Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[TrashMan]

 

 

Western society in almost cases doesn't support or purchase from people that are considered to have nefarious or unethical motives. We don't support crime by financially supporting criminals. Its why companies like Nike make sure there factories in the Far East that produce there clothes are not sweatshops manned by underage teenagers, people would have boycotted there products if they thought Nike was guilty of human rights abuses

 

So the point is the same, its just the fact that the developers  are Neo-Nazis should be enough for you to not support them..why do you need more reason? We know they are a movement based on ignorance and hatred, isn't that enough?

 

 

No, it isn't.

 

I'll buy a product if it's good, as long as someone isn't DIRECTLY hurt by it (and no, "muh feels!" does not count). Not to mention that even natzi's have families and have to eat.

[Fighter]

Indie devs active in GG isn't really blacklisting - I'd say reviewing the games of a person actively trying to take you down is a pretty ****ing huge conflict of interest so in this case they're doing the right thing. Shame it's at the cost of those devs.

 

That's a good point.

[Amentep]

 

http://i.imgur.com/Hi3Sqze.png

 

Dis guy...

 

Yknow I might tweet him and ask about his thoughts on Fallout New Vegas. Someone teach me how to tweet him in a way that he can and will see.

It's been updated.

 

http://m.imgur.com/a/kTgTs

 

Based on his arguments, I'm thinking that he believes that games are inherently a poor platform for social criticism? Essentially the idea would be that a game can't critique violence if its violent gameplay is fun. Since you can't have a game that has "unfun" central mechanics, the only way to criticise violence would be to make violent action inherently unfun in the game (which, I guess, means Mirror's Edge is a critique on violence since I seem to recall most complaints about that game was all the gameplay but combat was fun).

[Fighter]

He is so completely wrong. Making an experience both compelling and critical of what you're doing is a great way to make you think about it. Again he thinks games should be more mature but wants to treat people like children who are incapable of introspective examination of why something can be bad yet an exciting fantasy.

[Keyrock]

He is so completely wrong. Making an experience both compelling and critical of what you're doing is a great way to make you think about it. Again he thinks games should be more mature but wants to treat people like children who are incapable of introspective examination of why something can be bad yet an exciting fantasy.

Agreed completely.  You can make a game where killing is fun and exciting and still have the game show the horrors of those actions and make the player have to soul search.  Sleeping Dogs did a decent-ish job of that, though I thought they could have gone a lot further with it.  To make a game where killing is a central mechanic and purposely make it not fun is essentially dooming your own game to failure. 

 

As an aside, the next time one of these threads gets made, maybe we should call it something along the lines of "Culture Wars Thread", since we've expanded well beyond the scope of journalism ethics?

[Ganrich]

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/Hi3Sqze.png

 

Dis guy...

 

Yknow I might tweet him and ask about his thoughts on Fallout New Vegas. Someone teach me how to tweet him in a way that he can and will see.

It's been updated.

 

http://m.imgur.com/a/kTgTs

Based on his arguments, I'm thinking that he believes that games are inherently a poor platform for social criticism? Essentially the idea would be that a game can't critique violence if its violent gameplay is fun. Since you can't have a game that has "unfun" central mechanics, the only way to criticise violence would be to make violent action inherently unfun in the game (which, I guess, means Mirror's Edge is a critique on violence since I seem to recall most complaints about that game was all the gameplay but combat was fun).

PST and Arcanum are the best critiques on violence ever.

 

Anyway, Hatreds violence is ramped to a level that is uncomfortable. That level of violence without an excuse like saving a friend, stopping the cartel, etc could be used to just show how horrible violence is by pressing the right discomfort buttons.

 

Too often violence is excused in games because of some noble goal. A lack of that goal could very well shine a new light in some people's eyes on the topic of violence as a whole.

 

I find the argument shaky, at best. The same argument could be used against many systems in video games; not just combat/violence.

[Nonek]

Alpha Protocols simple mechanic of "Orphans Created" in the after mission summary was quite effective at undermining ones violence and self righteousness, yes you may have some good reason for your murdering, but you are still taking away fathers and mothers.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

That's the most coherent evidence of collusion that I've seen come out of GameJournoPro list. They are colluding to black list someone, no debate about it. Regardless of who the guy is or what he did (and I know nothing about him) this is unethical and a dangerous precedent.

 

 

 

While I find exactly this mindset unethical and dangerous.

 

Not all opinions are created equal, and claiming that a person's ideas are worthy of receiving a platform without knowing what those ideas are might not necessarily be wise.

 

 

 

 

It's been updated.

 

http://m.imgur.com/a/kTgTs

 

Based on his arguments, I'm thinking that he believes that games are inherently a poor platform for social criticism? Essentially the idea would be that a game can't critique violence if its violent gameplay is fun. Since you can't have a game that has "unfun" central mechanics, the only way to criticise violence would be to make violent action inherently unfun in the game.

 

 

 

He doesn't believe games must be fun, therefore you totally could have a game where unfun violence is the central mechanic. I happen to agree with him.

 

I also happen to think that he's full of ****; MGR: Revengeance, f'rex, succeeded perfectly in delivering its - for that matter, rather heavy-handed and simplistic - anti-violent (or, at least, anti-war) message while having a superbly entertaining combat system. I'd even dare to say the game's message was enhanced by how entertaining the combat was.

 

 

Hatreds violence is ramped to a level that is uncomfortable. That level of violence without an excuse like saving a friend, stopping the cartel, etc could be used to just show how horrible violence is by pressing the right discomfort buttons.

Too often violence is excused in games because of some noble goal. A lack of that goal could very well shine a new light in some people's eyes on the topic of violence as a whole.

 

 

That's pretty clever, but I'm not sure those who'd appreciate - or are likely to notice, even - that sort of message are the sort of people who'd buy the game based on its trailer. 

Edited December 18, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Tale]

Perhaps the next argument against GamerGate is: you can't be about ethics in games journalism, because games journalism doesn't have ethics.

No, the argument's going to be what it has always been.

 

You can't be about ethics in games journalism while celebrating the internet stalking of an iPhone developer and attempting to get a woman fired from a job in game development because of her opinions on female representation. An attempt that was so blatantly ignorant and misguided, it turned out she never had the job in the first place.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wikipedia article is unlocked, Buzzfeed and Colbert Report are considered acceptable sources for Wikipedia, Daily Caller is not.

[Fighter]

No, the argument's going to be what it has always been.

 

You can't be about ethics in games journalism while celebrating the internet stalking of an iPhone developer and attempting to get a woman fired from a job in game development because of her opinions on female representation. An attempt that was so blatantly ignorant and misguided, it turned out she never had the job in the first place.

 

Then you should address that to those specific individuals and not project that bull**** onto everyone.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Fighter

[Ganrich]

@aluminiumtrioxide - yeah, I am not arguing that the people interested in the game are the type to look for that sort of message, and also not sure (highly doubt) the developers are trying to push that kind of message. I am just saying that it is possible to send a message of the horrors of violence while not having crappy gameplay. If the devs of Hatred were so inclined they could try and do such a thing. There would be people that would miss the message, but that is the case with trying to say something in any artistic medium. Everyone interprets things differently, and some don't care about a message at all.

[Fighter]

While I find exactly this mindset unethical and dangerous.

 

Not all opinions are created equal, and claiming that a person's ideas are worthy of receiving a platform without knowing what those ideas are might not necessarily be wise.

 

And who the hell appointed them the arbiters of worthy opinions vs. unworthy?

 

Regardless they are not a platform, they are multiple platforms and should not be colluding on a common narrative.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Fighter

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

No, the argument's going to be what it has always been.

You can't be about ethics in games journalism while celebrating the internet stalking of an iPhone developer and attempting to get a woman fired from a job in game development because of her opinions on female representation. An attempt that was so blatantly ignorant and misguided, it turned out she never had the job in the first place.

 

 

Then you should address that to those specific individuals and not project that bull**** onto everyone.

But we all agree to it, haven't you been to the patriarchy meetings? Like that time we decided to get the woman behind Plebcomics fired or organize a hate mob against Liana K in our subreddit....oh wait, that was our opopposition.

[Meshugger]

https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/545147308552519680/photo/1

 

Mr. McIntosh has severe problems with games not following his narrative and the companies that distributes them.

 

This is why i do not think that GamerGate will ever truly dissappear, there always some new people around trying subvert or control, by extension, freedom of expression.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

While I find exactly this mindset unethical and dangerous.

 

Not all opinions are created equal, and claiming that a person's ideas are worthy of receiving a platform without knowing what those ideas are might not necessarily be wise.

 

And who the hell appointed them the arbiters of worthy opinions vs. unworthy?

 

Regardless they are not a platform, they are multiple platforms and should not be colluding on a common narrative.

 

 

 

They're all privately owned platforms who decide to do whatever they goddamn well they please with their own resources.

 

I fully support your right to not give them your patronage, but also their right to do as they wish with their own property. This is how capitalism works.

 

 

https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/545147308552519680/photo/1

 

Mr. McIntosh has severe problems with games not following his narrative and the companies that distributes them.

 

 

Mr. McIntosh has severe problems with judging the game based on a single trailer and no other info available, but the sentiment that profiting from the sales of an unethical product is itself unethical is not an unreasonable one, I think.

 

"Not communicating" is impossible, after all. Everything sends a message.

[Fighter]

But we all agree to it, haven't you been to the patriarchy meetings? Like that time we decided to get the woman behind Plebcomics fired or organize a hate mob against Liana K in our subreddit....oh wait, that was our opopposition.

 

It's actually the first time I even hear about some woman's job being threatened. But hey I care about ethics and I've used the same hashtag I must be guilty...

 

I guess I also missed when GG took a collective vote and arrived at a consensus on supporting harassment... Must have been in-between everyone saying they don't approve of such things.

[Fighter]

They're all privately owned platforms who decide to do whatever they goddamn well they please with their own resources.

 

Absolutely. They can do as they goddamn please as you say. And it pleases them to have poor ethics and be biased a-holes.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Fighter

[Meshugger]

 

 

While I find exactly this mindset unethical and dangerous.

 

Not all opinions are created equal, and claiming that a person's ideas are worthy of receiving a platform without knowing what those ideas are might not necessarily be wise.

 

And who the hell appointed them the arbiters of worthy opinions vs. unworthy?

 

Regardless they are not a platform, they are multiple platforms and should not be colluding on a common narrative.

 

 

 

They're all privately owned platforms who decide to do whatever they goddamn well they please with their own resources.

 

I fully support your right to not give them your patronage, but also their right to do as they wish with their own property. This is how capitalism works.

 

 

https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/545147308552519680/photo/1

 

Mr. McIntosh has severe problems with games not following his narrative and the companies that distributes them.

 

 

Mr. McIntosh has severe problems with judging the game based on a single trailer and no other info available, but the sentiment that profiting from the sales of an unethical product is itself unethical is not an unreasonable one, I think.

 

"Not communicating" is impossible, after all. Everything sends a message.

 

 

I rather have the customer decide himself on what to do the game and how they feel about rather how someone else doing it for them.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

But we all agree to it, haven't you been to the patriarchy meetings? Like that time we decided to get the woman behind Plebcomics fired or organize a hate mob against Liana K in our subreddit....oh wait, that was our opopposition.

 

It's actually the first time I even hear about some woman's job being threatened. But hey I care about ethics and I've used the same hashtag I must be guilty...

It wasn't just threatened she was actually fired, fortunately she got it back though. Admittedly it could've been any SJW who went after her, as Pleb comics did target them all.

 

I guess I also missed when GG took a collective vote and arrived at a consensus on supporting harassment... Must have been in-between everyone saying they don't approve of such things.

It was at the secret patriarchy meeting, where we take our marching orders from the Grand Patriarch. Certainly makes more sense than a random troll being an ass. Edited December 18, 2014 by KaineParker

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Absolutely. They can do as they goddamn please as you say. And it pleases them to have poor ethics and be biased a-holes.

 

 

 

You get to blame people with having poor ethics and being biased for no-platforming someone when you have actual proof that the person from whom they've denied a platform had more worthy ideas than the person whose ideas they decided to publish instead. Not before.

 

 

 

I rather have the customer decide himself on what to do the game and how they feel about rather how someone else doing it for them.

 

 

Herein lies the core of our disagreement, doesn't it? I think a store deciding to not sell a game only reflects on what said store wants to do with it and how they feel about it. I don't think my viewpoint is an especially illogical one.

Edited December 18, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Fighter]

Whenever someone calls the availability of a thing "problematic" or decides which opinions are not ok to be heard they are treating people with contempt. Because what they are really saying is you're too stupid to make sense of things on your own, you still need mommy to teach you right and wrong.

 

You get to blame people with having poor ethics and being biased for no-platforming someone when you have actual proof that the person from whom they've denied a platform had more worthy ideas than the person whose ideas they decided to publish instead. Not before

 

Wait what...?

 

If you've got any pretence to being a journalist and someone important says something or someone who is got enough public interest. You suck it up and do your job. You can question but it is I and not you who will decide the worth of an idea. What you don't do is collude to blacklist people for having the "bad" opinions. Period.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Fighter

[Meshugger]

 

 

Absolutely. They can do as they goddamn please as you say. And it pleases them to have poor ethics and be biased a-holes.

 

 

 

You get to blame people with having poor ethics and being biased for no-platforming someone when you have actual proof that the person from whom they've denied a platform had more worthy ideas than the person whose ideas they decided to publish instead. Not before.

 

 

 

I rather have the customer decide himself on what to do the game and how they feel about rather how someone else doing it for them.

 

 

Herein lies the core of our disagreement, doesn't it? I think a store deciding to not sell a game only reflects on what said store wants to do with it and how they feel about it. I don't think my viewpoint is an especially illogical one.

 

 

As I said earlier, Steam is not your friendly neighbourhood mom & pop-store, it is THE store. So when it decides to remove items without any clear reason why, then the problem starts. Also, what Fighter said. Having people in control of distribution with authoritarian tendencies harms everyone. Just look through all the **** Orson Welles had to go through with William Hearst and Hollywood.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Whenever someone calls the availability of a thing "problematic" or decides which opinions are not ok to be heard they are treating people with contempt. Because what they are really saying is you're too stupid to make sense of things on your own, you still need mommy to teach you right and wrong.

 

No, whenever they're calling something "problematic" they generally mean a very specific thing that doesn't reflect on anyone or anything but the actual thing in question. Which you'd already know if you ever stopped for a minute to listen to any feminist ever.

 

As for the "deciding which opinions are ok to be heard" part, I don't think it's a difficult concept to grasp that whenever a journalist chooses to report on something, they're simultaneously not reporting on something else. Let's assume you're a subscriber of a news source: would you prefer to hear about [insert big-profile game that interests you and a lot of other people], or some dude whose ideas might or might not be completely inane (but based on the fact that he was blacklisted, I'm leaning towards the latter)? People generally don't get successfully blacklisted solely for being obnoxious jerkwads, they also have to be obnoxious jerkwads without anything useful to offer in order for it to stick. For a tabletop example, see the difference between Zak Smith (a dude who's generally seen as the devil in socially conscious geeky circles - undeservedly so, in my opinion -, but has consistently delivered imaginative, powerful and great content) and James Desborough (whose biggest contribution to tabletop gaming - discounting "being a misogynist jerk" - is a tentacle porn card game).

 

 

 

 

Herein lies the core of our disagreement, doesn't it? I think a store deciding to not sell a game only reflects on what said store wants to do with it and how they feel about it. I don't think my viewpoint is an especially illogical one.

 

 

As I said earlier, Steam is not your friendly neighbourhood mom & pop-store, it is THE store.

 

 

Therefore they're not allowed to have an opinion on a game because...?

[Fighter]

No, whenever they're calling something "problematic" they generally mean a very specific thing that doesn't reflect on anyone or anything but the actual thing in question. Which you'd already know if you ever stopped for a minute to listen to any feminist ever.

 

No... When they call a thing problematic they mean it spreads negative ideas and shapes minds. Thus people are too stupid to as rational adults not draw the wrong conclusion. That you need your chosen entertainment environment to moralize at you as if you are not mature enough to not require guidance. It is disdain towards people.