm 4chan
• This includes hiring a company to create  this viral marketing which they admit to, so no conspiracy there

Where is the issues?

 

 

They admitted to it after the fact and that they admitted to it is irrelevant when compared to the fact that they intentionally created a false harassment campaign to create controversy and spread misinformation (if you don't consider that to be wrong I don't know what to tell you). I find it relevant because it demonstrates how easy it is as well as how willing the nebulous "they" (meaning the cultural marxists and third wave feminists who wish to control media messages who I am assuming are responsible for this) are to create falsify information and spread it which is wrong regardless of what their intentions are. The end justifies the means to these people and that is an objectively awful way to conduct yourself. Also, it is relevant in the way that it demonstrates that the people creating the false narratives still don't do the research as they continue to pretend that 4chan is some kind of single entity rather than a random place for people with all kinds of opinions to gather anonymously.

 

I also find it relevant because before they admitted it, the only sources reporting on the truth were social media posts while journalists and other media picked it up as the truth which goes again to prove that what is posted on social media should not be dismissed out of hand rather than looked at on a case by case basis.

 

So essentially, it's very relevant as it lends credibility to a lot of the claims of conspiracy and collusion by GamerGaters.

 

Kazerad sums up most of my current feelings on GamerGate pretty well and reinforces to me why it is important:

http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/98113646063/gamergate-primer-finale

 

Especially this section:

 

 

@ TN

 

I want to discuss this further. I know you are concerned about this but we need to establish the facts and the chain of events as those are important if this development was truly done surreptitiously to manipulate people or it was just a marketing stunt. If its the latter then its fine, if its former then its not

 

First question that's relevant is did  Rantic admit they started this campaign and then change the Website to show  " Barack Obama and calls on people to support the calls to shut down the site" or were they exposed and only then did they change the website?

 

It seems Rantic did this on there own but I'm not sure?

Edited September 25, 2014 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

"is good for everyone in the industry."

 

Except for that guy who liked as is the thing that you forced to be changed "for everyone".

 

EDIT:

 

 

No changes in the industry around  more inclusivity is a good thing, you won't find any serious developer or publishers that don't say this is a something they believe in. So if your argument is " I don't want any change at all because I'm happy with how things are " this wouldn't be a very well supported view from the circles of people that matter.

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

 No one is trying to 'destroy games' or take away 'hardcore games' or tell anyone what games they should or should not play. No one is trying to say that the 'male video game culture' has to die. What they are saying is that the current culture and ecosystem surrounding games has some toxic and unwelcoming areas and THAT needs to change.

 

What many are also saying, and what I wish was considered 'obvious' to everyone, is that having a more diverse group of game developers creating a more diverse set of games played by a more diverse set of players is good for everyone in the industry. It keeps this industry sustainable and creates an environment that allows creative, engaging games of all types to be made so that everyone can experience the joys of playing video games.

 

 

The very problem with this is that if this were their stance and their argument, then they've already lost by having people on their side partaking in the very same actions. It'd require leading by example, which clearly isn't happening. Not neccesarily by guilt of the person you've quoted, but merely by people sharing her opinions who could NOT manage to be "above it all" when it came to the bickering.

[Orogun01]

Would you rather have a more inclusive game of lower quality or a higher quality one that's less inclusive?

I like how all the people calling for inclusive games aren't the ones making them or financing them or doing something remotely to fix the problem. Too much talking without a plan of action, just ramblings. I don't want games to be more inclusive, I want them to be diverse.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 No one is trying to 'destroy games' or take away 'hardcore games' or tell anyone what games they should or should not play. No one is trying to say that the 'male video game culture' has to die. What they are saying is that the current culture and ecosystem surrounding games has some toxic and unwelcoming areas and THAT needs to change.

 

What many are also saying, and what I wish was considered 'obvious' to everyone, is that having a more diverse group of game developers creating a more diverse set of games played by a more diverse set of players is good for everyone in the industry. It keeps this industry sustainable and creates an environment that allows creative, engaging games of all types to be made so that everyone can experience the joys of playing video games.

 

 

The very problem with this is that if this were their stance and their argument, then they've already lost by having people on their side partaking in the very same actions. It'd require leading by example, which clearly isn't happening. Not neccesarily by guilt of the person you've quoted, but merely by people sharing her opinions who could NOT manage to be "above it all" when it came to the bickering.

 

 

You shouldn't look at this in the context of "lost " and "won", because if you do anyone opposed to inclusivity has " lost " because never before has the gaming industry been more concerned and determined to create games that appeal to the whole fanbase. And to honest its irrelevant that people on 4chan think that this is a bad idea as they don't officially  develop games , this is way the industry is going

Rather see this as something positive as now games will cater for all people where appropriate

 

Would you rather have a more inclusive game of lower quality or a higher quality one that's less inclusive?

 

I like how all the people calling for inclusive games aren't the ones making them or financing them or doing something remotely to fix the problem. Too much talking without a plan of action, just ramblings. I don't want games to be more inclusive, I want them to be diverse.

 

I want neither of those options, I want high quality games that are inclusive. And this is very achievable in most cases if you look at games from Bioware and Obsidian

And yes this doesn't necessarily apply to Indie developers who have budgetary considerations

Edited September 25, 2014 by BruceVC

[Shallow]

Generally inclusivity means stripping the game of anything gender specific allowing you to play as either a male or a female with 0 difference. Making games that "appeal to the whole fanbase" generally means a watered down gray tasteless mass that everyone can swallow even though no one will really be that into it. Individual games shouldn't be cattering to everyone, games should be specialized, the market is big, the market is growing, the market has always been branching, stop trying to tie all the branches together, all it does is create more bland "enjoyable for everyone!" content that sorta sucks.

[Orogun01]

@Bruce:
 

A diluted drink will never compete with a strong one.

[BruceVC]

Generally inclusivity means stripping the game of anything gender specific allowing you to play as either a male or a female with 0 difference. Making games that "appeal to the whole fanbase" generally means a watered down gray tasteless mass that everyone can swallow even though no one will really be that into it. Individual games shouldn't be cattering to everyone, games should be specialized, the market is big, the market is growing, the market has always been branching, stop trying to tie all the branches together, all it does is create more bland "enjoyable for everyone!" content that sorta sucks.

 

So we obviously have a  disagreement of what inclusivity means, appealing to the fanbase is about inclusivity where you can play as a male or female. So we may  be debating the same point? Also female characters in a game mustn't be objectified. This does not mean now the games will become "watered down gray tasteless mass"

 

But if a large AAA gaming studio like Ubisoft doesn't offer fans the chance to play as a female then this is a problem that they need to address. This objective is relevant in most cases and of course there are exceptions