Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Nonek]

Video DVD/Blu-Ray Nasties next and then novels and the evil of the printing press perhaps?

[Blarghagh]

Oh, I get it! It's a generation raised by overprotective moms.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Oh, I get it! It's a generation raised by overprotective moms.

Relevant: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

 

Video DVD/Blu-Ray Nasties next and then novels and the evil of the printing press perhaps?

I hear books burn at 451F, seems like a good idea to torch the problematic ones.

Edited December 13, 2014 by KaineParker

[Volourn]

"Volo can you post those video links and I'll watch them, I'm not sure what links you are referring to ?"

 

\ Ignorance. Theyw ere posted in the last journalism/sexism thread here. You conviently ignored them then. You'll do it again because it doesn't fit your agenda or your manspeak.  Go look at the other thread.

 

 

 

"I'm sorry your niece was hurt, what happened?"

\

\I already told you. She loves GTA5 and you and your ilk are trying to take the game away from her. That's evil. WHAT DID SHE EVER DO TO YOU EXCEPT PLAY A GAME YOU DISSAPROVE OF!?!

[HoonDing]

Warriors of the world united.

[BruceVC]

"Volo can you post those video links and I'll watch them, I'm not sure what links you are referring to ?"

 

\ Ignorance. Theyw ere posted in the last journalism/sexism thread here. You conviently ignored them then. You'll do it again because it doesn't fit your agenda or your manspeak.  Go look at the other thread.

 

 

 

"I'm sorry your niece was hurt, what happened?"

\

\I already told you. She loves GTA5 and you and your ilk are trying to take the game away from her. That's evil. WHAT DID SHE EVER DO TO YOU EXCEPT PLAY A GAME YOU DISSAPROVE OF!?!

 

So you won't answer my question and you won't post those links you mentioned, that's a new level of laziness  that surprises even me....and I've met lots of lazy people in my life

[Volourn]

Yup. Ignore the facts. the links have already been posted. You ignored them.  Accusing me of being lazy when you are the one being lazy. LMAO

 

\You haven't answered like 1000 question posed to you in these threads yet whine about others not playing your silly questions.

 

Even now you ignored my question. WHAT DID MY NIECE EVER DO TO YOU EXCEPT PLAY A GAME YOU DISSAPROVE OF!?!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Volo's niece played a game I personally didn't approve of? How dare she not consult with someone she has never met before playing the games she wants to!

[Longknife]

Has anyone done a tally of how many women have lost their jobs due to Anti-GG?

 

KiA has some thread about a lady from Plebcomics losing her job over Anti-GGs harassing her workplace....again.

 

The count has to be over 10 now. It's pretty ridiculous.

[Meshugger]

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2p8q0t/if_you_havent_noticed_the_rkia_community_has/

 

*warms my heart*

[BruceVC]

Volo's niece played a game I personally didn't approve of? How dare she not consult with someone she has never met before playing the games she wants to!

 

You right of course, she shouldn't play any game unless Volo endorses it !!!

 

But isn't this fundamentally sexist ......  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4iGeXkIIAALn6R.png:large

 

For appealing to a vicious misogynist mob, Nichegamer seems to a higher percentage of women than esteemed feminist hubs like Kotaku and Gamasutra.

 

 

 

Volo's niece played a game I personally didn't approve of? How dare she not consult with someone she has never met before playing the games she wants to!

 

You right of course, she shouldn't play any game unless Volo endorses it !!!

 

But isn't this fundamentally sexist ......

I don't have to explain sarcasm to you do I? Edited December 14, 2014 by KaineParker

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Do you think game artists all want to design the same character? No, it's because (and ironically, people have taken offense to it) these things are designed by commitee to be as non-offensive as possible. They are all white men because they are terrified of getting their careers handed to them on a silver platter for making a minority character that, god forbid, people don't like.

 

 

And you seriously think that the media is to blame, not the risk-averse publishers who fire people over this?

 

You people have a strange way of thinking.

[Blarghagh]

Yes, because my (completely out of context) thoughts and extremely personal, anecdotal experience reflect the opinions of other people here. Can one of your posts in this thread ever in the history of time not contain a generalisation? My god. Any single person posts here and you respond with "haha look #GamerGate I disagree with you all". I also enjoy the part where you take half a paragraph of text that may not completely encompass the entire truth of a complicated issue entirely out of context and pretend you've debunked it with an argument that could (and does) very much include that reasoning while entirely ignoring the rest of a giant wall of text. You have a very strange way of debating.

 

Yes, the risk adverse nature of publishers applies very much - and I explained just exactly why it's a risk. The careers I'm talking about aren't those of the artists, it's the commitee, which tends to be the bigwigs. It's not the artists that make the decisions - every single artist in the game industry I've ever met (and I've met a substantial amount) wants to draw more interesting and varied characters. And when it applies to ****ty license games made at no budget to cash in on crappy IPs, it's certainly not just about financial risk to your target audience when you cut out background characters solely over fear of moral outrage. Target audiences being mostly male definitely have a lot to do with why big games tend to have male leads, but these characters have way more than just gender in common and the fear applies to all characters, not just the leads, and it's certainly not the only reason that they're all a very specific looking blank slate with no personality or defining traits. Defining traits means you represent that trait. Every single defining trait must be purged to keep it "neutral" for the watch dogs.

Edited December 14, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Yes, because my (completely out of context) thoughts reflect the opinions of other people here. Can one of your posts in this thread ever in the history of time not contain a generalisation? My god. Any single person posts here and you respond with "haha look #GamerGate I disagree with you all".

 

 

Well, duh, when most of you hold the same utterly ridiculous views, it's hard not to generalize.

 

If the thread contained even a single post about how every single decision contributing to the utter creative bankruptcy we're seeing was made by the publishers, not the games journalists everybody's so busy blaming for all the ills of the gaming industry, maybe I wouldn't feel like assuming most people posting here are not blaming the publishers who do everything in their power to stifle creativity, as opposed to the gaming journalists who... well... called gamers bad names, I guess?

 

 

Yes, the risk adverse nature of publishers applies very much - and I explained just exactly why it's a risk.

 

I'm willing to believe you meant to do that, but it came across more like "but really, it's the fault of the SJWs".

 

The fact that you wrote the whole post to explain why you think "the SJ agenda has caused games to have less minority characters overall" might have to do something with that impression.

Edited December 14, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Blarghagh]

You're inferring from my post that it's solely the fault of the "SJW", whatever that is. That inference is in no question entirely and only your thing. I don't care what you think the "tone" of the internet text is, you're just crapping one out and pretending it's mine. I've never stated or implied in any way, shape or form whatsoever that they were the sole cause of anything. The question Bruce asked me wasn't bloody "how did the SJ agenda and also maybe other random things that may have also had that effect impact the video game landscape", the topic was the SJ agenda and the SJ agenda is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, contributing factors to the decrease of minority characters in video games (and pretty much all media) but I would never claim it was the only cause. I explained how and why the "SJ Agenda" of the media causes less minority characters and I stand by that, but everything else you took out of there is just a bunch of absolute bogus assumptions and generalisations.

 

Essentially, we were talking specifically about the correlation between cancer and age and you're jumping in here saying "you're dumb because cancer can also be caused by bacterial infection and if you ignore that you're dumb".

Edited December 14, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I also enjoy the part where you take half a paragraph of text that may not completely encompass the entire truth of a complicated issue entirely out of context and pretend you've debunked it with an argument that could (and does) very much include that reasoning while entirely ignoring the rest of a giant wall of text. You have a very strange way of debating.

 

You: The SJ agenda has, ironically - and sadly - resulted in less minority representation in games.

Bruce: Could you explain this, please?

You: The decision-makers are afraid that they'll lose their jobs if they screw up representing minorities, and therefore rather cut minorities out of the games than risk that.

Me: Man, publishers are kinda ****. Maybe we should talk about that.

You: You are misrepresenting me!

Me: *blink blink* ...okay...

 

 

Seriously though, I can't believe nobody noticed how the evil Moral Guardians could easily be foiled by appointing a very visible minority project lead to... well, act as a project lead in a game with visible minorities, given that said Moral Guardians would look utterly ridiculous if they - largely white males - started to criticize how a member of a minority chooses to represent members of their own minority. If there is will, there is a way; problem is, in the current landscape, there is usually no will.

Edited December 14, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Meshugger]

I think it is time to post this again:

 

[Blarghagh]

I also enjoy the part where you take half a paragraph of text that may not completely encompass the entire truth of a complicated issue entirely out of context and pretend you've debunked it with an argument that could (and does) very much include that reasoning while entirely ignoring the rest of a giant wall of text. You have a very strange way of debating.

You: The SJ agenda has, ironically - and sadly - resulted in less minority representation in games.

Bruce: Could you explain this, please?

You: The decision-makers are afraid that they'll lose their jobs if they screw up representing minorities, and therefore rather cut minorities out of the games than risk that.

Me: Man, publishers are kinda ****. Maybe we should talk about that.

You: You are misrepresenting me!

Me: *blink blink* ...okay...

You're misrepresenting me AND your own post right now. Of course I'm going to call you out on it if you're using it to attack me.

 

And you seriously think that the media is to blame, not the risk-averse publishers who fire people over this?

 

You people have a strange way of thinking.

 

[emphasis mine]

 

The publishers are not the subject of your post, I am and the other people here are. If that was not your intention as you claim in hindsight then the mistake is entirely yours for saying the wrong thing. I'm very much interested in talking about how crap video game (and other media) publishers are (and they are, even as a low level indie dev my experiences with publishers and PR agents has been nothing but torture and the way they respond to media hype, buzz and criticism is a major part of that), but that was not what the conversation was about.

Edited December 14, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

You're misrepresenting me AND your own post right now. Of course I'm going to call you out on it if you're using it to attack me.

 

And you seriously think that the media is to blame, not the risk-averse publishers who fire people over this?

 

You people have a strange way of thinking.

 

[emphasis mine]

 

The publishers are not the subject of your post, I am and the other people here are. If that was not your intention as you claim in hindsight then the mistake is entirely yours for saying the wrong thing. I'm very much interested in talking about how crap video game (and other media) publishers are (and they are, even as a low level indie dev my experiences with publishers and PR agents has been nothing but torture and the way they respond to media hype, buzz and criticism is a major part of that), but that was not what the conversation was about.

 

 

I don't think it's an attack to point out how it's strange (a pretty values-neutral word as far as I'm aware) to talk in length about how the SJ agenda is at fault for publishers firing people if they draw the ire of people espousing said agenda while only tangentially mentioning the part the publishers - the people actually doing the firing - play in the thing.

Edited December 14, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Blarghagh]

Why do you think this is? Do you think game artists all want to design the same character? No, it's because (and ironically, people have taken offense to it) these things are designed by commitee to be as non-offensive as possible. They are all white men because they are terrified of getting their careers handed to them on a silver platter for making a minority character that, god forbid, people don't like.

Yes, the risk adverse nature of publishers applies very much - and I explained just exactly why it's a risk. The careers I'm talking about aren't those of the artists, it's the commitee, which tends to be the bigwigs. It's not the artists that make the decisions

 

Again, what attitudes you infer from my posts is not my problem. I've never once stated the artists' careers are in danger, I said the bigwigs fear for their own careers and change what the artists are allowed to put in. I recognize that the sentence structure in the first post may have given the wrong idea, which is why I have already clarified it several posts ago. Although even if that were the case, the "SJ Agenda" (if we insist on using that term) would still be the direct cause for these actions being taken, even if these actions themselves did not come from them. So the statement of "the SJ Agenda has resulted in less minority characters" would still be correct.

Edited December 14, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Although even if that were the case, the "SJ Agenda" (if we insist on using that term) would still be the direct cause for these actions being taken, even if these actions themselves did not come from them. So the statement of "the SJ Agenda has resulted in less minority characters" would still be correct.

 

 

...I didn't contest your statement, I contested the attitude of putting too much emphasis on the media side of the equation. Which is very prevalent in this topic.

 

And in the interest of constructive conversation, I'll now swallow back the snarky comment I wanted to add, and ask "What would you have the Moral Guardians do?" instead.

Edited December 14, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Blarghagh]

There was no (intended) emphasis, the media side of the equation was the topic specifically. This is, after all, about ethics in games journalism

 

I actually very much like that comment and I would have probably not noticed it was meant with snark and have taken it seriously. I would love to see the moral outrage crusaders to work constructively instead. For example, in the case of Hatred, large names in games media reported lies about the developers being neo-Nazis either out of ignorance by not fact checking or simply to discredit and attack the developers. Several also told the developers that they were horrible human beings and they should cancel the game and apologize. What is the point? It's very easy to condemn someone without trying to take them down. I have no interest in Hatred, but the audience will decide whether or not they think the game is worth it. The most ironic thing is that the Streisand effect is very real and without the media furore about it signal boosting it, most people would not have heard of the game, being another case of where the media watchdog bit its own arse.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

There was no (intended) emphasis, the media side of the equation was the topic specifically. This is, after all, about ethics in games journalism

 

 

Ah! In that case, we should maybe open a different topic for discussing general publisher unpleasantness? I'm genuinely interested in the experiences you spoke of earlier.

 

 

 

For example, in the case of Hatred, large names in games media reported lies about the developers being neo-Nazis either out of ignorance by not fact checking or simply to discredit and attack the developers. Several also told the developers that they were horrible human beings and they should cancel the game and apologize. What is the point? It's very easy to condemn someone without trying to take them down.

 

 

In all fairness, though, I felt physically ill watching the gameplay trailer about gunning down unarmed civilians desperately begging for their life, and wouldn't really fault anyone for assuming a game with the slogan "My Genocide Crusade Begins Here" was developed by neo-nazis. I'm not one for censorship (letting the scum of the earth freely speak their minds offers an easier opportunity to keep an eye on them, after all), but I wouldn't really think anything of value would be lost by taking it down.

 

(Then again, why take it down when it can be left to fail on its own merits - or rather, lack thereof?)

[Orogun01]

 

There was no (intended) emphasis, the media side of the equation was the topic specifically. This is, after all, about ethics in games journalism

 

 

Ah! In that case, we should maybe open a different topic for discussing general publisher unpleasantness? I'm genuinely interested in the experiences you spoke of earlier.

 

 

 

For example, in the case of Hatred, large names in games media reported lies about the developers being neo-Nazis either out of ignorance by not fact checking or simply to discredit and attack the developers. Several also told the developers that they were horrible human beings and they should cancel the game and apologize. What is the point? It's very easy to condemn someone without trying to take them down.

 

 

In all fairness, though, I felt physically ill watching the gameplay trailer about gunning down unarmed civilians desperately begging for their life, and wouldn't really fault anyone for assuming a game with the slogan "My Genocide Crusade Begins Here" was developed by neo-nazis. I'm not one for censorship (letting the scum of the earth freely speak their minds offers an easier opportunity to keep an eye on them, after all), but I wouldn't really think anything of value would be lost by taking it down.

 

(Then again, why take it down when it can be left to fail on its own merits - or rather, lack thereof?)

 

Is the slippery slope argument, if they are not allowed to speak because it bothers us then will be allowed to speak when it bothers someone?