Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[BruceVC]

I think its sad that people are going to buy Hatred just to annoy SJW and because the developers have positioned this game as "  we refuse to be politically correct, support us as you are making a stand against people telling us how we can have fun " 

 

I am also amazed how easily people are manipulated into buying into the Hatred narrative 

[GhoulishVisage]

I am also amazed how easily people are manipulated into buying into the Hatred narrative 

 

The narrative was made by the journalists.

 

The journalists like to scream "Don't buy this sick filth! If you do you're a horrible person supporting horrible people!", so many journalists jump on this that the game gets a lot of exposure.

This was the wish of the developers in the first place. They now look like the radical rebel artists while the journos look like the town elders from Footloose.

This doesn't bother the journalists one bit. Their stirring has generated a controversy, and controversies cause clicks.

Hatred releases despite the wails of hipsters everywhere. It sells well despite the game's decidedly average nature.

Are journalists upset? No. Of course not. This gives them a chance to decry it even further, allowing them to strike while the iron is hot and the topic is buzzing, allowing them to reap more clicks.

The game subsequently sells enough to make it to the top of the Steam charts.

Whether people bought it because of bile fascination, to thumb their nose at social justice types or in an attempt to be edgy doesn't matter. They bought it because of the way it was portrayed by the media. This is the exact same scenario that served Grand Theft Auto and Postal so well in the past.

 

Despite these journalists and the Hatred developers expressing nothing but contempt for one another they form a mutually beneficial relationship.

[BruceVC]

 

I am also amazed how easily people are manipulated into buying into the Hatred narrative 

 

The narrative was made by the journalists.

 

The journalists like to scream "Don't buy this sick filth! If you do you're a horrible person supporting horrible people!", so many journalists jump on this that the game gets a lot of exposure.

This was the wish of the developers in the first place. They now look like the radical rebel artists while the journos look like the town elders from Footloose.

This doesn't bother the journalists one bit. Their stirring has generated a controversy, and controversies cause clicks.

Hatred releases despite the wails of hipsters everywhere. It sells well despite the game's decidedly average nature.

Are journalists upset? No. Of course not. This gives them a chance to decry it even further, allowing them to strike while the iron is hot and the topic is buzzing, allowing them to reap more clicks.

The game subsequently sells enough to make it to the top of the Steam charts.

Whether people bought it because of bile fascination, to thumb their nose at social justice types or in an attempt to be edgy doesn't matter. They bought it because of the way it was portrayed by the media. This is the exact same scenario that served Grand Theft Auto and Postal so well in the past.

 

Despite these journalists and the Hatred developers expressing nothing but contempt for one another they form a mutually beneficial relationship.

 

 

You raise some relevant points and some humorous ones ... "  despite the wails of hipsters everywhere "   

 

Are you going to buy Hatred, who is going to buy Hatred on these forums? No judgement I am just interested in who will be buying the game and the reason why ?

[GhoulishVisage]

You raise some relevant points and some humorous ones ... "  despite the wails of hipsters everywhere "   

 

Are you going to buy Hatred, who is going to buy Hatred on these forums? No judgement I am just interested in who will be buying the game and the reason why ?

No. I will not.

I've watched videos of it, and aside from a nice art-style and a very good looking destruction and physics engine the game looks deadly dull.

I'll fight for Hatred's right to exist and be sold, but I won't bother sitting through a tedious experience just for the sake of it or to thumb my nose at pearlclutchers.

 

However, the developers have shown themselves to be technically competent and not adverse to controversy, so I'll keep an eye out for their next game now that they've gotten a bunch of funding for it from Hatred's sales.

Hopefully their next game will have more to recommend it beyond an edgelord concept.

[BruceVC]

 

You raise some relevant points and some humorous ones ... "  despite the wails of hipsters everywhere "   

 

Are you going to buy Hatred, who is going to buy Hatred on these forums? No judgement I am just interested in who will be buying the game and the reason why ?

No. I will not.

I've watched videos of it, and aside from a nice art-style and a very good looking destruction and physics engine the game looks deadly dull.

I'll fight for Hatred's right to exist and be sold, but I won't bother sitting through a tedious experience just for the sake of it or to thumb my nose at pearlclutchers.

 

However, the developers have shown themselves to be technically competent and not adverse to controversy, so I'll keep an eye out for their next game now that they've gotten a bunch of funding for it from Hatred's sales.

Hopefully their next game will have more to recommend it beyond an edgelord concept.

 

 

This is a very good post because you have given logical and reasonable reasons for not wanting buy Hatred 

 

You are not basing your decision on some misplaced ideological crusade 

[GhoulishVisage]

This is a very good post because you have given logical and reasonable reasons for not wanting buy Hatred 

 

You are not basing your decision on some misplaced ideological crusade 

I honestly would buy the game if it looked like any attempted censorship of it might have had some weight, but the game coming out as-is in most areas was a forgone conclusion from the beginning.

 

Well, I did hear Australia and Germany aren't selling it, but that's hardly surprising.

[Meshugger]

 

 

I am also amazed how easily people are manipulated into buying into the Hatred narrative 

 

The narrative was made by the journalists.

 

The journalists like to scream "Don't buy this sick filth! If you do you're a horrible person supporting horrible people!", so many journalists jump on this that the game gets a lot of exposure.

This was the wish of the developers in the first place. They now look like the radical rebel artists while the journos look like the town elders from Footloose.

This doesn't bother the journalists one bit. Their stirring has generated a controversy, and controversies cause clicks.

Hatred releases despite the wails of hipsters everywhere. It sells well despite the game's decidedly average nature.

Are journalists upset? No. Of course not. This gives them a chance to decry it even further, allowing them to strike while the iron is hot and the topic is buzzing, allowing them to reap more clicks.

The game subsequently sells enough to make it to the top of the Steam charts.

Whether people bought it because of bile fascination, to thumb their nose at social justice types or in an attempt to be edgy doesn't matter. They bought it because of the way it was portrayed by the media. This is the exact same scenario that served Grand Theft Auto and Postal so well in the past.

 

Despite these journalists and the Hatred developers expressing nothing but contempt for one another they form a mutually beneficial relationship.

 

 

You raise some relevant points and some humorous ones ... "  despite the wails of hipsters everywhere "   

 

Are you going to buy Hatred, who is going to buy Hatred on these forums? No judgement I am just interested in who will be buying the game and the reason why ?

 

 

Not interested really, Hotline Miami looks more fun.

 

But i do enjoy when moral crusaders fall flat on their faces. Like the whole "video violence" and "parental advisority"-stickers in the '80s and now this with the journalists themselves looking like grumpy old men complaining about lose women. Just wonderful to witness.

[Malcador]

You raise some relevant points and some humorous ones ... "  despite the wails of hipsters everywhere "   

 

 

Are you going to buy Hatred, who is going to buy Hatred on these forums? No judgement I am just interested in who will be buying the game and the reason why ?

I might get it, can be fun to slaughter people after work. Edited June 2, 2015 by Malcador

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'll probably pick it up on a sale...like I did with most things I have a passing interest in.

[Meshugger]

http://tiredoldhack.com/2015/06/01/an-open-letter-to-journalists-who-dont-give-a-****/

 

Response to the dreary Polygon-article about Rock Band 4

[Hurlshort]

I'm curious which journalists actually said "Don't buy this sick filth!" about Hatred.

[Malcador]

Don't think it was a quote, but from the reports on them being Nazis, the fuss when the trailer came out you certainly get the sense they were trying to convey that. Sure got their comment sections moving.

 

Also, that was a great preview at Polygon, was he trying to be witty ?

[Meshugger]

Semi-relevant: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

 

****posters, rejoice!

[Hurlshort]

Semi-relevant: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

 

****posters, rejoice!

 

Yikes, the guy even talked about going on a school shooting spree.  

[Calax]

 

Semi-relevant: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

 

****posters, rejoice!

 

Yikes, the guy even talked about going on a school shooting spree.  

 

Having been an angry/semi-suicidal teenager who got threatened with being arrested for "Terrorist threats" I'm happy about the SCOTUS ruling.

[Meshugger]

 

Semi-relevant: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

 

****posters, rejoice!

 

Yikes, the guy even talked about going on a school shooting spree.  

 

 

He was a douche, yes. But let douches say douchey things without making it into a trial.

[Malcador]

And from the other side... - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/06/02/the-supreme-court-just-made-the-web-even-more-hostile-for-women/

 

Not too sure why it makes the Internet unsafe for women rather than everyone.

[BruceVC]

Semi-relevant: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

 

****posters, rejoice!

I think the Supreme Court made a mistake, there has to be consequences for that kind of threatening behavior. As the women in the video said this is a blow to the rights of abused women who now could face  similar vitriol and worry about  being able to legally challenge it  

[BruceVC]

And from the other side... - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/06/02/the-supreme-court-just-made-the-web-even-more-hostile-for-women/

 

Not too sure why it makes the Internet unsafe for women rather than everyone.

 

Errr...its probably got to do with the fact women are the victims of more abuse than men on the Internet 

[Malcador]

I think the Supreme Court made a mistake, there has to be consequences for that kind of threatening behavior. As the women in the video said this is a blow to the rights of abused women who now could face similar vitriol and worry about being able to legally challenge it

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Malcador

[Meshugger]

 

And from the other side... - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/06/02/the-supreme-court-just-made-the-web-even-more-hostile-for-women/

 

Not too sure why it makes the Internet unsafe for women rather than everyone.

 

Errr...its probably got to do with the fact women are the victims of more abuse than men on the Internet 

 

 

Not really.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733071/Men-twice-abuse-women-Twitter-ones-trolling.html

 

 

I think the Supreme Court made a mistake, there has to be consequences for that kind of threatening behavior. As the women in the video said this is a blow to the rights of abused women who now could face similar vitriol and worry about being able to legally challenge it

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right.

 

 

In my humble opinion, the judge realized that "muh feelz" as a base for harassment charges is not beneficial for anyone.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Meshugger

[Gorgon]

The punishment is worse than the crime, and I don't mean for the guy in the story, for the whole of society. People should be able to comunicate whatever twisted **** they want provided it's not an overt threat to hurt a particular person, most importanlty this is something that requires finesse and judgement on a case basis. The law is much too narrow a tool to make that determination. 

 

Who really wants to live in society where everyone is afraid to say what they really think. 

[Amentep]

 

I think the Supreme Court made a mistake, there has to be consequences for that kind of threatening behavior. As the women in the video said this is a blow to the rights of abused women who now could face similar vitriol and worry about being able to legally challenge it

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right.

 

As I understand it, the guy was convicted under the test that recognizing the words as a threat was something a "reasonable" person would do.  But that as a test could remove the words from any potential context they might have. Context is always important. "I kill you? I kill everyone!" might be a threat...but probably isn't if it was proceeded by something like "Man, you're hilarious - you kill me!"

 

In this case - and again as I understand it - the guy clearly marked on his posts in ways that would provide different context for what he wrote (some sort of Free Speech disclaimer).

 

So what I gather reading about this decision isn't that you can post anything online without consequence, but the words themselves are not enough to convict - you have to provide intent.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2015 by Amentep

[Hurlshort]

It is more of a red flag that the guy needs help.  I agree that sending him to prison serves no one.  But really it's just another sad indication of how feeble our mental health care industry is.

[Amentep]

It is more of a red flag that the guy needs help.  I agree that sending him to prison serves no one.  But really it's just another sad indication of how feeble our mental health care industry is.

 

Regardless of whether this guy needs mental health care or not, I think its true we don't do a good job with mental health issues here in the US.

 

EDIT: I do think there will always be certain limits we have to our ability to deal with mental health issues from a cultural standpoint.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Amentep