Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[Bartimaeus]

Ah, but TECHNICALLY, did he specifically call you one? If not, you're applying that label to yourself all by yourself: he could think you're just the normal SJW, while SJF are actually a very special brand of SJWs!

 

If he did actually call you one, then I'm probably out of lame arguments that technically counter what you said. Probably.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Blarghagh]

So your argument is "I didn't like how some people grossly misrepresent me or people I like so I'll drag myself down to their level"?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 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

 

While I realize this may sound a little antagonistic, I can't help but react thusly: bro, do you ever fact-check?

Edited July 11, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Bartimaeus]

 

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

 

Bro, do you ever fact-check?

 

 

Ooh, that's constructive!

 

(edit):

 

While I realize this may sound a little antagonistic, I can't help but react thusly: bro, do you ever fact-check?

 

Hey, looks like I finally got the drop on somebody before they got an edit in for once. That's a first. Surprised I wasn't too busy editing my own post to see yours.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 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

 

Bro, do you ever fact-check?

 

 

Ooh, that's constructive!

 

 

It's hard to be constructive when you hear even otherwise level-headed people repeat the atrocious and provably false misinformation of gamergate. I mean, seriously, it takes, like, five minutes to look it up!

Edited July 11, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

So your argument is "I didn't like how some people grossly misrepresent me or people I like so I'll drag myself down to their level"?

 

Mmmmm....you right. I shouldn't compare myself to a low standard of forum and posting etiquette 

 

Good point TN, I apologize around  my usage of "gross misrepresentation " 

[Bartimaeus]

It's hard to be constructive when you hear even otherwise level-headed people repeat the atrocious and provably false misinformation of gamergate. I mean, seriously, it takes, like, five minutes to look it up!

Okay, and I specifically said enlighten me in that very post in regards to that very subject.

 

(edit): I am pretty sure when I hit quote, that last sentence wasn't there. Hmm. (edit): So, out of curiosity, what should my key search terms be, since you haven't supplied me with anything yet?

 

(edit): to make more sense

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

It's hard to be constructive when you hear even otherwise level-headed people repeat the atrocious and provably false misinformation of gamergate. I mean, seriously, it takes, like, five minutes to look it up!

Okay, and I specifically said enlighten me in that very post in regards to that very subject.

 

 

That was post-edit

 

Anyways, "gamers are dead" is an oft-repeated phrase that was never really said. Anyways, here's the article that spawned the meme, you can check it out for yourself - it's really not what GG wants it to be. I find it especially interesting that it condemns traditional gaming journalism with just as much fervor as the opposing side, actually.

 

Not to mention the "demonization of gamers for taking a vested interest in the ethics surrounding their side of the hobby", because I've never even heard that one.

[Bartimaeus]

"That was post-edit :p"

 

 

I'm not sure how your article dispels my notion. The article is still full of ridiculous hyperbole and sweeping generalizations about seemingly the entire "gaming" industry and community...it raises specific points and ideas that might've been appreciable if presented in a more limited, discretionary manner, but packages it in such a terrible way that I'm not surprised people took offense to it when it says laughable nonsense like this:

 

"Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time. Suddenly they started wearing shiny blouses and pinning bikini babes onto everything they made, started making games that sold the promise of high-octane masculinity to kids just like them.

 

By the turn of the millennium those were games’ only main cultural signposts: Have money. Have women. Get a gun and then a bigger gun. Be an outcast. Celebrate that. Defeat anyone who threatens you. You don’t need cultural references. You don’t need anything but gaming. Public conversation was led by a games press whose role was primarily to tell people what to buy, to score products competitively against one another, to gleefully fuel the “team sports” atmosphere around creators and companies."

 

I kept the last sentence for integrity's sake (because it is criticizing traditional gaming "journalism" as you said...even though it goes on later to imply that such behavior was in the past, and that "game journalists" are very different nowadays, and much more ethical and creative and cultured and... ), but everything before it (and a bit of the stuff after)? Yeah, I'll admit, that side of the gaming industry doesn't really appeal to me...in fact, I rather hate it, personally. It also does seem to be a rather sizable portion of the industry, it seems to me...but the thing is, I don't have to interact with it if I don't want to, and stuff that I hate that appeals to other people I can keep to my danged self about and instead engage with other communities for other games or other types of games. People enjoy the type of games they enjoy because...why? I have no idea. Why's that any of my business? It's certainly not the business of self-righteous so-called "journalists" who would write arrogant, "blow my own horn until my audience is deaf" nonsense like that article. To generalize the entire gaming community like that in one breadth? The question I have now isn't so much, "What were/are these guys thinking?" as much as, "Why did we even treat these people seriously long enough for Gamergate to even become a thing in the first place, instead of just laughing them off right from the get-go with the fact that we know better, that the situation is a little more complex than this?".

 

Help me see this article from your point of view, because all I'm getting is what I'm pretty sure is exactly what the pro-GG people got out of it, though perhaps more striped with amusement than the outrage they had at the time. Maybe GG has already painted my perspective so much my judgement is clouded.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Bartimaeus]

Not to mention the "demonization of gamers for taking a vested interest in the ethics surrounding the business side of their hobby", because I've never even heard that one. (FIXED because what you paraphrased is not what I said)

From just your article:

 

"These straw man ‘game journalism ethics’ conversations people have been having are largely the domain of a prior age, when all we did was negotiate ad deals and review scores and scraped to be called ‘reporters’, because we had the same powerlessness complex as our audience had. 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."

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Volourn]

"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."

 

The pushback is caused by being accused of being a sexist racist rapist monster who cna't control himself white male who is dead, threatened with being killed NOT  against a 'variety of games'.

 

\But, hey, support the nazis who want to murder me because you are a nazi SJW who supports murder.  As well as the harassment, bullying, and threatening of female game devs. BRILLIANT.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Volourn

[Meshugger]

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/07/gamergate-abc-producer-tells-senator-to-stfu-regarding-investigation/

 

 

 

One of Australia’s Senators has been investigating the ABC recently after charges of journalistic impropriety were brought to his attention, and ABC producer Tom Greenard said that the Senator could “STFU”. For those not in the know, it’s an acronym that means “Shut The F**k up”.
 

Edited July 11, 2015 by Meshugger

[Zoraptor]

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.

 

Much like that 'teenage boy' survey it will depend just about entirely on how you ask the questions as to how and how strongly people are pro 'status quo' or 'anti change' or 'conservative' or 'progressive' or pro/ anti 'inclusivity' with respect to gaming.

 

My general observation is that most people object to perceived overt politicisation of gaming, not any shift from the 'status quo'- which is itself a rather nebulous concept really, when gaming runs the gamut from stuff which is rather obviously already aimed at women (albeit most often of the Facebook/ mobile type) to obscure wargames/ CoD/ WoW etc it is difficult to decide exactly what the 'status quo' entails and it tends to morph into whatever is convenient for whoever is making the argument regarding it. So it isn't really an objection to changing things around a bit, it's an objection to pressure that is at least perceived as trying to change everything around a bit, in ways that are incompatible with both the gaming that [person] likes at present and a desire not to be preached to. Given that perception it is understandable that there is push back. And much as there tends to be push back against 'progressive' stuff for trivial reasons sometimes there is also some hopelessly trivial push back against perfectly sensible 'traditional' gaming from the other side as well.

 

It isn't just 'progressive' type politicisation that is objected to either, I've seen plenty of people who loathe stuff like "America's Army" for being outright propaganda.

[Fighter]

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

[HoonDing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEcssL5Lf8g

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Help me see this article from your point of view, because all I'm getting is what I'm pretty sure is exactly what the pro-GG people got out of it, though perhaps more striped with amusement than the outrage they had at the time. Maybe GG has already painted my perspective so much my judgement is clouded.

 

 

 

Well the way I see it, its entire point is that this - "a generation of lonely basement kids" - is what the industry itself has seen its audience (despite the fact that teenage boys have long since been ceased to be the biggest gaming demographic) since forever, and it doesn't have to be this way.

 

The pushback to the article has always been baffling to me - we're on the Obsidian forums, I'm pretty sure nobody here wants the gaming industry to be dominated by games that cater to the tastes and sensibilities of adolescent boys to the extent it is dominated by them now.

 

 

 

Much like that 'teenage boy' survey it will depend just about entirely on how you ask the questions as to how and how strongly people are pro 'status quo' or 'anti change' or 'conservative' or 'progressive' or pro/ anti 'inclusivity' with respect to gaming.

 

My general observation is that most people object to perceived overt politicisation of gaming, not any shift from the 'status quo'- which is itself a rather nebulous concept really, when gaming runs the gamut from stuff which is rather obviously already aimed at women (albeit most often of the Facebook/ mobile type) to obscure wargames/ CoD/ WoW etc it is difficult to decide exactly what the 'status quo' entails and it tends to morph into whatever is convenient for whoever is making the argument regarding it. So it isn't really an objection to changing things around a bit, it's an objection to pressure that is at least perceived as trying to change everything around a bit, in ways that are incompatible with both the gaming that [person] likes at present and a desire not to be preached to. Given that perception it is understandable that there is push back. And much as there tends to be push back against 'progressive' stuff for trivial reasons sometimes there is also some hopelessly trivial push back against perfectly sensible 'traditional' gaming from the other side as well.

 

 

 

Yeah, but this kind of hinges on the very flawed assumption that the preferences of the person in question are inherently apolitical and shifting away from that is "bringing politics into gaming".

 

But really, much of the "pressure to change everything" boils down to innocuous things like "maybe have some more black or female protagonists", which is completely orthogonal to how a game actually plays like, and therefore should be, I dunno, low on the priority list of things to complain about?

[Bartimaeus]

Well the way I see it, its entire point is that this - "a generation of lonely basement kids" - is what the industry itself has seen its audience (despite the fact that teenage boys have long since been ceased to be the biggest gaming demographic) since forever, and it doesn't have to be this way.

I think that's a pretty silly/insulting way to put it, but ignoring that, have teenage/young adult males actually ceased to be AAA gaming's largest demographic? I know that they're no longer the majority in gaming "overall", but "overall" is not really a useful distinction to be making if that one sector, the (probably?) most powerful and lucrative sector because of its audience, continues to dominate gaming. It doesn't have to be that way, I'll agree with you, but the fact that it is, for the most part, continuing to be that way says something about its purchasing power in the industry. I also don't really care for the notion that, in order for other sectors/demographics to become more significant players in the industry, we need to belittle/reduce the currently most powerful: if they are actually distinct and significant, then they should become stronger and better represented in time regardless...and without needing to go on the offensive, so to speak, on the currently most powerful part of the market that some of us happen to consider "inferior". I like the things I like, and other people like the things they like: why should any of us be less for that, regardless of our preferences? It's not like game development is a monopoly, after all: if those other demographics really want to support a different variety of works than what is currently being supported by the AAA industry, then it will(/should?) happen on its own, and they will(/should?) become significant forces in the industry and continue to satisfy that demographic.

 

The pushback to the article has always been baffling to me - we're on the Obsidian forums, I'm pretty sure nobody here wants the gaming industry to be dominated by games that cater to the tastes and sensibilities of adolescent boys to the extent it is dominated by them now.

I'm afraid we'll have to differ here, based on what we consider to be a part of those adolescent "tastes": I would consider what the AAA gaming industry considers to be "romance" in games to absolutely fall into this...in fact, I'd go a step further and say it comes across as practically infantile to me. Nevertheless, such so-called "romance" implementations definitely have their proponents even here on these forums...and personally, I think that's O.K., because I don't typically concern myself with games that have it, and as a result, I have no desire to rail against it or the people who enjoy its current implementations. Instead, I am usually content to let people like what they like. Just as I'd prefer everyone else to do as well.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I also don't really care for the notion that, in order for other sectors/demographics to become more significant players in the industry, we need to belittle/reduce the currently most powerful: if they are actually distinct and significant, then they should become stronger and better represented in time regardless...and without needing to go on the offensive, so to speak, on the currently most powerful part of the market that some of us happen to consider "inferior". I like the things I like, and other people like the things they like: why should any of us be less for that, regardless of our preferences? 

 

 

 

On one hand, yes, the product you enjoy doesn't necessarily reflect on you. On the other hand, don't we all like to smugly pretend we're better than "those romance-crazy Biodrones" over there?

 

And in all fairness, if someone said to me that, say, the Transformers series is their ultimate cultural touchstone, I'd have an opinion of that person's level of education, if nothing else.

 

Moreover, this issue is made even murkier by the fact that as long as the industry does everything in its power to associate the "gamer" label with "hormonal teenage boy", self-identifying as a gamer reflects negatively on all of us in the rest of the world's eyes. Personally, I'd very much like my hobby not to be a source of embarrassment I'd rather keep quiet about, thank you very much.

 

 

 

The pushback to the article has always been baffling to me - we're on the Obsidian forums, I'm pretty sure nobody here wants the gaming industry to be dominated by games that cater to the tastes and sensibilities of adolescent boys to the extent it is dominated by them now.

I'm afraid we'll have to differ here, based on what we consider to be adolescent: I would consider what the AAA gaming industry considers to be "romance" in games to absolutely fall into this...in fact, I'd go a step further and say it comes across as practically infantile to me. Nevertheless, such so-called "romance" implementations definitely have their proponents even here on these forums.

 

 

But as far as I'm aware, they're widely seen as fair targets of ridicule by the community itself, aren't they?

[Bartimaeus]

On one hand, yes, the product you enjoy doesn't necessarily reflect on you. On the other hand, don't we all like to smugly pretend we're better than "those romance-crazy Biodrones" over there?

I'm not sure about all, but it does seem we, as humans, have a tendency for that kind of behavior, yes. I'm no exception, for sure...but occasionally I remember that it's a pretty stupid and judgemental way of thinking and try not to do it. Occasionally.

 

Moreover, this issue is made even murkier by the fact that as long as the industry does everything in its power to associate the "gamer" label with "hormonal teenage boy", self-identifying as a gamer reflects negatively on all of us in the rest of the world's eyes. Personally, I'd very much like my hobby not to be a source of embarrassment I'd rather keep quiet about, thank you very much.

 

No disagreement from me here...I just don't agree with the idea that the general strategy the article you gave me implies is the way to fix the situation. I don't think there really is a "fix" in the normal sense: the industry should realign/fix itself with or without anyone trying to actively intervene. Money, more now than ever before, drives the industry...and more than just teenage/young adult males have money.

 

 

But as far as I'm aware, they're widely seen as fair targets of ridicule by the community itself, aren't they?

Um...I'll be honest in saying that I'm not completely sure. I thought there were multiple different factions in such communities: people who just flat-out hate and ridiculize romance or at least the current, silly/shallow implementations of it, and the likely fact that it will continue to be that way in AAA gaming...those who accept it/like it, who're happy to see it in more games where they feel it's appropriate...and those who are serious about it and take it to an entirely different level. There are probably more, and yes, I'm sure there's a lot of fighting about it.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I don't think there really is a "fix" in the normal sense: the industry should realign/fix itself with or without anyone trying to actively intervene. Money, more now than ever before, drives the industry...and more than just teenage/young adult males have money.

 

 

Well, problem is, someone would need to fund the development of those games before their non-adolescent target demographics could throw money at them, and the industry culture has been steeped in this very... strange mindset where they blow impossible amounts of money on developing and marketing a game, so they need to be absolutely sure it's successful and just can't afford to take risks. Any risks. At all.

 

Of course it's likely to backfire spectacularly sooner or later, and maybe something more balanced will come out in the end when the current model becomes unsustainable, but "oh the industry will just fix itself, given time" isn't really reassuring when we've had about a decade of the industry doing the same thing over and over again, expecting something to change.

 

 

Um...I'll be honest in saying that I'm not completely sure. I thought there were multiple different factions in such communities: people who just flat-out hate and ridiculize romance or at least the current, silly/shallow implementations of it, and the likely fact that it will continue to be that way in AAA gaming...those who accept it/like it, who're happy to see it in more games where they feel it's appropriate...and those who are serious about it and take it to an entirely different level. There are probably more, and yes, I'm sure there's a lot of fighting about it. 

 

 

As far as I perceive, based on my somewhat cursory reading of the topics in question, those who are keen on very specifically the current, ridiculously inadequate implementation of romance, are rarely integrated deeply into the forum community, and are mercilessly mocked for their position.

[Fighter]

Someone is going to figure out how to make the video game version of Twilight or Hunger Games and get untapped demographics to buy consoles and AAA games en mass.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Someone is going to figure out how to make the video game version of Twilight or Hunger Games and get untapped demographics to buy consoles and AAA games en mass.

 

That... wouldn't be much of a progress from an artistic standpoint, would it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Someone is going to figure out how to make the video game version of Twilight or Hunger Games and get untapped demographics to buy consoles and AAA games en mass.

 

 

That... wouldn't be much of a progress from an artistic standpoint, would it.

I don't think publishers putting out AAA games en masse particularly care about artistic progress. See Skyrim, Madden, and Call of Duty.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I don't think publishers putting out AAA games en masse particularly care about artistic progress. See Skyrim, Madden, and Call of Duty.

 

 

Well, duh.