Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[kirottu]

 

These are the complaints I read, 90% of which are deliberately negative interpretations or blatant lies and the rest is just nonsense or overreacting.

 

I wonder if these tumblr/twitter feminists realize that their actions give filmmakers (and similarly, game developers) an incentive to not try to include strong female characters in their stories.

 

Think about it from the perspective of the creators:

• Choice A: Do not include strong female major characters.

  Consequence: Some minor grumbling and sighing on social media, mostly by people who were looking for an excuse to (re-)tweet about the Bechdel test anyway. But they move on quickly - there's no harassment or significant bad publicity.

   

• Choice B: Do include strong female major characters.
• Consequence: 65% chance (completely unpredictable) of a huge bat-sh*t crazy sh*tstorm exploding based on some minor detail of the character being allegedly "offensive" under some (usually ridiculous) interpretation.

It's clear which one is the safer choice.

 

Ah, the "Galbrush Paradox":

Consider Guybrush Threepwood, start of the Monkey Island series. He's weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd and generally the last person you'd think of to even cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. He is abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated and generally made to feel unwanted.

 

Now let's say Guybrush was a girl. We'll call her Galbrush. Galbrush is weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd and generally the last person you'd think of to even cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. She is abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated and generally made to feel unwanted.

 

Now, you might notice that I've given the exact same description to both of these characters. But here's where things deviate. While no one cares if Guybrush takes a pounding for being, for lack of a better term, less than ideal pirate, Galbrush will be presumed to be discriminated against because of her gender. In fact, every hardship she will endure, though exactly the same as the hardships Guybrush endured, will be considered misogyny, rather than someone being ill suited to their desired calling.

 

And that ending. She goes through ALL that trouble to help, let's call him Eli Marley, escape the evil clutches of the ghost piratess Le Chuck, it turns out he didn't even need her help and she even screwed up his plan to thwart Le Chuck. Why, it'd be a slap in the face to every woman who's ever picked up a controller. Not only is the protagonist inept, but apparently women make lousy villains too!

 

And that's why Guybrush exists and Galbrush doesn't. Men can be comically inept halfwits. Women can't. Men can be flawed, tragic human beings. Women can't. And why? Because every single female character reflects all women everywhere.

[Nonek]

Fertility treatment has made great leaps and bounds in recent years and many whom at one time could not concieve have been given a second chance, the doubt and sense of worthlessness that comes with a failure to bring a child into this world is very real and a stressful, almost marriage breaking obstacle. The joy however when you hold that little delicate bundle in your arms is...indescribeable. To deny this is wrong headed nonsense.

 

I'm not the greatest fan of most of Mr Whedon's work, or his "humour," but these attacks are baseless and spurious.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

 

This reminds me of the whole Internet hate-circus that occured during Witcher 1, when Geralt due to his Witcher-training has become sterile and cannot have children with Triss. The amount of people hating the writers for trying to make Geralt to be seen as monster was excruciating. Poor guys where hounded of the internet forever.

 

Oh wait, that's not what happened. That's not what they were angry about. Wasn't it something else?

I don't know. You tell me. I'm not doing any research.

 

 

No.

 

I'll spend more effort to get you to tell me about this than it would take to just look it up. This, I swear.

 

Now tell me about what people were angry about in witcher 1!

 

 

There were cards of nekkid women you could collect by sexxoring the women in game, as I understand it.¹

It was changed to pictures of scantily clad women you could collect by sexxoring them in the US version

 

¹At least this is the only controversy I recall...

 

Oh. Good to know.

 

 

Yes, pretty much. I didn't think that you were sensere. My point was that there actually was a similar plot-point with Geralt as with Black Widow (sterilizied due to training and seen as monsters), but that was never mentioned. Because boobies.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Meshugger

[Keyrock]

Ah, the "Galbrush Paradox":

Consider Guybrush Threepwood, start of the Monkey Island series. He's weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd and generally the last person you'd think of to even cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. He is abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated and generally made to feel unwanted.

 

Now let's say Guybrush was a girl. We'll call her Galbrush. Galbrush is weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd and generally the last person you'd think of to even cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. She is abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated and generally made to feel unwanted.

 

Now, you might notice that I've given the exact same description to both of these characters. But here's where things deviate. While no one cares if Guybrush takes a pounding for being, for lack of a better term, less than ideal pirate, Galbrush will be presumed to be discriminated against because of her gender. In fact, every hardship she will endure, though exactly the same as the hardships Guybrush endured, will be considered misogyny, rather than someone being ill suited to their desired calling.

 

And that ending. She goes through ALL that trouble to help, let's call him Eli Marley, escape the evil clutches of the ghost piratess Le Chuck, it turns out he didn't even need her help and she even screwed up his plan to thwart Le Chuck. Why, it'd be a slap in the face to every woman who's ever picked up a controller. Not only is the protagonist inept, but apparently women make lousy villains too!

 

And that's why Guybrush exists and Galbrush doesn't. Men can be comically inept halfwits. Women can't. Men can be flawed, tragic human beings. Women can't. And why? Because every single female character reflects all women everywhere.

 

Yup, that's the Catch 22 that developers are facing.  Everyone is calling for diversity of characters.  However, compelling characters are flawed, often very flawed.  It's the flaws that make them compelling.  You cannot make flawed female or non-white characters because you will be labeled sexist/racist, you have to make them ideal so that they reflect positively on their gender/race.  But, ideal characters are boring and people don't want to play boring characters, they want to play compelling characters.  Hence, the majority of characters wind up being white males, because it's the only type of character you can make flawed and not immediately get crucified by outrage culture.  And, we're right back at square 1.

[Amentep]

Collection of social justice harassment towards Joss Whedon. Contains harsh language.

 

I wonder if Saint Anita will come to his defense.

 

Even more can be seen here:

 

https://storify.com/Astojap/wehdon-twitter-hate

[Keyrock]

It's pretty sad how quickly Twitter has devolved from something positive, or at least neutral, into a four letter word.  It's a tool that could, and should, be positive and about helping people stay connected, but the bad very much outweighs the good at this point, as Twitter has become the main tool of the internet hate mob and outrage culture.

 

[BruceVC]

 

It's pretty sad how quickly Twitter has devolved from something positive, or at least neutral, into a four letter word.  It's a tool that could, and should, be positive and about helping people stay connected, but the bad very much outweighs the good at this point, as Twitter has become the main tool of the internet hate mob and outrage culture.

 

 

 

Which is EXACTLY  why I don't use Twitter..it offers this mainly superficial form of communication that has less control over it than basically any other type of social media and it can become this absolute cesspool of vitriol and bedlam that leaves you shocked and confused how people can be so brazen and obnoxious when they are behind this wall of " anonymity " 

 

Its seems to draw the worst personalities from the Internet....the true trolls and digital reprobates 

 

And of course this doesn't apply to everyone who uses Twitter 

[Amentep]

Whedon Recalls "Unpleasant" "Age Of Ultron" Memories, Quits Twitter:

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/whedon-recalls-unpleasant-age-of-ultron-memories-quits-twitter
 

This interview comes to light after Whedon pulled the plug on his Twitter account. The director left the social media site at some point on Monday, giving no concrete reason for his departure. Many have speculated that it may be in part because of nasty messages directed his way over plot points in "Avengers: Age of Ultron," but it's just as possible that Whedon had grown weary of the platform. He's spoken out about his dislike of Twitter in the past, particularly in a 2013 interview with Entertainment Weekly.

[Oerwinde]

Wait, wait, wait...

 

...so people think that Black Widow referred to herself as a monster because she couldn't have children and NOT because of the flashbacks we were shown indicating she'd been trained since childhood to kill people, including having to shoot a person execution style as a pre-teen in her training - a past that she's already implied had indelibly ruined her being able to redress by being a "good guy" in the first Avengers film and was used to attempt to blackmail her from releasing SHIELD files to the public in order to keep her from exposing Hydra in CA: Winter Soldier?

 

Seriously?

 

Thats how I took it too. The whole not being able to have kids thing was in response to Banner talking about not wanting little hulklings running around and her reassuring him that couldn't happen with her.

 

I didn't like the Banner/Widow love story because it completely ignores Betty Ross, but the rest of it was handled quite well.

[Meshugger]

Michael Koretzky, board member of the Society of Professional Journalists have asked anons at 8chan to try send someone to represent GamerGate in a discussion panel. So now there's a strawpoll for this. Get in and vote you lazy schmucks!

 

http://journoterrorist.com/airplay/

http://strawpoll.me/4286750

 

I voted for William Usher.

 

//edit: Strawpoll updated

Edited May 5, 2015 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Michael Koretzky, board member of the Society of Professional Journalists have asked anons at 8chan to try send someone to represent GamerGate in a discussion panel. So now there's a strawpoll for this. Get in and vote you lazy schmucks!

 

http://journoterrorist.com/airplay/

http://strawpoll.me/4283302/

 

I voted for William Usher.

Oliver Campbell, but Usher was second choice.

[kirottu]

Somebody made a nice clean site for all the journalist ethical blunders.

[Nonek]

Voted for Brad Wardell, he seems to be moderate and pro consumer, while having personal experience of the depths that game journalists will sink to in the pursuit of their hateful agenda.

[Blarghagh]

As long as it's not Milo.

[Meshugger]

As long as it's not Milo.

 

Milo is the court jester that will make everyone laugh. Nothing espaces his level of snarkiness. Example below:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=371XViG9gsI

 

But in all seriousness, the guy broke out with the GJP-list. Credit where credit is due.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Meshugger

[Zoraptor]

Voted for Brad Wardell, he seems to be moderate and pro consumer, while having personal experience of the depths that game journalists will sink to in the pursuit of their hateful agenda.

 

He's not really pro consumer, unfortunately. He did write the gamer's bill of rights but he then proceeded to ignore most of the things he wrote himself. He's a raging right winger who will alienate a lot of people if asked the wrong/ right questions.

 

Which is the problem, really, with electing 'representatives'. They'll end up saying stuff as the voice of [movement] that a lot of people will disagree with. Same thing happened with Occupy and it drove a lot of their support away.

[Volourn]

The only gamer that represents me. Screw everyone else.

[Calax]

The only gamer that represents me. Screw everyone else.

Don't you know? Gamers are dead as a culture!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

The only gamer that represents me. Screw everyone else.

 

Don't you know? Gamers are dead as a culture!

Yes we do know, we've been trying to figure out if we were resurrected or are undead.

[Volourn]

"Don't you know? Gamers are dead as a culture!"
 

So, i've heard!

 

 

*goes back to playing games as a white male racists exist rapist sperm donor bank machines(nah, I'm too ugly and poor to be one of those lol). *

[Malcador]

 

Hahaha.

[Nonek]

 

Voted for Brad Wardell, he seems to be moderate and pro consumer, while having personal experience of the depths that game journalists will sink to in the pursuit of their hateful agenda.

 

He's not really pro consumer, unfortunately. He did write the gamer's bill of rights but he then proceeded to ignore most of the things he wrote himself. He's a raging right winger who will alienate a lot of people if asked the wrong/ right questions.

 

Which is the problem, really, with electing 'representatives'. They'll end up saying stuff as the voice of [movement] that a lot of people will disagree with. Same thing happened with Occupy and it drove a lot of their support away.

 

 

Personally I don't see him, or whomever is chosen, as a representative of gamergate, more just an independent voice speaking upon behalf of those slandered. Still this warrants further investigation of the gentleman, much obliged.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Nonek

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hahaha.

I don't get it.

[kirottu]

 

Hahaha.

I don't get it.

 

 

 

Can you feel how they are grasping at straws? It feels good, man.

[Amentep]

While I'm not sure I'd agree with "This is public shaming for actions you incorrectly think are wrong", I do think some of the "flags" on the website are highly subjective and seem to ascribe motives that aren't necessarily supported by the text.
 
If you look at the Arthur Giles link, they claim "Famously gave a much-lower than average score to Bayonetta 2, due to its “blantant over-sexualization”, with the apparent intent of generating hits through outrage." 

 

Without knowing what the average score is, we have to accept on face value (I went and looked, the metacritic is 91, but the lowest score from the game sites is actually not the Polygon one (those come from LEVEL and Game Revolution).  If you calculate the mean of the scores, you get 91 and a standard deviation of 8.  This means that 75 (the score on the Polygon review) does seem to be an outlier to the data set at first glance.  But then is it because it is an outlier are are there too many 100 scores skewing the data? And even still 75 is, I believe, within 2 standard deviations from the mean - so not impossible as this is where 95% of a normal curves data would exist.¹

 

Second how can you justify "apparent intent of generating hits through outrage? First off it assumes a motive that can't, ultimately, be known (unless Giles admits to it).  Second the title of the story is BAYONETTA 2 REVIEW: HEVEN AND HELL.  You'd think a review designed to generate outrage would have a more incendiary title - BAYONETTA 2: THIS IS WHY WE HAVE EATING DISORDERS or BAYONETTA 2: WHY DO DEVELOPERS WANT ME TO GET CLOSE-UP AND PERSONAL WITH VIRTUAL CROTCH or something.

 

And while, yes, there is a bit more editorializing in the review than I think necessary personally, I don't see their summary statement as "Bayonetta 2's blatant over-sexualization puts a big dent in an otherwise great game" as being unrepresentative of the issues the reviewer clearly addresses in the text of the review.  Unless you're arguing that there can't be differing opinions on a game, then I - and again this is me - feel like it is a bit of a stretch to argue an intent in the review

 

And frankly I don't see any provocative statements in the review. While I think that section that is most relevant to the discussion - "The camera doesn't look at Bayonetta — it leers at her. This is frequently provided as an implicit reward for doing well...It's sexist, gross pandering, and it's totally unnecessary. Bayonetta 2 needs prurient rewards even less than the original Bayonetta did, because the on-screen chaos you can wreak through skilled play is infinitely more satisfying." is clumsily written (I think what he means to say is "The camera doesn't look at Bayonetta — it leers at her. That it ties into learning and executing successfully harder to accomplish, stronger attacks makes it seem an implicit reward for improving your skills as a player.  But Bayonetta 2 doesn't need such prurient rewards as the on-screen chaos you can wreak through skilled play is infinitely more satisfying than any titillation the game could provide") I'm not sure it exists so that outraged mobs will rush to the article (clickbait) or even incite much of a stir on Twitter.

 

¹It may be worth pointing out that the fact that reviews are capped at 100 does skew the normal curve, so this is kind of "general example" stuff.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Amentep