Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

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? 

 

I don't want less stuff. 

 

 

Weird, I thought

 

stop spitting acid at people when dudes decide to make a big game about three dudes for other dudes to play

 

means "there should be less acid-spitting stuff on the market".

 

Was I misinterpreting something?

 

 

But here is what I will not do: Call it sexist on the fact of my dislike alone.

 

 

I'm pretty sure nobody was doing that. People call things sexist for being sexist. The fact that your personal definition of "sexist" is narrower than that of those people has no bearing on the matter.

 

 

Call on reviewers to basically mark the game down (like Anita).

 

 

 

[citation needed]

 

 

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

 

 

But why not? What does it matter to you if a few losers who are writing for gaming journalist websites because they were unable to get a real job call you bad names?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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. 

 

 

Well, unless this particular scenario involves me harrassing them on social media with my detailed screeds expressing this annoyance, I'm really not seeing how posting an analysis on how sexist/racist/whatever Game X is on Gaming Journalist Website Y would constitute as "foisting [my] annoyance on them" and "not leaving them to enjoy what they do".

[Orogun01]

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.)

 

Then why does she always assumes that the authorial intent is to be misogynistic? I'm thinking of her review of Hitman Absolution where she went out of her way to kill and pose strippers so as to make it seem like the player was supposed to derive a perverse pleasure from it.

I suppose that you believe the KKK when they say that they aren't anti black, that they're just pro white. SJW might rave on about equality and positive rolemodels but their actions speak to their actual nature.

 

I agree with the second point about 300, but when Ubisoft has Saarkeesian speak on a conference you know how influential the SJWs are in promoting their agenda. Which only becomes a problem because implementation and accuracy. (They have bad data and direct lynch mobs)

 

I find myself dumbfounded when I hear people who dislike GG speak in the defense of SJWs, because I see how similar they are.

[Fighter]

means "there should be less acid-spitting stuff on the market".

 

Was I misinterpreting something?

 

It means there is no reason to throw hissy fits because GTA decided all it's protagonists will be male.

 

[citation needed]

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Then why does she always assumes that the authorial intent is to be misogynistic? 

 

 

I can't call myself the greatest authority on Ms. Sarkeesian's work for obvious reasons (I find her critique to be somewhat shallow), but I'm pretty sure she never assumed that the authorial intent was to be misogynistic. In fact, she often stresses in her videos how unexamined industry standards only become misogynistic in aggregate, when viewed through the lens of a wider cultural perspective. I'm fairly sure this precludes authorial intent even having an effect on the outcome.

 

 

I'm thinking of her review of Hitman Absolution where she went out of her way to kill and pose strippers so as to make it seem like the player was supposed to derive a perverse pleasure from it.

 

 

I'm fairly sure it was some other youtuber's footage. That said, I'm also fairly sure the video in question will never be seen as a high point in her portfolio.

 

 

I suppose that you believe the KKK when they say that they aren't anti black, that they're just pro white. SJW might rave on about equality and positive rolemodels but their actions speak to their actual nature.

 

 

...I'm not sure it's wise to draw parallells between a hate group known for torturing and murdering black citizens and people whose biggest crime is... saying things you disapprove of?

 

 

I agree with the second point about 300, but when Ubisoft has Saarkeesian speak on a conference you know how influential the SJWs are in promoting their agenda.

 

 

Which is weird, because on the other hand when you look at high-profile games being released, you also know how utterly powerless the SJWs are in promoting their agenda. I mean, one would think they'd be more efficient in achieving their aims if they had the influence you credit them with, don't you agree?

 

 

I find myself dumbfounded when I hear people who dislike GG speak in the defense of SJWs, because I see how similar they are.

 

 

Or maybe you're less objective than you like to think/operating on flawed data/etc. I mean, I know of no SJWs sheltering child porn enthusiasts, to mention just one notable point of difference.

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

 

 

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. 

 

 

Well, unless this particular scenario involves me harrassing them on social media with my detailed screeds expressing this annoyance, I'm really not seeing how posting an analysis on how sexist/racist/whatever Game X is on Gaming Journalist Website Y would constitute as "foisting [my] annoyance on them" and "not leaving them to enjoy what they do".

 

 

Well that is what I meant - the whole hand wringing over Hatred for example was that with people getting worked up over a boring slaughter game, I suppose writing articles on why your game is bad (but they don't want to censor its content at all, mind you, just identifying it as having really bad things in it) does count as that as well.

 

Writing articles may sound toothless, but it's how the Outrage Machine gets going these days, though you won't see it as such.

[Longknife]

https://instagram.com/p/z7DTsFih6v/

 

About to get into bed but there's 1-2 posts in the last few pages I'll probably respond to later.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

[citation needed]

 

 

 

 

I think it takes an extremely uncharitable reading to equate "somebody voicing disappointment over reviewers not mentioning something the speaker finds problematic" with "somebody calling out to reviewers to mark the game down based on that". Especially because the first scenario says nothing about assigning numeric values to the game, whereas doing the same is the whole point of the second one.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

Well, unless this particular scenario involves me harrassing them on social media with my detailed screeds expressing this annoyance, I'm really not seeing how posting an analysis on how sexist/racist/whatever Game X is on Gaming Journalist Website Y would constitute as "foisting [my] annoyance on them" and "not leaving them to enjoy what they do".

 

 

Well that is what I meant - the whole hand wringing over Hatred for example was that with people getting worked up over a boring slaughter game, I suppose writing articles on why your game is bad (but they don't want to censor its content at all, mind you, just identifying it as having really bad things in it) does count as that as well.

 

Writing articles may sound toothless, but it's how the Outrage Machine gets going these days, though you won't see it as such.

 

 

...Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between somebody writing an article you're free to ignore, using their own private platform they (or their employers) have paid for, and somebody actively harrassing you with their grief? Or does the mere existence of dissenting opinion bother you on principle?

Edited March 7, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

Maybe not, one thing you notice on Twitter is how passive aggressive everyone is.

[Malcador]

...Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between somebody writing an article you're free to ignore, using their own private platform they (or their employers) have paid for, and somebody actively harrassing you with their grief?

Maybe you need to brush up on your ESL classes, before you (yet again) throw a strop. Where did I say those two were the same - read the last sentence as well.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Malcador

[Barothmuk]

 

 

Or that specific example was to facilitate the later example of "GamerGate could be die-hard Bayonetta fans who are mad their game got 8/10 instead of 10/10 for all I care, so long as they bring about meaningful and positive change."

Re-read your post. You presented Bayonetta being marked down as an example of “unethical journalism”.   

 

 

 

If those are supposed to be the experts in journalism and reporting, then we have a serious problem. Today it's Bayonetta getting a sub-par review score, tomorrow it's blatant lies about Russian actions within the Ukraine, or indirect encouragement to address issues of Muslim immigration in european countries in the most violent, sensationalist manner imagineable.

[Fighter]

I think it takes an extremely uncharitable reading to equate "somebody voicing disappointment over reviewers not mentioning something the speaker finds problematic" with "somebody calling out to reviewers to mark the game down based on that". Especially because the first scenario says nothing about assigning numeric values to the game, whereas doing the same is the whole point of the second one.

 

Spare me. She'd be happy to see it marked down for "sexism". A score is a reflection of the review, she wanted reviewers to brand the game sexist and that can prove damaging to the game regardless of whether actual points are taken away.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Fighter

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I think it takes an extremely uncharitable reading to equate "somebody voicing disappointment over reviewers not mentioning something the speaker finds problematic" with "somebody calling out to reviewers to mark the game down based on that". Especially because the first scenario says nothing about assigning numeric values to the game, whereas doing the same is the whole point of the second one.

 

Spare me. She'd be happy to see it marked down for "sexism". 

 

 

Which you base on what exactly? Because it's not textual evidence as far as I can see.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Unless the reviewers come out and say "we totally black-listed the guy" we do not have 100% proof. But considering the circumstances and the whole GamerGate hablooa, i can safely say that is the most likely reason.

 

I must've confused you somewhere during the debate. My point was that people "attack" him as in they want to change his creation, i fail to see how that can be measured for the death-threats against Anita. Nobody supports that kind of stuff. I do support people for calling her the fraud that she is though. 

 

Finally, it must be a cultural thing. Where i come from, anyone who has to emphasize that they are not hostile or bad intent, is really hostile. It is simply implicitly expected that you're always honest about what you're going to say.

[Barothmuk]

Spare me. She'd be happy to see it marked down for "sexism".

So?

[Fighter]

 

Which you base on what exactly? Because it's not textual evidence as far as I can see.

 

It's obvious from her attitude. What the else are you asking if you want this negativity towards the game in the review?

 

"The game promotes treating the female gender as playthings for male amusement" -- But, no, totally nothing here is suggesting she wants the game to be marked down.

 

So?

 

So I want her influence nowhere near the media and gamedesign.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Fighter

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Maybe you need to brush up on your ESL classes, before you (yet again) throw a strop. Where did I say those two were the same - read the last sentence as well.

 

 

 

Well, vague exclamations about people "foisting annoyance on others" in a discussion that was entirely about whether gaming journalism having a market segment for spitting acid has legitimacy or not does sound like accusing the acid-spitters of harrassing others with their annoyance. I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to express yourself clearly.

 

 

 

Unless the reviewers come out and say "we totally black-listed the guy" we do not have 100% proof. But considering the circumstances and the whole GamerGate hablooa, i can safely say that is the most likely reason.

 

 

 

To you, sure. But you're not exactly a bastion of objectivity in this matter. I brought up two other alternate reasons for this outcome earlier in the discussion, for example, that seem equally or more likely to me. Then again, I'm not exactly a bastion of objectivity in this matter either.

 

 

 

I must've confused you somewhere during the debate. My point was that people "attack" him as in they want to change his creation

 

 

The article only mentioned a person asking a known "internet scholar" on people of color in medieval Europe whether the game's depiction of racial distribution was correct. I fail to see this as proof of intent to change someone's creation. But even if it was, wanting to change a game set in medieval Europe to actually reflect the realities of medieval Europe is hardly an "attack" in my view.

 

 

 

Finally, it must be a cultural thing. Where i come from, anyone who has to emphasize that they are not hostile or bad intent, is really hostile.

 

 

 

And where I come from, if people are unsure whether they managed to express exactly what they wanted to express (with tone being hard to convey on the Internet and the whole "not a native speaker" thing going on, I think I have valid reasons for assuming this process is not infallible), they usually clarify their intent.

[Orogun01]

I can't call myself the greatest authority on Ms. Sarkeesian's work for obvious reasons (I find her critique to be somewhat shallow), but I'm pretty sure she never assumed that the authorial intent was to be misogynistic. In fact, she often stresses in her videos how unexamined industry standards only become misogynistic in aggregate, when viewed through the lens of a wider cultural perspective. I'm fairly sure this precludes authorial intent even having an effect on the outcome.

 She has made claims about how the developers intended something to be interpreted, not how it is perceived through a wider cultural lens. Some which accuse the developer of promoting violence against women(being misogynistic). Other times its the disingenuous claim that women are underrepresented or relegated to secondary roles on what are clearly male driven stories. The analogy of complaining about how men are represented in romance novels and films has been used to contrast this point.

I'm fairly sure it was some other youtuber's footage. That said, I'm also fairly sure the video in question will never be seen as a high point in her portfolio.

Maybe it was, but the claim that this portion of the game was designed to derive perverse pleasure was hers and from her mouth. 

 

...I'm not sure it's wise to draw parallells between a hate group known for torturing and murdering black citizens and people whose biggest crime is... saying things you disapprove of?

Hyperbole isn't known for its accuracy, but point taken. There is still damage done by SJWs yet not to the same extent or level, so I would just say that is because I disagree with them. They have damaged and ended careers as well as swindled people from their money and damaged the relationship between consumer and the industry.

 

Which is weird, because on the other hand when you look at high-profile games being released, you also know how utterly powerless the SJWs are in promoting their agenda. I mean, one would think they'd be more efficient in achieving their aims if they had the influence you credit them with, don't you agree?

When the opposition ask for a termination of a successful business model you don't give them what they want. You make a half assed show of solidarity that makes it seem like you care. You know, just like now they treat cows humanely before they kill them because people don't want to feel guilty about eating them.

 

Or maybe you're less objective than you like to think/operating on flawed data/etc. I mean, I know of no SJWs sheltering child porn enthusiasts, to mention just one notable point of difference.

Actually I visit 8chan frequently, child porn isn't allowed. What is found there in droves is child models posing and dancing in the same sexualized way that seems to be the standard of the adult fashion industry. Cynically I don't think the SJW do care that much about it other than the fact they can use it to demonize GG, which is why you're mentioning.

Also, the info I've gotten has been from interviews of game developers who speak of how SJW have attacked them or made them feel threatened within the industry.

 

BTW, I do know of SJWs sheltering child porn enthusiasts and people who were into bestiality, it was a hot topic a while back on 8chan.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Which you base on what exactly? Because it's not textual evidence as far as I can see.

 

It's obvious from her attitude. What the else are you asking if you want this negativity towards the game in the review?

 

"The game promotes treating the female gender as playthings for male amusement" -- But, no, totally nothing here is suggesting she wants the game to be marked down.

 

 

Well, not really.

 

I mean, what is clear is that she finds the game to be in bad taste. We have no information about her thoughts on the scoring system being an accurate representation of what the game is about, it being a valid vector of influence, or a cost/benefit analysis of extending influence in this manner on her part.

[Barothmuk]

So I want her influence nowhere near the media and gamedesign.

So you support creators being able to create what ever bile filled crap they want but if someone has the audacity to critique it in a way you dislike they must be silenced.

[Malcador]

Well, vague exclamations about people "foisting annoyance on others" in a discussion that was entirely about whether gaming journalism having a market segment for spitting acid has legitimacy or not does sound like accusing the acid-spitters of harrassing others with their annoyance. I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to express yourself clearly.

Can't see how that is unclear - one reason to avoid metaphors like spitting acid.  But nonetheless, Fighter's point was about being hounded directly or indirectly one's preference in games, or in other words you pushing your annoyance onto others.  It was the main charge by defenders of stuff like Gone Home that they shouldn't be, but that cuts one way only as I said it seems to.

 

Also, Meshugger's right, you know some one is the exact opposite of something when they say they are that thing - it's a weird thing that's fairly common in NA at least, sort of a backhanded way to be aggressive yet have that aegis to duck under.

[Fighter]

So you support creators being able to create what ever bile filled crap they want but if someone has the audacity to critique it in a way you dislike they must be silenced.

 

Well thanks for illustrating my point. I want people who label the entertainment of my choice as 'bile filled crap' to never get any closer to taking over the media.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Fighter

[Barothmuk]

Well thanks for illustrating my point. I want people who label the entertainment of my choice as 'bile filled crap' to never get any closer to taking over the media.

You did say "Here is a funny thing, a lot of the stuff I will defend tooth and nail I don't even like." Presumably this includes "bile filled crap".

 

So I'll say again, you support creators being able to create what ever bile filled crap they want but if someone has the audacity to critique it in a way you dislike they must be silenced.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Nonek]

Personally I want more fact based criticism, objective analysis, dispassionate argument and level headed criticism. No cherry picking facts or arguments purely shaped by ideology that are not relevant to the game in question, or parroting what ones writers have provided when one has not even played the game in question. In other words for game journalists and critics to simply do their jobs, like full disclosure and ethical behaviour, it's hardly a difficult task nor onerous.