Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[Fighter]

Telling people who don't like politics in their entertainment that 'everything is political you dummy' is sort of like telling someone who wants to drink pure water that there is no such thing as pure water.

 

Like dude... I'm fully aware one could read a racial politics metaphor into my white sheet of paper with some black ink scribbles. I just want you not to preach at me with that exaggerated nonsense from your megaphone.

[Meshugger]

 

 

The main problem with the crowd that demands better journalism basically is that they ask games journalism to make a change that not even big media can. As long as games journalism is product-focussed  there will always be a worrisome closeness between PR and journalists. The second problem is people demanding objective reporting AND art criticism at the same time (or at least they demand games to be taken as seriously as art) which is absolutely ridiculous. Art was and is always, or at least most of the time, extremely political (besides not considering politics is also politics, you cannot be unpolitical) and art criticism was always subjective, at least since the 60s. 

 

What journalists can do in my opinion is explain how their publication works, what dynamics are at play, how decisions get made. I'm a journalist and I cycle through readers comments a few times per day and what I see most is people not really understanding how journalism works, sometimes to an astounding degree. Same goes with the gamergate crowd.

 

Every journalist in the world knows that his profession is in danger, every journalist wishes he had more time, every journalist wishes he could act more independently, but considering the state of media economically, there's no chance in hell we're going back to the 60-90s where journalism probably has had its best time. A few weeks ago I had an argument with a guy who basically deemed every cliffhanger title to be clickbait. Then he proceeded to rant about journalism. When I asked him if he supported really good journalism and named some local sites he said no - he reads the clickbait sites. When I told him that he could do away with bad journalism by supporting good journalism, he simply said it's not his responsibility. And let me tell you, yes it's your responsibility, because journalists are dependant on you, dependant on their readers. I see it every day - the good articles, the relevant and truly inspiring articles are surpassed by factor 10 or more by more "popular" stuff like pop stars, half-naked women and scandal stories. Why? Not because journalists are evil and lure their readers into bad articles, but because you read it and that makes journalists (who, compared to other jobs) be able to pay their rent and eat - because we don't make a decent living (and I imagine games journalists making a LOT less).

 

Media acts as a mirror to society in some cases. If you want to change media, change your attitude towards it.

 

I rather have game journalists reviewing games than giving them critique. Modern art (and its subequent critics) is so horrendously bland, pretentious and just generally **** to begin with, that you have swim through a sea of **** to find something not insulting to your senses. 

 

 

 

First of all I think you're wrongly  generalizing modern art. Just try to be open and go to a modern art museum and just let it affect you. There are lots of ways of interpreting and appreciating art. Also, art criticism is not only "modern art" as in paintings and sculptures, it's also literary criticism. I feel as if there's a big anti-intellectual (as in humane sciences) movement at the moment, which I find saddening. If there are people who can appreciate these writings, why don't you let them? You don't have to read it, you don't have to react to it. People are free in the ways they are reviewing and critiquing stuff. I like this direction and I feel as if it gives games a bit more weight as a cultural artifact, much like film, literature or theatre.

 

 

I spent my youth travelling to places like Amsterdam, Florence, Venice and so on and saw the paintings and sculptures by the very best (my parents are a bit of art lovers themselves); Rembrandt, Caravaggio, you name it. So perhaps i have to blame myself that i have the naive picture of that art is and how it touches your very soul. Modern art is often lazy, not really profound and pretentious compared to the greats.

 

But i wouldn't say ugly aestethically, but rather in essence: no truth, just a mishmash of emotions without direction, except for decadence and egotism.

 

The only modern artist that i can respect is Picasso and Dali.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Telling people who don't like politics in their entertainment that 'everything is political you dummy' is sort of like telling someone who wants to drink pure water that there is no such thing as pure water.

 

 

This is a very apt metaphor, exactly because there is no such thing as pure water 

 

Or rather, it's not for human consumption (and even if you do drink distilled water, you probably won't enjoy it much).

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

For forced diversity, check David Vavra's treatment of not including minorities in his game Kingdom Come:Deliverence: https://archive.today/KWpAH

 

 

...I've read the article.

 

Then I ctrl+f-d it for mentions of "vavra", just in case I missed something.

 

It literally makes no mention of the gentleman in question. What "treatment" are we actually talking about?

 

 

Vavra is the creator and producer of the game in question. He was essentially black-listed for coverage until late last year after telling people on twitter that they are wrong about thinking that black people existing in Bohemia in the 11th century. 

 

 

I'm trying my damnedest to phrase this in a manner that doesn't sound hostile and/or overly flippant, but maybe in the future you could consider... erm... linking to sources that actually have a bearing on the point you're trying to make?

 

 

Anyway, to be more constructive, do you have any proof of this blacklisting?

 

 

You do not need to cordial with me if you find my arguments frustrating, or just do not like me in general. If it helps your senses, i can tell you that i am an adult man and can take insults pretty well and not some teenage girl that will threaten with suicide for making me ungoodfeel. False niceness is ugly compared to pure passion and desire after all.

 

But i think i made my point pretty clear, the article showed that we was attacked (questioned in lol-speak) for making the game he wanted to make. As for the blacklisting, check the dates of the kickstarter updates in July compared to the amount of coverage until then. Then do the same for the rest of the year. Also check the dates of the updates and when they were posted in the media.

[Meshugger]

More about suspicion about black-listing in general in IGDA: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/igda-comes-under-fire-with-cabal-allegations-igda-members-stay-silent/

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

I'm trying my damnedest to phrase this in a manner that doesn't sound hostile and/or overly flippant, but maybe in the future you could consider... erm... linking to sources that actually have a bearing on the point you're trying to make?

 

 

You do not need to cordial with me if you find my arguments frustrating, or just do not like me in general. If it helps your senses, i can tell you that i am an adult man and can take insults pretty well and not some teenage girl that will threaten with suicide for making me ungoodfeel. False niceness is ugly compared to pure passion and desire after all.

 

 

 

...I don't find "pure passion and desire" conducive to rational discussion; overt hostility even less so. You seem to be ignoring the possibility that trying to cause no offense inadvertently when none was meant can also stem from a desire to communicate one's point cleanly and efficiently, not just out of "false niceness".

 

 

 

But i think i made my point pretty clear, the article showed that we was attacked (questioned in lol-speak) for making the game he wanted to make. 

 

 

 

It really, really doesn't? As far as I can see, somebody mentioned that the game "seems white" or somesuch, and asked somebody who specializes in calling attention to historical people of color in medieval Europe whether it's an accurate depiction or not; somebody else took offense and started bashing this person in a manner reminiscent to the hissy fits thrown by 5-year-olds, then this somebody was called bad names.

 

Unless I missed something, or we take "game looks white" as "attacking the creator", I'm simply not seeing any attacks on Vavra taking place in the article.

 

 

 

As for the blacklisting, check the dates of the kickstarter updates in July compared to the amount of coverage until then. Then do the same for the rest of the year. Also check the dates of the updates and when they were posted in the media.

 

 

 

Something something correlation does not imply causation something something? (Actually, I hate this adage, because that's exactly what correlation does: it implies causation. Does not prove it, but in the majority of cases, Occam's Razor says it's very likely.)

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Fighter]

This is a very apt metaphor, exactly because there is no such thing as pure water 

 

Or rather, it's not for human consumption (and even if you do drink distilled water, you probably won't enjoy it much).

 

 

I will take the smilie as an understanding of why you don't walk up to people and actually say that when they call their bottled water pure. And the 'everything is political' preaching is equally annoying.

 

Everything has an underlying philosophy we get it. But just like pure water just means good water to most people, 'take your politics out of gaming' means stop spitting acid at people when dudes decide to make a big game about three dudes for other dudes to play.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Fighter

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

I'm trying my damnedest to phrase this in a manner that doesn't sound hostile and/or overly flippant, but maybe in the future you could consider... erm... linking to sources that actually have a bearing on the point you're trying to make?

 

 

You do not need to cordial with me if you find my arguments frustrating, or just do not like me in general. If it helps your senses, i can tell you that i am an adult man and can take insults pretty well and not some teenage girl that will threaten with suicide for making me ungoodfeel. False niceness is ugly compared to pure passion and desire after all.

 

 

 

...I don't find "pure passion and desire" conducive to rational discussion; overt hostility even less so. You seem to be ignoring the possibility that trying to cause no offense inadvertently when none was meant can also stem from a desire to communicate one's point cleanly and efficiently, not just out of "false niceness".

 

 

 

But i think i made my point pretty clear, the article showed that we was attacked (questioned in lol-speak) for making the game he wanted to make. 

 

 

 

It really, really doesn't? As far as I can see, somebody mentioned that the game "seems white" or somesuch, and asked somebody who specializes in calling attention to historical people of color in medieval Europe whether it's an accurate depiction or not; somebody else took offense and started bashing this person in a manner reminiscent to the hissy fits thrown by 5-year-olds, then this somebody was called bad names.

 

Unless I missed something, or we take "game looks white" as "attacking the creator", I'm simply not seeing any attacks taking place in the article.

 

 

 

 

As for the blacklisting, check the dates of the kickstarter updates in July compared to the amount of coverage until then. Then do the same for the rest of the year. Also check the dates of the updates and when they were posted in the media.

 

 

 

Something something correlation does not imply causation something something? (Actually, I hate this adage, because that's exactly what correlation does: it implies causation. Does not prove it, but in the majority of cases, Occam's Razor says it's very likely.)

 

 

The guy was Pro-GG since day one, that's why i wanted you to check the dates. As for what is an attack, we seem to have different interpretations how it works. Finally as for niceness, if you really meant no offense then at least then you understand why my spider-senses started tingling when you emphasized that you're trying to have reasonable and constructive discussion.

 

Believe it or not, i do actually enjoy these discussions.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

The guy was Pro-GG since day one, that's why i wanted you to check the dates. 

 

 

 

Okay, let's say there's a correlation between him voicing pro-GG sympathies and receiving less coverage.

 

It still does not imply causation. I mean, there are other perfectly legitimate reasons for somebody receiving less coverage after doing so. This is where personal biases come into play; I can name three alternate reasons off the top of my head that are not at all, or only tangentially related to him being pro-GG for receiving less coverage in this period of time, but if one does not stop and consider alternate theories, it's easy for one possible interpretation to seem like the only reason worth considering.

 

 

 

 

As for what is an attack, we seem to have different interpretations how it works.

 

 

 

Okay, now I'm confused. When Sarkeesian & co. receive graphic death and rape threats, they "just need to grow a thicker skin" and "relax, it's just how the Internet is, it's not real", but when somebody points out that there are no people of color in a game set in medieval Europe, it's an attack on the creator?

 

 

 

Finally as for niceness, if you really meant no offense then at least then you understand why my spider-senses started tingling 

 

 

 

...No, I really don't? I mean "I'm trying to phrase this in a way that doesn't sound hostile, because I find hostility to be counter-productive to rational discussion" seems like a relatively reasonable and not very controversial statement to make. To me, at least.

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

But just like pure water just means good water to most people, 'take your politics out of gaming' means stop spitting acid at people when dudes decide to make a big game about three dudes for other dudes to play.

 

 

But... why?

 

I mean, why should we clamor for people to create LESS stuff (ie. "stop spitting acid"), when we could just encourage other people to create MORE stuff (stuff not involving acid-spitting) that can coexist with the acid-spitting part of the market? Why is "people spitting acid"* even a problem? It's not like you're forced to expose yourself to their secretions.

 

* Well, metaphorical acid. People spitting real acid would indeed be a problem. Unless it's a weak acid, like acetic acid.

[Blarghagh]

Some of us kinda are. As someone who received acid in face from both sides of this particular debate as well as on other gaming related issues, I'd say that more stuff is awesome (I love Zarya) but the people who keep "spitting acid" because other people didn't include the stuff they wanted are extremely counterproductive (and again, that statement includes both sides).

[Malcador]

The people spitting acid are the ones that get their shorts in a knot over "injustice" in games, most of the time, hence the annoyance. Telling them to do less of that isn't a bad thing - akin to advising people to not play games they don't like. Though that sword only cuts away from "socially aware" games with people identifying as pixies or what have you.

 

Was rather amused at how easily some people are suckered, loving Blizzard and now wanting Overwatch just because they added a female character that fell into the right bucket.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Malcador

[Orogun01]

 

 

But just like pure water just means good water to most people, 'take your politics out of gaming' means stop spitting acid at people when dudes decide to make a big game about three dudes for other dudes to play.

 

 

But... why?

 

I mean, why should we clamor for people to create LESS stuff (ie. "stop spitting acid"), when we could just encourage other people to create MORE stuff (stuff not involving acid-spitting) that can coexist with the acid-spitting part of the market? Why is "people spitting acid"* even a problem? It's not like you're forced to expose yourself to their secretions.

 

* Well, metaphorical acid. People spitting real acid would indeed be a problem. Unless it's a weak acid, like acetic acid.

 

I think the metaphors have carried away a bit, the point is to eliminate political bias from a medium or to hold it as just a subjective interpretation that isn't an absolute and that will not turn little kids into misogynists. When people started talking crap about 300 being propaganda for the wars in the middle East it didn't became a big deal, they didn't run out the creators from the industry and they didn't prevent a sequel from being created. 

Indie game development has been hijacked by lunatics.

[Blarghagh]

Was rather amused at how easily some people are suckered, loving Blizzard and now wanting Overwatch just because they added a female character that fell into the right bucket.

 

Yeah, it was an obvious ploy to get the "SJWs" off their back but hey, it worked and the resulting character looks fantastic so I'm fine with it.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The people spitting acid are the ones that get their shorts in a knot over "injustice" in games, most of the time, hence the annoyance.

 

 

I can see how that can be annoying to somebody who scare-quotes "injustice" in this context, I just fail to see how people's annoyance at the acid-spitters is somehow more valid than the acid-spitters' annoyance at the games at which they're spitting acid.

 

 

Telling them to do less of that isn't a bad thing - akin to advising people to not play games they don't like.

 

 

...I'm really not seeing the similarity between the two.

 

 

 

the point is to eliminate political bias from a medium or to hold it as just a subjective interpretation that isn't an absolute and that will not turn little kids into misogynists.

 

 

 

I'm not sure you can get much closer to holding it as a "subjective interpretation (...) that will not turn little kids into misogynists" than Anita Sarkeesian pointing out in one of her videos how consuming problematic media will not turn those consumers into misogynysts. Which, again, just goes to show how the problem is generally a failure to interpret what the "Team SJW" is saying correctly. It's essentially a communication issue.

 

(Yet my motives are questioned when I'm stressing the need for clean and efficient communication. Such miserable existence!)

 

 

 

When people started talking crap about 300 being propaganda for the wars in the middle East it didn't became a big deal, they didn't run out the creators from the industry and they didn't prevent a sequel from being created. 

 

 

 

That said, 300 is more akin to high-budget AAA titles, which remain impervious to being ran out from the industry by the evil SJWs.

(Also, propaganda issues aside, 300's handling of its historical subject matter is pretty much objectively repugnant, but that's neither here or there.)

[Blarghagh]

Repugnant? Why? It's not a historical movie and doesn't pretend to be. It's not like people will take it seriously. That's like saying they'll think Sin City is an accurate representation of American city life. It's an over-the-top comic book movie.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Repugnant? Why? It's not a historical movie and doesn't pretend to be. It's not like people will take it seriously. That's like saying they'll think Sin City is an accurate representation of American city life. It's an over-the-top comic book movie.

 

I generally dislike depictions of slave-owning societies as bastions of freedom, even if the whole movie is supposed to be spartan propaganda in-setting.

 

Edit: also, you'd be surprised at how many people I know took it seriously 

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Blarghagh]

Don't tell me how many, I'm already too cynical.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

 

The guy was Pro-GG since day one, that's why i wanted you to check the dates. 

 

 

 

Okay, let's say there's a correlation between him voicing pro-GG sympathies and receiving less coverage.

 

It still does not imply causation. I mean, there are other perfectly legitimate reasons for somebody receiving less coverage after doing so. This is where personal biases come into play; I can name three alternate reasons off the top of my head that are not at all, or only tangentially related to him being pro-GG for receiving less coverage in this period of time, but if one does not stop and consider alternate theories, it's easy for one possible interpretation to seem like the only reason worth considering.

 

As you said yourself, it does imply causation, though it certainly doesn't prove it. The usual sort of correlation != causation type examples are the old classic pirates cause global warming and the like, where two things are completely independent of each other. This was a developer supporting a 'movement' that a lot of journalists loathe with a passion and allegedly getting decreased coverage as a result. While it is effectively impossible to prove that any lack of coverage was related to support for GG it does make sense and does follow a logical train of thought, indeed it follows a logical train of thought whether it was a deliberate/ organised act (ie actual blacklisting) or just a subconscious 'asterisk that guy and his game'. So the implication does have a logical basis to it, as opposed to pirates and climate.

 

But either way, it's impossible to prove, it just tends to fit the defining narratives of each side rather well.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Don't tell me how many, I'm already too cynical.

 

They were all bodybuilding enthusiasts, though, so I'll just chalk it up to the mesmerizing effect of those perfectly-sculpted CGI abs and pecs overriding their common sense 

[Fighter]

Good for Blizzard that Russians are white so no one will take offense at the only Russian woman in the game being a hulking brute. Oh if I were an SJW.

 

 

But... why?

 

I mean, why should we clamor for people to create LESS stuff (ie. "stop spitting acid"), when we could just encourage other people to create MORE stuff (stuff not involving acid-spitting) that can coexist with the acid-spitting part of the market? Why is "people spitting acid"* even a problem? It's not like you're forced to expose yourself to their secretions.

 

* Well, metaphorical acid. People spitting real acid would indeed be a problem. Unless it's a weak acid, like acetic acid.

 

 

I don't want less stuff. Here is a funny thing, a lot of the stuff I will defend tooth and nail I don't even like. For example I'm not a fan of the flamboyant sexualazation of characters that many games use when it makes no sense.

 

But here is what I will not do: Call it sexist on the fact of my dislike alone. Demand it be changed. Call on reviewers to basically mark the game down (like Anita).

 

I do want variety. I don't want taboos, name calling, and shaming tactics.

[Blarghagh]

I agree with Fighter on that last bit especially. Tolerance doesn't come from shame and fear.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

As you said yourself, it does imply causation, though it certainly doesn't prove it. (...) This was a developer supporting a 'movement' that a lot of journalists loathe with a passion and allegedly getting decreased coverage as a result. While it is effectively impossible to prove that any lack of coverage was related to support for GG it does make sense and does follow a logical train of thought, indeed it follows a logical train of thought whether it was a deliberate/ organised act (ie actual blacklisting) or just a subconscious 'asterisk that guy and his game'. So the implication does have a logical basis to it

 

 

It totally does!

 

But then again, so does "game journalism has a finite amount of resources, and when a large-ish portion of those resources is tied down in documenting the minutiae of the ongoing drama, coverage of somewhat obscure indie games is the first thing to get the shaft". Or "this guy behaved like an irredeemable ****ing **** in the process of voicing his support for GG, so maybe we shouldn't give him exposure" (different from being blacklisted for a pro-GG sentiment itself [although, if you'll forgive me for saying so, behaving like an irredeemable ****ing **** and being pro-GG seems to have an unusually large rate of coincidence, so it might seem tempting to conflate the two]).

[Malcador]

 

The people spitting acid are the ones that get their shorts in a knot over "injustice" in games, most of the time, hence the annoyance.

 

 

I can see how that can be annoying to somebody who scare-quotes "injustice" in this context, I just fail to see how people's annoyance at the acid-spitters is somehow more valid than the acid-spitters' annoyance at the games at which they're spitting acid.

 

 

 

Telling them to do less of that isn't a bad thing - akin to advising people to not play games they don't like.

 

 

 

...I'm really not seeing the similarity between the two.

 

Who was scare-quoting anything ? Wasn't aware that was a thing. Did that as it is less typing than "what they perceive to be injustice". Of late, that word means different things to different people, and outrage is called for for reasons that don't really bear much consistency to me.

 

As for your point on validity, ideally people should answer the call to jihad less these days, things would be better, heh.   So you are okay with being annoying to people who are enjoying something you find annoying, as your annoyance is perfectly valid as you foist it on them ?   That's what the 'don't play wihat you don't like' is about, really, you just leave people to enjoy what they do. 

[Malcador]

I agree with Fighter on that last bit especially. Tolerance doesn't come from shame and fear.

 

It is impressive how some people are ok with things as long as the sights aren't aimed at them.  Moviebob's "there are no bad tactics" for example, heh, though that sounds like something you'd hear from some fringe South American revolutionary.