Jimquisition: Toxic

[kael013]

The system only seems rigged because regardless of what you as an individual choose, the rest of the market does not bend to your tastes and desires. But just because the side you voted for didn't win doesn't make the other side wrong or make the system pointless, you simply don't have as much control over it as you'd like. A lot of the anger I'm seeing directed at devs and pubs is a direct result of this realization, and it's not fair to them or healthy for the person making the complaint. No matter how pertinent you believe your opinion is, the industry does not exist for the individual consumer, sometimes you have to accept that your preferred game or feature is going to remain niche because that's the only kind of audience that exists for it. And there's nothing wrong with being part of a niche audience, it just means that the products they consume aren't going to have the biggest budgets.

I take issue with the implication that being a complainer is a profession, or even if we're talking about professional critics that anger somehow has a place in their repertoire. Anger is an emotion, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing righteous or just about feeling angry. It can be a good motivator, but it's not a good reason and it's not an effective tactic for persuasion or even a tool for debate, it's just what someone feels, and feelings are not how you make business decisions or build constructive criticism.

I know the system doesn't revolve around me; the American voting system disabused me of the notion that one person can make a difference long before I started studying the games industry's politics. However, that doesn't change the fact that the whole "vote with your wallets" thing is flawed. Think about this: How many times has a publisher PR representative asked you why you didn't buy a certain game? When was the last time they asked the consumer base why they didn't like their latest flop or commercial failure? I can't think of a single time. Instead they abandon the series or the sequel is broadened to "appeal to a wider audience". So my cry was lost in the tumult, that doesn't mean jack if the guys I'm yelling at aren't even listening to the tumult in the first place.

You're right about being in a niche audience though, so long as the niche is filled. Otherwise, it's just some hopeless dream of yours.

Also, I never implied being a complainer is a profession. I was using a carpenter analogy. A carpenter uses many tools. Rational debate has its place, but so does outrage. That outrage got us XCOM: Enemy Unknown (see ZP's [i/]The Bureau[/i] review -1 min mark- for how that worked), it got us the ME3 Extended Cut DLC, it got us stuff that I doubt we would have gotten through rational discourse because we would have been ignored -in fact I know it, because I've tried to be the rational voice while others raged about an issue. I was ignored and the complainers got attention. That you do not believe outrage is an effective tool (or even a tool at all) is another issue, since some people do see it as a tool and will use it as such. Some people (like you apparently) are always calm, while others (like me) have short fuses and need to learn how to direct our anger. This video was for the second group, telling us we need better aim.

 

[Ryleh]

Although toxicity is something that is by no means unique to gamer culture, there is definitely a trend towards negativity and excessive skepticism among gamers. Now I'm not saying to stop being skeptical, it keeps us all from vegetating and allows us to direct our anger as Jim discussed. But I've definitely noticed a trend in many gamer circles where it's "cool" to hate on everything the moment it comes out. Every time a new console, smartphone, game, etc is announced there's always several people all racing each other to hate it first, competing with each other to have the most reasons as to why it sucks even though no-ones had a chance to try it yet. It reminds me of the kind of people this Apple vs Samsung war attracts, with people blindly supporting one or the other and hating the other with the utmost venom. Being in love with a brand / product / service is a beautiful thing, it helps you, it helps the company, etc etc etc. Hating something on the other hand does nothing. It's ok to dislike something and have your reasons, but blind, malicious hate wastes your time and contributes nothing to the greater community.

 

[Vivi22]

I'm not even making a plea to side with the lesser evil here, I'm just saying not to embrace the philosophy of the side that is CLEARLY evil.

Who cares about what the philosophy of some fictional group in a sci-fi series which painted morality as straight black and white has to say about anger? It has zero bearing on the real world, and ignores the fact that anger is an extremely useful emotion for spurring on change.

 

[Bruce]

The system only seems rigged because regardless of what you as an individual choose, the rest of the market does not bend to your tastes and desires. But just because the side you voted for didn't win doesn't make the other side wrong or make the system pointless, you simply don't have as much control over it as you'd like. A lot of the anger I'm seeing directed at devs and pubs is a direct result of this realization, and it's not fair to them or healthy for the person making the complaint. No matter how pertinent you believe your opinion is, the industry does not exist for the individual consumer, sometimes you have to accept that your preferred game or feature is going to remain niche because that's the only kind of audience that exists for it. And there's nothing wrong with being part of a niche audience, it just means that the products they consume aren't going to have the biggest budgets.

I take issue with the implication that being a complainer is a profession, or even if we're talking about professional critics that anger somehow has a place in their repertoire. Anger is an emotion, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing righteous or just about feeling angry. It can be a good motivator, but it's not a good reason and it's not an effective tactic for persuasion or even a tool for debate, it's just what someone feels, and feelings are not how you make business decisions or build constructive criticism.

I know the system doesn't revolve around me; the American voting system disabused me of the notion that one person can make a difference long before I started studying the games industry's politics. However, that doesn't change the fact that the whole "vote with your wallets" thing is flawed. Think about this: How many times has a publisher PR representative asked you why you didn't buy a certain game? When was the last time they asked the consumer base why they didn't like their latest flop or commercial failure? I can't think of a single time. Instead they abandon the series or the sequel is broadened to "appeal to a wider audience". So my cry was lost in the tumult, that doesn't mean jack if the guys I'm yelling at aren't even listening to the tumult in the first place.

You're right about being in a niche audience though, so long as the niche is filled. Otherwise, it's just some hopeless dream of yours.

Also, I never implied being a complainer is a profession. I was using a carpenter analogy. A carpenter uses many tools. Rational debate has its place, but so does outrage. That outrage got us XCOM: Enemy Unknown (see ZP's [i/]The Bureau[/i] review -1 min mark- for how that worked), it got us the ME3 Extended Cut DLC, it got us stuff that I doubt we would have gotten through rational discourse because we would have been ignored -in fact I know it, because I've tried to be the rational voice while others raged about an issue. I was ignored and the complainers got attention. That you do not believe outrage is an effective tool (or even a tool at all) is another issue, since some people do see it as a tool and will use it as such. Some people (like you apparently) are always calm, while others (like me) have short fuses and need to learn how to direct our anger. This video was for the second group, telling us we need better aim.

You know there is a very important point here - why do we assume anger is irrational? There was nothing irrational in the anger against the XCOM FPS announcement, it was people pointing out exactly why it was a bad idea. Ditto ME3's ending - people pointed out why it was so bad.

Anger is often there for a reason, it is why criticising somebody for being angry just makes them angrier. If you don't deal with the reason for somebody's anger, it just goes nowhere and builds. It is one of the reasons why the worst, most destructive phrase in English is "Don't be a dick."

 

[MB202]

Anger and negatively can be useful, in the same sense group protesting or activism can be useful. But like MovieBob said on one of his early Game Overthinker videos, it can be powerful, but also hard to turn off. It's also hard to think logically and rationally when you're angry, as well as being in a group (you sacrifice your individual voice for the sake of the group). There's a time and place for these things... it's just most of the time, they're being wasted on stuff that really shouldn't be too bothered with... which is hard to say what should and shouldn't be bothered with, because different people find different things to get upset about, and while it's easy to dismiss one's angry and unimportant, that doesn't exactly help matters...

Also, I'm SO glad he played Britney Spears's Toxic at the end, that's immediately what I thought of when I saw the video's title, and I would have been disappointed if it wasn't used in some fashion.

 

[UberPubert]

I know the system doesn't revolve around me; the American voting system disabused me of the notion that one person can make a difference long before I started studying the games industry's politics. However, that doesn't change the fact that the whole "vote with your wallets" thing is flawed. Think about this: How many times has a publisher PR representative asked you why you didn't buy a certain game? When was the last time they asked the consumer base why they didn't like their latest flop or commercial failure? I can't think of a single time. Instead they abandon the series or the sequel is broadened to "appeal to a wider audience". So my cry was lost in the tumult, that doesn't mean jack if the guys I'm yelling at aren't even listening to the tumult in the first place.

You're right about being in a niche audience though, so long as the niche is filled. Otherwise, it's just some hopeless dream of yours.

Also, I never implied being a complainer is a profession. I was using a carpenter analogy. A carpenter uses many tools. Rational debate has its place, but so does outrage. That outrage got us XCOM: Enemy Unknown (see ZP's [i/]The Bureau[/i] review -1 min mark- for how that worked), it got us the ME3 Extended Cut DLC, it got us stuff that I doubt we would have gotten through rational discourse because we would have been ignored -in fact I know it, because I've tried to be the rational voice while others raged about an issue. I was ignored and the complainers got attention. That you do not believe outrage is an effective tool (or even a tool at all) is another issue, since some people do see it as a tool and will use it as such. Some people (like you apparently) are always calm, while others (like me) have short fuses and need to learn how to direct our anger. This video was for the second group, telling us we need better aim.

I'm not arguing about whether pubs and devs should listen to public opinions, I'm saying angry public opinion isn't going to move people as much as Jim posits it will, or might not move them in the right direction.

I also think you're attributing certain events to the wrong kind of criticism. My argument against the Bureau would not be "I'm sick of people turning things I like into stuff I don't.", but rather "How are you going to market a squad-based tactics game to the FPS market? Why not try the old way instead?" It's not anger, just a legitimate question framed as an argument to get XCOM:EU, which I thoroughly enjoyed as a streamlined reboot to it's predecessors. The same goes for Mass Effect 3, it's not "That ending sucked, I deserve a better one." it was "That didn't seem to explain things very well, what happened to the rest of the universe and characters?"

And I disagree with your "knowing" that you were ignored because of your pursuing a rational argument, I think you were ignored for the same reason I think anger would be ignored: Because someone's not interested in your opinion. That's not always fair. Pubs and devs aren't obligated to listen to feedback, but if there is a dialogue - if we have to say something, and they want to listen - our answers should be reserved and objective, rather than angry.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Meh whatever. I get the "stop being unreasonable dicks to people", I'm not disagreeing with that idea Jim. My problem is no matter how accurate and mature anger is focused on a company doing bad things, it still means fuck all if people keep on giving them their money. We can vote EA worst company of the year all we want, but what's really going to get their attention, bad publicity that we all know they have dump trucks full of money to spin with their own public relations people, or a big empty space where those huge piles of money coming in used to be? Case in point, the "Cupcake Incident".

As I've said before many of we gamers act like lemmings with credit cards and continually buy into the hype and buy any old shit mainly out of fear of missing out on something cool, or just because we are looking for our next fix to chase away boredom. Usually to our own mass disappointment. Maybe if we tried addressing that vicious cycle we could nip quite a lot of this toxic negativity in the bud.

A fair point.
Jim and others have said so as well. We can't just ask that the Publishers and Developers change.
We have to as well.

Don't know what you mean by bringing up the Cupcakes. Everyone expresses anger differently, but I'm not sure many people give out cupcakes when their mad.
Or do you mean that it was ineffective?

Also I'm very sick of seeing the double standard when it comes to who can criticize what. You seem to feel it's okay to rage at Cooper Lawrence for "talking made up scare mongering bullshit." But it isn't okay to say the same of Sarkeesian due to some extremist trolling assholes, when she is just as guilty of the same behavior. I say rather than focusing on the extremist death threat assholes, like you and the rest of the gaming press always seem to do, how about for once you try to speak to the sane and rational MAJORITY of game players who would actually listen to what you have to say without trying to gnaw your face off. Because the sooner we stop letting our discussions be motivated by the actions of a minority of idiots, the sooner we can start talking to each other like adults.

Yeah, no.

Spoiler: What Cooper said about the game before she even saw the game.

Spoiler: What Anita said to get the harassment that she got.

In Cooper's case, she said things that weren't true about a game she hadn't played.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/01/26/cooper-lawrence-i-misspoke-about-mass-effect#.UlxWaqgo7wo

In Anita's case, she said she was going to talk about sexist tropes in video games.

These things are not comparable.

 

[Vale]

THE TOXICITYYYY
OF OUR CITYYYYYY

Ahem.
Right good show pip pip cheerio roger dodger chaps!

 

[UberPubert]

Who cares about what the philosophy of some fictional group in a sci-fi series which painted morality as straight black and white has to say about anger? It has zero bearing on the real world, and ignores the fact that anger is an extremely useful emotion for spurring on change.

Well I'm mostly joking and only continued my dialogue with Zachary as some nerdy banter, this isn't my serious argument on the subject. I'd recommend my responses to kael013 as being more helpful.

But while we're at it, yes. I do think anger can be a useful emotion for motivating change, just like emotions such as love, hope, and even pride can. But our responses should not be built on anger, or any of these emotions, nor should the reasons for our response simply be anger. It is not "Venom" we should be cultivating, not anger we should be expressing - even carefully aimed - but arguments of sound reasoning and logic, even if the reason we were spurred to construct them was born of irrational thoughts and feelings. It's a matter of tempering those emotions into something tangible, something we can say that's worth listening to, not just because we're angry, but because it makes sense.

 

[AstaresPanda]

MY ARMOUR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE HIS NAME LET NONE SURVIVE

GLORY TO THE GOLDEN THRONE
GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND

 

[Vicioussama]

lol not the most flattering picture you used for TB

 

[UberPubert]

MY ARMOUR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE HIS NAME LET NONE SURVIVE

GLORY TO THE GOLDEN THRONE
GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND

ROT WITH YOUR CORPSE GOD, LOYALIST SCUM!

 

[Evil Smurf]

This is just awful.

"Venom" is not a substitute for rational discourse, anger is not a proper alternative to logic and no amount of internet nerd rage is going to change the mind of someone who sees it for what it is: Impotent whining from someone who lacks the power to change things in the real world and has to take it to the internet, where they can hide behind an anonymous username and block dissenting opinions and comments, handwaving away legitimate complaints as virtual harassment.

"Embrace your anger"? You sound like a Sith lord.

To be fair, what do you expect from a guy whose online persona is a megalomaniac? It's all in good fun.

 

[UberPubert]

To be fair, what do you expect from a guy whose online persona is a megalomaniac? It's all in good fun.

I know. Mostly.

Personally I find the persona grating, but I can tell more often than not when Jim is taking the piss. When he does tackle more serious issues though, and he gets on his soapbox, it troubles me, because I'm not entirely sure about where the persona ends and personal opinion begins, and I'm not sure the goofy stuff he says for laughs isn't just a slightly hyperbolic version of what he really thinks.

Though I wouldn't really care to argue the point at all if people weren't taking him seriously.

 

[AstaresPanda]

MY ARMOUR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE HIS NAME LET NONE SURVIVE

GLORY TO THE GOLDEN THRONE
GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND

ROT WITH YOUR CORPSE GOD, LOYALIST SCUM!

HERESY ! YOU WILL DIE WITH THE REST OF YOUR TRAITOR BROTHERS

 

[Dragonbums]

Nevermind the fact that the rest of us aren't acting like fuckwads,

Take a good look at the most recent Anita article. Hell I would even suggest taking a look at the comments section of Jims Vertigo video.

Some users on the Escapist act just like that asses at /v/ board. Only difference is that they doll it up with words and phrases that won't get them banned from this site in 10 posts.

 

[Nurb]

And, Jim, gamers are angry at Anita because she's lied about her views and motives, manipulated a group of people for money, selectively edited footage of videos to suit her narrative, makes people pay to see her "sources", removed her college thesis to hide her bad research methods, and making up her entire gameplay footage segments of others' "let's play" videos without crediting them, and is promoting herself as a representitive for women and feminists for money at the expense of the entire gaming community who gets labled "anti-woman" at the least for disagreeing with anything.

Not because she's "A woman who dared to talk about video games", as you say, it's because she's WRONG. She's been proven to be misleading for the purpose of self-promotion, but the gaming media and people still treat her as some leader of women's rights.... in video games, and pretend women weren't gamers of some type for 40 years. She has the money to make a game she wants, but doesn't go beyond a short animatic. Everything has to be someone else's job.

Also, those developers chose to be purchased by the mega-publishers at some point, so I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them when they talk about "it came from above".

 

[RTR]

I could watch Jim's dance moves all damn day... so I will.

 

[UberPubert]

There is time for logic, but there is also time for passion. You come across as someone who likes to think that they're "higher" than others. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people getting upset about something can do a lot of damage to a person--even if they try to play it off like you do. When people get really loud a lot of people hear, and that can lose a company a lot of money. Capcom is in the ditches because everybody knows how much they suck and they're not shy of telling everyone they know. However, I just wish we'd use some of our power on people who REALLY deserve our full rage: Congress. In summary, I like it when a lot of people come together with a purpose of telling someone they're full of shit.

A time for passion? Maybe in art or the bedroom, but not in the business world. I can't think of anything less passionate than Economics.

I keep seeing this correlation being drawn between people getting angry and things changing but I don't see a whole lot of reason to believe that anger was the cause, and I think that bears further examination than we give credit for.

If I have to write an example: The decision by Capcom to charge people extra for characters and costumes that were already on their Street Fighter 4 disc (I'm not entirely sure how this worked, I may be wrong) that the customer bought made people angry, but why did it make people angry? Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to charge someone for something they already bought. But do we have to call Capcom thieves or anti-consumerist and rage at them and at each other for it? Is "Venom" really the best response? No, just refer to the law on consumer rights and physical/digital property. If they've broken the law, you have a case, if they haven't, you have an opinion - maybe even an educated opinion that you're free to express, mind you - but Capcom has no obligation to listen, and getting angry at them isn't going to change their opinion if people will continue to buy on-disc DLC.

I think we should spend more time examining the bad decision making, why things didn't work and what could be done better, rather than how we feel on the subject. I think we should, whenever possible, try reaching out to our fellow gamers with reasonable arguments not steeped in personal values or perspective, and as always continue to vote with our wallets in order to inform pubs and devs of what we really want in the only language most of them understand, allowing them to sink or swim as the consumer base sees fit.

EDIT: Oh, and don't presume to know how I feel about myself in relation to others, because I actually feel the opposite way: My personal feelings are of so little value, I will not presume that other people share them, and I will try to appeal to a common logic rather than assert that my perspective is the dominant one.

 

[JimB]

The final minute of this video is one of the best things ever filmed.