Appreciate the background on Unity. Assuming there's been a bit of Twitter sniping from reviewers on how terrible it is?
Jim Sterling is officially not reviewing it.
That is not a good sign.
Appreciate the background on Unity. Assuming there's been a bit of Twitter sniping from reviewers on how terrible it is?
Any of you guys born as non-gamers? (I don't even fucking know anymore..)
"GG is about journalism. embargoes aren't an issue directly caused by journos. they don't control them."
https://twitter.com/KYLEHYDE_/status/532201067338301441
Appreciate the background on Unity. Assuming there's been a bit of Twitter sniping from reviewers on how terrible it is?
Jim Sterling is officially not reviewing it.
That is not a good sign.
Jim Sterling is officially not reviewing it.
That is not a good sign.
thing is gamergaters are already pre-disposed to be defensive of ubisoft because of how much flak they got for not having playable female characters in their multimillion dollar co-op game.
As a slight tangent, does anyone else feel that Gamergate behaviour taken a turn for the absurd ? It was terrible before, hateful stuff, it's still hateful stuff. But beyond that motivation, it was only irrational in order to justify that hatred and to brainwash people. Now, it's... even if I was a misogynist, racist and whatever, why would I think this would work? Why would I say this stuff?
A month ago it wouldn't even occur to me that this could be anything but a parody. If you told me that a Gamergater would pretend to be black in order to convince digital money proponents to join their causes, I'd ask you to tone it down.
Introducing the idea of RedNet and Unsocial Media:
They just want an echo chamber.
I think he deleted some tweets where he was complaining about the embargo.
I expect a minor shitstorm in a few minutes.
Introducing the idea of RedNet and Unsocial Media:
They just want an echo chamber.
Introducing the idea of RedNet and Unsocial Media:
They just want an echo chamber.
"I still consider them games." Of course they're games. But this whole bit reads seriously like "If girls don't like how games about actual people portray women, they can just go play games without women." This is completely counter productive to the actual discussion going on.
Critiquing argument: This is not dangerously irresponsible because...(reasons it's not dangerously irresponsible.
Critiquing tone: She shouldn't use words like "dangerously irresponsible" because ...
You see? She gave reasons on why it is dangerously irresponsible... That whole games where you "fix" the women you're rescuing by beating them until they're more agreeable thing.
You just don't want her to use the words dangerously irresponsible because you think it's censory. That is what a tone argument is. It doesn't mean words stop having meaning, it's just that you don't like the way she made her argument.
Notice the bolded? You're not disagreeing with her argument, you just don't like the tone of it. A tone argument is basically "If you'd have just said it this way, I might totally be on your side, buuuut you said it that way..."
But your second example wasn't about terminology... It was explicitly censorship. They actively removed material via a government body. I have no problem saying that Sarkeesian's appealing to a moral or societal responsibility she hopes the creators have... And she hopes they'll listen and not make them... But let me make this clear. The creators have exactly as much freedom to listen to her as they do to ignore her. And suggesting that they are being censored or had their "freedom limited" if they agree and change their behavior is not a good argument. And that is what you're doing. You are saying if creators agree and choose not to make games where you beat the woman you're rescuing in order to fix her, then their freedom is being limited.
But you have to look at the argument... If you just said it's dangerously irresponsible, I'd want to know why you say so. I wouldn't say you saying that limits freedom. Now, perhaps your local population has a very high occurrence of dairy allergy. So if in the context of a discussion about frequency of serving meals with cheese in it... and you wrote an article appealing to restaurants... and maybe you dared used the words they are being dangerously irresponsible to have so many cheese dishes in this area, maybe the restauranteurs might see your point and change their menus. I would never claim you were censoring restaurants.
But in your opinion, expressing that creators should have a moral responsibility is = to indicative of censorship... Well at least to the limit you've decided on.
You seem to be interpreting that she believes that creators should be "held accountable" for it... She never said that. She doesn't want them arrested. She doesn't want them dragged out of their homes. She is simply saying that doing so contributes to an environment that already has too much of what that imagery invokes. So she used strong language and implied there "should" (not must) be a moral responsibility so that they might think twice before they make the woman you're saving fixed by beating her the hell up. They have just as much right to ignore as listen.
Introducing the idea of RedNet and Unsocial Media:
They just want an echo chamber.
Introducing the idea of RedNet and Unsocial Media:
They just want an echo chamber.
We'll make our own internet! WITH BLACKJACK AND HOOKERS!
I also like the "I believe humans need an outlet to vent anonymously" bit. Before the Internet, people had to do all of their venting in books, it was awful.
I also like the "I believe humans need an outlet to vent anonymously" bit. Before the Internet, people had to do all of their venting in books, it was awful.
Buy a diary. Geeze.
Many books were written anonymously and a ton of people were persecuted for owned certain books.
Because you can't have one without the other?
Of course you could.
So, AC:U got less than ideal reviews.
Any reaction yet?
Playstationlife.com gave it a perfect score.
I doubt anyone will say anything.
So, AC:U got less than ideal reviews.
Any reaction yet?
To be honest, those 7 reviews seem mighty generous, and considering all the crap in the game it seems it should score much lower. Many reviews don't even mention the plethora of technical problems, from horrid framerate to constant glitches and crashes and so on. So yeah, #gg should be all about those journalists lacking the balls to call out Ubisoft for their shit.
I predict they won't.
Good on these journalists for giving the game better scores than it deserves so that the Metacritic average will be high enough for the hardworking developers to get paid. The system is working as intended.
Really wonder if the WAM reporting tool is going to do more harm than good. Turns it into a "feminists policing speech" argument vs. a "women are getting the shit harassed out of them on Twitter" argument.
While I agree with WAM on the merits, I think Twitter's overall inaction on harassment and building out proper tools is the root problem. Their negligence has created the space for a (perceived or not) ideological group to take the reigns on this, when Twitter moderation should be an ostensibly objective process.
Yup. Collusion is great when everyone gets paid!
But much like Shadow of Mordor, I'm sure GG's will claim "it's being handled internally"
Wait, that's the game they decided to freak out about?They've discovered the conspiracy! http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAct..._days_ago_uazriel777_predicted_dai_would_get/
Maybe it's reviewing well because it's a good game? It isn't hard to predict people will like the game given EA had the confidence to drop the embargo a week before release.
They've discovered the conspiracy! http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAct..._days_ago_uazriel777_predicted_dai_would_get/
Maybe it's reviewing well because it's a good game? It isn't hard to predict people will like the game given EA had the confidence to drop the embargo a week before release.
You should perhaps watch some of the rest of them. I'd recommend the one where she makes the rather absurd claim that, because it is possible to kill two female stripper NPCs (just as you can kill every other NPC in the game) in Hitman. Direct quote.
"Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters.
It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality."
There is no citation for any of this and indeed the mechanical context of the game flies in its face. NPCs in Hitman are designed to be avoided and you are rewarded for doing so. Being detected by NPCs is a negative, it reduces your overall score and increases the time it takes to complete a mission, as well as increasing the risk of causing a failure state.
It specifically claims authorial intent by the designers to create a situation which is supposed to be arousing. Again, this is not justified by any actual evidence or even opinion, it is merely stated as if it should be the default position of anyone observing it.
Her videos are littered with examples of authoritative statements that aren't backed up by any academic evidence or even sound logic. As a result it ends up coming off as all too Thompson-esque for my liking. I'd like to see her series propose alternatives or ways to invert the tropes being used, rather than simply treating each trope as if it's bad and going way too close to the line of outright claiming that games cause players to become sexist, which has no evidence in scientific fact.
Movie Bob done a video about censorship:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vid...st&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all
TotalBiscuit is commenting:
That was not directed to Movie Bob.
The fanbase ties their identity to games so tightly that giving a game a 5 or less is seen as a direct, personal insult, and the death threats start going out. So the scores are shifted upwards to soften the blow.
Wait, that's the game they decided to freak out about?
Wait, that's the game they decided to freak out about?