Journalism and bias in the gaming industry

[Volourn]

I'm secure enough to call out nazis when nazis deserve to be called out. Only cowards allow lies and evil be  allowed to do what theyw ant. Or do you find it acceptable that female game developers are harassed, bullied, and intimidated by people who claim they are fighting for them? LMAO

[Zoraptor]

Again, they have every right to do whatever the hell they want.

 

You seem to be rather hung up on the use of the word 'right'. You are correct that they have the right to preach or whatever, and about whatever they like- within reason and within any legal restrictions. But equally, preaching is not their purpose, their purpose at least theoretically is to inform gamers not to push particular political agenda. There would not be any (sensible) complaints about 'progressive' issues getting heavy weighting on a site called SJGamer for example, or one which had an explicit policy as such but it is fair to complain for general purpose gaming media as the purpose of gaming press is certainly not to browbeat their own audience into conforming with their social aims or claim that that certain parts of their audience should not be catered to; in any rational sense there cannot be sympathy for those who denigrate/ preach at their audience then find that that audience is no longer interested in them. There, they have simply got what was the logical outcome of their own actions. If my bank gave me lots of Catholic propaganda rather than rapaciously pillage and loot my wallet look after my money I'd quote Jesus in the Temple at them tell them to go asterisk themselves, and no one would blame me.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Sakai]

You seem to be rather hung up on the use of the word 'right'. You are correct that they have the right to preach or whatever, and about whatever they like- within reason and within any legal restrictions. But equally, preaching is not their purpose, their purpose at least theoretically is to inform gamers not to push particular political agenda. There would not be any (sensible) complaints about 'progressive' issues getting heavy weighting on a site called SJGamer for example, or one which had an explicit policy as such but it is fair to complain for general purpose gaming media as the purpose of gaming press is certainly not to browbeat their own audience into conforming with their social aims or claim that that certain parts of their audience should not be catered to; in any rational sense there cannot be sympathy for those who denigrate/ preach at their audience then find that that audience is no longer interested in them. There, they have simply got what was the logical outcome of their own actions. If my bank gave me lots of Catholic propaganda rather than rapaciously pillage and loot my wallet look after my money I'd quote Jesus in the Temple at them tell them to go asterisk themselves, and no one would blame me.

 

"Their purpose"? I'm sorry, but who dicedes what is and isn't their purpose? You, Nonek? I will say it again, they have the right to do whatever the hell they want. And that means whatever the hell they want. Your or mine disagreement doesn't mean anything. Logical outcome here would be to simply vote with you wallet. If you don't like content produced, leave the site. Simple as that. And i can say the same Hurlshot said. So what that someone said "gamers are dead" or whatever it is? It doesn't affect me in any way shape or form. Leigh Alexander is an idiot and that's the end of the conversation. I don't feel the need to scream corruption from the rooftops just because she was mean to me. You know, the funny thing is that i agree with you. But can not support you. What i want to see is discussion, dialogue, people trying to find ways (calmly and rationally) to do something about it. And i mean dialogue with opponents, not circle jerking each other. But what i see for the most part is either people who believe mocking the ones you disagree with is the way to go, or people like Nonek, who think this is the biggest crisis in humanity's history since Hitler. Or close to it. Bring it down a bit, Gamergate is not Watergate. All this is is the natural evolution of medium that is still largely in its infancy. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Hurlshort]

I just want to see some evidence that these articles affect games in any meaningful way.  People make digs at the dudebro culture of Call of Duty all the time, but that doesn't stop developers from releasing them and a ton of clones to try and cash in.  Sales drive the industry, not journalists.

[Malcador]

Hey, if people say something offends them, you aren't to question it.

[Zoraptor]

"Their purpose"? I'm sorry, but who dicedes what is and isn't their purpose?

They do, at least up to the point reality and economics intervenes- but if they call themselves "PCGamer" (as eg name only) yet only write polemics about 'progressive' issues in gaming then they don't have a leg to stand on when people complain about them not writing about games or having an obvious bias. Their name choice implies that they will be primarily games orientated, they could simply call themselves 'progressive'_gamer.com or write it into their mission statement instead, if they want to slant everything they write one way. If they don't though they cannot then complain when they find that their readership figures have imploded or whatever. Choice and Consequence, they're free to choose to write what they want about what they want- we're free to tell them to go jump in a lake in consequence.

 

 If you don't like content produced, leave the site. Simple as that.

Oddly enough, last post here (or near enough) I said that gaming journalism was largely people writing stuff I'd never read about games I'll never play. I don't read games journalism much at all, largely don't care about it and have always said that I consider censorship far more serious as an issue. But, you seem to be coming at things from the exact opposite end from what you accuse Nonek of; that it is such a trivial matter that nobody has the right to be upset about it, with the strong implication that people should just Shut Up. Well, no. They're free to write what they want about what they want and to choose what they care about every bit as much as journos are, the difference is that while journos are reliant on people reading stuff for their livelihood a lowly commentator isn't, and isn't being paid.

 

And I don't care about Leigh Alexander at all, I have neither any animus not much sympathy towards her. Her article was stupid [edit: specifically because I consider it to have picked an unnecessary fight, and very likely deliberately], and I'd defend that opinion pretty strongly, but it isn't anything I personally feel the need to deconstruct in detail. If others want to though, well, go for it. They've as much right to do that as she had to write in the first place, if I don't like the content they produce I can just not read it, after all, exactly as I can do to journos. Ain't no one forcing anyone to read anything.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Okay, whatever, call it a qualitative study (my experience with those is solely limited to individual case studies). But literally the first thing I was taught about qualitative studies that they're descriptive, not predictive. Treating one as if it did have any sort of predictive power is even more of a bumble than scope insensitivity!

 

And let's not forget the ethical side of this whole thing, because we're still talking ethics. The main thrust of Sargon's video was "the feminists are lying and intentionally burying the study because it doesn't fit the agenda". Faulty understanding of statistics and/or research methodology I'm okay with, throwing ****-flinging hissy fits based on that faulty understanding, not so much.

 

 

The conclusion in the first paper, "He could be a bunny rabbit for all i care", states that gamers do not identify with the characters that they are playing. 

 

 

I feel compelled to point out that using a sample of people who are already gamers is probably not the greatest method of finding out whether the lack of diversity is alienating to people or not, exactly because the sample selection cannot contain people who feel that way.

 

Also, as I mentioned it many, many times, the sample size used provides us with an extremely low confidence in these findings. Which is actually a perfectly valid reason in itself to not reference the study. Occam's Razor, anyone?

 

 

If they are behaving as professionals, which i highly doubt they do.

[Meshugger]

Kotaku acknowledges that GG fight for ethics and is no longer considered a hate group: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/04/kotakus-editor-in-chief-finally-acknowledges-gamergates-fight-for-ethics/

[Fighter]

"Celebrating Diversity!"

 

[Meshugger]

Different shades of pink is still a diverse pink.

 

Robin Arnott has the same eyes as someone who collects body parts in their freezer.

[Sakai]

 

They do, at least up to the point reality and economics intervenes- but if they call themselves "PCGamer" (as eg name only) yet only write polemics about 'progressive' issues in gaming then they don't have a leg to stand on when people complain about them not writing about games or having an obvious bias. Their name choice implies that they will be primarily games orientated, they could simply call themselves 'progressive'_gamer.com or write it into their mission statement instead, if they want to slant everything they write one way. If they don't though they cannot then complain when they find that their readership figures have imploded or whatever. Choice and Consequence, they're free to choose to write what they want about what they want- we're free to tell them to go jump in a lake in consequence.

 

Huh? I'm failry certain that PCGamer or any other sites don't "only write polemics about progressive issues". Those are just editorials that don't affect the usual flow of things. 

 

Oddly enough, last post here (or near enough) I said that gaming journalism was largely people writing stuff I'd never read about games I'll never play. I don't read games journalism much at all, largely don't care about it and have always said that I consider censorship far more serious as an issue. But, you seem to be coming at things from the exact opposite end from what you accuse Nonek of; that it is such a trivial matter that nobody has the right to be upset about it, with the strong implication that people should just Shut Up. Well, no. They're free to write what they want about what they want and to choose what they care about every bit as much as journos are, the difference is that while journos are reliant on people reading stuff for their livelihood a lowly commentator isn't, and isn't being paid.

ced, leave the site. Simple as that.

 

And I don't care about Leigh Alexander at all, I have neither any animus not much sympathy towards her. Her article was stupid [edit: specifically because I consider it to have picked an unnecessary fight, and very likely deliberately], and I'd defend that opinion pretty strongly, but it isn't anything I personally feel the need to deconstruct in detail. If others want to though, well, go for it. They've as much right to do that as she had to write in the first place, if I don't like the content they produce I can just not read it, after all, exactly as I can do to journos. Ain't no one forcing anyone to read anything.

 

Where did i say that i want people to shut up? I specifcally said i want to see dialogue. What i find funny is that there's a "consumer revolt" of people who don't even consume the things they are revolting against. I'm not saying not to care, i'm just saying don't be ridiculous. 

Edited April 22, 2015 by Sakai

[aluminiumtrioxid]

They do, at least up to the point reality and economics intervenes- but if they call themselves "PCGamer" (as eg name only) yet only write polemics about 'progressive' issues in gaming then they don't have a leg to stand on when people complain about them not writing about games or having an obvious bias.

 

 

Didn't somebody round up all articles on these sites and found that about 0,5% of them ever mention these issues?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, whatever, call it a qualitative study (my experience with those is solely limited to individual case studies). But literally the first thing I was taught about qualitative studies that they're descriptive, not predictive. Treating one as if it did have any sort of predictive power is even more of a bumble than scope insensitivity!

 

And let's not forget the ethical side of this whole thing, because we're still talking ethics. The main thrust of Sargon's video was "the feminists are lying and intentionally burying the study because it doesn't fit the agenda". Faulty understanding of statistics and/or research methodology I'm okay with, throwing ****-flinging hissy fits based on that faulty understanding, not so much.

 

 

The conclusion in the first paper, "He could be a bunny rabbit for all i care", states that gamers do not identify with the characters that they are playing. 

 

 

I feel compelled to point out that using a sample of people who are already gamers is probably not the greatest method of finding out whether the lack of diversity is alienating to people or not, exactly because the sample selection cannot contain people who feel that way.

 

Also, as I mentioned it many, many times, the sample size used provides us with an extremely low confidence in these findings. Which is actually a perfectly valid reason in itself to not reference the study. Occam's Razor, anyone?

 

 

If they are behaving as professionals, which i highly doubt they do.

 

 

 

At this point, you're basically admitting you're arguing from bad faith. Which wouldn't be a problem if we were talking about something subjective (like, personal interpretations of the "gamers are..." articles), but issues of statistics and research methodology are pretty much as objective as they come.

[Zoraptor]

Where did i say that i want people to shut up? I specifcally said i want to see dialogue. What i find funny is that there's a "consumer revolt" of people who don't even consume the things they are revolting against. I'm not saying not to care, i'm just saying don't be ridiculous. 

 

 

Yeah, well it's pretty clear I'm not part of any consumer revolt in that respect, as I'm not a consumer and have said so- there's effectively nothing that can be done to get me back. Presumably at least Nonek and others are still consumers or at least potentially so though, and they want things to be improved rather than abandoned wholesale. You're taking, alternately, what I say and what Nonek say as being representative of everyone when it isn't, there is no canon law equivalent except insofar as there's a huge number of interpretations of what exactly canon is. And yeah, telling people that they should just stop consuming/ stop complaining is telling people to shut up, to all practical purposes, it's just a more polite way of doing it.

 

 

Didn't somebody round up all articles on these sites and found that about 0,5% of them ever mention these issues?

 

 

I've seen that claimed, frankly I'd only believe the stats either side use if I'd checked myself. Far too easy to get the results whoever was looking wanted by stacking the criteria.

[Amentep]

 

Really?

 

How is

 

"Gamer" isn't just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That's why they're so mad.

 

Not aimed at gamers?  What Alexander's article did was say "All those people we don't agree with and don't like on the internet - they're 'gamers' now.  We're not gamers.  So lets start making it so their POV is ignored."

 

 

Well, that's a supremely unkind reading - I mean, she specified very particular behaviors that characterize the subset of the gaming demographic she was writing her article about.

 

I don't see it as unkind, it is a summation of what the article is about.  Lets look at a few more quotes:

 

"You don’t want to ‘be divisive?’ Who’s being divided, except for people who are okay with an infantilized cultural desert of ****ty behavior and people who aren’t?"

 

"When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.

 

That’s not super surprising, actually. While video games themselves were discovered by strange, bright outcast pioneers -- they thought arcades would make pub games more fun, or that MUDs would make for amazing cross-cultural meeting spaces -- the commercial arm of the form sprung up from marketing high-end tech products to ‘early adopters’. You know, young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff."

 

"Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time."

 

Summary: The bad element of 'Games Culture' are "gamers" who are "lonely basement dwellers" and/or "white males"

 

"This is hard for people who’ve drank the kool aid about how their identity depends on the aging cultural signposts of a rapidly-evolving, increasingly broad and complex medium."

 

Summary: If you don't agree with me, you're a mindless cult member

 

"A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of 'gamer pride'"

 

Summary: Anti-Gamer is "healthy", gamer isn't

 

A note about this, you'll probably argue she's not talking about "Gamers" but only the trolls that she mentions; however she equates those trolls with gamers.  The article provides no differential between a "good" gamer and a "bad" gamer and perpetuates a "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude.

"Now part of a writer’s job in a creative, human medium is to help curate a creative community and an inclusive culture -- and a lack of commitment to that just looks out-of-step, like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘ethics’ as the latest flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion."

 

Summary: If you don't agree, you as a game company support trolls and all that they do online

 

And finally, for fun, the definition of Irony:

"We are refusing to let anyone feel prohibited from participating."

"These obtuse ****slingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had."

 

ie, everyone is free to participate except anyone we disagree with.

 

More to the point, by "it wasn't aimed at gamers" I meant it in the "intended audience" sense. Gamasutra is a website specifically for developers. Therefore "she turned on her own audience" is a colossal misreading of the situation, since gamers were never her audience to begin with.

 

It may not be aimed at gamers in terms of audience, it is totally aimed at encouraging game companies to divide the gaming public and ignore those people that the writer indicates are the problems.  Which you think is, 'where is the problem with not feeding the trolls', except (and again you may disagree with the interpretation) the undercurrent of the article is troll ultimately is "anyone the author disagrees with" because there's no distinction between behavior (trolling) and identity (gamer).

 

Edited April 22, 2015 by Amentep

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

That’s not super surprising, actually. While video games themselves were discovered by strange, bright outcast pioneers -- they thought arcades would make pub games more fun, or that MUDs would make for amazing cross-cultural meeting spaces -- the commercial arm of the form sprung up from marketing high-end tech products to ‘early adopters’. You know, young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff."

"Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time."

 

Summary: The bad element of 'Games Culture' are "gamers" who are "lonely basement dwellers" and/or "white males"

 

 

You're taking a values-neutral statement about the demographical makeup of early gaming culture, and twist it into a demonisation of white guys. It's like you're purposefully combing through the text for passages to get offended at.

 

 

"This is hard for people who’ve drank the kool aid about how their identity depends on the aging cultural signposts of a rapidly-evolving, increasingly broad and complex medium."

 

Summary: If you don't agree with me, you're a mindless cult member

 

 

Again, you're taking parts of the text out of context and summarize them in a manner that completely ignores any nuance present in the original.

 

 

"A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of 'gamer pride'"

 

Summary: Anti-Gamer is "healthy", gamer isn't

 

 

The text you quoted basically has nothing in common with the conclusions you derive. What the hell.

 

 

"Now part of a writer’s job in a creative, human medium is to help curate a creative community and an inclusive culture -- and a lack of commitment to that just looks out-of-step, like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘ethics’ as the latest flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion."

 

Summary: If you don't agree, you as a game company support trolls and all that they do online

 

 

Then again, why would you not want to curate a creative community and an inclusive culture? Isn't it one of gamergate's big talking points how very inclusive they are and diverse gamers yadda yadda? Also, note the words "looks like" and "partial".

 

 

And finally, for fun, the definition of Irony:
"We are refusing to let anyone feel prohibited from participating."
"These obtuse ****slingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had."

 

ie, everyone is free to participate except anyone we disagree with.

 

 

I don't know how you managed to read "we're refusing anyone feel prohibited from participating [in creating gamer culture]" as being opposed to "I'm not writing for the wailing hyper-consumers, neither am I interested in having a discussion with them". It's not like Alexander's a cornerstone of gaming culture, and not engaging with her means you have to hand in your gamer card, so to speak.

 

 

More to the point, by "it wasn't aimed at gamers" I meant it in the "intended audience" sense. Gamasutra is a website specifically for developers. Therefore "she turned on her own audience" is a colossal misreading of the situation, since gamers were never her audience to begin with.

 

It may not be aimed at gamers in terms of audience, it is totally aimed at encouraging game companies to divide the gaming public and ignore those people that the writer indicates are the problems.  
 

 

 

Divide... how exactly?

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

Okay, whatever, call it a qualitative study (my experience with those is solely limited to individual case studies). But literally the first thing I was taught about qualitative studies that they're descriptive, not predictive. Treating one as if it did have any sort of predictive power is even more of a bumble than scope insensitivity!

 

And let's not forget the ethical side of this whole thing, because we're still talking ethics. The main thrust of Sargon's video was "the feminists are lying and intentionally burying the study because it doesn't fit the agenda". Faulty understanding of statistics and/or research methodology I'm okay with, throwing ****-flinging hissy fits based on that faulty understanding, not so much.

 

The conclusion in the first paper, "He could be a bunny rabbit for all i care", states that gamers do not identify with the characters that they are playing.

 

 

I feel compelled to point out that using a sample of people who are already gamers is probably not the greatest method of finding out whether the lack of diversity is alienating to people or not, exactly because the sample selection cannot contain people who feel that way.

 

Also, as I mentioned it many, many times, the sample size used provides us with an extremely low confidence in these findings. Which is actually a perfectly valid reason in itself to not reference the study. Occam's Razor, anyone?

 

 

If they are behaving as professionals, which i highly doubt they do.

 

 

 

At this point, you're basically admitting you're arguing from bad faith. Which wouldn't be a problem if we were talking about something subjective (like, personal interpretations of the "gamers are..." articles), but issues of statistics and research methodology are pretty much as objective as they come.

 

When a research paper says that market parity is not the best interest for gaming without telling the reason why, it might as well belong in the trashpile.

[Meshugger]

A prominant feminist is accused for enabling rape at university: http://www.thirdbasepolitics.com/oberlin-feminists-accuse-christina-hoff-sommers-of-supporting-racists/

 

Everything is rape nowadays, probably even GG: 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWaCMel2FLg

[Namutree]

A prominant feminist is accused for enabling rape at university: http://www.thirdbasepolitics.com/oberlin-feminists-accuse-christina-hoff-sommers-of-supporting-racists/

 

Everything is rape nowadays, probably even GG: 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWaCMel2FLg

WTF is she talking about?

[Meshugger]

 

A prominant feminist is accused for enabling rape at university: http://www.thirdbasepolitics.com/oberlin-feminists-accuse-christina-hoff-sommers-of-supporting-racists/

 

Everything is rape nowadays, probably even GG: 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWaCMel2FLg

WTF is she talking about?

 

 

Don't even dare to deny her lived experience as a rape survivor, you cis-het ****lord.

[Fighter]

A prominant feminist is accused for enabling rape at university: http://www.thirdbasepolitics.com/oberlin-feminists-accuse-christina-hoff-sommers-of-supporting-racists/

 

Everything is rape nowadays, probably even GG: 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWaCMel2FLg

 

 

Are we sure this isn't satire? That can't be real.

[Amentep]

You're taking a values-neutral statement about the demographical makeup of early gaming culture, and twist it into a demonisation of white guys. It's like you're purposefully combing through the text for passages to get offended at.

Being "basement dwellers" is values neutral?

 

Again, you're taking parts of the text out of context and summarize them in a manner that completely ignores any nuance present in the original.

 

Really? What context or nuance could be added to "Dink the Kool-Aid" where it would not imply that the "Kool-Aid Drinker" is a member of a brainwashed cult?

 

 

"A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of 'gamer pride'"

 

Summary: Anti-Gamer is "healthy", gamer isn't

The text you quoted basically has nothing in common with the conclusions you derive. What the hell.

 

Really? So "New generation = healthy cultural vocalublary...language of community" and "missing in the days of 'gamer pride'" is not a implying that the past (identified as "basement dwelling white male gamers" previously) is inferior to the present with new fans (by implication not "basement dwelling white male gamers")?

 

Then again, why would you not want to curate a creative community and an inclusive culture? Isn't it one of gamergate's big talking points how very inclusive they are and diverse gamers yadda yadda? Also, note the words "looks like" and "partial".

 

Who said I didn't agree? What we disagree on is who are the trolls - as I've said before anti-GG and GG both are willfully blind to the trolls and harassers in their own camp, because they are so assured of their own righteousness.

 

I don't know how you managed to read "we're refusing anyone feel prohibited from participating [in creating gamer culture]" as being opposed to "I'm not writing for the wailing hyper-consumers, neither am I interested in having a discussion with them". It's not like Alexander's a cornerstone of gaming culture, and not engaging with her means you have to hand in your gamer card, so to speak.

My point is, her statements are, essentially, lets silence the voices we disagree with.  Whether she has the ability to make that happen or not is irrelevant.

 

Divide... how exactly?

By forcing the neutral gamer into a position of abandoning "gamer" as an identity or risk being equated with the trolls who harass, stalk and doxx people. As I've said before as someone who plays video games, plays board games, plays P&P RPGs, pays card games, the idea that I'm a gamer is central to a primary hobby that I enjoy.  I don't want to have to abandoned that because a group of people on the internet decided to "poison the well" by equating a great, diverse group with its most problematic element.

 

And the division has already happens here, your arguments imply I'm "for" gamersgate when I find both groups problematic. But because I question an article of an anti-GGer I, by default, have to be a GGer.  The community stands divided, and it is a very sad thing.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Amentep

[Nonek]

Backpedalling should be an Olympic sport, the game journalists might find a use in this world at last, ha.

 

It's perfectly clear that the coordinated attack on the millions whom play games recreationally was a massive mistake though, so I can understand why the pro corruption side want to deny the hatred and mudslinging that the gamers are dead articles flung at all gamers, but if you're denying it after reading those articles...well your imagination is pretty powerful. Still I can understand why they're trying to weasel out of it and sweep it under the carpet, their idiocy has never been so perfectly demonstrated, but it does seem spineless and cowardly.

 

Mind you as i've said before it doesn't really matter, as always the consumer is winning, and game journalism as we know it is slowly becoming obsolete as the hatemongers are sacked and the stink of their corruption is swept away.

[Meshugger]

A hot chick that digs guns and has 274K followers on Twitter weighs in: http://danaloeschradio.com/gamergate-why-you-should-care

[Longknife]

Found this on RPG Codex by coincidence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kek

Edited April 22, 2015 by Longknife

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

SJWs are actually ideologically similar to Maoist scum.