Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Fighter]

"It's not censorship because it's not the government" seems to be the flavour of the day excuse. And it's nonsense.

 

This atmosphere of outrage mongering that gets things taken of shelves, makes them less available, thus makes them that little bit less competitive in the free market. This is the attempt at a modern form of censorship. Period.

[Longknife]

 

Weren't they all over GG for pressing sponsors of people ?

 

 

Yep, and that's exactly why I'm all for what GG is doing and also simultaneously don't give a **** about Target banning a game in a ban-happy country.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Ban is a generic term. Ban is not specific to governments.

 

Rather than arguing semantics, can we concede that

 

(a) Australia has not banned the game from sale in Australia

(b) Target has banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores

 

 

Well, we can, but shouldn't we then also say "Target banned [insert game whose distribution isn't profitable for them] from sale in its stores", too?

 

We can twist the meaning of the term "ban" until it encompasses so much it becomes basically meaningless, but I'm not sure it helps achieving anything aside from helping us feel a sense of moral superiority over those evil SJWs who have now apparently infiltrated Target and are out there to ban ALL OUR MANGAMEZ OMG.

Edited December 4, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Amentep]

For me the bigger problem is games journalists being okay with Target banning GTA V than the actual banning.

I think that games journalists should be allowed to have their own unique opinion with regard to this issue; I don't see any reason why they should be made to conform to any particular line of thought.

 

That said I think most people who are "pro" gaming should get worried when retailers start taking arbitrary stands over the content of individual games (while I disagree with it, removing games from shelves that have specific ratings is, IMO, no different from a movie theater chain deciding not to send "XXX-rated" films along with the G, PG, and R films to their multiplexes.) I'm sure each games journalist has their own "feel" on the matter.

 

RE: Censorship, technically McIntosh is correct, its not censorship - censorship edits content and then distributes the remainding approved content to the public. The described scenario is a banning, pure and simple - which keeps the public from ever seeing it (in this case the limited public of Target Australia shoppers).

 

 

Ban is a generic term. Ban is not specific to governments.

 

Rather than arguing semantics, can we concede that

 

(a) Australia has not banned the game from sale in Australia

(b) Target has banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores

Well, we can, but shouldn't we then also say "Target banned [insert game whose distribution isn't profitable for them] from sale in its stores, too"?

 

I'd be okay with that statment as long as you can provide evidence the games weren't selling (which would be a factual component I have no way to confirm). I can confirm "Target Australia banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores".

Edited December 4, 2014 by Amentep

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 Its a banning, pure and simple - which keeps the public from ever seeing it (in this case the limited public of Target Australia shoppers).

 

 

By that logic, a store that isn't wheelchair-accessible is also a hotbed of censorship - after all, they keep the limited public of wheelchair-bound would-be shoppers from ever seeing anything they're selling!

 

 

 

Well, we can, but shouldn't we then also say "Target banned [insert game whose distribution isn't profitable for them] from sale in its stores, too"?

 

I'd be okay with that statment as long as you can provide evidence the games weren't selling (which would be a factual component I have no way to confirm). I can confirm "Target Australia banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores".

 

 

Who said it wasn't selling? Continuing to distribute it can be a net loss even if it sells, but the higher-ups decide the (good?) publicity they gain by not selling it is more profitable than the sales they're getting. Which they apparently did (otherwise, they wouldn't have taken it off the shelves).

[Amentep]

 

Its a banning, pure and simple - which keeps the public from ever seeing it (in this case the limited public of Target Australia shoppers).

 

By that logic, a store that isn't wheelchair-accessible is also a hotbed of censorship - after all, they keep the limited public of wheelchair-bound would-be shoppers from ever seeing anything they're selling!

 

No that has nothing at all to do with what I was saying, particularly since what Target-Australia has done isn't censorship and I even stated as much in my post.

 

If a store wasn't wheelchair accessible they have defacto banned the wheelchair public from patronising the store even if accidentally, which was the whole point of the ADA in terms of requiring accomodations to allow access in the US to public spaces.

 

 

 

Well, we can, but shouldn't we then also say "Target banned [insert game whose distribution isn't profitable for them] from sale in its stores, too"?

I'd be okay with that statment as long as you can provide evidence the games weren't selling (which would be a factual component I have no way to confirm). I can confirm "Target Australia banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores".

 

Who said it wasn't selling?

 

I inferred it when you indicated the profitability, in the post I quoted.

 

Continuing to distribute it can be a net loss even if it sells, but the higher-ups decide the (good?) publicity they gain by not selling it is more profitable than the sales they're getting. Which they apparently did (otherwise, they wouldn't have taken it off the shelves).

Again I can't speak to sales or profitablity and whether that played a role in the decision as I have no data with regard to that.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Amentep

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Its a banning, pure and simple - which keeps the public from ever seeing it (in this case the limited public of Target Australia shoppers).

 

By that logic, a store that isn't wheelchair-accessible is also a hotbed of censorship - after all, they keep the limited public of wheelchair-bound would-be shoppers from ever seeing anything they're selling!

 

No that has nothing at all to do with what I was saying, particularly since what Target-Australia has done isn't censorship and I even stated as much in my post.

 

If a store wasn't wheelchair accessible they have defacto banned the wheelchair public from patronising the store even if accidentally, which was the whole point of the ADA in terms of requiring accomodations to allow access in the US to public spaces.

 

 

 

Well okay, if we define "banning" by "making something unavailable to a no matter how limited public, no matter how, which definitely, honest to god, swear, has nothing to do with censorship at all", we can agree that GTA V has been banned. Do note that by this definition, I am banned from entering Australia - since I can't afford the plane ticket -, therefore I'm also banned from buying every video game Target Australia has to offer (must be because of the SJW conspiracy!); furthermore, whenever they decide not to sell anything, they're effectively banning it (they've banned System Shock 1! the bastards!).

 

 

I inferred it when you indicated the profitability, in the post I quoted.

 

Continuing to distribute it can be a net loss even if it sells, but the higher-ups decide the (good?) publicity they gain by not selling it is more profitable than the sales they're getting. Which they apparently did (otherwise, they wouldn't have taken it off the shelves).

Again I can't speak to sales or profitablity and whether that played a role in the decision as I have no data with regard to that.

 

I think we can infer from the fact that Target is a for-profit organization that whenever they do something, they're doing it in order to increase their profit.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I had to do something to lighten up the mood in here.  Not sure if this worked, but I tried. 

Mark E Smith's bizarre adaptation of Lovecraft's The Horror In Clay. The weekend starts tomorrow!

 

[video=youtube;hptKRQcx6IE]

[Elerond]

Ban is a generic term. Ban is not specific to governments.

 

Rather than arguing semantics, can we concede that

 

(a) Australia has not banned the game from sale in Australia

(b) Target has banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores

 

So Target is banned themselves to selling game in Australia? Do I ban myself from buying the game if I decide not buy it?

[Zoraptor]

I think that games journalists should be allowed to have their own unique opinion with regard to this issue; I don't see any reason why they should be made to conform to any particular line of thought.

 

 

Definitely, and stores should be free to stock what they want as well. So far as I am concerned the only real problem with journalists voicing their opinion in support of the matter is when they've been simultaneously stridently opposed- or would obviously be stridently opposed- to having the same tactics used against groups they do agree with. Writing to Target or Te Warewhare to get R18 games pulled is fine, them pulling them is fine; but so is the targeting of Gawker's advertisers etc by the other side. I think the Warehouse's stance is pretty stupid and won't last anyway, as it removes pretty much all cable US drama content HBO etc from shelves and a fair bit of British too, craploads of movies etc. They'll quietly backpedal to case-by-case after Christmas.

 

The only way it would not be fine is if it were a governmental ban, which is usually handled by refusing classification, or widespread enough to actually mean something. Funnily enough the chief censor here has been complaining about games being available for sale without being classified via DD and online games for a fair while (eg last month, back to 2009) though obviously GTAV doesn't fall into that category.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

Its a banning, pure and simple - which keeps the public from ever seeing it (in this case the limited public of Target Australia shoppers).

By that logic, a store that isn't wheelchair-accessible is also a hotbed of censorship - after all, they keep the limited public of wheelchair-bound would-be shoppers from ever seeing anything they're selling!

No that has nothing at all to do with what I was saying, particularly since what Target-Australia has done isn't censorship and I even stated as much in my post.

 

If a store wasn't wheelchair accessible they have defacto banned the wheelchair public from patronising the store even if accidentally, which was the whole point of the ADA in terms of requiring accomodations to allow access in the US to public spaces.

 

 

 

Well, we can, but shouldn't we then also say "Target banned [insert game whose distribution isn't profitable for them] from sale in its stores, too"?

I'd be okay with that statment as long as you can provide evidence the games weren't selling (which would be a factual component I have no way to confirm). I can confirm "Target Australia banned the game from sale in Target Australia stores".

Who said it wasn't selling?

I inferred it when you indicated the profitability, in the post I quoted.

 

Continuing to distribute it can be a net loss even if it sells, but the higher-ups decide the (good?) publicity they gain by not selling it is more profitable than the sales they're getting. Which they apparently did (otherwise, they wouldn't have taken it off the shelves).

Again I can't speak to sales or profitablity and whether that played a role in the decision as I have no data with regard to that.

My understanding was the biggest part was a 40,000 name petition to not stock it. I don't know if it was online or print.

 

All this means is other retail shops and online stores will get more business from people who want to buy it. No big deal at the moment.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://nichegamer.net/2014/12/gamergate-interview-christian-allen-edition/

 

Interview with a AAA dev.

[kirottu]

 

For me the bigger problem is games journalists being okay with Target banning GTA V than the actual banning.

I think that games journalists should be allowed to have their own unique opinion with regard to this issue; I don't see any reason why they should be made to conform to any particular line of thought.

 

That said I think most people who are "pro" gaming should get worried when retailers start taking arbitrary stands over the content of individual games (while I disagree with it, removing games from shelves that have specific ratings is, IMO, no different from a movie theater chain deciding not to send "XXX-rated" films along with the G, PG, and R films to their multiplexes.) I'm sure each games journalist has their own "feel" on the matter.

 

The problem is the disconnection between them(journalists) and their audience(gamers, developers). Majority of gamers or developers don't want to see games taken out of store shelves. With this and the "Gamers are dead" articles one thing has come abundantly clear: games journalists aren't gamers anymore. Some of them seem to even hate games and gamers.

[Meshugger]

 

 

For me the bigger problem is games journalists being okay with Target banning GTA V than the actual banning.

I think that games journalists should be allowed to have their own unique opinion with regard to this issue; I don't see any reason why they should be made to conform to any particular line of thought.

 

That said I think most people who are "pro" gaming should get worried when retailers start taking arbitrary stands over the content of individual games (while I disagree with it, removing games from shelves that have specific ratings is, IMO, no different from a movie theater chain deciding not to send "XXX-rated" films along with the G, PG, and R films to their multiplexes.) I'm sure each games journalist has their own "feel" on the matter.

 

The problem is the disconnection between them(journalists) and their audience(gamers, developers). Majority of gamers or developers don't want to see games taken out of store shelves. With this and the "Gamers are dead" articles one thing has come abundantly clear: games journalists aren't gamers anymore. Some of them seem to even hate games and gamers.

 

 

No,no,no, you got it all wrong. The industry is simply growing up, and the journalists with it. They are all mature now with mature tastes. Maturity means no immature fun, exploration and discovery. It means didactic procedures and enlightning experiences on a personal emotional level. Gameplay should not be in the way for the use of a subconcious deconstruction of the ego of the main character. Simply, no fun allowed.

 

I spoke to my mother yesterday about this kind of mentality and it reminds her of the 70's. Everyone was a different degree of communist back then: The cool kids dabbled between standard marxist-leninism, trotskyism, maoism and stalinism, while the social democrats were shunned as pussies with no spine. Anyhow, since these kids were all in university back then and quickly got into positions of power as different pencil pushers and in different government institutions and as journalists.

 

One of their shenanigans was to remove all comic books and "fantasy-escaping" toys from daycare centers and kindergardens, since they were potentially dangerous for the fragile minds of the youth. Mainly, there was this big possibility that they would be stuck in this dangerous fantasy world and not cope, or even have unwarranted expectations of the real world. It was most important that the boys had "normal" toy trucks to play with and that the girls had "normal" dolls to play with. Strangely enough, those kinds of toys and comic books were almost always from Disney and other American/Japanese toy manufacturers. But the journalists had read studies and were, truly, truly concerned, and had found out that toys and comic books, which strangely enough were manufactured in the East block, were much more suited. But hey, those toys had better represention of reality than fantasy, so what you gonna do?

 

By the time they tried to remove Donald Duck comic books from the waiting rooms at hospitals and Mickey Mouse posters from the wall of the childrens dentists, the Medical Sciences started to have enough and did some investigations and found these claims about "dangerous fantasies" to be BS. It sure took a while, but in the end, they couldn't win against empirical data that was provided by the scientific community. She said that it completely died out by the time international TV stations started to be broadcasted into people's homes with their Transformers, M.A.S.K. and other shows, since well, the kids loved them. Me included.

 

The difference today is that the medium is different and it is the children of these people that are thinking of what is best for us in the mask being 'mature'.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Meshugger

[kirottu]

Tradition By Penny Arcade

[Longknife]

https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-the-holy-bible-this-sickening-book-encourages-readers-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women/share?just_signed=true

 

These are the people Target is catering to.

 

 

Inb4 GG inadvertely finds itself allied with motherf***ing Pat Robertson.

[Amentep]

Well okay, if we define "banning" by "making something unavailable to a no matter how limited public, no matter how, which definitely, honest to god, swear, has nothing to do with censorship at all", we can agree that GTA V has been banned. Do note that by this definition, I am banned from entering Australia - since I can't afford the plane ticket -, therefore I'm also banned from buying every video game Target Australia has to offer (must be because of the SJW conspiracy!); furthermore, whenever they decide not to sell anything, they're effectively banning it (they've banned System Shock 1! the bastards!).

 

You would only be banned from australia if the country officially would not allow you in, not whethere anyone can or will take you there. Therefore you are not banned from Australia.

 

If you were in Australia, you would not be banned from buying video games in Target Australia because you could walk in and buy them. Note that you are also not banned from buying Grand Theft Auto in Target Australia - you just can't because they don't carry the product. The product is banned from sale in the Target stores.

 

 

I think we can infer from the fact that Target is a for-profit organization that whenever they do something, they're doing it in order to increase their profit.

You can't infer that. For profit organizations can and have done things against their own short/long term best interests with respect to profitability because it seemed like the "right" thing to do at the time by leaders of the business.

 

So Target is banned themselves to selling game in Australia? Do I ban myself from buying the game if I decide not buy it?

No Target banned the sale of the game from their stores - all stock was removed and presumably in the process of being returned to the vendor. This would be different from discontinuing the item, since in that case the store would continue to stock the remaining supply but would discontinue immediately the further purchase of the item. If I'm wrong and Target Australia is just not stocking more but selling the remaining stock let me know; I'll amend my position to "Target Australia is discontinuing sales of GTAV".

 

I know ban has a negative connotation but this mental calistinics to get around using the word is silly. If Target banned smoking in its stores would you be asking "So Target has banned themselves from smoking in Australia? Do I ban myself from smoking if I decide not to smoke?".

 

If you go to take a standardized test calculators are banned from use. Would you ask "So ACT banned themselves from using calculators? Do I ban myself from using calculators if I decided not to use one?"

 

Most movie chains have a ban on showing XXX films. Would you ask "So Regal Cinemas banned themselves from XXX films? Do I ban myself if I don't watch them?"

 

Definitely, and stores should be free to stock what they want as well. So far as I am concerned the only real problem with journalists voicing their opinion in support of the matter is when they've been simultaneously stridently opposed- or would obviously be stridently opposed- to having the same tactics used against groups they do agree with.

Generally speaking this is true of most average people when given a choice between things they are passionate about and things they are not.

 

 

Do I contradict myself?

Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

-Walt Whitman

 

Writing to Target or Te Warewhare to get R18 games pulled is fine, them pulling them is fine; but so is the targeting of Gawker's advertisers etc by the other side. I think the Warehouse's stance is pretty stupid and won't last anyway, as it removes pretty much all cable US drama content HBO etc from shelves and a fair bit of British too, craploads of movies etc. They'll quietly backpedal to case-by-case after Christmas.

Most in-store bans I've seen get quietly reversed unless there's someone really passionate about the issue. The loss in sales will eventually triumph the public relations goodwill of not carrying that "evil devil music/movie/games/book".

 

I remember when several chain box stores wouldn't carry CDs with explicit lyrics; most ended up doing so in the end.

 

The problem is the disconnection between them(journalists) and their audience(gamers, developers). Majority of gamers or developers don't want to see games taken out of store shelves. With this and the "Gamers are dead" articles one thing has come abundantly clear: games journalists aren't gamers anymore. Some of them seem to even hate games and gamers.

Given the stances I've seen, a lot of game journalists seem to have decided to eschew impartiality and instead embrace activism. IMO you can't be an activist and a journalist.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Amentep

[kirottu]

Another games journalist happy about GTA pulled off shelves.

[Amentep]

Another games journalist happy about GTA pulled off shelves.

From the article:

 

People such as disbarred lawyer Jack Thompson made names for themselves fanning the flames of America's religious right into a zealous rage against videogames's corrupting force, going so far as to try to get previous iterations of Grand Theft Auto banned in America.

and

 

This latest petition, however, comes from neither videogame critics nor from a paranoid political right - though undoubtedly the political right is pretty happy with the result. Rather, it comes from a group with legitimate concerns with how a popular cultural work is depicting violence against women.

How are these concerns any more legitimate that Jack Thomposon's concerns?

 

Because this:

 

This situation is fascinating and complex, however, precisely because it is not a case of censorship, and it is not a case of an ignorant mainstream being paranoid about a medium they do not understand. Rather, it is a group of people with legitimate concerns about an incredibly popular cultural work perpetuating toxic politics, and taking the reasonable approach of directing their valid concerns to retailers who often explicitly market such adult products directly to children.

Sounds exactly like the anti-game rhetoric of the 1990s when stores banned Night Trap from sale (after misrepresentions of what the game was about).

 

And the correct response to retailers about concerns over "marketing adult products to children" is to get them to realize that video games aren't the sole propriety of children and to follow the ratings on games when selling and advertising video games. Not to get them to ban any video game that isn't playable by a child.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Amentep

[Meshugger]

Another games journalist happy about GTA pulled off shelves.

 

"perpetuating toxic politics"

"problematic"

"consequences"

 

Nice obfuscation of language there. You just can't write down that a politically incorrect games that undermine the current order are not tolerated and should be removed because too many people like them, now can you?

[kirottu]

[Fighter]

This latest petition, however, comes from neither videogame critics nor from a paranoid political right - though undoubtedly the political right is pretty happy with the result. Rather, it comes from a group with legitimate concerns with how a popular cultural work is depicting violence against women.

 

So two groups of people doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason but one is just paranoid lunatics and the other has legitimate concerns? Solid logic.

 

How about make your own choices about what to consume. How %&$#ing difficult is that?

[Barothmuk]

How about make your own choices about what to consume. How %&$#ing difficult is that?

Would you support a child-rape simulator? A holocaust simulator?

[Longknife]

 

How about make your own choices about what to consume. How %&$#ing difficult is that?

Would you support a child-rape simulator? A holocaust simulator?

 

 

 

Extreme hyperboles were never really all they great at objectively address the actual situation at hand.

 

Likewise, I think you will find that everyone in this thread - and everyone else - would say no, so while yes I WOULD support the free right for such games to be made and for their creator to waste time, effort and manhours on such a product, neither myself nor anyone else would actually buy it nor would retailers want to be associated with it (WITHOUT the need for a petition), discouraging it's production and severely limiting how much is made.

 

If I recall correctly, Japan actually had a "rape simulator" in the form of an erotic game. I remember there being controversy about it, though I dunno if the controversy articles were written by the west (where I doubt the game even got published) or if Japan had them aswell.

 

 Either way, Japan has yet to sink into the ocean suddenly despite having played that game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again: censoring what can be made as a video game, to me, is tantamount to censoring art is tantamount to censoring free speech. Retailers have every right to choose what they will and will not sell and customers have every right to choose what they will and will not buy. Let the free market settle moral disputes.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Longknife

[Fighter]

 

How about make your own choices about what to consume. How %&$#ing difficult is that?

Would you support a child-rape simulator? A holocaust simulator?

 

That's a ridiculous hyperbole.

 

Let's ban unhealthy foods because... cocaine?

Edited December 5, 2014 by Fighter