How does anybody working in a marketing occupation forget the whole target audience thing? That Matti guy was in the wrong studio. Gamers want to see games, and if they're interested, how they're made. Not how there might be drama in a creative environment. Good thing some of those contracts weren't signed so at least a couple of the developers can speak up about their experience.
What Happened at GAME_JAM?
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
I agree completely, Seamus, except on one small point. It wasn't "the organizers" who created the fake tv-show tension, it was one person: Matti Lesham, a "brand consultant" who appointed himself Director. While it is true the reps from Polaris likely could have prevented the damage, they couldn't have had the foresight to know what the "secondary" production crew was up to, nor could they have anticipated his being... well, that.
...unless they had seen any movie about struggling artists ever, each inevitably having the same moral: "never, ever let 'creative consultants' have creative control", but I digress...
Maker/Polaris hired people to help them film and organize production. What they got was a usurper and saboteur, a man in charge who is only good at being in charge, and who didn't understand the project nor the product. They don't deserve to be off the hook, to be sure, but I believe they do deserve a bit more leniency.
...unless they had seen any movie about struggling artists ever, each inevitably having the same moral: "never, ever let 'creative consultants' have creative control", but I digress...
Maker/Polaris hired people to help them film and organize production. What they got was a usurper and saboteur, a man in charge who is only good at being in charge, and who didn't understand the project nor the product. They don't deserve to be off the hook, to be sure, but I believe they do deserve a bit more leniency.
Shamus, you contradict the article that you say is one of your only sources of information. How disappointing.
Other than that, I think you're giving these people too much credit. These people went to an event where they're basically expected to follow specific rules and present themselves in a specific manner for extra visibility. The guy you linked even says so himself:
If what he says is true, though, this Zoe person is even worse:
Honestly, this leaves me baffled. We have sexism and inequality built into our system, yes. But why on earth would you want to *cooperate* with that system, if you really want to change something? Are you really after equality? Or are you just after equality for men and women in particular, and problems such as the wealth gap, etc. are irrelevant to you?
Yes, I understand why you might consider their stance admirable given the circumstances. But any person with actual public integrity and idealism would never go to such an event in the first place. This is why, despite my disagreements with him, I can admire Richard Stallman: Most of the world doesn't give a damn about his ideals and ethics, but he still fights on, sticking true to what he believes to be right. If you want to talk about "admirable", please talk about people like him, personalities such as he could really use the extra publicity.
Going by Rosen's article, the guy was never given much authority or encouragement to do this. In fact, he was instantly fired for it. While, yes, this kind of thing is very much a result of blatant incompetence by the organizers, there is no evidence to suggest the organizers actually wanted to aim for the sexism controversy to generate entertainment.
Other than that, I think you're giving these people too much credit. These people went to an event where they're basically expected to follow specific rules and present themselves in a specific manner for extra visibility. The guy you linked even says so himself:
There's nothing "indie" about this. This isn't the mentality of someone who purposefully distances himself from the big publisher/marketing machinery that is choking the industry. This is a clear statement of: "I'm in this for the popularity and money, and I'm willing to compromise for that".
If what he says is true, though, this Zoe person is even worse:
"I'm a strong, independent woman who believes in equality, and the best way to show that to the world is to ask these rich men to pretty please host me on their show to raise my popularity."
Honestly, this leaves me baffled. We have sexism and inequality built into our system, yes. But why on earth would you want to *cooperate* with that system, if you really want to change something? Are you really after equality? Or are you just after equality for men and women in particular, and problems such as the wealth gap, etc. are irrelevant to you?
Yes, I understand why you might consider their stance admirable given the circumstances. But any person with actual public integrity and idealism would never go to such an event in the first place. This is why, despite my disagreements with him, I can admire Richard Stallman: Most of the world doesn't give a damn about his ideals and ethics, but he still fights on, sticking true to what he believes to be right. If you want to talk about "admirable", please talk about people like him, personalities such as he could really use the extra publicity.
Mythbusters isn't a documentary. It's a show about blowing shit up. Very occasionally science gets done, but not if it gets in the way of blowing shit up. It's not really even edutainment any more, so I guess reality TV is the best descriptionVeylon said:
I think you're kind of misrepresenting things in this article frankly. Jared Rosen's "Most Expensive Game Jam" article (which I had previously read a week or two ago) is much more detailed and even-handed.
It wasn't that Polaris/Maker were just trying to make cheap crap - it was the one really rotten egg that came in from outside via the sponsors that caused all the really major trouble. (silly contract issues aside, seeing as those were fixed fairly amicably)
It wasn't that Polaris/Maker were just trying to make cheap crap - it was the one really rotten egg that came in from outside via the sponsors that caused all the really major trouble. (silly contract issues aside, seeing as those were fixed fairly amicably)
It is a shame that these marketing groups do not know much about gamers than what they perceive on Xbox Live. Not everyone is misogynistic and not everyone drinks Mountain Dew.
How exactly did Mountain Dew become the drink of the gamer anyway?
How exactly did Mountain Dew become the drink of the gamer anyway?
I'm not sure why you think indies aren't or shouldn't be in it for the money and popularity. That's exactly what they're there for. If they weren't they would release their games anonymously and for free.Tarfeather said:
It's simply marketing that makes you believe they are there for anything else.
While that may be true of individual developers, it's usually not true of the indie game studios that employ those developers.SirBryghtside said:
You could say the same thing about AAA development houses - as any AAA studio is likely to employ individual developers who have contributed to Open Source projects, or given away things for free.
But the indie studios definitely capitalize on those free projects, because many people see indie studios as inherently good, and AAA studios as inherently bad - and are therefore more likely to buy indie games based on that "cred" - so it's actually a clever business decision for those people to give things away.SirBryghtside said:
I'm not saying that to dismiss them - I am also guilty of buying indie games I probably would not have unless it weren't for them being indie. But they are definitely engaging in business, and the studios aren't run for charity or ideology. But they do leverage ideological perceptions for profit.
I read the source article and the related ones that it linked to back when this all happened and commented here that I was happy to see the integrity of those game designers. I'm glad to see someone doing a write up as this sort of thing could use a little more publicity within the community at large.
That said, I'm very unhappy with this article by Shamus Young: the issue is muddied by a long diatribe against reality tv and it misrepresents several aspects of the event. The people running game jam did not want this: they were only at fault for not have strong leadership in the face of one asshole mountain dew rep. The original article pretty explicitly places the blame, and it seems to have been missed in its entirety in this write up. Also, the devs taking part were not doing so to gain publicity for their own projects: they wanted to broaden awareness of what it is to make games. I know this sort of thing usually happens with the game of telephone that is journalism, but considering most people won't read the source material I feel as if this article does a disservice to the entire controversy and all those involved.
Shame on Shamus and whichever editor gave the greenlight for posting this.
That said, I'm very unhappy with this article by Shamus Young: the issue is muddied by a long diatribe against reality tv and it misrepresents several aspects of the event. The people running game jam did not want this: they were only at fault for not have strong leadership in the face of one asshole mountain dew rep. The original article pretty explicitly places the blame, and it seems to have been missed in its entirety in this write up. Also, the devs taking part were not doing so to gain publicity for their own projects: they wanted to broaden awareness of what it is to make games. I know this sort of thing usually happens with the game of telephone that is journalism, but considering most people won't read the source material I feel as if this article does a disservice to the entire controversy and all those involved.
Shame on Shamus and whichever editor gave the greenlight for posting this.
Okay, yes I see your point, and I may have been a bit in the wrong with what I said there, due to a natural bias of my own(personally, I do create game content pseudonymously and for free on a regular basis, and my view of "game development" is rather focused on that aspect of things).Aardvaarkman said:
What I mean to say is basically this distinction: Do you make money to support your passion of game development, or do you develop games to cash in as much as possible? This obviously isn't a binary choice, but I'd definitely define "indie" as someone with a strong leaning toward the former. That is to say, as indie developer you'll probably want to pay your bills and food, but if you have as goal to earn as much money as a "professional" working for a triple A studio(which usually is much more than you need to pay basic living cost, even with a small family), and if you are willing to sacrifice part of your independence for that goal, then you probably are not an "indie developer".
Note that this isn't to say that indies mustn't get rich. It's just a sad obversation that the moment large amounts of cash get involved, as in the example of this article, people suddenly start sacrificing a lot of the original spirit and independence, at which point it's hard to call them "indie" anymore.
I'm glad someone mentioned Strip Search. Its the only reality show I can think of that didn't resort to fabricating drama. I can't even think of a point where any of the contestants had anything bad to say about any of the others.TiberiusEsuriens said: