Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[Fighter]

You guys should just distance yourselves from GG....I honestly fail to understand why you feel the need to support this movement with all the outbursts of controversy. I would be too annoyed to be loyal

 

This is kind of a pointless sentiment. You can call it whatever, GG or not GG, it's just a hashtag. The vast majority of people who've ever participated do not agree with the worst elements, something you know perfectly well.  People of your persuasion will always find a way to judge it based on that one guy in the corner who lets you label the whole thing. 

 

When you say "distance yourself from GG" what you are actually asking is stop disagreeing with the this brand of "social justice" movement.

 

EDIT: The Gamasutra article.

 

"We don’t need theories about the correlation between violent games and violent behavior. Many players of violent and antagonistic games engage in violent and antagonistic behavior. Whether violent people are attracted to games or games arouse violent emotions is irrelevant. Anyone who has ever been attacked by a gamer lynch party knows that a certain number of people who play antagonistic and violent games are aggressive, intolerant, reactionary, misogynist, and so on."

 

Translation: I wont let facts challenge my world-view.

 

Incredible really. We don't need any evidence apparently... We don't need to know if there is any correlation. We don't need to know if the proportion of violent people is any different from any other hobby. How convincing.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Fighter

[Keyrock]

Probably should just shake my head and move on, but...

 

 

More fun from Tale of Tales, the developers behind Sunset:

 

https://archive.is/XuLWO

 

Some choice quotes:

 

 

We don’t need theories about the correlation between violent games and violent behavior.

 

 

Actually you kinda do Tale of Tales, because correlation doesn't speak to causation. 

 

There's a correlation between shark attacks on humans and swimming in the ocean, but that doesn't mean swimming in the ocean is the cause of shark attacks on humans.

That's pretty standard procedure for elitists types.  Present a statement as fact without any factual or academic evidence to back it up (in this particular case there is mounting academic evidence to the contrary) and if anyone questions said statement or asks for evidence then act outraged and claim that said statement, which is clearly not self evident, is self evident.  For bonus points they'll throw out the name of a famous (likely Russian or Chinese) philosopher to show off the size of their culture pen1ses, likely without any true understanding of the works of said philosopher and what made them great.

[Blarghagh]

They really haven't mastered the whole intelligent, scientific thought thing. Here's some other correlations. We have to ban margerine, it promotes divorce!

 

[HoonDing]

Correlation does not imply causation, except when it does.

[licketysplit]

 

Quite the fear mongering in that video. Was I the only one who had the urge to vomit all over Ashley Birche's face?

Your sexual fetishes are your own thing man.

 

At any rate I don't think I'm going to watch the video because I'd rather play vidya or watch something good with my time. I take it I'm not missing anything but the same talking points?

 

 

Your the one who called it sexual mate. Get your mind out of the gutter. Sad to see those notorious gamer lynch parties at work again. This industry is a disgrace I tell you. 

[Meshugger]

The Witcher devs endorsed this:

 

[Gfted1]

I dunno, just look at that tongue! Maybe a Water Hag has mad skills but cant share them because the world shuns them.

[Bartimaeus]

 

A pretty hilarious counter to at least some of the points of the Feminist Frequency videos.

[kirottu]

[Meshugger]

Donald Trump should become president so these weasels will have something to worry about.

[BruceVC]

Donald Trump should become president so these weasels will have something to worry about.

 

 

You sure  this survey and various images  about " teenagers want less objectification in games and less women being sexualized " is real?

 

It really doesn't sound like something teenager  boys would be concerned about or say?

 

I mean lets be honest  most of you guys are basically fine with the status quo or have said on numerous occasions that you don't think games  are sexist. And you guys are adults, so what is it that teenagers are aware of that you guys aren't ?

 

Are we now saying that teenagers have more insight into status of sexism in games than you guys?

[Blarghagh]

No Bruce, that's the point. You're focusing on the wrong thing. It was a strawman poll with minimal results that were practically fixed due to location, context and timing. Teenagers don't say that kind of stuff. The point was when an obviously flawed poll shows teenagers think video games are "sexist", all the game websites jump on it. When a scientific study shows there's no correlation between sexist attitudes and video games, there's crickets, nothing. The poll fits the media narrative and gets clicks, so it gets exposure. The actual study doesn't fit their narrative and doesn't get clicks, so it doesn't. They control the message.

 

And for the record, what you said about people here is a gross misrepresentation. Most of the people here said it would be cool to have more varied game characters as long as they are interesting.

[Bartimaeus]

And for the record, what you said about people here is a gross misrepresentation. Most of the people here said it would be cool to have more varied game characters as long as they are interesting.

 

Oh gee, Bruce reframing the narrative of our discussions to better support his point of view...again? I can't believe it!

 

C'mon, Bruce.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

And for the record, what you said about people here is a gross misrepresentation. Most of the people here said it would be cool to have more varied game characters as long as they are interesting.

 

Well, interesting is kind of in the eye of the beholder, innit?

[Blarghagh]

That's correct. Still doesn't mean what Bruce said was in any way accurate.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

That's correct. Still doesn't mean what Bruce said was in any way accurate.

 

Well, what Bruce said was:

 

 

I mean lets be honest  most of you guys are basically fine with the status quo or have said on numerous occasions that you don't think games  are sexist. 

 

 

 

...which I don't think is something the majority of posters here would disagree with. I mean, I can hardly imagine Meshugger, Orogun, Fighter or, say, Calax loudly proclaiming how mainstream gaming is full of sexism.

 

 

Or are we talking about a different post?

[Bartimaeus]

I think the "most of you guys are basically fine with the status quo" is more of the issue, which, in reference to the post/image Bruce was actually replying to, means that we're "fine" with women being underrepresented and/or misrepresented in games. We already had a discussion about this earlier in the topic...or, uh, maybe the last one one, where Bruce misrepresented what ShadySands said about something in regard to this topic (edit: although I'll admit probably unintentionally, given his later posts).

 

Here's the post: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/80106-journalism-and-bias-in-the-gaming-industry/?p=1704725

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I think the "most of you guys are basically fine with the status quo" is more of the issue, which, in reference to the post/image Bruce was actually replying to, means that we're "fine" with women being underrepresented and/or misrepresented in games.

 

Well I'm sure you're not fine with that, but I'm also pretty sure you couldn't get the majority of the posters here to agree with the statement that women are under- and/or misrepresented in games, much less that this is something that should be changed. Hence "most of you guys are basically fine with the status quo".

[Bartimaeus]

Could you get the majority of posters to do the opposite, or has that been clearly demonstrated in one of these topics already (for the record, I don't think it has been, so give me some evidence if you do think so )? If not, you can't really make a sweeping generalization either way, I'll agree with you that much...if you look at the latest edit to my previous (my apologies, I'm a bit of an edit-freak, ), Bruce asked if anyone "besides ShadySands" would have a problem having to play a female character...of which the few repliers to either said "no" or "I prefer playing males characters because I am a male, but not really, no" (besides Bruce himself, who said he probably wouldn't play a game like Dishonored 2 with only a female character as the choice...which seemed fair enough to me). Everyone else did not reply to it...I think you might find it difficult to pin the majority of users here down to any particular stance on some of these subjects...which means, don't have sweeping generalizations about the folks here on these forums.

 

(e): Need to not be a horrible hypocrite and poorly paraphrase for other people. Fixed.

 

(e): A little additional discussion on this subject in the previous topic that was before the previously linked post which I think at least vestigially supports my point of view: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/80106-journalism-and-bias-in-the-gaming-industry/page-9?do=findComment&comment=1704205

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Meshugger]

We do not agree with what constitutes as sexism to begin with. For example, i love femme fatales, sexuality, boobs and butts, but in the eyes of others that is a manifestation of sexism.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Bruce asked if anyone "besides ShadySands" would have a problem having to play a female character...of which the few repliers to either said "no" or "I prefer playing males characters because I am a male, but not really, no" (besides Bruce himself, who said he probably wouldn't play a game like Dishonored 2 with only a female character as the choice...which seemed fair enough to me). Everyone else did not reply to it...I think you might find it difficult to pin the majority of users here down to any particular stance on some of these subjects...which means, don't have sweeping generalizations about the folks here on these forums.

 

Well I think the majority of posters here doesn't really give a **** either way. They're fine with the status quo, but they're also fine with changes as long as they get what they're looking for in gaming. "Having your protagonist be male or female", I'd venture, isn't really a meaningful change from that perspective. Neither would be "having interesting characters in the game be male or female".

 

Which is, incidentally, why I really don't get the violent pushback to the notion that maybe we should change things around a bit; such changes are unlikely to affect the core experience of whatever game we're looking at.

[Bartimaeus]

We do not agree with what constitutes as sexism to begin with. For example, i love femme fatales, sexuality, boobs and butts, but in the eyes of others that is a manifestation of sexism.

 

Just another reason, then, that none of us should be making any sweeping generalizations about the "majority" or "most of you guys": a lot of us often argue from the same platform for very specific subjects within broader ones, but that doesn't mean it carries over to others.

 

 

 

Bruce asked if anyone "besides ShadySands" would have a problem having to play a female character...of which the few repliers to either said "no" or "I prefer playing males characters because I am a male, but not really, no" (besides Bruce himself, who said he probably wouldn't play a game like Dishonored 2 with only a female character as the choice...which seemed fair enough to me). Everyone else did not reply to it...I think you might find it difficult to pin the majority of users here down to any particular stance on some of these subjects...which means, don't have sweeping generalizations about the folks here on these forums.

 

Well I think the majority of posters here doesn't really give a **** either way. They're fine with the status quo, but they're also fine with changes as long as they get what they're looking for in gaming. "Having your protagonist be male or female", I'd venture, isn't really a meaningful change from that perspective. Neither would be "having interesting characters in the game be male or female".

 

Which is, incidentally, why I really don't get the violent pushback to the notion that maybe we should change things around a bit; such changes are unlikely to affect the core experience of whatever game we're looking at.

 

 

Which, in my probably worthless opinion, would suggest there's probably something wrong with the way such potential change is being portrayed or argued for by its proponents. Different and less polarizing strategies than saying "gamers are dead", demonizing gamers for having a vested interest in the ethics surrounding the business side of their hobby (to be completely honest, I'm not sure why the whole anti-women in gaming thing is even associated with GamersGate, when I haven't seen hardly any evidence of the two being related to each other outside of anti-GGers like Bruce repeatedly and obstinately bringing it up all the time and stating that it is: someone feel free to enlighten me why this is)...and conducting worthless straw polls like the one we just saw earlier while ignoring possible ACTUAL evidence suggesting something contrary to what one already believes (this presumes that people actually saw the contrary evidence, of course, when it's quite possible they didn't given the social circles we all run in...and the fact that we usually don't run in those strongly opposed to our viewpoints). Though the bridges may already be too burned and the sides too polarized for anything to work at this point.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

No Bruce, that's the point. You're focusing on the wrong thing. It was a strawman poll with minimal results that were practically fixed due to location, context and timing. Teenagers don't say that kind of stuff. The point was when an obviously flawed poll shows teenagers think video games are "sexist", all the game websites jump on it. When a scientific study shows there's no correlation between sexist attitudes and video games, there's crickets, nothing. The poll fits the media narrative and gets clicks, so it gets exposure. The actual study doesn't fit their narrative and doesn't get clicks, so it doesn't. They control the message.

 

And for the record, what you said about people here is a gross misrepresentation. Most of the people here said it would be cool to have more varied game characters as long as they are interesting.

 

Thanks for explaining, I thought  the images and general message seemed incongruous to what you guys believe. And that view is "  the majority of video games are generally not sexist and don't objectify women " ( and I tend to agree with that )

 

You shouldn't play the old " gross misrepresentation "  card.....at least not on this thread. I have been accused of being a Nazi, a Fascist and actually being in contempt of women when I have raised issues of gender equality. So the application of the words "gross misrepresentation " seem quite popular on this thread. I'm just going with the flow 

[Bartimaeus]

At least two of those were only by Volourn. That's hardly a valid argument.

[BruceVC]

At least two of those were only by Volourn. That's hardly a valid argument.

I wish it was only Volo. Several people in this thread, like Nonek, have referred fairly regularly to people who espouse SJ values as "SJF "

 

The F meaning Fascist. So "gross misrepresentation " is rife on several levels in this thread 

 

Which is why I suggested lets not that play that card 

Edited July 11, 2015 by BruceVC