Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[Nonek]

 

I suppose we just have different things that we think are  important, firstly I don't consider  gaming journalists real journalists compared to people who say work for CNN. So to  expect them to reform and to be bound by the same standards as normal journalists is just a waste of time IMO. Secondly I don't think there is a conspiracy amongst gaming journalists to undermine and attack white, male gamers.

 

But back to the abuse and harassment  question, you must always condemn it when people are involved in it and then distance yourself from any website or group that is fine with it. You can also make posts and discussions around why you don't think its acceptable. I know this probably doesn't sound very exciting but its the Internet so I'm not sure what else you can really do?

 

 

Condemn and distance yourself from abuse and harassment as prominent figures from gamergate have done and stated repeatedly, yet SJF's have not even once.

 

So advising millions of people on financial decisions that reach into the billions shouldn't be covered by any form of ethics or integrity. This is just ridiculous, instead you champion those who engage in corruption, nepotism and all manner of unethical behaviour, including insulting millions of their audience, and still think them fit for the purpose of serving the public? I'm utterly gobsmacked!

 

I'm sorry Bruce but if those are your sentiments I see no reason in arguing with you, as that is utterly moronic, i'll join TN and ignore you from now on.

[Fighter]

Brianna Wu harassing a fruit importer.

 

That's pretty funny.

[BruceVC]

I'm not responsible for trolls who happen to share my opinion on certain matters. It's a bit like people who demand that every muslim should stand up and declare his opposition to Al qaeda and ISIS. Because after all, he's one of those people.

 

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that? Who said all gamers on GG are the same or are responsible for the extremist element ?

[BruceVC]

 

 

I suppose we just have different things that we think are  important, firstly I don't consider  gaming journalists real journalists compared to people who say work for CNN. So to  expect them to reform and to be bound by the same standards as normal journalists is just a waste of time IMO. Secondly I don't think there is a conspiracy amongst gaming journalists to undermine and attack white, male gamers.

 

But back to the abuse and harassment  question, you must always condemn it when people are involved in it and then distance yourself from any website or group that is fine with it. You can also make posts and discussions around why you don't think its acceptable. I know this probably doesn't sound very exciting but its the Internet so I'm not sure what else you can really do?

 

 

Condemn and distance yourself from abuse and harassment as prominent figures from gamergate have done and stated repeatedly, yet SJF's have not even once.

 

So advising millions of people on financial decisions that reach into the billions shouldn't be covered by any form of ethics or integrity. This is just ridiculous, instead you champion those who engage in corruption, nepotism and all manner of unethical behaviour, including insulting millions of their audience, and still think them fit for the purpose of serving the public? I'm utterly gobsmacked!

 

I'm sorry Bruce but if those are your sentiments I see no reason in arguing with you, as that is utterly moronic, i'll join TN and ignore you from now on.

 

 

No need to apologize Nonek, you must do what makes you happy. No need to engage in debate with me and anyone if you don't want to . That's the beauty of an open forum, you can chat to anyone you want to

[Keyrock]

A video about driving an agenda in video game reviews

 

Disclaimer:  This is very much an opinion piece, and should be viewed as such, not as a news.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gm4pH3SZqQ#t=27

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Alright, why don't I recount how things have gone and ya'll tell me where I'm wrong.

 

1)  Before any of this really started, there was an established record of a disturbing amount of hateful misogynist reactions to criticisms of vidyagames that happen to either come from a woman or point out sexist themes in popular games.  Much more than one would expect just from background "trolls gonna troll" noise.  (I.e., much moreso than in other mediums like TV or film.)

 

In all fairness though, anything actually resembling to criticism, or trying to analyze games as an art form has received a similar response. It's a mind-boggling thing, given that the same group of people often firmly espouses the opinion that "games are ART!".

[Blarghagh]

I'm going to do some deliberate strawmanning here. Like I've been telling all my football loving friends, by supporting a specific team they are associating with the football hooligans also supporting that specific team. They must condemn the following of that team before they can talk about football!

[PrimeJunta]

Am I the only one who thinks this entire thing is mind-bogglingly... stupid?

 

Sure, there are ghastly problems with ethics in games journalism they're pretty much exactly the same problems all American corporate-funded mainstream media have -- and in the cosmic scale of things, a bought game review ranks pretty low compared to, say, a bought election or a bought war. Plus, some indie dev sleeping with a journalist who didn't even write about her stuff ain't it. 

 

And people are sending other people death and rape threats, pulling advertising, boycotting publications, and generally getting incredibly butthurt about this? 

 

"Gamers" deserve exactly the reputation they have. Which is one reason I don't identify as one. Besides, it's not even a proper identity—it's a consumer segment. Late-stage capitalism bullcacky, is what this is.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm going to do some deliberate strawmanning here. Like I've been telling all my football loving friends, by supporting a specific team they are associating with the football hooligans also supporting that specific team. They must condemn the following of that team before they can talk about football!

Let's go even further. We can't talk about football until all hooliganism stops.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gm4pH3SZqQ#t=27

 

Well, this was pretty stupid. I want those 10 minutes from my life back.

[Malcador]

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that? Who said all gamers on GG are the same or are responsible for the extremist element ?

Not been following your kind throughout this ?

[Blarghagh]

Am I the only one who thinks this entire thing is mind-bogglingly... stupid?

 

Sure, there are ghastly problems with ethics in games journalism they're pretty much exactly the same problems all American corporate-funded mainstream media have -- and in the cosmic scale of things, a bought game review ranks pretty low compared to, say, a bought election or a bought war. Plus, some indie dev sleeping with a journalist who didn't even write about her stuff ain't it. 

 

And people are sending other people death and rape threats, pulling advertising, boycotting publications, and generally getting incredibly butthurt about this? 

 

"Gamers" deserve exactly the reputation they have. Which is one reason I don't identify as one. Besides, it's not even a proper identity—it's a consumer segment. Late-stage capitalism bullcacky, is what this is.

 

For me personally, considering 90% of my income comes from indie game devs that I freelance for, I find the fact that they cannot get an audience regardless of quality because they aren't chummy with reviewers or forking up cash for reviews to be a pretty damn pressing concern. With all the shovelware around, you need exposure and I'm sick of good games getting passed over for dreck like Gone Home because it happens to have some kind of moral in it or seeing good games that people threw their lives into lose out to run of the mill platformers because contest judges invested in their winning game.

 

To see those concerns sidelined because "guess what? people network" or "criticising them right now means you're a misogynist" or even "psh there's other problems in the world" is getting pretty irritating. If there's other problems you find more pressing, go bloody talk about them. Instead you wasted a couple paragraphs proving your superiority by talking about something that you don't even care about at length. Productive.

Edited October 16, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[Enoch]

Yeah, what I still don't get is what "ethics" or "integrity" in games media has to do with whether they make political statements or not.  (Or which political statements they make.)  I mean, mainstream media includes political op-eds, including those dealing with gender politics, and including some that offend some of their audience-- very few people considers that fundamentally unethical.  A film critic might encourage folks to avoid a film because it includes offensive sexist themes, and nobody calls him/her unethical.

 

Sure, games-related media are largely bought and paid for.  This is old news that no mass movements were seriously raging about a few months ago.  And, to my knowledge, nobody is sending death threats to the managing editor of IGN over their relationship with EA's marketing department.

 

 

So I can't help but conclude that "ethics" is a red herring.  Aside from particularized reactions to specific individual actions (e.g., insulting tweets and the like), and although sweeping statements about a group only defined by the hashtag they use are inherently difficult, it seems that, predominantly, GG's objection is politics.  Specifically, games criticism that focuses on gender politics and on how the audience for games influences and is influenced by said politics should be "off the table" for some reason.  Because "SJWs" are bad and oppressing their free speech.  It's become just another "anti-political-correctness" derpfest-- as if pointing out and judging somebody for being a jerk somehow restricts the rights of that jerk to continue jerking. 

Edited October 16, 2014 by Enoch

[BruceVC]

 

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that? Who said all gamers on GG are the same or are responsible for the extremist element ?

Not been following your kind throughout this ?

 

 

Well I support most SJ views around gender equality, its only the radical feminists I don't think offer anything constructive. And I don't take everything Anita says as the gospel truth. But the SJ movement isn't some monolithic organisation where we all have the exact same views on all topic related to SJ, but we do share several perspectives

 

But  we are united on being opposed to Internet misogyny and sexism and from  my side that's never going to change

[Nonek]

I'm all for political discussion, so long as there is more than one side being discussed, and it is discussion not preaching at an audience from a pulpit of condemnation and self righteousness. While behind that pulpits lies the corruption and two faced arrogance of those whom feel they are qualified to preach, at a public they should be serving.

 

Gamergate has asked for discussion, and been a movement that specifically debated many issues. The SJF's have and continue to censor, mock and demonise millions. Whom is being a jerk, and whom is looking for discussion in that scenario, the answer is simple.

 

Nobody is sending death threats to EA because they are a company and profit is their business, however game journalists function is to serve the public and represent them, by ethically and objectively judging games, instead they serve as mouthpieces and are hand in glove with them. This no one can argue, and has been complained about vociferously for ages. Journalists starring in games, moving into employment with publishers directly, issuing companies press statements without any comment, writing hype pieces etcetera.

 

Finally the situation has reached boiling point, which is where gamergate emerges from in my opinion.

[Orogun01]

Yeah, what I still don't get is what "ethics" or "integrity" in games media has to do with whether they make political statements or not.  (Or which political statements they make.)  I mean, mainstream media includes political op-eds, including those dealing with gender politics, and including some that offend some of their audience-- very few people considers that fundamentally unethical.  A film critic might encourage folks to avoid a film because it includes offensive sexist themes, and nobody calls him/her unethical.

 

Sure, games-related media are largely bought and paid for.  This is old news that no mass movements were seriously raging about a few months ago.  And, to my knowledge, nobody is sending death threats to the managing editor of IGN over their relationship with EA's marketing department.

 

 

So I can't help but conclude that "ethics" is a red herring.  Aside from particularized reactions to specific individual actions (e.g., insulting tweets and the like), and although sweeping statements about a group only defined by the hashtag they use are inherently difficult, it seems that, predominantly, GG's objection is politics.  Specifically, games criticism that focuses on gender politics and on how the audience for games influences and is influenced by said politics should be "off the table" for some reason.  Because "SJWs" are bad and oppressing their free speech.  It's become just another "anti-political-correctness" derpfest-- as if pointing out and judging somebody for being a jerk somehow restricts the rights of that jerk to continue jerking. 

There are the matters of Game Journalist doxxing, harassing, and deliberately targeting developers as well. 

 

But there is a fundamental difference between feminists and other political groups, these feminist in particular feel the need to evangelize. Other kind of reviewers hold back on the political stuff, leaving just a comment instead of making it the center of their review.

[PrimeJunta]

To see those concerns sidelined because "guess what? people network" or "criticising them right now means you're a misogynist" or even "psh there's other problems in the world" is getting pretty irritating. If there's other problems you find more pressing, go bloody talk about them. Instead you wasted a couple paragraphs proving your superiority by talking about something that you don't even care about at length. Productive.

 

I had a few minutes to waste.

 

That said, this thread has opened my eyes to just how many neckbearded man-children inhabit this very forum. I'm frankly shocked. I thought more of us were fully-socialized adults, more or less.

 

I also think that if you're more upset about indie games not getting the exposure you think they deserve than lives and careers being if not ruined at least severely harmed by this stuff, you are one of those neckbearded man-children.

[Malcador]

Well I support most SJ views around gender equality, its only the radical feminists I don't think offer anything constructive. And I don't take everything Anita says as the gospel truth. But the SJ movement isn't some monolithic organisation where we all have the exact same views on all topic related to SJ, but we do share several perspectives

 

But  we are united on being opposed to Internet misogyny and sexism and from  my side that's never going to change

I'm not really sure any of you offer anything constructive, really, well beyond making yourselves feel better, perhaps. Have to laugh at all the crying over this too, not much real damage done on either side - keep hearing of lives ruined and careers done in, but whose ? Frank quit, kind of (she wrote stuff afterward), Quinn is making good cash, Sarkeesian likewise, Wu is now famous and seems to be away from home just to do press shows, heh.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Malcador

[PrimeJunta]

There are the matters of Game Journalist doxxing, harassing, and deliberately targeting developers as well. 

But there is a fundamental difference between feminists and other political groups, these feminist in particular feel the need to evangelize. Other kind of reviewers hold back on the political stuff, leaving just a comment instead of making it the center of their review.

 

The status quo is not apolitical, nor is "not evangelizing."

 

I.e., that was the eternal cry of the hegemonic group having hegemony challenged. Mm, the smell of Molotov ****tails in the morning...

Edited October 16, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[PrimeJunta]

I'm not really sure any of you offer anything constructive, really, well beyond making yourselves feel better, perhaps. Have to laugh at all the crying over this too, not much real damage done on either side - keep hearing of lives ruined and careers done in, but whose ? Frank quit, kind of (she wrote stuff afterward), Quinn is making good cash, Sarkeesian likewise, Wu is now famous and seems to be away from home just to do press shows, heh.

 

Oh, good. That means our side is winning. Nyah nyah.

[Meshugger]

 

To see those concerns sidelined because "guess what? people network" or "criticising them right now means you're a misogynist" or even "psh there's other problems in the world" is getting pretty irritating. If there's other problems you find more pressing, go bloody talk about them. Instead you wasted a couple paragraphs proving your superiority by talking about something that you don't even care about at length. Productive.

 

I had a few minutes to waste.

 

That said, this thread has opened my eyes to just how many neckbearded man-children inhabit this very forum. I'm frankly shocked. I thought more of us were fully-socialized adults, more or less.

 

I also think that if you're more upset about indie games not getting the exposure you think they deserve than lives and careers being if not ruined at least severely harmed by this stuff, you are one of those neckbearded man-children.

 

 

Go to bed Leigh Alexander, you're drunk.

[Malcador]

Oh, good. That means our side is winning. Nyah nyah.

Ah, GG will lose out in the end, but it's nice to see things torn up.

 

Wu's hard now, by the way - http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/brianna-wu-gamergate

[Malcador]

Go to bed Leigh Alexander, you're drunk.

After Bruce hits his knees over his postings

[BruceVC]

 

Well I support most SJ views around gender equality, its only the radical feminists I don't think offer anything constructive. And I don't take everything Anita says as the gospel truth. But the SJ movement isn't some monolithic organisation where we all have the exact same views on all topic related to SJ, but we do share several perspectives

 

But  we are united on being opposed to Internet misogyny and sexism and from  my side that's never going to change

I'm not really sure any of you offer anything constructive, really, well beyond making yourselves feel better, perhaps. Have to laugh at all the crying over this too, not much real damage done on either side - keep hearing of lives ruined and careers done in, but whose ? Frank quit, kind of (she wrote stuff afterward), Quinn is making good cash, Sarkeesian likewise, Wu is now famous and seems to be away from home just to do press shows, heh.

 

 

Funny enough I do feel better about myself but its probably not for the reasons you think

 

I feel better about myself because I stand by my convictions and principles and say what I think is the right thing to say, I am not influenced by others or say things because I know the majority of people will like it because it suits a certain narrative

[Blarghagh]

 

To see those concerns sidelined because "guess what? people network" or "criticising them right now means you're a misogynist" or even "psh there's other problems in the world" is getting pretty irritating. If there's other problems you find more pressing, go bloody talk about them. Instead you wasted a couple paragraphs proving your superiority by talking about something that you don't even care about at length. Productive.

 

I had a few minutes to waste.

 

That said, this thread has opened my eyes to just how many neckbearded man-children inhabit this very forum. I'm frankly shocked. I thought more of us were fully-socialized adults, more or less.

 

I also think that if you're more upset about indie games not getting the exposure you think they deserve than lives and careers being if not ruined at least severely harmed by this stuff, you are one of those neckbearded man-children.

 

 

I see. All it took was someone to disagree with you to label them as a misogynist man-child who supports harassment.

 

Because I care about those things, I automatically care less about harassment? I can't count the amount of times I've reported harassment and gotten twitter accounts banned for it, or the amount of times I've denounced the harassment against these people even only in the threads about it on this forum. Journalist ethics and harassment are two completely seperate things and condemning one does not equal supporting to other. But you know this, all you're here for is to pretend your superior. Too bad you can't claim superiority unless you bloody well possess it.

 

Here's a misrepresentative label for you if you're so fond of them: Considering you don't care about it, I can consider you just another online troll trying to get a rise out of people, lumping you in with the same group sending the death threats too. Since I don't have time to waste, I'm not going to bother with that kind of nonsense anymore.