Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

However even the most pedestrian of AAA+ games can add innovative and progressive features, one just has to look at New Vegas and its DLC compared to Fallout 3, the former was far more delightfully ambitious and creative.

 

Absolutely. Actually, FNV is pretty much solely responsible for my opinion of DLC changing over time from "cleanse the heresy, CLEANSE IT WITH FIRE" to "actually, it can be done in a way that adds value to the game without undermining the core experience". Although I disagree with your implied assessment of New Vegas being a "pedestrian" example of AAA+ games

 

News to me that I pretend that here, recalling posts I've made over the years. Though it is amusing as reading your posts on people being condescending or being **** to others, but I suppose Bruce can't be alone in that area.

 

Dude, if you provide me with concrete proof that you tend to overvalue highly cynical but not especially clever opinions solely on the grounds of them being highly cynical (as is the case with finding the statement "people campaigning for change don't really want change, because there are so few people buying innovative games" a "really good part" - you might notice there is no logical connection between the two statements, hence my verdict of it not being particularly insightful), then I don't really think it's particularly condescending of me to point out that you tend to overvalue cynicism as a trait.

[Longknife]

 

Well, it is about the same level as most of the insight in that article, but a thumbs up for your rating. What was insightful to you though ? Details on why and how the audience sucks ?

 

I guess you have to be a **** as always, though.

 

What a delightfully emotional reaction from someone so fond of pretending nothing penetrates his facade of detached cynicism 

 

Both of you sound dumb as **** with the petty jabs, ijs.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Well, it is about the same level as most of the insight in that article, but a thumbs up for your rating. What was insightful to you though ? Details on why and how the audience sucks ?

 

I guess you have to be a **** as always, though.

 

What a delightfully emotional reaction from someone so fond of pretending nothing penetrates his facade of detached cynicism 

 

Both of you sound dumb as **** with the petty jabs, ijs.

 

 

...said he, joining the discussion with a petty jab aimed at both participants 

[Malcador]

Dude, if you provide me with concrete proof that you tend to overvalue highly cynical but not especially clever opinions solely on the grounds of them being highly cynical (as is the case with finding the statement "people campaigning for change don't really want change, because there are so few people buying innovative games" a "really good part" - you might notice there is no logical connection between the two statements, hence my verdict of it not being particularly insightful), then I don't really think it's particularly condescending of me to point out that you tend to overvalue cynicism as a trait.

Ok, but your shot was about me presenting a facade of detached cynicism, which is wholly inaccurate and if you want to start bringing up posting history, well that is where the remark about you comes in. Easy to follow.

 

As for the part I quoted, did you read all of it ? It wasn't harping on your group only, which you've got your back up on predictably, he or she is perceiving a bizarre stalemate and that one group talking about innovation is lying out of all them, the last sentence hints at that. As for cynical being a good trait, well when it comes to games, it is, there are plenty of liars in this industry.

 

You seem to think that my quoting that part meant everything else in the article was bad, it wasn't, but that part stood out for me. The styling on that article sucks, occasionally it forgets to de-bold the questions.

 

Both of you sound dumb as **** with the petty jabs, ijs.

Well, you can **** right off too until you get a Moderator badge, eh ?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Ok, but your shot was about me presenting a facade of detached cynicism, which is wholly inaccurate and if you want to start bringing up posting history, well that is where the remark about you comes in. Easy to follow.

 

 

Well, your repeated assertions of "I only really follow this whole gamergate thing because it's good entertainment!" and generally dismissive attitudes towards social issues tend to create that perception. I know that despite this perception, you're not an unfeeling sociopath, hence "facade". I'm not sure why this would be insulting, but what do I know about the subtleties of language, I'm just a dirty foreigner after all.

 

 

As for the part I quoted, did you read all of it ? It wasn't harping on your group only, [snip] he or she is perceiving a bizarre stalemate and that one group talking about innovation is lying out of all them, the last sentence hints at that. 

 

 

Well if you merely accidentally included a meaningless jab at "my group", as you so charmingly put it (hey, it's almost like meaningless jabs are just this... thing you do, without even thinking about it!), I guess it could've been avoided by snipping the irrelevant parts of the quote in order to prevent misunderstandings.

 

 

You seem to think that my quoting that part meant everything else in the article was bad, it wasn't, but that part stood out for me. 

 

 

Well sorry for thinking the phrasing

 

This was the only really good part for me.

 

was meant to signify that indeed, the quoted part was the only really good part for you

[Longknife]

 

 

 

Well, it is about the same level as most of the insight in that article, but a thumbs up for your rating. What was insightful to you though ? Details on why and how the audience sucks ?

 

I guess you have to be a **** as always, though.

 

What a delightfully emotional reaction from someone so fond of pretending nothing penetrates his facade of detached cynicism 

 

Both of you sound dumb as **** with the petty jabs, ijs.

 

 

...said he, joining the discussion with a petty jab aimed at both participants 

 

How about we act like adults?

 

Seriously this whole pointing fingers back and forth and arguing about who's most petty is what I'm talking about. It's stupid, pointless and dumb. Disappointing to see that's your reaction to me calling you both out on it.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

...said he, joining the discussion with a petty jab aimed at both participants 

 

How about we act like adults?

 

Seriously this whole pointing fingers back and forth and arguing about who's most petty is what I'm talking about. It's stupid, pointless and dumb. Disappointing to see that's your reaction to me calling you both out on it.

 

 

So what would you exactly want us to do?

 

Start acting worthy of the generally *chuckles* measured *chuckling intensifies*, objective *chuckling further intensifies; occasional snorts* and highly informative *breaks out in hysterical laughter* discussion going on in this thread?

Edited March 25, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

 

Ok, but your shot was about me presenting a facade of detached cynicism, which is wholly inaccurate and if you want to start bringing up posting history, well that is where the remark about you comes in. Easy to follow.

 

Well, your repeated assertions of "I only really follow this whole gamergate thing because it's good entertainment!" and generally dismissive attitudes towards social issues tend to create that perception. I know that despite this perception, you're not an unfeeling sociopath, hence "facade". I'm not sure why this would be insulting, but what do I know about the subtleties of language, I'm just a dirty foreigner after all.

 

 

As for the part I quoted, did you read all of it ? It wasn't harping on your group only, [snip] he or she is perceiving a bizarre stalemate and that one group talking about innovation is lying out of all them, the last sentence hints at that.

 

Well if you merely accidentally included a meaningless jab at "my group", as you so charmingly put it (hey, it's almost like meaningless jabs are just this... thing you do, without even thinking about it!), I guess it could've been avoided by snipping the irrelevant parts of the quote in order to prevent misunderstandings.

 

 

 

You seem to think that my quoting that part meant everything else in the article was bad, it wasn't, but that part stood out for me.

 

Well sorry for thinking the phrasing

 

 

This was the only really good part for me.

 

was meant to signify that indeed, the quoted part was the only really good part for you

 

Argh, you're one of these quote users. That and this board's editor kind of sucks (to VIM this goes!)

 

How is that a jab at all, though ? You've quoted the part you've decided to get your back up on and it is referecing a set that you identify with based on your activity in these threads. Yes, that was a really good quote to me, the inverse of which isn't 'bad' though - for which other than the crappy styling, the article wasn't.

 

Seriously this whole pointing fingers back and forth and arguing about who's most petty is what I'm talking about. It's stupid, pointless and dumb. Disappointing to see that's your reaction to me calling you both out on it.

Isn't that stuff what this entire topic is about ? Generally people being ****, abusing sarcasm or trying to be edgy for The Cause ?

Edited March 25, 2015 by Malcador

[Meshugger]

Hmmm, http://www.reaxxion.com/6409/how-united-business-media-ubm-is-bankrolling-the-sjw-infiltration-of-gaming

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hmmm, http://www.reaxxion.com/6409/how-united-business-media-ubm-is-bankrolling-the-sjw-infiltration-of-gaming

Why am I not surprised a corporation is pushing identity politics with the intention of turning a profit.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Seriously this whole pointing fingers back and forth and arguing about who's most petty is what I'm talking about. It's stupid, pointless and dumb. Disappointing to see that's your reaction to me calling you both out on it.

Isn't that stuff what this entire topic is about ? Generally people being ****, abusing sarcasm or trying to be edgy for The Cause ?

 

 

...said he, while maintaining with a straight face that he is absolutely not trying to don a facade of impenetrable cynicism. I'll either have to file this under "really elaborate performance art" or "sufficiently advanced hypocrisy".

[Longknife]

 

 

...said he, joining the discussion with a petty jab aimed at both participants 

 

How about we act like adults?

 

Seriously this whole pointing fingers back and forth and arguing about who's most petty is what I'm talking about. It's stupid, pointless and dumb. Disappointing to see that's your reaction to me calling you both out on it.

 

 

So what would you exactly want us to do?

 

Start acting worthy of the generally *chuckles* measured *chuckling intensifies*, objective *chuckling further intensifies; occasional snorts* and highly informative *breaks out in hysterical laughter* discussion going on in this thread?

 

 

I would expect that two people can discuss a topic without developing what appears to be little grudges against one another. Not grudges like omg you hate each other, I just get the sense this stuff carries on to outside of this thread. It looks "personal" to the extent that I feel like "grudges" made in this thread are gonna carry on to other topics irrelevant to this one. Not really ideal or healthy in my opinion. I like to think that although I disagree with people they still have good intentions and the point of discussion is to, yknow, try and understand each other, bridge that gap and come to an overall conclusion, not discuss who looks more like a butt.

 

  As for the discussions going on....it's a discussion. One we all enjoy in our free time. If someone posts something not so relevant about Anita wanting to do a social experiment by housing only female chimps at a zoo exhibit in a belief they'll discover a cure for cancer or something, then cool let's have a chuckle at it. Hell, if one day we come in this thread and I wanna say anti-GG hates America and Barothmuk wants to say GG is responsible for 9/11 and it's both clear we're joking and dicking around, that's cool too.

  Reason I say "wow you two look dumb" is because there was potential for an actually productive discussion there when he asked those questions, and instead now there's useless bullcrap as you guys make petty jabs - and quite ironically - you make cynical statements about the thread in general while just having gotten done accusing him of detached cynicism.

[Malcador]

...said he, while maintaining with a straight face that he is absolutely not trying to don a facade of impenetrable cynicism. I'll either have to file this under "really elaborate performance art" or "sufficiently advanced hypocrisy".

Your post above mine was aiming for the same point, albeit with more emotes. Not too sure how that was an attempt at cynicism though, is pretty clear that's what this whole affair is from any angle. Not that it is not without some entertainment though, granted the Twitter wars have calmed.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I would expect that two people can discuss a topic without developing what appears to be little grudges against one another. Not grudges like omg you hate each other, I just get the sense this stuff carries on to outside of this thread. It looks "personal" to the extent that I feel like "grudges" made in this thread are gonna carry on to other topics irrelevant to this one. Not really ideal or healthy in my opinion. 

 

 

...Considering how fond you are of lambasting the SJ side over making statements you feel are not supported enough by empirical evidence, I think it's ironic that you're voicing that concern without any examples of this grudge actually carrying on to outside of the thread

 

 

  Reason I say "wow you two look dumb" is because there was potential for an actually productive discussion there when he asked those questions

 

 

...Who asked what questions?

 

 

 

quite ironically - you make cynical statements about the thread in general while just having gotten done accusing him of detached cynicism.

 

 

What I actually was accusing him of is "overvaluing a cynical-sounding opinion solely on the grounds of it being cynical". I also teased him about responding to a post of mine more emotionally than it could be expected, going by his seemingly impenetrably cynical facade.

 

I mean, what you point out would only be ironical if I assigned a negative value to cynicism as a trait, which I didn't.

Edited March 25, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

Dude, if you provide me with concrete proof that you tend to overvalue highly cynical but not especially clever opinions solely on the grounds of them being highly cynical (as is the case with finding the statement "people campaigning for change don't really want change, because there are so few people buying innovative games" a "really good part" - you might notice there is no logical connection between the two statements, hence my verdict of it not being particularly insightful), then I don't really think it's particularly condescending of me to point out that you tend to overvalue cynicism as a trait.

Ok, but your shot was about me presenting a facade of detached cynicism, which is wholly inaccurate and if you want to start bringing up posting history, well that is where the remark about you comes in. Easy to follow.

 

As for the part I quoted, did you read all of it ? It wasn't harping on your group only, which you've got your back up on predictably, he or she is perceiving a bizarre stalemate and that one group talking about innovation is lying out of all them, the last sentence hints at that. As for cynical being a good trait, well when it comes to games, it is, there are plenty of liars in this industry.

 

You seem to think that my quoting that part meant everything else in the article was bad, it wasn't, but that part stood out for me. The styling on that article sucks, occasionally it forgets to de-bold the questions.

 

Both of you sound dumb as **** with the petty jabs, ijs.

Well, you can **** right off too until you get a Moderator badge, eh ?

 

 

Malc I'm going to be honest here and jump in with my opinion, my erudite Hungarian friend is right about  several things but he is perhaps going about convincing you in the wrong way

 

 

I'm going to give it try and please don't get offended...that is not my intention. I have no issue if anyone wants to ask me similar questions 

• Would you say you are a cynical person on these forums ? ( note this is how you feel and NOT what other people have said to you )
• Would you say your level of empathy for people you don't know is normal? 

[Longknife]

 

 

  Reason I say "wow you two look dumb" is because there was potential for an actually productive discussion there when he asked those questions

 

 

...Who asked what questions?

 

 

He asked questions that were simple and constructive about what you found insightful in the article and then the bottom line was what set it all off, and lo and behold here we are with some stupid discussion instead of one about the article that was linked. And poor Meshugger trying to link other stuff in the middle of it as he's drowned out by stupid crap about whether Malc is cynical or not.

 

 

 

Not answering any of the rest of the post because it's either finger-pointing again or it's just going to perpetuate a stupid back-and-forth about whether or not your little "discussion" is justified or if you were right. I see no point in this.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

  Reason I say "wow you two look dumb" is because there was potential for an actually productive discussion there when he asked those questions

 

 

...Who asked what questions?

 

 

 

 

 . I see no point in this.

 

 

Trust me Longknife there is a point to almost every single debate, its just sometimes hard to see 

[Meshugger]

I don't even understand what the rest of you guys are riling up about, but then again, i identify myself as a Finn and we do not have the capability to react to emotions...except when it comes to Hockey.

 

More:

 

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/halo-reach-dev-talks-developer-bonuses-legislation-and-creative-censorship/

 

//edit: Even more

 

https://twitter.com/nuswomcam/status/580390340802297856

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, just get out of the gene-pool already.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

...Who asked what questions?

 

 

He asked questions that were simple and constructive about what you found insightful in the article and then the bottom line was what set it all off, and lo and behold here we are with some stupid discussion instead of one about the article that was linked. 

 

I have a hard time reading "what was insightful to you? details on why and how the audience sucks?" as particularly constructive as opposed to accusatory, but ah well. Basically the underlying idea that most of the problems are undesirable results of - on the face, not entirely stupid - systems currently in place resonates strongly with me (and by "resonates strongly with me" I mean "basically the same thing I've been saying in this topic again and again", just applied to a different area). I could elaborate later if you want; pressed for time at the moment.

Edited March 25, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

I don't even understand what the rest of you guys are riling up about, but then again, i identify myself as a Finn and we do not have the capability to react to emotions...except when it comes to Hockey.

 

More:

 

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/halo-reach-dev-talks-developer-bonuses-legislation-and-creative-censorship/

 

//edit: Even more

 

https://twitter.com/nuswomcam/status/580390340802297856

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, just get out of the gene-pool already.

 

Yeah you Finns are a  weird breed.....for sure 

[HoonDing]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mansplaining-ellen-pao-trial-fixing-gender-issue-jason-calacanis

 

Does this nonsense really need to infect everything?

[Volourn]

"You are too extreme in your opinion, its like there is no middle-ground with you. And I find it very hard to debate with people who are not prepared to compromise on anything."

 

L0L

[Meshugger]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mansplaining-ellen-pao-trial-fixing-gender-issue-jason-calacanis

 

Does this nonsense really need to infect everything?

 

...the **** is this ****? Venture Capitalists are the ones able to come up with quick cash for investment in change for collateral, ownership or other royalties when the banks simply say "nope, too risky, sorry". It's a veeery high-risk business with little room for wishy-washy errors and certainly not for misguided senses of social justice. 

 

If social justice is a sweet spot for high return, they will invest. But not because they have seen the light of people feeling good about themselves, but rather it will give the highest amount sweet gold with the minimal risk involved. 

 

I think the guy is confused and should look into charities and non-profit organizations instead.

[Volourn]

He deos make a good point that works with games 9and other stuff). Instead of whining about not being part of the so called 'men's club' why not a 'women's club'? Just go out and do stuff. Just go make you female oriented movies, games, tv shows, books, and businesses. Seriously. Why demand men do it? The disrespect shown to women by SJWs and their ilk is hilarious. The idea that you need men to do everything for women is sickening.

[kirottu]

GamerGate blamed for flop of Sucker Punch. If you google "Sucker Punch misogyny" can you guess what you're going get? Hint: it isn't some proto GamerGate attacking Sucker Punch. It is Feminist Frequency.

 

This again shows how these people don't even know or agree what feminism/social justice is and how a "journalist" can't do even the most basic research.

Edited March 26, 2015 by kirottu