Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[JONNIN]

Gaming industry or many other industries, most reviews reflect a bias towards positive reviews.   These are the people that gave the reviewer free samples of the product, early releases of the games,  and spend advertising money on their site/publication, etc.   Its hard to say "yea, they gave me a copy of this thing and bought $5000 worth of ads on our site, and a good thing too, because even being paid to review it and getting free copy I still feel like I was ripped off... its that bad ..."   you don't see this.   Instead you get a two thumbs up review that is focused on the good stuff and glosses over any problems.   It takes a very, very bad product to get a negative review from the majority of established big name reviewers.   

 

That is why the best way to judge the quality before purchase is to read the beta tester's logs and threads to get a handle on unresolved major problems and to get third party reviews from customers, such as reading the amazon reviews (with a grain of salt as the developers and friends of the product will often post  5 star reviews of their own stuff).  

 

But the bottom line is that you can't really trust most of the reviews.   The only way to know if it is any good is either to wait for a lot of people to buy it and see what *they* say about it, or to buy in early and trust your luck.  

 

As far as other types of bias -- gender, etc -- there is no doubt that high end video games (stuff like POE, the hard core stuff that is unlike the cell phone video poker games etc that anyone might play)  are still targeted to their audience and that audience is still heavily male. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

But you also cannot ignore that fact  that certain websites on your  consumer boycott list also happen to be websites that raise SJ issues and have been very vocal against GG

 

So I guess what I am trying to understand is what is the real reason you boycott these websites? Is it because they lack integrity or is it because they  push SJ issues which tend to annoy you ?

 

Its fine to say you don't visit certain websites because of there view on SJ issues, I dont go to RPGCodex for exactly that reason but lets be honest?

 

 

You inferred that we were not honest in our goals of ethical reforms and merely opposing those whom lie and say they support social justice like you, it is written above in plain English, and the inference is clear.

 

 

Nope another epic fail Nonek  but this time on interpretation

 

I simply asked a question within a question. Nothing deceitful about that. Maybe someone can comment and say if they think  my post was deceitful?

[BruceVC]

I think you guys will appreciate this, my step-mom sent this to me. Its a old discusison from the 1940's about the definition of political correctness

 

The term "political correctness" was not in my vocabulary. My curiosity got the best of me and I decided to do a little research and after two weeks of chasing fruitless leads, I found what I'd been looking for at the Truman Library & Museum in Independence, Missouri.

An unnamed source there sent me copies of four telegrams that were exchanged between Harry Truman and Douglas MacArthur on the day before the actual signing of the Japanese Surrender Agreement. The contents of those four telegrams below are exactly as received, not a word has been added or deleted.

(1) Tokyo,Japan
0800-September 1,1945
To: President Harry S Truman
From: General D A MacArthur
Tomorrow we meet with those yellow bellied bastards and sign the Surrender Documents, any last minute instructions?

(2) Washington, D C
1300-September 1, 1945
To: D A MacArthur
From: H S Truman
Congratulations, job well done, but you must tone down your obvious dislike of the Japanese when discussing the terms of the surrender with the press,because some of your remarks are fundamentally not politically correct!

(3) Tokyo, Japan
1630-September 1, 1945
To: H S Truman
From: D A MacArthur and C H Nimitz
Wilco Sir, but both Chester and I are somewhat confused, exactly what does the term politically correct mean?

(4) Washington, D C
2120-September 1, 1945
To: D A MacArthur/C H Nimitz
From: H S Truman
Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of **** by the clean end!

[Hiro Protagonist]

People will believe anything.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/trumanpc.asp

[BruceVC]

People will believe anything.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/trumanpc.asp

Its still funny

[Volourn]

So.. Bruce likes to spread lies.. Not surprising. That's what SJWs do.

[Orogun01]

People will believe anything.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/trumanpc.asp

When the story becomes more popular than the facts, print the story.

[Calax]

 

People will believe anything.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/trumanpc.asp

Its still funny

 

Doesn't matter. it's wrong. Propagating lies especially under the veil of truth should never be something that you promote in any way shape or form.

[GhoulishVisage]

https://archive.is/f5Zu4

>Ubisoft's face
 

[Calax]

https://archive.is/f5Zu4

 

>Ubisoft's face

 

So... They're harassing a game company for posting that they've made a female playable character in this particular game after that particular game series had been yelled at for NOT having those characters before.

 

Sucks to be Ubisoft.

[Nonek]

 

 

 

But you also cannot ignore that fact  that certain websites on your  consumer boycott list also happen to be websites that raise SJ issues and have been very vocal against GG

 

So I guess what I am trying to understand is what is the real reason you boycott these websites? Is it because they lack integrity or is it because they  push SJ issues which tend to annoy you ?

 

Its fine to say you don't visit certain websites because of there view on SJ issues, I dont go to RPGCodex for exactly that reason but lets be honest?

 

 

You inferred that we were not honest in our goals of ethical reforms and merely opposing those whom lie and say they support social justice like you, it is written above in plain English, and the inference is clear.

 

 

Nope another epic fail Nonek  but this time on interpretation

 

I simply asked a question within a question. Nothing deceitful about that. Maybe someone can comment and say if they think  my post was deceitful?

 

 

No you made a clear inference of deceit, however feel free to deny accusing people of hiding their true motivations if you wish, that's your choice.

 

More importantly, the facts on harassment on Twitter: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/05/gamergate-isnt-a-harassment-campaign-states-wam-report/

[BruceVC]

 

 

People will believe anything.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/trumanpc.asp

Its still funny

 

Doesn't matter. it's wrong. Propagating lies especially under the veil of truth should never be something that you promote in any way shape or form.

 

Wow..okay lets get pedantic 

 

I didn't know it was false when I made the post, I now know so I won't propagate it but I still find it funny.

 

Is that statement acceptable ?

[Nonek]

 

https://archive.is/f5Zu4

 

>Ubisoft's face

 

So... They're harassing a game company for posting that they've made a female playable character in this particular game after that particular game series had been yelled at for NOT having those characters before.

 

Sucks to be Ubisoft.

 

 

Hypocrisy from SJF's, how surprising.

[BruceVC]

 

https://archive.is/f5Zu4

 

>Ubisoft's face

 

So... They're harassing a game company for posting that they've made a female playable character in this particular game after that particular game series had been yelled at for NOT having those characters before.

 

Sucks to be Ubisoft.

 

 

No that's not the criticism, I suggest you read the article again to understand the point 

 

He is objecting to the fact Ubisoft is using a playable female character as part of the marketing campaign...its like saying " hey everybody ...look we have a female character " 

 

The inclusion a of female character should be more natural to make it sincere

 

To quote from the article "'Its s an affectation. If you're using women characters so nakedly as marketing material, I can't possibly believe that you actually care about them " 

 

He makes some points I agree with and some I don't 

[Nonek]

 

https://archive.is/f5Zu4

 

>Ubisoft's face

 

So... They're harassing a game company for posting that they've made a female playable character in this particular game after that particular game series had been yelled at for NOT having those characters before.

 

Sucks to be Ubisoft.

 

 

It's just another form of sloppy journalism however, there is no factual content or evidence there, the writer is basically stating that he can read the publisher or developers mind. For years women have been asking game companies to include female characters in their marketing, for instance FemShep, and finally Bioware acquiesced to this request. This was seen as a good thing and Drones celebrated it. Now we have a company doing the same thing without a sustained campaign for it, of their own will, and being castigated for it.

 

Not to mention that Ubisoft have had female protagonists before, used them as marketing for their games, as all protagonists are used and the journalist raises no mention of this.

 

Sheer sloppy journalism, made for clickbait and the idiots who are easily incited to outrage. If I were his editor i'd insist on a retraction and a public apology to Ubisoft.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Nonek

[GhoulishVisage]

Having a second playable character is a brand new mechanic for Assassin's Creed. I don't doubt that it's going to be for this AC what ship-sailing was for Black Flag.

Of course they're going to holler about it from the rooftops. It'd be like if Warner Bros didn't mention the Nemisis system for Shadows of Mordor.

It would look a bit odd if they were showing off this new character and they didn't make any fuss about the fact that she's the first female playable character in a main installment of the AC franchise.


Edit: Also, thanks for my new sig, Bruce.

Edited May 15, 2015 by GhoulishVisage

[BruceVC]

Having a second playable character is a brand new mechanic for Assassin's Creed. I don't doubt that it's going to be for this AC what ship-sailing was for Black Flag.

Of course they're going to holler about it from the rooftops. It'd be like if Warner Bros didn't mention the Nemisis system for Shadows of Mordor.

It would look a bit odd if they were showing off this new character and they didn't make any fuss about the fact that she's the first female playable character in a main installment of the AC franchise.

 

 

Edit: Also, thanks for my new sig, Bruce.

 

This is the part where I don't agree with the article. He can't say that this was malicious marketing because why wouldn't Ubisoft let people know, this is big news and also what is wrong with them announcing a female character after all the criticism they have received. I don't really care why they are announcing it the point being there is a female playable character, that is what people have been expecting

 

Also what is wrong with the idea of  marketing? When did the concept of making your company look progressive become a bad thing? Its only an issue if the marketing is based on a false image and in this case its not because there is a female character, so whats the issue ?

[Nonek]

Flip flop, flip flop.

 

Edit: Apparently now the classics are being flagged as offensive and requiring of trigger warnings by the oversensitive. Now I read the Ancient Greek tragedies as a child and consider myself to have benefited from that, as they are wothout a doubt still pertinent, witty and packed with thoughtful nuance. Certainly there are traumatic sequences, such as Medea murdering her own children, almost all of Oedipus and such, but the clue is already there in the title of the genre. These are tragedies, and deal with the more dramatic events of interesting times.

 

I would recommend them personally for a far younger audience, as well as most of the philosophies and musings of the scholars, even Socrates simple Yes/No questioning is a fantastic basis for freedom of thought and education.

 

Just my personal opinion however.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

Having a second playable character is a brand new mechanic for Assassin's Creed. I don't doubt that it's going to be for this AC what ship-sailing was for Black Flag.

Of course they're going to holler about it from the rooftops. It'd be like if Warner Bros didn't mention the Nemisis system for Shadows of Mordor.

It would look a bit odd if they were showing off this new character and they didn't make any fuss about the fact that she's the first female playable character in a main installment of the AC franchise.

 

 

Edit: Also, thanks for my new sig, Bruce.

 

Oh yes I noticed your sig, well played 

 

I am surprised more people aren't emulating my wise words and using them in sigs 

[kgambit]

 

 

 

This is the part where I don't agree with the article. He can't say that this was malicious marketing because why wouldn't Ubisoft let people know, this is big news and also what is wrong with them announcing a female character after all the criticism they have received. I don't really care why they are announcing it the point being there is a female playable character, that is what people have been expecting

 

Also what is wrong with the idea of  marketing? When did the concept of making your company look progressive become a bad thing? Its only an issue if the marketing is based on a false image and in this case its not because there is a female character, so whats the issue ?

 

Considering those were the major points he was making regarding female characters in AC, on what points did you actually agree with him? 

Edited May 15, 2015 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

This is the part where I don't agree with the article. He can't say that this was malicious marketing because why wouldn't Ubisoft let people know, this is big news and also what is wrong with them announcing a female character after all the criticism they have received. I don't really care why they are announcing it the point being there is a female playable character, that is what people have been expecting

 

Also what is wrong with the idea of  marketing? When did the concept of making your company look progressive become a bad thing? Its only an issue if the marketing is based on a false image and in this case its not because there is a female character, so whats the issue ?

 

Considering those were the major points he was making regarding female characters in AC, on what points did you actually agree with him? 

 

 

I don't think any company should be insincere in its marketing or implementation around things like gender equality. But in this case I believe Ubisoft is being sincere and  he doesn't 

[Meshugger]

 

Place your bets people. 

 

I hope that it is Gabe Newell

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Place your bets people. 

 

I hope that it is Gabe Newell

Denis Dyack.

[Keyrock]

 

Place your bets people. 

 

I hope that it is Gabe Newell

It turns out to be David Gaider

 

SWERVE

[Fighter]

LOL that article. First the created the environment where they put games through a PC checklist now it's suddenly an issue when they think creators put in things because of said checklist and not because they want to.