Is it time for feminists to step off our hobby?

nuclearday

New member
Sep 24, 2009
35
0
0
IridescentSky said:
Let me just end this all now. I'm making a game. I'll put WHATEVER I want into it. If I feel it should have a white, male protagonist, then that's how it's going to be. Vice versa for female protagonist. Don't tell me I should include/not include what I want for a game that I'M designing. I'm telling a story and I'm not changing characters just because someone else wants to have more female protagonists. DEAL WITH IT. You want a different answer? Go out and make your own game, with your own characters the way you deem fit.
So...

Who are you assuming would have a problem with that?

You're confusing the forest for the trees. In fact, I think a lot of people are doing that.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Looking at a forest from a distance and making an observation about the nature and composition of the forest as a whole is not the same as going up to a specific tree within that forest and shouting "no, I wish you would die you stupid tree!"

Admittedly, there's probably some who purport to be feminists that also get confused about the difference between macro and micro and the possible correlations between the two. But there's a lot of people overall who just seem to have trouble grokking it.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
nuclearday said:
IridescentSky said:
Let me just end this all now. I'm making a game. I'll put WHATEVER I want into it. If I feel it should have a white, male protagonist, then that's how it's going to be. Vice versa for female protagonist. Don't tell me I should include/not include what I want for a game that I'M designing. I'm telling a story and I'm not changing characters just because someone else wants to have more female protagonists. DEAL WITH IT. You want a different answer? Go out and make your own game, with your own characters the way you deem fit.
So...

Who are you assuming would have a problem with that?

You're confusing the forest for the trees. In fact, I think a lot of people are doing that.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Looking at a forest from a distance and making an observation about the nature and composition of the forest as a whole is not the same as going up to a specific tree within that forest and shouting "no, I wish you would die you stupid tree!"

Admittedly, there's probably some who purport to be feminists that also get confused about the difference between macro and micro and the possible correlations between the two. But there's a lot of people overall who just seem to have trouble grokking it.
What if you instead of making just an observation you are pretty much demanding for roads and skyscrapers by claiming that trees hate humans and spread their hatred all over the world?

Fun fact: Sarkeesian in one of her "observation" videos has said that videogames spread sexism and misogyny. She's pretty much Jack Thomson with a skirt.
 

RatheMcGrath

New member
May 24, 2010
83
0
0
Cute like the "first!" comment on a ZP video. People want to tell the "feminists" or the "SJW's" or the "White Knights" or whatever else to get off "their" hobby. But here's the simple fact...

It doesn't belong to you. Never did.

It doesn't belong to me, either. It is older, and bigger, than any of us.

It's older than the current "mature" atmosphere of games, which is often "adult" in the same way that an adult video store is "adult" or a "gentleman's club" is about gentlemanly behavior. A lot of the readers here may not be old enough to remember, but there was a time, when games were nearly purely about fun, and rarely even PvP competitive.

Now I have vocally expressed my displeasure with someone who camps a spawn point in deathmatch or shows up to multiplayer obviously hacked. It's fun and cathartic. But it's not representative of "gaming" anymore than a stool is representative of chairs. It's a small part of a huge whole.

Admittedly, a small part that has gotten rather vocal, perhaps due to too many nights shouting into a microphone on XBox Live. A small part that, to some people, defines the genre. Hence the hate on "Gamers."

That's a different argument, with them, that won't get anywhere until the whole #gamergate thing calms down, simply because it has become impossible to outshout the trolls. (By the by, will they ever seriously talk about gaming media that is nearly exclusively funded by advertising from the industry they're supposed to be reporting on? The money trail seems a lot more important than who is sleeping with who.)

No, what is interesting to me is when people talk about these "others" who need to back off of "their" hobby. Like you were here first.

Now some of you WILL have played longer than me, but if the Escapist were to release its demographic info I would expect to find myself about a decade older than average. I am old enough to have played a used Atari 2600 and thinking it was so cool. I remember being surprised when I learned that SAMUS was a GIRL and I remember being envious of the kids in The Wizard because they got to play Super Mario 3 before I did. I mowed lawns all summer to buy a Genesis and argued vehemently that it was better than the SNES because I wanted to believe I'd made the smarter decision, while secretly being jealous that I didn't have the other system after a few months.

I'm also a feminist. I think social justice is important, especially in art and even more especially in an interactive medium. I think that it is good that we have vloggers pointing out the foibles of the industry, and that while we don't have to agree with them, we should at least be willing to hear them.

I am not the only one like this. Not by a long shot. You don't have to agree with me to be a gamer. I don't have to agree with you to be one. I can be a gamer and think that the games industry weird obsession with voyeurism is problematic, if not nearly so much as the subverting of Samus in Other M.

I won't tell you to shut up, or anything like that, because that is clearly not my right. But when you go into #Gamergate debates all geared to defend "your" hobby against the feminists, the SJWs, the evil conspirators who use their boob magic to their advantage in the pristine industry that is gamers journalism, remember that WE have been here at least as long as you, if not longer.

Don't tell us to back off of "your" hobby. Because it is not now, and has never been, exclusively yours.
 

nuclearday

New member
Sep 24, 2009
35
0
0
Guerilla said:
nuclearday said:
IridescentSky said:
Let me just end this all now. I'm making a game. I'll put WHATEVER I want into it. If I feel it should have a white, male protagonist, then that's how it's going to be. Vice versa for female protagonist. Don't tell me I should include/not include what I want for a game that I'M designing. I'm telling a story and I'm not changing characters just because someone else wants to have more female protagonists. DEAL WITH IT. You want a different answer? Go out and make your own game, with your own characters the way you deem fit.
What if you instead of making just an observation you are pretty much demanding for roads and skyscrapers by claiming that trees hate humans and spread their hatred all over the world?

Fun fact: Sarkeesian in one of her "observation" videos has said that videogames spread sexism and misogyny. She's pretty much Jack Thomson with a skirt.
So I assert that I haven't come across anyone who says that it's somehow an innate evil for someone to make a game with a male protagonist, and your response is to create a hyperbolic hypothesis of some kind? And then tell me you don't like Anita Sarkeesian (who I hadn't mentioned actually.)

I don't like to play the "burden of proof" shenanigans. Someone makes an unproven assertion I'll usually make a fair attempt at tracking down the source on my own. But it's late, I've just skimmed a half dozen or so transcripts of the Women vs Tropes videos and I don't see that specific sound bite.

I cannot respond to hyperbole (as there's no logical counter to it if we're to have a constructive conversation.) And I feel that ad hominem attacks ("She's Jack Thompson in a skirt,") likewise offer no viable response. Which means the only part of your post that I can even attempt to respond to in any way is the part about "videogames spread sexism and misogyny."

But sort of central to a lot of these ideas is that pervasive use of dis-empowering or negative cliches and stereotypes in media has a subversive (and often unconscious) effect on culture. It's a feedback loop. ("It's okay to do or say these things because our culture allows it, and that's backed-up by our mainstream media.")

For example, back in the day (we're talking mid-20th century) it wasn't terribly uncommon to see some pretty offensive (by today's standards) caricatures of Chinese people in television and media. Some white guy would put on some buck teeth and big glasses and squint a lot, they'd talk funny ("ching chong," etc) and inevitably someone would bang a gong. Or if you had a gay man on television it was for comedic relief, someone to laugh at ("Oh look how funny he talks, and he holds his hands funny!")

Not only were such characterizations a barometer for showing how mainstream culture perceived these people, but also served to reinforce that such characterization was okay.

Negative stereotypes are very easily reinforced through mainstream and popular media.

Now you can disagree whether or not and to what extent there is an undercurrent of misogyny in contemporary videogames. But if they are then that's certainly going to be harmful to a healthy society. In the same way that it would be harmful if most black characters were portrayed as negative and submissive stereotypes.

If a particular viewpoint is espoused in a manner pervasive enough, that has an effect on the culture. Are... we even going to argue that, though? Because I kind of thought that was a given.

As I said, we can argue whether or not such sexism is pervasive enough in video game content (personally, since it looks like you're assuming my position ahead of time I think it's been a pretty good year with some pretty well-wrought female characters overall.) But the effect that such pervasiveness would have I thought was sort of a given...
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,655
23
13
Here's the fun little thing. People seem very quick to knee-jerk an answer that all of these feminists criticizing games, don't play them or even like them. When 90% of the time, I'm guessing the reason they complain, is because they love video games and want to see what they love change for the better(in their eyes). Though I personally do not see the need for their goals to be accomplished. I won't fight them either on the issue. To tell them to "shove off" is kinda a dick move.

Somewhat long answer short: No, no they do not.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
RatheMcGrath said:
Cute like the "first!" comment on a ZP video. People want to tell the "feminists" or the "SJW's" or the "White Knights" or whatever else to get off "their" hobby. But here's the simple fact...

It doesn't belong to you. Never did.

It doesn't belong to me, either. It is older, and bigger, than any of us.

It's older than the current "mature" atmosphere of games, which is often "adult" in the same way that an adult video store is "adult" or a "gentleman's club" is about gentlemanly behavior. A lot of the readers here may not be old enough to remember, but there was a time, when games were nearly purely about fun, and rarely even PvP competitive.

Now I have vocally expressed my displeasure with someone who camps a spawn point in deathmatch or shows up to multiplayer obviously hacked. It's fun and cathartic. But it's not representative of "gaming" anymore than a stool is representative of chairs. It's a small part of a huge whole.

Admittedly, a small part that has gotten rather vocal, perhaps due to too many nights shouting into a microphone on XBox Live. A small part that, to some people, defines the genre. Hence the hate on "Gamers."

That's a different argument, with them, that won't get anywhere until the whole #gamergate thing calms down, simply because it has become impossible to outshout the trolls. (By the by, will they ever seriously talk about gaming media that is nearly exclusively funded by advertising from the industry they're supposed to be reporting on? The money trail seems a lot more important than who is sleeping with who.)

No, what is interesting to me is when people talk about these "others" who need to back off of "their" hobby. Like you were here first.

Now some of you WILL have played longer than me, but if the Escapist were to release its demographic info I would expect to find myself about a decade older than average. I am old enough to have played a used Atari 2600 and thinking it was so cool. I remember being surprised when I learned that SAMUS was a GIRL and I remember being envious of the kids in The Wizard because they got to play Super Mario 3 before I did. I mowed lawns all summer to buy a Genesis and argued vehemently that it was better than the SNES because I wanted to believe I'd made the smarter decision, while secretly being jealous that I didn't have the other system after a few months.

I'm also a feminist. I think social justice is important, especially in art and even more especially in an interactive medium. I think that it is good that we have vloggers pointing out the foibles of the industry, and that while we don't have to agree with them, we should at least be willing to hear them.

I am not the only one like this. Not by a long shot. You don't have to agree with me to be a gamer. I don't have to agree with you to be one. I can be a gamer and think that the games industry weird obsession with voyeurism is problematic, if not nearly so much as the subverting of Samus in Other M.

I won't tell you to shut up, or anything like that, because that is clearly not my right. But when you go into #Gamergate debates all geared to defend "your" hobby against the feminists, the SJWs, the evil conspirators who use their boob magic to their advantage in the pristine industry that is gamers journalism, remember that WE have been here at least as long as you, if not longer.

Don't tell us to back off of "your" hobby. Because it is not now, and has never been, exclusively yours.
"Our" hobby refers to gamers, men, women, gays, everyone. When certain extremists want not only to politicize a completely apolitical hobby but also use obnoxious behavior and tactics to do it then yes, it becomes "us" and "our" hobby. Take into consideration that feminists don't own the entire female gender and there are plenty of girls and women who hate that shit too and all the negative attention feminists are bringing to them with these stupid gender wars. So yes our hobby.

The corruption that exists in games journalism is also why feminism is toxic within the industry. Because that's what feminism is now in the games industry, clickbait (kotaku), profiting (Sarkeesian) and the last month also cover for any shady shit (pretty much all gaming publications). If you criticize this shitty journalist that did this crap you're a misogynist. Thanks but no thanks. You can keep your ideology and we'll keep OUR hobby.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
nuclearday said:
So I assert that I haven't come across anyone who says that it's somehow an innate evil for someone to make a game with a male protagonist, and your response is to create a hyperbolic hypothesis of some kind? And then tell me you don't like Anita Sarkeesian (who I hadn't mentioned actually.)

I don't like to play the "burden of proof" shenanigans. Someone makes an unproven assertion I'll usually make a fair attempt at tracking down the source on my own. But it's late, I've just skimmed a half dozen or so transcripts of the Women vs Tropes videos and I don't see that specific sound bite.

I cannot respond to hyperbole (as there's no logical counter to it if we're to have a constructive conversation.) And I feel that ad hominem attacks ("She's Jack Thompson in a skirt,") likewise offer no viable response. Which means the only part of your post that I can even attempt to respond to in any way is the part about "videogames spread sexism and misogyny."

But sort of central to a lot of these ideas is that pervasive use of dis-empowering or negative cliches and stereotypes in media has a subversive (and often unconscious) effect on culture. It's a feedback loop. ("It's okay to do or say these things because our culture allows it, and that's backed-up by our mainstream media.")

For example, back in the day (we're talking mid-20th century) it wasn't terribly uncommon to see some pretty offensive (by today's standards) caricatures of Chinese people in television and media. Some white guy would put on some buck teeth and big glasses and squint a lot, they'd talk funny ("ching chong," etc) and inevitably someone would bang a gong. Or if you had a gay man on television it was for comedic relief, someone to laugh at ("Oh look how funny he talks, and he holds his hands funny!")

Not only were such characterizations a barometer for showing how mainstream culture perceived these people, but also served to reinforce that such characterization was okay.

Negative stereotypes are very easily reinforced through mainstream and popular media.

Now you can disagree whether or not and to what extent there is an undercurrent of misogyny in contemporary videogames. But if they are then that's certainly going to be harmful to a healthy society. In the same way that it would be harmful if most black characters were portrayed as negative and submissive stereotypes.

If a particular viewpoint is espoused in a manner pervasive enough, that has an effect on the culture. Are... we even going to argue that, though? Because I kind of thought that was a given.

As I said, we can argue whether or not such sexism is pervasive enough in video game content (personally, since it looks like you're assuming my position ahead of time I think it's been a pretty good year with some pretty well-wrought female characters overall.) But the effect that such pervasiveness would have I thought was sort of a given...
I like how first you deny that she claims that videogames are responsible for sexism and misogyny and then go on to defend that ridiculous position. So we're back in the Jack Thomson days discussing this bullshit again, huh? Well I will not participate in this ridiculous discussion, videogames do not affect people's behavior, this has been discussed to death and we always reached the same conclusion, end of story. Anyway, for the proof:

Researchers have also found that after long-term exposure to hyper-sexualized images, people of all genders tend to be more tolerant of the sexual harassment of women and more readily accept rape myths, including the belief that sexually assaulted women were asking for it, deserved it or are the ones to blame for being victimized.

In other words, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings, profoundly impacts how real life women are perceived and treated in the world around us. And that is all without even taking into account how video games allow for the more participatory form of objectification that we?ve been discussing in this episode.

Compounding the problem is the widespread belief that, despite all the evidence, exposure to media has no real world impact. While it may be comforting to think we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as the ?third person effect?, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media?s effects even if others may be influenced or manipulated. Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.
Btw the whole quote is full of shit and she doesn't provide absolutely any sources to back it up. It's from Women as Background Decoration Part 1.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Guerilla said:
Also, did you watch the videos of tumblr-con (aka Dash-con)? The site might on paper just be just a social networking site but it has been taken over by feminists and everyone knows it. Even the site's leadership sides with them since people who object are usually banned while they don't dare to touch even the most extremist of feminists who, as /r/tumblrinaction, has proven repeatedly ofter threaten people even with physical harm.
They also defend the site's VOLUMINOUS porn content, some of which is quite visceral. Or so I uh...so I hear. From shrekfan. Who is a porn addict.
Hey now, hey now, don't dream it's over I make a distinction between porn addict and sex addict.

Wait, that didn't come out right...

[sub][sub]Now to see how many people take that at face value because this is the internet.[/sub][/sub]
 

nuclearday

New member
Sep 24, 2009
35
0
0
Guerilla said:
I like how first you deny that she claims that videogames are responsible for sexism and misogyny and then go on to defend that ridiculous position. So we're back in the Jack Thomson days discussing this bullshit again, huh? Well I will not participate in this ridiculous discussion, videogames do not affect people's behavior end of story. Anyway, for the proof:
You might want to re-read my post then. I'm not denying what you claim she claims, actually. Propagating negative stereotypes reinforces those stereotypes in popular culture and mainstream consciousness. Propagating positive characterizations reinforces the converse. I didn't even know that was a controversial assertion.

Our difference of opinion appears to be in terms of degree, I think.

(Note, I am not saying "sexism in videogames will make people do things.")

Hell, I'm not even that big of a fan of Anita Sarkeesian. You're the one who brought her up, not me.

Now, on the assumption that you actually want a constructive conversation as opposed to the two of us feigning exasperation maybe I'll just state my own opinions on the matter so you won't feel the need to shadowbox a series of false assumptions.

I consider myself a feminist, and to me that simply means gender equality. I don't think women are better or deserve more than men (I'm a man myself.) Just equal.

I feel like there has been a lot of positive change in video game content of late, and that's at least partially due to more varied cast of content creators making videogames. I think more women and minorities making and playing games is a good thing. (And that doesn't mean I don't think white straight males making games is a bad thing, either - I am a straight white male and would like to make games at some point myself.)

But better doesn't mean "done," I feel. In my mind, perfection in all things is something worth striving for, and examining games with a critical eye from many viewpoints is one avenue towards that platonic (and therefore unachievable) goal.

As a three-dimensional human being with more than one quality, I enjoy viewing games with a critical eye and more than one focus. For example, I think one thing that videogame narrative often struggle with is pacing, and that's something I always keep an eye out while I'm playing a more story-based game (particularly RPGs and adventure games.)

One goal of critical analysis in media is to raise awareness of the issues that you care about. This doesn't need to mean political or activist causes, either. As my above example, if I was a professional critic I could write about games that failed or succeeded in a notable manner in terms of proper pacing and narrative structure. I would do so through an examination of past games by way of illustration and applying and constructing proper terminology to give others the tools to properly discuss these issues in an intelligible manner.

(For another example if I really cared about the guns in my games feeling authentic I would wish to raise awareness about that issue and provide the terms and metrics by which I measured how authentic and accurate in-game guns were. ie "I really wish the gun would do this when I fired it, and here are some other considerations that if you don't take into account already, then maybe you should in the future.")

So, if positive portrayal of women in video games is something I care about, how would I go about that? By raising awareness and education about the issue and providing relevant terminology to the discussion at large in order to give developers and fans the tools to move forward.

From a feminist standpoint we have someone who has attempted to do that. I don't find the videos particularly engaging and I think she stretches some points too far; and in other cases I think she's proving a hypothesis regardless of where the research my lead.

But everyone's so up each others' asses about what kind of person she is and what viewpoints she might or might not have that any interesting discussion to be had goes by the wayside.

What I also think gets lost in the mix is, as I'd said earlier, mistaking the trees as the forest.

Let's go back to the gun example. Maybe I've found a game that has really bad sound effects for their guns. But otherwise it's a great game. Just because it has the one flaw in an area that I care about doesn't mean I think the whole game is crap, necessarily (though if they're so awful it might be a distractingly negative quality.)

I think this issue is in a Catch 22, really. I feel we're at a point where I don't see many games coming out today that are in and of themselves offensive from a feminist point of view. If a game falls short in terms of characterization I feel it's more likely a matter of ignorance on the developer's part or a general failing than a deliberate attempt to sabotage.

The issue isn't the tree, it's the forest. I think there ought to be more evergreens in the forest, and maybe not so many ferns. But that doesn't mean I think every fern is evil.

But... you can't really point to pervasive issues without pointing out examples and using existing games to draw from. But if I were to pick a game to illustrate a point, that doesn't mean I think the game itself is innately evil for having that failing.
 

Caiphus

Social Office Corridor
Mar 31, 2010
1,181
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Say, when you take a group of people who share a characteristic, and you make a sweeping generalization about that group...isn't there a word for that behavior? Anyone? I could swear there's a word we use to describe that behavior. It's right there at the tip of my tongue.
Is it strawman?

*Gets pelted with fruit*
 
Aug 12, 2013
81
0
0
Mandalore_15 said:
I'm going to assume everyone reading this is aware of the so-called "Quinnspiracy" and other events of the last two weeks. The fact that the online community has become a shit-slinging bitching fest can't have escaped many people's notice. Whatever people's views of the behaviour on both sides, I actually want to sidestep all that and talk about games themselves.

Internet feminists' gradual creep into the games industry has surely not gone unnoticed. Now, some people approve of this, others do not: for my intents and purposes it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether or not this is going to start affecting the quality of the games we get in future. It seems to me that no matter how far we come in the depiction of female characters in games, it is never enough. Take The Last Of Us: for my money, this was one of the inclusive, all-round diverse games ever, with female characters oozing with personality and inner-strength. Ellie is perhaps one of the best written characters in any medium ever, regardless of gender.

So I was pretty surprised to find (as were Naughty Dog, apparently) that the game garnered a not-insignificant amount of criticism for being "sexist". This was discussed a lot at the time so I won't go into any more detail, but it seems to me that there are now so many manufactured controversies surrounding women in video games that there is no way to please the feminist camp. Recent games like the new Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite have come under fire for being "sexist", and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Such spurious claims do nothing but derail any kind of discussion of gender in games, and must frustrate developers attempts to create a more diverse game by making them either want to give up or try even harder to shoehorn diversity in there for the sake of it.

This raises an important question: should game developers capitulate to feminist demands for a more inclusive range of characters in their games? My immediate answer is a resounding NO. As a person who works in a creative role myself, I value artistic integrity and creative vision far more than any tenuous elements of fairness or inclusivity attached to a work. Creators should feel free to choose the characters that suit the story they want to tell, and not bow to any pressure to have a gender/race/sexuality/etc. quota in their cast list. The same goes for those characters' personalities: there ARE weak women in the world, just as there are strong women, and the same for men. Choosing characters that fit these roles in no way makes a broad statement about a gender as a whole, it's just a dramatic device. Can you imagine William Golding being told he had to include some female characters in Lord Of The Flies? It simply wouldn't work in the context of the story and world he was creating.

And while we might disagree with some creative decisions, ultimately it's the creator's work to do with what he will. Whether that work lives or dies in the court of public opinion is up to us. We can criticise it on its merits, but extrapolating that to making broad statements about the developer's worldview is totally speculative and ultimately fruitless, particularly when they give us more inclusive games and receive just as much, if not more scrutiny.

So what do you guys think? Is there endemic sexism within the game industry and feminists complaints are valid, or is it a storm in a tea cup?


EDIT:

OK, so a lot of people have been jumping the gun somewhat with my use of the term "our hobby". By "our" that I mean all of us, the escapist community. It was not an attempt to depict the debate as "gamers vs. feminists" or anything like that, it was just a throwaway descriptor of what all of us here enjoy doing in our spare time, namely playing games.

In a word: NO, they should not if anything more moderate internet femisists and more critics of gaming culture are needed.
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Guerilla said:
Don Incognito said:
Guerilla said:
I explained how it's blackmail in post 650.
Yeah, blackmail doesn't work that way either, Guerilla. Not even remotely accurate.

Keep trying, though. Eventually you might hit on the actual definition of "blackmail" or "censorship" just by luck. Stopped clocks, and all that.
I'm not interested in arguing semantics. Blackmail might even be exaggeration, I don't know, but everyone understands the gist of my post. There's a vast difference between suggesting something and constant non-stop whining while throwing serious accusations at developers until they obey. If it's not blackmail whatever it is it's preeeetty close to it.
Constant whining while throwing serious accusations at developers until they obey? shit, you could say the same thing about gamergate and the quinn thread probably. no wait yeah they're pretty much the same thing.
Hardly.

Gamergate and the Quinnspiracy is, was, and forever will be about corruption in the games journalism. Games journalists answer TO US. They have jobs BECAUSE OF GAMERS. They built their careers off our interests. If they want to alienate, piss off and attack the people WHO GIVE THEM MONEY, then they have no one to blame but themselves when the bottom falls out they end up on their asses.

In other words, there's difference between harassing game developers to alter their art in the name of muh feelz, and demanding that self proclaimed journalists have integrity and out any conflicts of interest.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Machine Man 1992 said:
They have jobs BECAUSE OF GAMERS. They built their careers off our interests. If they want to alienate, piss off and attack the people WHO GIVE THEM MONEY, then they have no one to blame but themselves when the bottom falls out they end up on their asses.
While we are involved in a tertiary way in funding their livelihoods through page views, there is very little direct quid pro quo between game "journalists" and gamers any more. Most of what we consume comes off the net, and the overwhelming majority of it is free or advertisement driven.

The people who "give them money" are the developers and production houses, when they buy ad space on their sites. By the logic you are expressing here, if they are beholden to anyone, it's them.

Which is why there is no "gaming journalism". There's just an enthusiast press. And it's been this way for a very long time.
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
They have jobs BECAUSE OF GAMERS. They built their careers off our interests. If they want to alienate, piss off and attack the people WHO GIVE THEM MONEY, then they have no one to blame but themselves when the bottom falls out they end up on their asses.
While we are involved in a tertiary way in funding their livelihoods through page views, there is very little direct quid pro quo between game "journalists" and gamers any more. Most of what we consume comes off the net, and the overwhelming majority of it is free or advertisement driven.

The people who "give them money" are the developers and production houses, when they buy ad space on their sites. By the logic you are expressing here, if they are beholden to anyone, it's them.

Which is why there is no "gaming journalism". There's just an enthusiast press. And it's been this way for a very long time.
And they way shit's been going down, the journo's are losing even that. I've been hearing talk of advertisers pulling off Kotaku and Polygon, and there's that one infographic showing a meteoric drop in site traffic after all those "gamers are dead" articles.

Advertisers love how gamers flock to glorified gaming blogs, but if gamers aren't, they're going to take their ball and go find somewhere else that's profitable.
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
undeadsuitor said:
Guerilla said:
Don Incognito said:
Guerilla said:
I explained how it's blackmail in post 650.
Yeah, blackmail doesn't work that way either, Guerilla. Not even remotely accurate.

Keep trying, though. Eventually you might hit on the actual definition of "blackmail" or "censorship" just by luck. Stopped clocks, and all that.
I'm not interested in arguing semantics. Blackmail might even be exaggeration, I don't know, but everyone understands the gist of my post. There's a vast difference between suggesting something and constant non-stop whining while throwing serious accusations at developers until they obey. If it's not blackmail whatever it is it's preeeetty close to it.
Constant whining while throwing serious accusations at developers until they obey? shit, you could say the same thing about gamergate and the quinn thread probably. no wait yeah they're pretty much the same thing.
Hardly.

Gamergate and the Quinnspiracy is, was, and forever will be about corruption in the games journalism. Games journalists answer TO US. They have jobs BECAUSE OF GAMERS. They built their careers off our interests. If they want to alienate, piss off and attack the people WHO GIVE THEM MONEY, then they have no one to blame but themselves when the bottom falls out they end up on their asses.

In other words, there's difference between harassing game developers to alter their art in the name of muh feelz, and demanding that self proclaimed journalists have integrity and out any conflicts of interest.
"Games developers answer TO US. They have jobs BECAUSE OF GAMERS. They built their careers off our interests. If they want to alienate, piss off and attack the people WHO GIVE THEM MONEY, then they have no one to blame but themselves when the bottom falls out they end up on their asses."

How are they different again?

Way to dissprove the gamergate people are making whony entitled demands by making a whiny entitled demand
You might want to look up "entitled", because I don't think it means what you think it means.

Just because you don't like the truth, doesn't mean it ain't the truth. GamerGate is WINNING.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
IridescentSky said:
Baffle said:
IridescentSky said:
Whether I like/dislike your idea, I'm not going to tell you to change it or not make it. Simply, you'll make it how you want, I'll decide if it's something I'd like to play, then I'll play it and come to my own conclusion of what I thought about the experience.
Would it change your opinion if the game was all real-time? I mean so it would take the same amount of time in-game as it would take in real-life? Say ... playing the Edinburgh to Redruth level would mean you were playing for 11 hours I think. Obviously I'd put a pause function in offline mode, but not in online mode (though there will be an option for your character to visit a service station in-game; I could maybe add a cut scene there - you know, walking into the services, taking a leak, grabbing some food - which would give the player the chance to do the same). The ideas are quite literally (figuratively) flowing!
You're confusing my statements. I didn't say I'd play a shit(figuratively and literally) game, just the fact that I'm not going to tell you how to make it.
Nobody is telling you how to make your game. At least not here.

The nature of criticism allows creators to gauge the current climate and adjust their own creations accordingly. Or to bowl ahead with no regards for outside influence whatsoever, either way.

People who are going to write you off for not having female characters rather than based on the quality of the characters themselves aren't people you really need to worry about. Everyone else, however, you would be prudent to keep your mind open toward. Nobody ever got famous by stubbornly refusing to acknowledge criticism (at least, not in the way they wanted to be famous).

Now, you probably will get browbeaten by people who dislike what you're making for the stupidest reasons. It will happen, it always has, it unfortunately likely always will because people are irrational, angry, emotional, and impulsive, and when presented with the anonymity of the internet that gets magnified tenfold. But those are the types of people who aren't going to be happy with what you do no matter what you do. You don't have to appease them, they're (most of the time) not your audience.

So yeah, make your game that has only male characters. But if it comes out and people start saying that the characters were a bit bland and boring, and it maybe would've spiced things up a bit to have the perspective of a woman mixed in there at some point, maybe keep that in mind when you move on to your next project. It's all well and good to have a story you want to tell, but you have to remember that not all stories are going to be things other people want to see/hear/read.
I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the "reviews must be objective" mentality. Game reviewers have been knocking games for silly reasons as long as there have been video game reviews.

So I honestly don't care if a bunch of "outsiders" come in with their silly complaints. If they can't make their argument, then they're a lone voice.

Although I think the "problem" here is they are winning hearts & minds and will you please stop doing that.

The Republican in me is quick to say "deal with it." Don't see why anyone should self-censor themselves because they're too successful.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Machine Man 1992 said:
And they way shit's been going down, the journo's are losing even that. I've been hearing talk of advertisers pulling off Kotaku and Polygon, and there's that one infographic showing a meteoric drop in site traffic after all those "gamers are dead" articles.

Advertisers love how gamers flock to glorified gaming blogs, but if gamers aren't, they're going to take their ball and go find somewhere else that's profitable.
I was curious so I checked Kotaku. Looks like the meteoric fall directly coincides with a meteoric rise that was fueled by this entire controversy to begin with. Their post-fall levels are actually above or roughly equivalent to their previous peak, which was in April. So...yeah.

Kotaku has been click-baiting with sensationalistic rubbish for years. It clearly works for them. I highly doubt they're going anywhere. What's the other one? Polygon? What's the URL for that?

EDIT - Nevermind looked it up for myself. Exact same pattern, only Polygon's current level is actually quite a bit higher than their previous peak, and the downward slope is more evidently beginning to level out.

Can I see the infographic? Why do I suspect it only shows the last couple of weeks?

Sites had big controversy. It drove a lot of traffic. Controversy is dying down, and so are site views. News at eleven I guess.