Apparently standing up to SJW pressure is good for business

[BruceVC]

 

"The Gamergate crowd threatened to rape women. There was and is no justification in a civilized society for them. Period."

 

That was anti Gamergate who did that. They also laughed and mocked someone who was actually assaulted in her home.

 

 c

Nazi SJWs will Nazi SJWs. Anyone who supports them is against freedom. PERIOD.

Nonsense, the Gamergate story is well documented by a variety of media companies many of them not particularly left wing.

The harassment from those **** of women gamers is well known. BTW comparing SJW's to Nazis. Way to go! Hyperbole much?

 

 

Just ignore Volo's Nazi comparison, he doesn't mean it in the way we understand it

 

I have tried to explain to him how offensive and unnecessary the whole " Nazi" comparison is but he has ignored it. I think he uses it exactly to annoy people like you and me who do care about SJ  and would be the last people to align to Nazis  

[licketysplit]

Apparently Japanese developers don't think so. Seems they've all collectively lost their spines on the matter. 

[HoonDing]

There's a reason why many Japanese developers block foreign IPs.

[Nonek]

Nonsense, the Gamergate story is well documented by a variety of media companies

 

Ha, good one. The unethical, lying media reporting that their detractors are all manner of villains and misogynist, a pity that the findings on Twitter done by an independent auditor found that instances of harassment using the hashtag Gamergate were so miniscule as to be almost non existent. But by all means lets not let facts enter the false narrative the media are crafting to defend themselves, and their lapdogs who are in favour of corruption and demonising gamers.

[Fenixp]

Yes, gamergaters were proponents of all good and holy, without them, the industry as a whole would have crumbled by now. Anti-GG, however, those rascals have sabotaged all that we hold dear and should all die!

 

Both groups were a bunch of morons and the whole "discussion" was a joke, nothing more than a bunch of internet trolls in an online pissing contest. Both sides were extremely mysogynist, both sides acted like **** and neither actually seemed too concerned with ethics in journalism beyond having a flag to rally behind.

 

The effect? Story of Zoe Quinn will probably be made into a movie and it's rumored Scarlett Johansson might take up the role of Quinn. I can only take a guess about which side of the argument will be presented as the "correct" one to the wide audience, but since it's based on Quinn's interpretation, well... Yeah. And that's literally all the so-called movement has achieved. So... Well done?

[Lexx]

Hahahahahahaha, Scarlett Johansson as Zoe Quinn. I mean... I don't want to be an ass, but seriously, how does that compare.

[Fenixp]

Hahahahahahaha, Scarlett Johansson as Zoe Quinn. I mean... I don't want to be an ass, but seriously, how does that compare.

Well, one of them drives sales of movie tickets. I'll let you guess which one is it.

[Nonek]

Yes, gamergaters were proponents of all good and holy, without them, the industry as a whole would have crumbled by now. Anti-GG, however, those rascals have sabotaged all that we hold dear and should all die!

 

Both groups were a bunch of morons and the whole "discussion" was a joke, nothing more than a bunch of internet trolls in an online pissing contest. Both sides were extremely mysogynist, both sides acted like **** and neither actually seemed too concerned with ethics in journalism beyond having a flag to rally behind.

 

The effect? Story of Zoe Quinn will probably be made into a movie and it's rumored Scarlett Johansson might take up the role of Quinn. I can only take a guess about which side of the argument will be presented as the "correct" one to the wide audience, but since it's based on Quinn's interpretation, well... Yeah. And that's literally all the so-called movement has achieved. So... Well done?

 

One never stated that all whom chose to follow Gamergate were "proponents of all (that is) good and holy." I merely made a statement that claims of harassment were overblown statistically, and used to demonise an honest movement for ethical standards and a press that should be at least fit for purpose. Neither did I ask for anyone to die, that would be the utterings of an outraged, loudmouthed and judgemental moron.

 

I will not judge either group, except by what they have actually done, as it is not my place to judge them beyond that. However it seems quite reasonable for journalists not to be sleeping with developers, that is a clear conflict of interests. It seems quite reasonabel that the media criticise and keep a professional working distance from the field they are reporting on, otherwise it becomes just a PR arm that is useless to the consumer, its customer. It is also self evident that people whom happen to play games recreationally should not be demonised for doing so, and all manner of aspersions cast upon them when they have never even been on Twitter, Facebook or anyone of the vanity sites.

 

So a film may be made carving and reaffirming the false narrative that gamers are all misogynist and untermensch, it will not be the first or last time that the media has decided to demonise consumers. Whether it is AD&D, video nasties, rock or rap music, novels or what have you. That is hardly a movement for ethics fault, blame the creators and a media who are only interested in shock and fear mongering. As for what Gamergate achieved, it revealed the depths of the games medias hate for their audience, it forced several publications to adopt ethical standards, it ousted several of the toxic individuals from their positions of power such as Bob Chipman, Leigh Alexander and Ben Kuchera, and of course it highlighted how utterly unfit for purpose the media is.

 

Edit: I'd also like to pour scorn on this notion that everyone involved in Gamergate (including the women in it) were misogynists and or acted poorly, many of us maintained decorum, manners and merely championed the cause of a media overhaul that is sadly needed. We contacted advertisers to express our outrage over poor journalism, supported various causes financially and expressed our opinion on the various ethical issues which Gamergate tackled, that is all and not something to be once again demonised or insulted over. A consumer revolt is no bad thing, it is the media spin that has painted it as such with baseless claims.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Nonek

[Fighter]

The Gamergate crowd threatened to rape women. There was and is no justification in a civilized society for them. Period.

 

A hashtag threatened to rape women? As meaningless a statement now as it was then.

[Fenixp]

Look Nonek, for the most part, I don't watch modern media on gaming for a very, very long time. I stopped when I've routinely seen previews which read more like advertisments and very high ratings of games which were also plastered all over with BUY! links on the very game they were reviewing. That's why it kind of surprised me when an ex-boyfriend leaked info that his ex-girlfriend most likely slept with a journalist and people used that information as a trustworthy source (!?) and on that basis started complaining about ethics in gaming media (!?!?) By the way, appreciate the irony - "movement" which wants ethics in journalism started by trusting an ex throwing dirt at an ex.

 

For one, without gamergate, nobody would know about Zoe Quinn and her game. Second, much more overt and sinister crap has been going on for AGES at that point, I thought people were living in caves for not noticing it. But a completely uninfluential chick potentially sleeps with a relatively uninfluential journalist? STOP THE PRESSES!

 

And you're absolutely correct, I should judge people by their actions. I actually have a fair amount of game devs as either friends or at least people I regularly talk to. You know what were the actions I have seen? My friends attacked and bullied for supporting gamergate, not supporting gamergate and then there was the one bullied by both 'cause, apparently, if you're not with us, you're against us. For a brief period, indie developers were the devil.

 

Now, I'm not saying all supporters of gamergate were ****, they weren't and I actually feel sorry for you guys, since associating with gamergate hurt your cause a lot more than it helped. Because you're right - gaming journalism is ****. It needs changing. But given how 99% gamergate participants (and by "gamergate participants" I mean everybody involved, pro and against) behaved, the rest who actually got a point were ignored. And what did the 99% do? Virtual version of hooligans, essentially. Didn't matter which side you were on, attack the other side viciously! I'd also like to point out that I hate the "Don't like gaergate? You hate ethics in journalism then!" which was quite prevalent at the time. And people who were against gamergate weren't necessarily against improving things in journalism - but movement based on pointless internet outrage will end in pointless internet outrage, very simple. So, who suffered in the end? Small guys, who have absolutely no influence whatsoever, but are consequently small enough to be attacked and bullied. Big gaming sites still got their clicks, big publishers still got their contracts.

 

So, let's take a look at what was actually achieved: For a brief period, gaming journalists were more careful about disclosure. They're not as careful anymore and soon, I imagine this influence will die off completely. IGN still has ads for highly reviewed games plastered all over their page. Now that new forms of media are slowly pushing out the traditional media, big publishers are again looking for ways of how to influence those. Nobody changed. Everything is as it's been. You just made at least one talented indie developer say "**** it, I don't have the stomach for this crap".

[Nonek]

How exactly did I do that? The answer is I didn't.

 

I too have watched gaming media becoming unfit for purpose and more interested in demonising its audience rather than doing their job, thus when Gamergate reared its head I heartily embraced it in the hopes of making the media take some responsibility and do their jobs, after all they are reporting on an extremely flawed multi billion dollar industry. I remember the Kane and Lynch debacle, and many others, and there deserves to be an industry that just does its job rather than regards this as par for the course.

 

As for Ms Quinn being noticed, I really don't care for the woman or her work, it was a journalist sleeping with a developer that I objected to and Mr Grayson's blatant unethical behaviour, this is a conflict of interest that should see any journalist fired if he did not disclose this to his editor. However Mr Tortillo thinks that game journalists sleeping with developers is perfectly fine, and yet any professor of ethics (or sane person) would tell him that this is blatantly unethical. I was far more interested in the journalists wrongdoings than the part time developer and full time professional victim, I was not interested in her and the only people who kept bringing her up were those trying to say that a woman I had never spoken to, contacted or was vaguely interested in was my reason for asking for journalists to do their job. A pathetic argument, unworthy of discussion, and blatantly used to falsely label me a misogynist and deflect attention.

 

What did I achieve? Ultimately nothing, but I think Gamergate has highlighted just how useless game journalism is, and this dying profession will die all the quicker now, and then perhaps we can have something that is more fit for purpose and serviceable.

[Fenixp]

How exactly did I do that? The answer is I didn't.

You can't mix and match which parts of a movement you associate yourself with and which parts you don't, which is exactly the issue. If you could do that I'd be 100% pro gamer-gate. Sadly, the moment you speak up for gamergate, you're also speaking up for the idiots. Sure, it would be a bit different if the idiots weren't so prominent in which case they wouldn't account for much - but they were. That was the part of gamergate which actually got heard and that's what most people associate gamergate with. Also, gamergate is still a completely moronic name, which doesn't help :-P Edited December 12, 2015 by Fenixp

[Nonek]

No, I take responsibility for myself and my family, what other people do and say is their business and not mine and I will neither be blamed for their actions or inactions. However I will say that the negative opinion of Gamergate has been mostly manufactured by the lying media to shift blame from itself, and I have associated with, and will continue associating with, ladies and gentlemen who support Gamergate and are of fine moral standing and genuinely good people. Some of whom are developers who are also tired of being demonised, told that their works are sexist and problematic, and being preached at by a press who are corrupt and immoral.

 

Edit: I would not blame all Muslims for the actions of terrorists, I would not judge a race on the actions of one member, this is extremely poor logic.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Nonek

[Fighter]

I am a little tired of people pretending they don't understand how the internet works. The idiots amongst gamergate are prominent because that is who you prefer to pay attention to. All the journo-activists latched onto what helped them write their narrative. And I'm not going to give them the benefit of taking that narrative seriously.

[Fenixp]

I will say that the negative opinion of Gamergate has been mostly manufactured by the lying media to shift blame from itself

It has? I've been following gamergate since its beginning and the opinions were very split and debates very heated from the getgo. Just about everybody was acting like an idiot from the getgo. The negative opinion really didn't need much manufacturing - all the lying media needed to do was to link a Twitter tag and say "Go"

 

I am a little tired of people pretending they don't understand how the internet works. The idiots amongst gamergate are prominent because that is who you prefer to pay attention to. All the journo-activists latched onto what helped them write their narrative. And I'm not going to give them the benefit of taking that narrative seriously.

You might have been lucky, but at the start of the discussion, I've had issues finding people who'd be sensible and reasonable. Which is when I distanced away from it as I honestly have not seen anything but internet outrage. And after a while, I kept seeing internet outrage. I did have the fortune to talk to some reasonable gamergate proponents privately - but the moment I've looked at the topic at the boards I frequented at, discussions were anything but reasonable. Without any spin or narrative (as I said, I don't watch modern media), everything about gamergate visible to an outsider was a lot of crap. I didn't have to choose who do I pay attention to - in spite of actively trying to avoid gamergate, I kept being swept by it everywhere, and it was neither pretty nor reasonable. Now take a guess as to why could I possibly be annoyed by it... Edited December 12, 2015 by Fenixp

[Nonek]

If one chooses just to browse the most outrageous and loud discussions rather than delve into individual cases and the larger picture, then that is ones choice.

[Fenixp]

If one chooses just to browse the most outrageous and loud discussions rather than delve into individual cases and the larger picture, then that is ones choice.

Sadly for you, the most outrageous and loud discussions were also the most frequented ones and the most visible ones. It's neat that gamergate had a nice and reasonable wing tucked into certain corners of the internet. I'm happy for you. But even without lying media spinning anything, you were not the ones majority heard and your chances of being heard were killed by associating with the majority by joining in "gamergate" tag - but I'm sort of repeating myself, so I suppose I should quit this derail.

[Volourn]

"You can't mix and match which parts of a movement you associate yourself with and which parts you don't, which is exactly the issue."

 

That's nonsense. I agree with some parts of  Cosnrvatvies and some parts of Liberals. For Amerikans, that is some parts Republican and some parts Democracts. I also have many things that other smaller parties have too.

 

So, yeah, you are smoking dope again.

 

Of coruse,t hat is not surprise for a Nazi SJW apologist.

 

Everyone who deals with FACTS not FEELS knows that it is SJWs who harass, bully, physically threaten, and attack women and minorities. Not surprising, since Nazi SJWs tend to be racist sexist whities anyways. ;D

[aluminiumtrioxid]

the findings on Twitter done by an independent auditor found that instances of harassment using the hashtag Gamergate were so miniscule as to be almost non existent.

 

 

To be fair, if you were trying to harrass someone while trying to keep up the pretence of being a movement concerned with journalistic ethics, you'd most likely open a different account specifically for harrassing, which is - surprise surprise - what most of the harrassers were doing.

 

 

Look Nonek, for the most part, I don't watch modern media on gaming for a very, very long time. I stopped when I've routinely seen previews which read more like advertisments and very high ratings of games which were also plastered all over with BUY! links on the very game they were reviewing. That's why it kind of surprised me when an ex-boyfriend leaked info that his ex-girlfriend most likely slept with a journalist and people used that information as a trustworthy source (!?) and on that basis started complaining about ethics in gaming media (!?!?) By the way, appreciate the irony - "movement" which wants ethics in journalism started by trusting an ex throwing dirt at an ex.

 

For one, without gamergate, nobody would know about Zoe Quinn and her game. Second, much more overt and sinister crap has been going on for AGES at that point, I thought people were living in caves for not noticing it. But a completely uninfluential chick potentially sleeps with a relatively uninfluential journalist? STOP THE PRESSES!

 

 

 

And therein lies the crux of the problem. "Journalistic ethics" is the fig leaf covering the underlying sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my vidya gaemz". Which is a terribly ignorant opinion, but hey, that's GG for you.

[Nonek]

 

the findings on Twitter done by an independent auditor found that instances of harassment using the hashtag Gamergate were so miniscule as to be almost non existent.

 

 

To be fair, if you were trying to harrass someone while trying to keep up the pretence of being a movement concerned with journalistic ethics, you'd most likely open a different account specifically for harrassing, which is - surprise surprise - what most of the harrassers were doing.

 

 

Look Nonek, for the most part, I don't watch modern media on gaming for a very, very long time. I stopped when I've routinely seen previews which read more like advertisments and very high ratings of games which were also plastered all over with BUY! links on the very game they were reviewing. That's why it kind of surprised me when an ex-boyfriend leaked info that his ex-girlfriend most likely slept with a journalist and people used that information as a trustworthy source (!?) and on that basis started complaining about ethics in gaming media (!?!?) By the way, appreciate the irony - "movement" which wants ethics in journalism started by trusting an ex throwing dirt at an ex.

 

For one, without gamergate, nobody would know about Zoe Quinn and her game. Second, much more overt and sinister crap has been going on for AGES at that point, I thought people were living in caves for not noticing it. But a completely uninfluential chick potentially sleeps with a relatively uninfluential journalist? STOP THE PRESSES!

 

 

 

And therein lies the crux of the problem. "Journalistic ethics" is the fig leaf covering the underlying sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my vidya gaemz". Which is a terribly ignorant opinion, but hey, that's GG for you.

 

 

Two citations needed for these conspiracy theories please.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Nonek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

the findings on Twitter done by an independent auditor found that instances of harassment using the hashtag Gamergate were so miniscule as to be almost non existent.

 

 

To be fair, if you were trying to harrass someone while trying to keep up the pretence of being a movement concerned with journalistic ethics, you'd most likely open a different account specifically for harrassing, which is - surprise surprise - what most of the harrassers were doing.

 

 

Look Nonek, for the most part, I don't watch modern media on gaming for a very, very long time. I stopped when I've routinely seen previews which read more like advertisments and very high ratings of games which were also plastered all over with BUY! links on the very game they were reviewing. That's why it kind of surprised me when an ex-boyfriend leaked info that his ex-girlfriend most likely slept with a journalist and people used that information as a trustworthy source (!?) and on that basis started complaining about ethics in gaming media (!?!?) By the way, appreciate the irony - "movement" which wants ethics in journalism started by trusting an ex throwing dirt at an ex.

 

For one, without gamergate, nobody would know about Zoe Quinn and her game. Second, much more overt and sinister crap has been going on for AGES at that point, I thought people were living in caves for not noticing it. But a completely uninfluential chick potentially sleeps with a relatively uninfluential journalist? STOP THE PRESSES!

 

 

 

And therein lies the crux of the problem. "Journalistic ethics" is the fig leaf covering the underlying sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my vidya gaemz". Which is a terribly ignorant opinion, but hey, that's GG for you.

 

 

Two citations needed for these conspiracy theories please.

 

 

What, after about 30 threads full of whining about how "games journalism is no longer objective and is infected with filthy idealogues who want to push their message on us" on this very forum, threads in which you have actively participated, you still don't think the entire point of GG is railing against how "politicized" games journalism has become?

 

I'll never understand how my assessment that '"Journalistic ethics" is the fig leaf covering the underlying sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my vidya gaemz"' is in any way controversial, much less a "conspiracy theory".

Edited December 13, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

 

 

 

the findings on Twitter done by an independent auditor found that instances of harassment using the hashtag Gamergate were so miniscule as to be almost non existent.

 

 

To be fair, if you were trying to harrass someone while trying to keep up the pretence of being a movement concerned with journalistic ethics, you'd most likely open a different account specifically for harrassing, which is - surprise surprise - what most of the harrassers were doing.

 

 

Look Nonek, for the most part, I don't watch modern media on gaming for a very, very long time. I stopped when I've routinely seen previews which read more like advertisments and very high ratings of games which were also plastered all over with BUY! links on the very game they were reviewing. That's why it kind of surprised me when an ex-boyfriend leaked info that his ex-girlfriend most likely slept with a journalist and people used that information as a trustworthy source (!?) and on that basis started complaining about ethics in gaming media (!?!?) By the way, appreciate the irony - "movement" which wants ethics in journalism started by trusting an ex throwing dirt at an ex.

 

For one, without gamergate, nobody would know about Zoe Quinn and her game. Second, much more overt and sinister crap has been going on for AGES at that point, I thought people were living in caves for not noticing it. But a completely uninfluential chick potentially sleeps with a relatively uninfluential journalist? STOP THE PRESSES!

 

 

 

And therein lies the crux of the problem. "Journalistic ethics" is the fig leaf covering the underlying sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my vidya gaemz". Which is a terribly ignorant opinion, but hey, that's GG for you.

 

 

Two citations needed for these conspiracy theories please.

 

 

What, after about 30 threads full of whining about how "games journalism is no longer objective and is infected with filthy idealogues who want to push their message on us" on this very forum, threads in which you have actively participated, you still don't think the entire point of GG is railing against how "politicized" games journalism has become?

 

I'll never understand how my assessment that '"Journalistic ethics" is the fig leaf covering the underlying sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my vidya gaemz"' is in any way controversial, much less a "conspiracy theory".

 

 

No I don't, I think the purpose was to state how unfit for purpose, corrupt and unethical games journalism has become, and highlight the obvious hypocrisy of game journalists lecturing others on issues when they are morally bankrupt.

 

You are of course welcome to believe whatever conspiracy theories you wish but if you're not providing any proof whatsoever then don't expect me to believe you, nor participate in this conjecture. Or you could stop dodging the issue and post the citations I requested, if you please.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

What, after about 30 threads full of whining about how "games journalism is no longer objective and is infected with filthy idealogues who want to push their message on us" on this very forum, threads in which you have actively participated, you still don't think the entire point of GG is railing against how "politicized" games journalism has become?

 

I'll never understand how my assessment that '"Journalistic ethics" is the fig leaf covering the underlying sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my vidya gaemz"' is in any way controversial, much less a "conspiracy theory".

 

 

No I don't, I think the purpose was to state how unfit for purpose, corrupt and unethical games journalism has become, and highlight the obvious hypocrisy of game journalists lecturing others on issues when they are morally bankrupt.

 

 

 

By whining about "but POLITICS!"?

 

Strange way of accomplishing the purported goal.

 

 

You are of course welcome to believe whatever conspiracy theories you wish but if you're not providing any proof whatsoever then don't expect me to believe you, nor participate in this conjecture. Or you could stop dodging the issue and post the citations I requested, if you please.

 

I've wasted months of my time providing you lot with links and detailed statistical analyses on why some of GG's big talking points don't hold water. They were unilaterally ignored or met with the equivalent of "nuh-uh, because... urm... because I said so".

 

I'm done playing that game. Nothing can sway you people, least of all logic or common sense.

 

 

(Side note: the irony of being accused of believing in conspiracy theorist nonsense by people who honestly think we are under threat by cultural marxists who insidiously want to turn all gaming into a tool of brainwashing and abolish all genres other than "walking simulators" is staggering.)

Edited December 13, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

 

 

 

 

 

the findings on Twitter done by an independent auditor found that instances of harassment using the hashtag Gamergate were so miniscule as to be almost non existent.

 

 

To be fair, if you were trying to harrass someone while trying to keep up the pretence of being a movement concerned with journalistic ethics, you'd most likely open a different account specifically for harrassing, which is - surprise surprise - what most of the harrassers were doing.

 

 

Look Nonek, for the most part, I don't watch modern media on gaming for a very, very long time. I stopped when I've routinely seen previews which read more like advertisments and very high ratings of games which were also plastered all over with BUY! links on the very game they were reviewing. That's why it kind of surprised me when an ex-boyfriend leaked info that his ex-girlfriend most likely slept with a journalist and people used that information as a trustworthy source (!?) and on that basis started complaining about ethics in gaming media (!?!?) By the way, appreciate the irony - "movement" which wants ethics in journalism started by trusting an ex throwing dirt at an ex.

 

For one, without gamergate, nobody would know about Zoe Quinn and her game. Second, much more overt and sinister crap has been going on for AGES at that point, I thought people were living in caves for not noticing it. But a completely uninfluential chick potentially sleeps with a relatively uninfluential journalist? STOP THE PRESSES!

 

 

 

And therein lies the crux of the problem. "Journalistic ethics" is the fig leaf covering the underlying sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my vidya gaemz". Which is a terribly ignorant opinion, but hey, that's GG for you.

 

 

Two citations needed for these conspiracy theories please.

 

 

What, after about 30 threads full of whining about how "games journalism is no longer objective and is infected with filthy idealogues who want to push their message on us" on this very forum, threads in which you have actively participated, you still don't think the entire point of GG is railing against how "politicized" games journalism has become?

 

I'll never understand how my assessment that '"Journalistic ethics" is the fig leaf covering the underlying sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my vidya gaemz"' is in any way controversial, much less a "conspiracy theory".

 

 

No I don't, I think the purpose was to state how unfit for purpose, corrupt and unethical games journalism has become, and highlight the obvious hypocrisy of game journalists lecturing others on issues when they are morally bankrupt.

 

You are of course welcome to believe whatever conspiracy theories you wish but if you're not providing any proof whatsoever then don't expect me to believe you, nor participate in this conjecture. Or you could stop dodging the issue and post the citations I requested, if you please.

 

 

 

By whining about "but POLITICS!"?

 

Strange way of accomplishing the purported goal.

 

 

Or you could stop dodging the issue and post the citations I requested, if you please.

 

 

I've wasted months of my time providing you lot with links and detailed statistical analyses on why some of GG's big talking points don't hold water. They were unilaterally ignored or met with the equivalent of "nuh-uh, because... urm... because I said so".

 

I'm done playing that game. Nothing can sway you people, least of all logic or common sense.

 

 

So in summary no citations for your conspiracy theories?

[Gromnir]

am tending to agree with al2o3.  the notion that folks were shocked and appalled that game journalists lacked integrity or standards were comical.  folks feigned surprise.  folks acted out their shock.  *snort* game journalism has always had more in common with professional wrestling than it has with legit traditional journalism.  yeah, folks were indeed disappointed that game journalists were a bunch o' self-appointed pundits trying to promote social causes through game coverage, but were no surprise... and weren't necessarily a bad thing neither.

 

the genuine anger we has seen is focused not so much on lack o' integrity, but rather on the "sjw" sideshow... which al2o3 observes never were the sideshow at all.  gg, from the start, has been a repudiation o' sjw and seeming liberal bias o' the industry's media coverage.  

 

unlike al, we do believe that there has been an annoying trend w/i the gaming industry to be indulging political correct agenda, but seeing as we never took the journalists serious, it has been difficult to work up any venom over the fight against the dominant paradigm... which ironic, has become the seeming dominant paradigm.  yeah, is a few game developers that has gone too far (too far for Gromnir's tastes) trying to appeal to a vocal minority, but our remedy is no different now than it were 10 or 20 years ago: don't buy the games made by developers we don't like. as such, in our opinion, the whole gg debate is utterly pointless.

 

and no, much as al is not, we do not intend to link every post in these game journalist threads that is actual condemnations o' sjw or pc... we would be here all day doing such links.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 13, 2015 by Gromnir