-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
How are we as gamers supposed to do that? I report people who are abusive on PSN or XBL and try to spend money to support people who are doing good but what more can I do? It seems like instead of trying to get rid of the gamer moniker everyone should focus on getting publishers to fund inclusive games and getting changes to hiring practices.
How is it that assholes are always so loud? Is it just that positive messages have less power than negative ones? I wish twitter made you put your real name on everything I think that would reduce a lot of abuse.
On the one hand, I agree with you.
No one chose to "let in" the misogynists. This is a subculture centered around a love for an entertainment medium, and no one can stop anyone from enjoying that medium. I'm not a fan of the line of thinking that we are all guilty by association with them, or that it is our fault that they exist.
On the other hand, we should want better for our community. Not just as gamers, but as a society of human beings we should strive for a place where all people are accepted regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation/religion/etc. As gamers, fixing the whole of society is an unrealistic task, but we should want to make our small corner of society better than it is, so that other people can look in from the outside and wonder what we are doing right (instead of associating us with hateful bigots).
It's unrealistic to expect that we can just get rid of the worst trolls and hateful individuals altogether, but we could do a lot more to ostracize them. We could also do a lot more to address the casual racism and sexism that is prevalent in our culture, even if it's not "our fault" it got there in the first place, because it would ultimately help everyone if it was gone. It's not about whose fault it is, it's about fixing it for everyone's benefit.
That being said, a lot of the above stuff will be extremely difficult to accomplish (some of it might be impossible), and I wouldn't know the place to start. But I do not believe that there is truly nothing we can do to improve; there's definitely things that we can do better.
TheHollowNight
Member
Are you fucking serious? This is insane.
No no no, no one is actually trying to get rid of the gamer moniker. That's a narrative written by people who are misunderstand the philosophical ponderings of a few editors/freelancers or by people who are maliciously trying to steer the discussion off track.
All we have to do to curate our hobby is to be actively involved in promoting diversity and discrediting people who try to hamper progress.
That doesn't mean agreeing with Anita Sarkisian either or spending untold mental hours arguing with people on NeoGAF. It could mean, as you point out, reporting people on PSN and XBL. Or just telling someone that what they said is stupid and ignorant or not automatically flirting with that girl over Ventrilo just because she's a girl.
Most people just laugh and shrug their shoulders at the cesspool of Twitch Chat or XBL which is indicative of the vacuum that's attracted these idiots.
You can't be serious. What the hell?
Maybe I'm a pessimist but I doubt positivity on a gaming forum will change views that are coming from elsewhere in society. I see these toxic views coming from youth culture in general. Maybe its a backlash against the inclusiveness that is occurring elsewhere, that is inevitable.
Calling gamers names and saying they are over was silly, and typical of gaming media, which is mostly silly.
This blog probably summarises my view on all this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/01/the-gamer-is-dead-long-live-the-gamer/
Anyway back to Dwarf Fortress for me - a game that has same-sex marriage - although its pretty bigoted against Elves. Thank god for small indies.
I really feel like this has got to be at the point now where we just shouldn't even be talking about the collective rage and anger as being "about" one cause or another. This level of anger and hurt cannot possibly be healthy, even if there is some sort of grand conspiracy at play, or even if all gamers are virulent misogynists. It just can't possibly matter enough to be worth this level of outrage, one way or the other.
I think there are like two or three totally distinct interesting discussions to be had that may have come out of this, but... that can happen weeks or months from now. The noise level has reached the point now that we're truly into "the only way to win is not to play" territory. At least imho.
I think there are like two or three totally distinct interesting discussions to be had that may have come out of this, but... that can happen weeks or months from now. The noise level has reached the point now that we're truly into "the only way to win is not to play" territory. At least imho.
Pyrrhus
Member
I'm sorry to hear what happened with Jenn Frank. I liked her work. If she is indeed gone from the gaming scene I hope wherever she ends up she's happier and maybe will consider returning when the current tide of acrimony subsides. And I hope the strife of the last several weeks doesn't take away her love of the medium. We could all benefit from spending less time on twitter and in forums fighting political battles and more time just playing and enjoying games.
There's been too much bile for too long and it's poisoning everything. I know people on both sides are not going to back down, but we need some detente.
There's been too much bile for too long and it's poisoning everything. I know people on both sides are not going to back down, but we need some detente.
Which makes the entire issue of non-disclosure of Patreon backing creating an enormous firestorm all the more bizarre and nonsensical. It literally makes no sense.
Patreon not allowing anonymous donation isn't the problem. The problem is the conflicts of interest that arises from journalists actively donating money to developers.
Wait what? They are judging things on a basis of how progressive a game is instead of the gameplay being good/fun?this is a good post. post more about people being stupid in this stupid stuff
I think you are talking about different things. Lime is referring to random patreons taking shit simply for donating, whether they are press or not. And because they can't be anonymous, they're easy bait for trolls.
I really like this, a lot:
Link to full article: http://ellaguro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/on-gamers-and-identity.html
axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
Now the FBI are involved.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...t_of_game_developers.php#.VAh9jGhaAkQ.twitter
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...t_of_game_developers.php#.VAh9jGhaAkQ.twitter
RadarScope1
Member
Ah okay, my bad. Random, non-industry, people getting shit on by trolls is just sad.
I haven't been following this too much and don't know many of the people involved, but Jenn Frank? Come on man, that is a legitimately good writer and people want her out of the medium?
I wonder how many of the people attacking her have never even heard from her before. Makes me sick, really.
Moral Panic
Member
Is that a real conflict of interest? In the UK newspapers back certain political parties, does that mean they are all corrupt? I also highly doubt journalists are not allowed to vote or donate personally to political parties that they write articles about either.
Jenn Frank is one of the nicest people I know, she has supported so many people over so long a time(including me), and she gets run out of gaming over flat out, obvious lies and disingenuous misrepresentations.
Her OPINION PIECE wasn't objective enough? The GUARDIAN'S decision on whether disclosure of a relationship with a harassment victim was relevant is the proof she's corrupt?
I've never been so sad and so angry. Fuck "gamers".
Her OPINION PIECE wasn't objective enough? The GUARDIAN'S decision on whether disclosure of a relationship with a harassment victim was relevant is the proof she's corrupt?
I've never been so sad and so angry. Fuck "gamers".
The movement has unilaterally decided that any communication or interaction between people creates a conflict of interest and that all must bend before this decision, regardless of any former precedents set by years and years of journalism.
Did you talk on Twitter? CONFLICT! Were you on a podcast together with the composer of a game you reviewed? CONFLICT.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Kamiya is not amused
People. Nothing here is about "opinions". It's about behaviors. #GamerGate people aren't worth my time because they're actively terrorizing people.
Going after Jenn Frank should make this obvious. This isn't about legitimate ethics concerns. The motherfucking Guardian cleared her.
These clowns aren't just people who disagree, they've engaged in a campaign of hate, they've lost all perspective on appropriate social interaction, and they've targeted the livelihoods of good people.
If our difference of opinion is you think I should kill myself and you choose to tell me that, day in and out, then do figure I'm going to stop listening to you.
It's so fucking ironic that the editorial that originally spawned #gamergate so accurately predicted the response of "gamers" and proved her accusations.
Yes, this is really a bad thing and I think the extrimists on both sides have won. The devide will even be bigger after all of this and the moderates have lost again. Except Phill Fish, people with integrety are the ones that have left the industry, which is bad already, even worse some people who should have left will stay and will build even higher walls to protect their share or their interests and more prejudice on both sides will be the result.
On the other hand it was also the reveal, that the indy development community is in a very, very bad shape. How games are getting financed and awarded is terrible. It is more important to have a network instead of great game. So many things we hated about the AAA industry are imitated by the indy community on a smaller scale. The networks, the corruption about awards or coverage we also have this in this part of the games market.
And now a lot of gamers are just citing Obi Wan
Kamiya is not amused
I had a discussion with that very person today. I think ... he has decided to roll with a cause without understanding the wider picture. Regardless, he said sorry if he misunderstood anything and went off to bed!
In the same way Fox news is corrupt, sure.
Way to generalize. Nobody intelligent is seriously saying there's a conflict of interest when two people are simply talking on twitter, that's straight up hyperbole on your part. However, people are calling out Developers and journalists when real, personal relationship are given light. Would you be okay if, say, a close-friend of Ken Levine, or someone who supported him financially, was a journalist and reviewed Bioshock Infinite, giving the game high remarks? That's the definition of a conflict of interest, and doubt many people would be comfortable with that. I see no reason why the same logic should apply to Independent Developers as well.
You know, there are reviewers for some kinds of media who pride themselves on never having accepted anything for free (including, for example, movie reviewers who have never gone to a free screening for critics, and instead buy all their tickets with their own money). Apparently this is now a conflict of interest?
Now, developers donating money to journalists could be a conflict of interest. I say "could" because it is not necessarily one. For example, if a wealthy developer, I don't know, John Carmack or something, was to donate money to some insightful blog about game mechanics because he wants to see more articles, there'd be nothing wrong with it. It would be a conflict of interest, on the other hand, if the journalist was actively reviewing or promoting the developer's games.
But how in the world can a journalist donating money to a developer be a conflict of interest, keeping in mind that this is what they automatically have to do to play the developer's games? What conflict of interest could there possibly be there? The only thing I can think of is if you have some really reclusive game developer who never gives interviews, and a journalist pays him $10,000 to give an exclusive interview. That does not appear to be what's happening here.
Even if a journalist donating money to a developer WAS a big deal, though, Patreon not allowing anonymous donations would still be the problem. Because if the donations are anonymous - if the developer didn't know where the money was coming from - any conflict of interest would disappear.
That just makes it seem like it is, at a minimum, an opportunistic action by folks with an agenda outside of gaming.
IRC seems like a better route to take, or at least something similar to that.
Publications backing politicians is and has been common for hundreds of years. From the must respected, like the NY Times, to the least, like the NY post. In a more ging related way, supporting an artist or art house with praise has alwas been a common practice of art critics.
Unless you're talking about The Sun, they do have the advantage of not being owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Well, if this in any way ends up getting shit like this taken more seriously, then maybe it WAS worth it.
Journalists in the US both vote and make political donations, usually to individuals vs parties however.
Journalists donating to a dev sugests they want to see them do well so people looking at coverage could be very wary to trust what they write about the dev and their games.
1. I never said that.
2. I agree.
3. The people who use Patreon are mostly small independent developers who need the money. The situation boils down to journalists actively giving money to, more often than not, personal, developer friends. This would be fine if said journalists didn't cover the games created by the independent developers they support, or supported, financially, or at the very least pointed at the conflict of interest in their pieces. However, as we've already seen, this hasn't been the case.
Pen, meet sword more or less.
It is likely to get worse before it gets better unfortunately.
Weltall Zero
Member
You are not political, you're simply wrong. Tons of people have praised the exaggerated art of Dragon's Crown and Kamitani in general, pretty much in the same proportion as people have disliked them. Even heterosexual females! Some of them have even cosplayed as that very character. What makes your opinion more valid than theirs?
Now this is simply ignorant. The fact that the sorceress measurements aren't to your liking doesn't belie the fact that the art itself is of very high quality, and much better than what is found in the average game. You're letting your distaste of the subject matter creep into your evaluation of the technical aspects of the art itself.
Indeed, there is a difference between criticism and disrespect; you simply seem to be unaware of it. Let's have a little exercise:
a) I don't like Dragon's Crown female character proportions; I think they're sexist.
b) Kamitani is a 14-year old who draws trash, plain and simple.
Can you point out which one is each?
Indeed; it's stating the obvious. Nobody is contesting that.
Then don't buy it. I personally would also like Dragon's Crown designs more if both the sorc and amazon were a little less exaggerated, but the game's artistic quality is unmatched by 99% of the games released the past decade. And my girlfriend had no issues playing AS the sorceress for a few dozen hours, aside from some perfectly justified mirth at the beginning.
More to the point, you're taking a stance that even Anita isn't making. She asks that games sexualizing women stop overwhelmingly dominating the market, not that they be completely banned. In another word, diversity. The point that you're making (and indeed, the point that many of her critics THINK she's making) is plain and simple censorship, and I won't stand by it.
DigitalRicket
Member
And that's fine. If you question a writer's integrity then you can simply not read their writings, articles, critiques and so on, not hound them in real life and try to get them fired or ruin their life by total bombardment of their privacy and social embarrassment.
It's video game journalism! What exactly are people defending anyway?
It's the craziest thing. Leigh proposes that people who dedicate their entire identity to Video Games don't have very good perspective, then all start screaming but what they're really saying is "you're right". Their perspective is *so* bad, they don't realize here's a good opportunity to get some perspective and instead double down on the insular, toxic, unwelcoming attitudes they've been accused of having. Lunacy.
Everytime someone throws a #notallgamers at me, it's like: but enough gamers though.
I learned something new! Time to go make a bunch of ant related posts on twitter with the #Gamergate tag.
But how many actual proven cases have there been of this happening? Zero? People are just creating problems that don't exist in order to have issues to attack.
I see where you are coming from but the general form is that just about everyone is asking media to say SOMETHING, and when they do, all they get is a shitstorm in their face. No wonder they keep the door closed.
Isn't that a little tautological?
If they like a dev, they will give them more positive coverage. This is generally a fact. It doesn't mean they'll never get negative coverage (i.e. if the dev makes a terrible game), but on the whole, probably the coverage tends to be positive.
If they like a dev, they may donate them money to make more games. They will also give them more positive coverage. So positive coverage ends up being correlated to the journalist donating money to the developer. But that's irrelevant, because we already know it's caused by them liking the dev.
In other words, A (liking a dev) is the causative factor for both B (donating money to the dev) and C (positive coverage). The idea that B is then a conflict of interest for C doesn't make any sense.
The only thing I can think of is that you're suggesting A is the conflict of interest, and B (donating money) is just evidence for it? But liking a dev isn't really a conflict of interest**, it's just... an interest. Having an opinion. A conflict of interest would be when something external (like the dev giving the journalist money) modifies their expression of that opinion.
**It's not a conflict of interest in an opinion piece, the purpose of which is to express an opinion, or even in a review, which is likewise about expressing your opinion on a game (i.e., saying "you only wrote you like this because you actually like this" is not a very strong criticism). It may be a conflict of interest in something like a news piece - where your the interest of your opinion conflicts with the interest of wholly neutral, unbiased reporting. The vast majority of gaming articles, especially ones about controversial topics, are opinion pieces, however, where the author is obviously pushing a viewpoint. Most game journalists seem to be highly opinionated outside of articles like "Halo 12 release date announced." One of the few examples of an article about "GamerGate" that is NOT an opinion piece is the Al Jazeera article, although it's not a very good article in my opinion (mostly just a collection of tweets from both sides).
Can't really put out a news article about every moronic thing on the Internet. There's just not enough time in the day.
One of the biggest problems with this campaign is that there is no endgame and there are no clear goals. Some people are claiming victory because they drove Jenn Frank -- one of the most talented writers in gaming -- to quit. If their goal is to get rid of as much thoughtful writing as possible, then this is truly terrifying.
- Status