Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[Hurlshort]

Independent developers really shouldn't rely on game journalists for anything.  Sure, it is nice when they get a mention in the popular press, but word of mouth is way more important for someone without an advertising budget.  

[Meshugger]

http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/core-gamers-expected-drive-market-growth/

 

But they should be dead

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Well I'd argue that trying to get the game journalists to be responsible would be the better way to "improve" the system as it improves several things, but YMMV.

Well, in my opinion, gaming journalism is a joke, but it's essentially a harmless joke. On the other hand, publishers being incompetent, greedy and risk-averse to the point of games in certain genres being essentially interchangeable has harmed and will continue to harm the industry as a whole.

 

I don't consider them a harmless joke. They may not hold power over publishers, but they hold power over independent developers which, to me personally, is a far bigger deal than whoever is making gaming's version of Transformers. It's why I care about this at all.

 

 

 

Well, the problem is that indies will always rely on exposure, but gaming journalism simply doesn't pay enough to be profitable for any given games journalist to always be on the lookout for the newest cool obscure indie game. Let's assume we manage to dethrone the Corrupt Establishment^TM, and there will be a new gaming journalism focused on "consumer advocacy" or whatever you guys want. Most indies will still languish in obscurity, and it will have nothing to do with the quality of the stuff they put out. It's not a conspiracy, it's an emergent necessity of the field.

 

 

 

I'm literally incapable of comprehending this analogy. Are gaming journalists destroying the environment? Is anybody forcing you to listen to their inane prattle?  "Hurr durr they're out there to take away our gaemz" doesn't count, unless proof is provided that they've made any progress in doing so.

 

They are universally wrong and i do not need to be personally affected to point out that they are full of ****.

 

 

 

"Universally wrong"? That sounds like painting with a rather large brush.

 

 

 

But even if, miraculously, it wasn't sloppy research, you're still faced with the problem that you're trying to justify that diversity isn't necessary. One of the core arguments (a fairly inane one, but still) for diversity is that people who feel they aren't represented will simply not play games. Surely you must understand how asking people who already play games might not be the most reliable way of assessing how truthful that assertion is.

 

Fair enough. But why would it matter for people that are not interested in games to begin with? they have zero market value and offer no value for the hobby itself.

 

 

 

The overwhelming success of Sims has proven that bringing previously-untapped consumer bases into the fold, so to speak, can prove to be an immensely profitable endeavour.

 

 

 

Another one is that non-diverse games reinforce the marginalization of... well, marginalized groups, but since the effect is subtle, self-reporting is not going to let you see the extent of that. Essentially, Sargon fails to understand why we need diversity, and is trouncing a paper utterly irrelevant to the discussion as ultimate proof of him being right. It would be entertaining in a bumbling way, if it didn't eat 20 minutes of my free time.

 

Why?

 

Diversity is a result of an organic process of people liking the same thing. Trying to force it in any way is tyranny. Surely you understand that people will not give up their freedom of creativity and choice to satisfy an abstract notion such as that?

 

 

Would be a valid line of argument if really, really strong constraints on freedom of creativity weren't already a part of game development. Constraints, I might add, that make AAA games heavily featuring non-white non-cishet people all but impossible.

 

 

 

No said anything about an iron grip.

 

 

Then I don't really see the problem. What we have is a group of people who intend to make the world a less ****ty place for marginalized people and really, really suck at making this intention a reality. But we should be up in arms about it because...?

[Blarghagh]

Independent developers really shouldn't rely on game journalists for anything.  Sure, it is nice when they get a mention in the popular press, but word of mouth is way more important for someone without an advertising budget.  

 

Word of mouth is extremely important, but what gets your game to the communities who might generate word of mouth? Get your game on steam these days, and sure, you'll have a few people who find it by accident or recommendation from a friend, but "word of mouth" is often overestimated as a force. Why do you think independent films go to festivals? Word of mouth doesn't start until there's exposure, and for independent games that is usually through journalism. There are exceptions, but only very few and those are generally runaway successes like MineCraft. The whole reason YouTube Let's Players have become important enough that they are given brand deals even by big publishers is because even for them, exposure is key. They are word of mouth generators. You say they shouldn't rely on game journalists, but that doesn't mean that currently they don't.

 

EDIT: Goddammit, everytime I respond to one person the next one's already up. Alum, you're correct to a certain point but that's exactly the problem. Currently, whether for true or false reasons, games journalists are seen as untrustworthy regarding their coverage of independent developers. It makes it essentially the same as for big publishers - consumers cannot trust whether a game review because they cannot be sure that a publisher hasn't paid for it, or if the developer isn't the writer's ex-roommate. But it's also unfair to developers - did their game get passed over for some girl the journalist used to have a thing for? Due to the appearance of impropriety, consumers cannot trust the journalist. But while a publisher has a big advertising budget to still get exposure, what is there for indies?

 

EDIT EDIT: Also, I don't want to dethrone anyone. I argued against that. I want ethics policies in places that matter and EiC's that enforce them.

Edited March 2, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Nonek]

All the more reason for a new paradigm in my opinion, one that focuses on an adversarial and critical examination of all the industry, from the lowest to the highest. Advocates for the consumer and challenges degenerate practises by developers and publishers. It has gotten to the point where this multi billion dollar industries best critic is a gentleman undergoing cancer treatment, it is absolutely shameful how unfit for purpose the industry is.

 

Of course it is not helped by apologists whom argue that there shouldn't be any ethics or consumer focused content, who want lies and corruption to be the order of the day, and expect the industry to change and improve thanks to the current corrupt and regressive press working for their own advancement. Inspiring such media laughing stocks as the recent Law & Order episode that reflects poorly on all the medium, and will surely only serve to drive new markets of gamers away. But thankfully such an approach is easily discerned and ridiculed by anyone whom has an ounce of wit about them.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It has gotten to the point where this multi billion dollar industries best critic is a gentleman undergoing cancer treatment

 

...Meh.

[Malcador]

Thought it was the chick with earrings?

[pseudonymous]

Why do we need diversity in NPCs, exactly?

 

Is just odd to want to identify with the soldiers in COD or the PC in an RPG - it is a game, right?

 

Would Vault City's First Person be as memorable as a random white guy instead of Joanne Lynette?

[Hurlshort]

Independent developers already have way more tools at their disposal than they ever did in the past to spread the word about their product.  Do you really feel like there are a bunch of amazing independent titles out there that are not getting exposure?  I'd even say the next great author or musician has it way tougher than the next great game developer.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Malcador]

Would Vault City's First Person be as memorable as a random white guy instead of Joanne Lynette?

Don't confuse not believing it's a necessity with it being a bad thing.

[Tigranes]

That's all true, especially that science shouldn't be the sum of human knowledge, but I do think a certain point of factual confirmation is neccesary when dealing with asking people how they "feel" about something (which is essentially what this study did) because if my experience with cognitive therapy have taught me anything it's that what people say or even think they're feeling is not neccesarily what they are feeling. Add that to the fact that the simple action of asking a question often puts people in the mind of reconsidering and thinking about what their answer should be pretty much means that such a study is never going to amount to any useful information. This study and many others (especially, as you say, in the game industry) are never going to amount fo anything but mere speculation using such methods. My experience is very limited, of course, so I'm totally open to being told I'm wrong.

 

I didn't want to get into a foundational debate about whether humanistic studies as we know it is capable of providing 'objective' knowledge (however we define that), so I was only working with norms in academia. I'd personally say that interviewing 30 people is perfectly fine for some things, but too often, the authors (or readers) take that and try to turn it into a big scientific claim, which is rubbish. (Amentep, sociology as a discipline these days is very social 'scientific', or tries to be - so depending on which branch of sociology, they would insist on pretty rigid and large scale measurements. Personally I've been in cases where I do 150 interviews, and after about 30 I'm not finding anything new anyway - a point of saturation. That would change if I wanted to study not just, say, American LGBT gamers, but a more diverse sample of global gamers, older gamers, etc, etc.) 

 

I'll only mention one pertinent point - it's usually impossible to study 300 people and do so in a way that gets you quantitative measures (e.g. did they clean their room this morning?), qualitative insights (I need to talk to and observe each one for a while to see what might motivate what they do, etc) and neurological / psychological data (I'll see whether their amygdala or medial pre-frontal cortex responds differently to dirty rooms). That is very very rare due to the costs and difficulty. So it's not really fair to take a study, look at it from outside and say "pfft" on that basis. 

 

Anyway, yes, I would say that this particular study is pretty much useless for the wider Gamergate debate. As I said, game studies is still at that stage where they try to test, theorise and validate many things that people like us already know as common sense. (Of course, even in this one forum, we see so many people with wildly different ideas about what passes us matter of course re. gaming, so it's not entirely useless.) 

[pseudonymous]

 

Would Vault City's First Person be as memorable as a random white guy instead of Joanne Lynette?

Don't confuse not believing it's a necessity with it being a bad thing.

 

 

It's a simple yes or no question, there is no need for the defensive deflection.

[Meshugger]

The overwhelming success of Sims has proven that bringing previously-untapped consumer bases into the fold, so to speak, can prove to be an immensely profitable endeavour.

Not really the same thing. There is a difference with a game creating a new segment compared to testing on people with no interest in gaming. They might overlap, but i would not call them equal.

 

 

Would be a valid line of argument if really, really strong constraints on freedom of creativity weren't already a part of game development. Constraints, I might add, that make AAA games heavily featuring non-white non-cishet people all but impossible.

 

They make them because it is the safest investment conserning the circumstances. Forcing diversity upon in them order to pander non-normal people will make no one happy.

 

All emerging markets has started from a small team in basements and garages. If there is a market for marginalised people, then there is no one stopping them in creating them.

 

 

 

 

Btw, am i the only experiencing a fudgy reply window? I cannot change my settings and everything is in one font on a white background, etc...so this

Edited March 2, 2015 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Not really the same thing. There is a difference with a game creating a new segment compared to testing on people with no interest in gaming. They might overlap, but i would not call them equal.

 

I see no meaningful difference between "will not game because games don't appeal to me gameplay-wise" and "will not game because games don't appeal to me representation-wise".

 

They make them because it is the safest investment conserning the circumstances. Forcing diversity upon in them order to pander non-normal people will make no one happy.

All emerging markets has started from a small team in basements and garages. If there is a market for marginalised people, then there is no one stopping them in creating them.

 

"Pander to non-normal people". How classy.

 

Also, "small teams in basements and garages" might have been a viable business model 20, 30 years ago, but nowadays odds are overwhelmingly against you. I mean, Minecraft's been a hit, but that's one game out of what? Hundreds? Thousands?

[Amentep]

I'd personally say that interviewing 30 people is perfectly fine for some things, but too often, the authors (or readers) take that and try to turn it into a big scientific claim, which is rubbish.

And I'll agree - a smaller study can indicate where the need is for a larger scale study (or what direction a larger scale study might take). Its results might be interesting in and of themselves albeit not definative and I think its fair to caution using a small scale study to make broad conclusions.

 

(Amentep, sociology as a discipline these days is very social 'scientific', or tries to be - so depending on which branch of sociology, they would insist on pretty rigid and large scale measurements. Personally I've been in cases where I do 150 interviews, and after about 30 I'm not finding anything new anyway - a point of saturation.

The mathmatician in me points out that's how you determine your sample's distribution curve and whether it is stable or not.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

Would Vault City's First Person be as memorable as a random white guy instead of Joanne Lynette?

Don't confuse not believing it's a necessity with it being a bad thing.

It's a simple yes or no question, there is no need for the defensive deflection.

Hah, of course it wasn't but hardly a deflection as it is answering the accusation.

 

Only recall her being a hard ass to deal with, not much else specific to her being black. A white hard ass would get hashed the same.

[Malcador]

"Pander to non-normal people". How classy.

 

Also, "small teams in basements and garages" might have been a viable business model 20, 30 years ago, but nowadays odds are overwhelmingly against you. I mean, Minecraft's been a hit, but that's one game out of what? Hundreds? Thousands?

Why should their deviancy be tolerated ? The flame for them!

 

Hm, in terms of starting out I think odds are overwhelmingly against you in anything these days. Still, given the tools available, all you need is a lot of time and skill and you can churn out something good even with a small team, a lot of people lack one or both (not that AAA ones have a tremendously higher rate of success). Thinking of implementation though, I wonder how you satisfy everyone's desire to see someone like them in games, but best bet for that is to work your way up to a role where you can make that and then whore that point out for maximum profitability.

[Meshugger]

 

Not really the same thing. There is a difference with a game creating a new segment compared to testing on people with no interest in gaming. They might overlap, but i would not call them equal.

 

I see no meaningful difference between "will not game because games don't appeal to me gameplay-wise" and "will not game because games don't appeal to me representation-wise".

 

I meant "I am not interested in games. Period"-kind of people.

 

 

They make them because it is the safest investment conserning the circumstances. Forcing diversity upon in them order to pander non-normal people will make no one happy.

 

All emerging markets has started from a small team in basements and garages. If there is a market for marginalised people, then there is no one stopping them in creating them.

 

 

"Pander to non-normal people". How classy.

 

Also, "small teams in basements and garages" might have been a viable business model 20, 30 years ago, but nowadays odds are overwhelmingly against you. I mean, Minecraft's been a hit, but that's one game out of what? Hundreds? Thousands?

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling people non-normal. They are outside the norm, therefore not normal. A Bangladeshi in Japan identifying as a dragon is not normal in a Japenese society, for example. I can't help wondering if the phrase "CIS" and such only exist to dimish the very existence of normal, because then it is valued as just one of many gender identities, instead of one being the standard and everything else is just a deviation from this very standard.

 

As for viable business model, it is still so. You are not building a power plant or anything, you are building a piece of software. The only tools required is still a regular computer and the know-how on how to program and to design good mechanics. Super Meat Boy also sold millions despite being developed by two guys, where one of them lived at home with his parents. There is no excuse really. If anything, it is easier now when your business model is not dependent on a publisher for manufacturing the physical product.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

"Pander to non-normal people". How classy.

 

Also, "small teams in basements and garages" might have been a viable business model 20, 30 years ago, but nowadays odds are overwhelmingly against you. I mean, Minecraft's been a hit, but that's one game out of what? Hundreds? Thousands?

Why should their deviancy be tolerated ? The flame for them!

 

 

BUUUUUURRRRRNNN THE HERETIIIIIIC

[Hurlshort]

 

Also, "small teams in basements and garages" might have been a viable business model 20, 30 years ago, but nowadays odds are overwhelmingly against you. I mean, Minecraft's been a hit, but that's one game out of what? Hundreds? Thousands?

 

 

I disagree with this, there have been a number of small team success stories in the last few years.  You don't need Minecraft numbers (which are frankly insane) to make it.

[Meshugger]

Level up or gou hoouuuumm, gaymer ghuurl!

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://opengamingalliance.org/press/details/core-gamers-are-expected-to-drive-record-growth-for-pc-games

 

Sort of off-topic, but we PC players seem to be driving sales quite a bit. It's projected that the game industry will grow $9 billion over the next four years.

[Volourn]

Great video. Now I wonder how quick our resident SJWs ignore it or belittle it.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Would Vault City's First Person be as memorable as a random white guy instead of Joanne Lynette?

Don't confuse not believing it's a necessity with it being a bad thing.

 

 

It's a simple yes or no question, there is no need for the defensive deflection.

 

 

I'd put 'black woman' fourth on a list of three things about her, behind being a racist and a pain the butt plus leader of Vault City. She isn't like Sulik or Marcus where their, uh, ethnicity has a major effect on their characterisation, she's just someone who happens to be black. If I were describing them then Tribal or Super Mutant would be near first because it heavily effects their behaviour, but for Lynette skin colour is not significant.

 

Really, Jacob from ME2 would be just about the most memorable person in the whole Mass Effect franchise if skin colour (/ sexuality) were key to being memorable, as he is black and (potentially) gay as well. In reality he's about as interesting and memorable as a block of concrete and probably the least interesting companion in all three games- unless his skin colour and sexuality is considered important.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Volourn]

"Would Vault City's First Person be as memorable as a random white guy instead of Joanne Lynette?"

 

Yes. Only racists think otherwise. In fact, I don't remember her skin colour coming up once all game.