Support NeoGAF

[Three]

The media outlets boycotting the awards is equal parts hilarious and sad. It's like they are trying to blame the awards when they themselves don't have enough women in the workforce. Not having equal representation doesn't mean you should just boycott everything and quit. If that were the case quit your job too. While you're at it dismantle government because that doesn't have equal representation too. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Oh please, it is not insidious or malicious of me to point out that the general reaction to people expressing a desire for more gender representation is open misogyny. I also didn't say: "it's k cause qualifications", I literally didn't say a thing on gender representation here. I was reacting to the misogyny that your post is partially defending here just cause you're offended ( I assume so since you use such a heavy word as insidious) over me finding the misogyny problematic. More insidious? Are you serious?
When you have plenty of qualified female staff at various gaming outlets and only two make it in, that feels off to me. That combined with some of the open misogyny expressed by some in this thread just doesn't sit well with me. And I will express that, whether you like it or not.

I think he was actually on your side man.

Saying that the casual handwaving is almost worse that straight up GG goonery because many people doing it don't even get why they feel instinctive, visceral reactions. People are so used to "man" being the default that it seems weird to them when a woman is in a slot instead.

 

[Sushi Nao]

Oh please, it is not insidious or malicious of me to point out that the general reaction to people expressing a desire for more gender representation is open misogyny. I also didn't say: "it's k cause qualifications", I literally didn't say a thing on gender representation here. I was reacting to the misogyny that your post is partially defending here just cause you're offended ( I assume so since you use such a heavy word as insidious) over me finding the misogyny problematic. More insidious? Are you serious?
When you have plenty of qualified female staff at various gaming outlets and only two make it in, that feels off to me. That combined with some of the open misogyny expressed by some in this thread just doesn't sit well with me. And I will express that, whether you like it or not.

I was agreeing with you... And yeah, more insidious: open harassment and death threats are objectively bad and easily decried. This kind of systemic misogyny is argued with sincerity and conviction by tons of posters in here, with the status quo being upheld as the end result.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

This is more insidious than that kind of open misogyny. Really an unfortunate display of the lack of any knowledge of gender representation issues.

"It's k cause qualifications" is about the least substantial argument one could bring to the table here.

When there is a clear bad guy (ie gamergate), GAF tends to quickly coalesce around the right opinion. It's only when left without an identifiable antagonist that GAF ironically starts spewing the same rhetoric we condemn GG for. Says something rather ugly about us.

 

[Ekai]

I think he was actually on your side man.

Saying that the casual handwaving is almost worse that straight up GG goonery because many people doing it don't even get why they feel instinctive, visceral reactions. People are so used to "man" being the default that it seems weird to them when a woman is in a slot instead."

Oh, I see what you mean. I had read it another way but I can see what you mean this way.

I'm sorry if I misread your post Sushi.

 

[Sushi Nao]

Oh, I see what you mean. I had read it another way but I can see what you mean this way.

I'm sorry if I misread your post Sushi.

No worries friend

 

[Ekai]

I was agreeing with you... And yeah, more insidious: open harassment and death threats are objectively bad and easily decried. This kind of systemic misogyny is argued with sincerity and conviction by tons of posters in here, with the status quo being upheld as the end result.

I'm sorry, Sushi! I had read your post a completely different way. I'll read more carefully. Just, these topics mean a lot to me so I get a bit passionate sometimes. I'll work on not letting that blind me/color the way I read things.

Yea. systematic misogyny is way worse. Both are issues that need to be addressed really. But sometimes I feel like it's hard to handle them because some of them are just so ingrained in people that they don't even realize it....or so I hope.

 

[Ekai]

When there is a clear bad guy (ie gamergate), GAF tends to quickly coalesce around the right opinion. It's only when left without an identifiable antagonist that GAF ironically starts spewing the same rhetoric we condemn GG for. Says something rather ugly about us.

A friend of mine (numerous actually) have told me to avoid Gaming side of GAF for that kind of reason. Though OT does have a few threads I find are somewhat similar for various reasons that aren't worth getting into.

Edit: Sorry for double-post. I need to work on remembering to click edit/multiple +s, it's a slightly different system from other sites I've been on.

 

[cpp_is_king]

This reminds me of the whole issue surrounding diversity in the tech industry (which I work in). We would love to hire more minorities, more women, more everything. But we just can't find them.

I don't know if this applies in this situation, just seemed like an apt analogy.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

A friend of mine (numerous actually) have told me to avoid Gaming side of GAF for that kind of reason. Though OT does have a few threads I find are somewhat similar for various reasons that aren't worth getting into.

Edit: Sorry for double-post. I need to work on remembering to click edit/multiple +s, it's a slightly different system from other sites I've been on.

OT really is no better. They immediately know what to do when a religious fundamentalist or conservative politician says something stupid, but often fall into the same arrogance and lack of empathy when left to their own devices.

 

[Ekai]

OT really is no better. They immediately know what to do when a religious fundamentalist or conservative politician says something stupid, but often fall into the same arrogance and lack of empathy when left to their own devices.

IE: A recent thread about a woman's problems with her big breasts. (be it in a physical pain sense or in a lack of respect sense from others)
The general response: "So what? She should be happy with big boobs because they make me, a guy, happy! Please she's more likely to be asked out now compared to the cute brunette with small tits" or "So, what, those aren't big? I should know, I'm a guy who likes big boobs", "Etc. etc.
No, I'm not joking. Thankfully that topic seemed to die down.

Anyhoo, this is getting off-topic.
I like Geoff somewhat, despite some things. I just wish there was better representation at these awards. I mean, women contribute and have contributed a lot. I was surprised and happy when they honored Ken and Roberta Williams with a Industry Icon award last year. She was instrumental in that really. I wish more things like that happened acknowledging the work women have done.

 

[way more]

When there is a clear bad guy (ie gamergate), GAF tends to quickly coalesce around the right opinion. It's only when left without an identifiable antagonist that GAF ironically starts spewing the same rhetoric we condemn GG for. Says something rather ugly about us.

We are worse than GG. We have seen the enemy and become him.

 

[Jimrpg]

1. Can we draft Kat Bailey on board? She's played Bloodborne, MGS V, The Witcher 3 and going to play Fallout 4 and probably going to play Mario Marker.

2. Most of the media outlets probably have a lot of guys anyway... I have no problems with some of the media outlets getting together and getting more female judges on board, but I think the problem was just a result of sending whoever was available and played those games on the list.

 

[DocSeuss]

It seems to me like Polygon has the obvious solution here. If you don't think there's enough women, then send some of your own.

 

[Pikma]

Why does everything have to be a fucking controversy?

 

[Amused]

People are still hell bent on promoting this idea that there is only one way to set up a jury I see, and if that produces ridiculous results, so be it. Nothing the people who chose the recruiting method could have done.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Why does everything have to be a fucking controversy?

You don't need to post in the thread if you don't want to.

People are still hell bent on promoting this idea that there is only one way to set up a jury I see, and if that produces ridiculous results, so be it. Nothing the people who chose the recruiting method could have done.

Nobody is saying "we want females and if they are unqualified/know fuckall about games who cares because women".

I mean come on.

I mean, is that what you honestly believe people are saying when talking about equality? Talk about knee jerk reactions.

 

[EatinOlives]

Why does everything have to be a fucking controversy?

Why is every discussion of diversity met with salty hostility?

 

[viveks86]

My indifference comes from the idea that the complaint is a bit like attacking the gender diversity of the staff of Harvard campus by examining the make-up of the janitors.

*Scratches head*

But honestly, janitors are more useful to society than video game reviewers.

I can say with 75% certainty that janitors are more useful to society than both of us.

 

[JoseLopez]

Nothing against Geoff but the show is always a shit show and also who watches it for the awards? I always watch for trailers cause award shows are just dick measuring contest.

 

[K.Sabot]

Nothing against Geoff but the show is always a shit show and also who watches it for the awards? I always watch for trailers cause award shows are just dick measuring contest.

Plenty of dicks to measure this year amirite

 

[Amused]

Nobody is saying "we want females and if they are unqualified/know fuckall about games who cares because women".

I mean come on.

I mean, is that what you honestly believe people are saying when talking about equality? Talk about knee jerk reactions.

What?

I think you misunderstand me, I might not have been very clear with that post. My problem is the following line of thinking: "Nothing the GA could have done, the outlets picked the jurors". This implies that the method chosen by the GA was the right one, and if the results produced were bad (and they were), at least the GA are not to blame.

This is wrong in my opinion. The GA chose the method of juror selection. It produces ridiculous results. They should do something about it.

The GA are not the root of the problem, but their method of choice reproduced the same structural problems we see industry wide. And that is the GAs responsibility.

 

[JoseLopez]

Plenty of dicks to measure this year amirite

Ayyyy

 

[Is This Video Games]

Why is every discussion of diversity met with salty hostility?

No, they're right. Gaf is WAY too goddamn sensitive on the topic of gender. I've seen a number of threads like this blow up in my short time here. The sad thing is it achieves nothing. You guys are posting in an echo-chamber of saltiness, I hope you realize. All over almost nothing at all. But whatever makes you feel good.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I think people need to be very careful because, reading this, a lot of people are mixing up equality and diversity for the sake of diversity.

Equality is offering everyone the same opportunity, regardless of sex, race, age or whatever. It doesn't necessarily mean you will get equal representation across the board because equality is based on merit and achievement. It gives everyone a fair chance because sex, race, age or whatever are not part of the process, only what the person can do or has done. Rarely will this give equal representation, but it ensures everyone is treated the same way.

Diversity for the sake of diversity throws merit out the window and selects people based on their sex, race, age or whatever to tick a box, meaning people who may be more suitable are left out, just because they don't fill the demographic that we're looking for. In this instance, if you're insisting on more woman just because of "diversity", you're basically implying women aren't good enough at the job, but put them in anyway because they tick a box. "Women can't compete on merit, so you have to include them" Sexist bullshit. Women are just as capable.

So, I'm throwing this back at the publications. If women aren't being represented, are they getting an equal shot in the jobs at these publications or are they being considered as equal when things like this come up? If there's less women in game journalism, what is the reason? Are these publications basically "boy's only clubs" and getting a foot hold as a woman is difficult? There's no issue with the panal selection process, nor a problem with how it turned out, because most of these publications seem to have much larger male representation to start with and, more dangerously, do these publications only hire a handful of women to tick those boxes rather than seeing them as equals? That's a much more major concern, for me, than some awards show panal. Even Polygon only changed when they realised it was mostly men, despite sending a man in the first instance.

 

[Vex_]

I think people need to be very careful because, reading this, a lot of people are mixing up equality and diversity for the sake of diversity.

Equality is offering everyone the same opportunity, regardless of sex, race, age or whatever. It doesn't necessarily mean you will get equal representation across the board because equality is based on merit and achievement. It gives everyone a fair chance because sex, race, age or whatever are not part of the process, only what the person can do or has done. Rarely will this give equal representation, but it ensures everyone is treated the same way.

Diversity for the sake of diversity throws merit out the window and selects people based on their sex, race, age or whatever to tick a box, meaning people who may be more suitable are left out, just because they don't fill the demographic that we're looking for. In this instance, if you're insisting on more woman just because of "diversity", you're basically implying women aren't good enough at the job, but put them in anyway because they tick a box. "Women can't compete on merit, so you have to include them" Sexist bullshit. Women are just as capable.

So, I'm throwing this back at the publications. If women aren't being represented, are they getting an equal shot in the jobs at these publications or are they being considered as equal when things like this come up? If there's less women in game journalism, what is the reason? Are these publications basically "boy's only clubs" and getting a foot hold as a woman is difficult? There's no issue with the panal selection process, nor a problem with how it turned out, because most of these publications seem to have much larger male representation to start with and, more dangerously, do these publications only hire a handful of women to tick those boxes rather than seeing them as equals? That's a much more major concern, for me, than some awards show panal. Even Polygon only changed when they realised it was mostly men, despite sending a man in the first instance.

 

[Akara]

I think people need to be very careful because, reading this, a lot of people are mixing up equality and diversity for the sake of diversity.

Equality is offering everyone the same opportunity, regardless of sex, race, age or whatever. It doesn't necessarily mean you will get equal representation across the board because equality is based on merit and achievement. It gives everyone a fair chance because sex, race, age or whatever are not part of the process, only what the person can do or has done. Rarely will this give equal representation, but it ensures everyone is treated the same way.

Diversity for the sake of diversity throws merit out the window and selects people based on their sex, race, age or whatever to tick a box, meaning people who may be more suitable are left out, just because they don't fill the demographic that we're looking for. In this instance, if you're insisting on more woman just because of "diversity", you're basically implying women aren't good enough at the job, but put them in anyway because they tick a box. "Women can't compete on merit, so you have to include them" Sexist bullshit. Women are just as capable.

So, I'm throwing this back at the publications. If women aren't being represented, are they getting an equal shot in the jobs at these publications or are they being considered as equal when things like this come up? If there's less women in game journalism, what is the reason? Are these publications basically "boy's only clubs" and getting a foot hold as a woman is difficult? There's no issue with the panal selection process, nor a problem with how it turned out, because most of these publications seem to have much larger male representation to start with and, more dangerously, do these publications only hire a handful of women to tick those boxes rather than seeing them as equals? That's a much more major concern, for me, than some awards show panal. Even Polygon only changed when they realised it was mostly men, despite sending a man in the first instance.

Oh dang.

 

[Amused]

I think people need to be very careful because, reading this, a lot of people are mixing up equality and diversity for the sake of diversity.

Other people have written well in this thread about the stupidity of the line "diversity for the sake of diversity", as if merit trumps all and to hell with all else. Especially funny when we know what kind of merit is needed in this instance...

Anyway, that's not what we are talking about, we are among other things talking about diversity for the sake of representation - and as a product of that, diversity for the sake of legitimacy for the award show.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

What?

I think you misunderstand me, I might not have been very clear with that post. My problem is the following line of thinking: "Nothing the GA could have done, the outlets picked the jurors". This implies that the method chosen by the GA was the right one, and if the results produced were bad (and they were), at least the GA are not to blame.

This is wrong in my opinion. The GA chose the method of juror selection. It produces ridiculous results. They should do something about it.

The GA are not the root of the problem, but their method of choice reproduced the same structural problems we see industry wide. And that is the GAs responsibility.

I see. My apologies.

No, they're right. Gaf is WAY too goddamn sensitive on the topic of gender. I've seen a number of threads like this blow up in my short time here. The sad thing is it achieves nothing. You guys are posting in an echo-chamber of saltiness, I hope you realize. All over almost nothing at all. But whatever makes you feel good.

You have no idea what they were talking about because they just did a drive-by shitpost. Let's not defend posts not adding anything to the conversation.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Other people have written well in this thread about the stupidity of the line "diversity for the sake of diversity", as if merit trumps all and to hell with all else. Especially funny when we know what kind of merit is needed in this instance...

Anyway, that's not what we are talking about, we are among other things talking about diversity for the sake of representation - and as a product of that, diversity for the sake of legitimacy for the award show.

I don't disagree, I just don't think you can blame the selection process its self nor the award show, when the issue is much more deep rooted than that. Why did so many publications send men? Why do so few publications have a large number of female contributors? Women are playing (and making) more games than ever, but than doesn't seem to be represented in the journalism sphere at all. The award show is nonsense (Edit: from the point of view it does lack diversity), but what is going on behind this selection is concerning.

 

[Sign]

So right off the bat, I don't think there was any maliciousness intended with how this all played out. It seems like everybody in this scenario put their best foot forward and moved in good faith. I think this whole thing really highlights how even when individuals and institutions have good intentions, systemic issues will still create a result that is unintended or negative. Considering how off-hands and low stakes this whole thing is in the grand scheme demonstrates how pervasive such problems are in larger more important areas. I hope the industry can learn from it in general or at least find it somewhat sobering. Thankfully, Geoff Keighley seems like a pretty cool dude who is open to criticism and genuinely seems interested in making the best show possible, so I am hopeful that he will take something from this going forward.

Constructive Criticism:

I feel like Keighley is sending mixed signals with respect to where the show is deriving its authority. On the one hand, he is appealing to the authority of publications as the arbiter of quality which implies an aggregate selection process. Yet at the same time, those publications are putting forth individuals who have their own biases and are not necessarily representative of the publication on the whole which speaks more towards a critic focused process. He needs to pick one.

I really think Keighley and whoever else need to sit down and figure out what it is that they want. Off the top of my head I can image three separate styles that they could take.

1. Critics focused: Here Keighley would need to request specific individuals with an eye towards diversity and build an actual panel. As a fan of the Giant Bomb goty deliberation podcasts I think it would be really cool if he could actually bring this group together to discuss these things as a panel to be put up after the show or something.

2. Popular Vote: I saw some individuals saying that the current panel should resemble the audience in terms of diversity which to me, at that point, feels like they might as well just go full american idol and have everyone cast a ballot. Do it in association with as many websites as possible to cast the widest net possible.

3. Aggregate: This is the system he seems to be trying to use currently where a bunch of review sites vote and then those votes are used to determine the winners. My suggestions would be to:
a. Have each publication vote for their winner democratically and present said vote purely under the name of the institution.
b. Greatly expand the number of publications included. It won't fix the larger systemic issue, but it will at least allow more voices to be heard.

Personally, having listened to many years of the Giant Bomb deliberation podcasts I've began to find the 'why' for a game choice to be way more interesting than the 'what' so I'd probably lean critic focused.

 

[Tecnniqe]

Filling 'quotas' for the sake of it is just a bad idea.
The most qualified people, no matter race and gender should be picked, as in his case it looks like each outlet had a possibility to pick from their own and those who would represent them.

If that turned out to be 50 white females or 50 Asian males, who cares. They are qualified for it, and thus selected.

 

[StoveOven]

Personally, having listened to many years of the Giant Bomb deliberation podcasts I've began to find the 'why' for a game choice to be way more interesting than the 'what' so I'd probably lean critic focused.

I also love those podcasts, but in this situation all of these jurers are doing is sending an email with a list of games. It would be a big ask of prominent reviewers of major sites around the world to take time off during the middle of the busiest season of the year to record themselves arguing about games. Also, what makes the GB podcasts great is the chemistry within the crew. Having a bunch of people who might barely know each other would probably make for a pretty awkward discussion. I like the idea but it is in no way practical.

 

[Amused]

I don't disagree, I just don't think you can blame the selection process its self nor the award show, when the issue is much more deep rooted than that. Why did so many publications send men? Why do so few publications have a large number of female contributors? Women are playing (and making) more games than ever, but than doesn't seem to be represented in the journalism sphere at all. The award show is nonsense (Edit: from the point of view it does lack diversity), but what is going on behind this selection is concerning.

I'm not blaming the GA for the underlying problem, but that doesn't give them a free pass as far as their own setup is concerned. The jury composition of the game awards is the game awards responsibility, and if their method of choice proves lacking they should use a different method.

I would also say it is in the best interest of the show to have some form of diversity if they actually want to promote themselves as the institution that takes a broader perspective, and honors the best gaming products of last year. It would strengthen the credibility and legitimacy of the awards.

As far as the wider problem is concerned, the GA has no initial blame and they are not responsible for fixing everything that is wrong in the industry. Their own product on the other hand...

 

[EatinOlives]

No, they're right. Gaf is WAY too goddamn sensitive on the topic of gender. I've seen a number of threads like this blow up in my short time here. The sad thing is it achieves nothing. You guys are posting in an echo-chamber of saltiness, I hope you realize. All over almost nothing at all. But whatever makes you feel good.

Not sure I follow. How do these threads become "echo chambers" if they blow up in size? Things only blow up in size if there's a fierce discussion. Threads where everyone agrees tend to be the shorter ones.

The fact of the matter is, it's important to discuss instances that are inadvertently problematic. The juror thing is symptomatic of the fact that the journalist side of the industry is almost entirely a boys club as evidenced by the list of major publications and the make-up of men vs. women that was posted a while ago.

The problem here is people marching in all hot and bothered shouting "WHY ARE YOU MAKING THIS A BIG DEAL?!?!" at the smallest hint of a discussion about it. Look at all the drive-by posts who aren't even interested in having a discussion but they just have to let us know how unimportant it is to them.

 

[Tecnniqe]

Not sure I follow. How do these threads become "echo chambers" if they blow up in size? Things only blow up in size if there's a fierce discussion. Threads where everyone agrees tend to be the shorter ones.

The fact of the matter is, it's important to discuss instances that are inadvertently problematic. The juror thing is symptomatic of the fact that the journalist side of the industry is almost entirely a boys club as evidenced by the list of major publications and the make-up of men vs. women that was posted a while ago.

The problem here is people marching in all hot and bothered shouting "WHY ARE YOU MAKING THIS A BIG DEAL?!?!" at the smallest hint of a discussion about it. Look at all the drive-by posts who aren't even interested in having a discussion but they just have to let us know how unimportant it is to them.

People who just post that they disagree is still valid criticism/opinion. If that's what you getting at.

 

[spazchicken]

When I drive home from work everyday I see people doing construction on the road a few times a year for months at a time. None of them have ever been women. I've looked at 30 houses and apartments in the last month. I have only been through one walk through/showing by a man.

Not every industry is going to be a 50/50 gender split. Are there even 32 women in the industry who would be more qualified judges than the men that were chosen? Are there 16? If women were interested in gaming like men are, you wouldn't be able to stop them, just like how women dominate so many other industries around the world. I think that if people want more women in gaming so badly, they should probably talk with women instead of blaming men.

 

[EatinOlives]

People who just post that they disagree is still valid criticism/opinion. If that's what you getting at.

"Valid" in what way? That's it's an opinion? Well yes, but it doesn't go much beyond that. People being aggressive that this is getting brought up and shouting that there's no problem? That's an opinion too, albeit a problematic one, and one that actually perpetuates the problem. Mind you, the drive-by posts aren't actually discussing anything, so they're not really anything worth defending.

When I drive home from work everyday I see people doing construction on the road a few times a year for months at a time. None of them have ever been women. I've looked at 30 houses and apartments in the last month. I have only been through one walk through/showing by a man.

Not every industry is going to be a 50/50 gender split. Are there even 32 women in the industry who would be more qualified judges than the men that were chosen? Are there 16? If women were interested in gaming like men are, you wouldn't be able to stop them, just like how women dominate so many other industries around the world. I think that if people want more women in gaming so badly, they should probably talk with women instead of blaming men.

It's as if people don't realize that the disparity itself is what can perpetuate the problem in the first place. Once any status quo is established it becomes an enormous task to see any change to it.

Since you bring up "women dominating industries", you may notice that journalism is an incredibly popular career choice for women, and nearly half of the gaming industry's consumer base is women. And yet gaming journalism just so happens to be a bizarre combination that incidentally results in being comprised of almost exclusively men...and there's nothing worth discussing about that...right...

 

[kinoki]

We're not in a good place in games media. It's more or less run entirely by white guys. The readers are mainly white guys who assault anyone who gets in the way of their white guy interest. Remember that an 8.8 score can be a controversy. White guys are the market for reviews so we have sites hiring to meet that market, hence we're left with this situation.

Game culture is in dire need of diversification. The Game Awards are just a symptomatic expression of that underlying fault.

 

[Heavy_D206]

Are The Game Awards really that important in the first place?

I remember last years event just feeling super awkward to me.

 

[Quixz]

Agreed. I don't care what sex or ethnicity they are, I just want some fair judgement on great games!

It would be worse to throw in people that aren't qualified just to have diversity.

Yep

 

[EatinOlives]

We're not in a good place in games media. It's more or less run entirely by white guys. The readers are mainly white guys who assault anyone who gets in the way of their white guy interest. Remember that an 8.8 score can be a controversy. White guys are the market for reviews so we have sites hiring to meet that market, hence we're left with this situation.

Game culture is in dire need of diversification. The Game Awards are just a symptomatic expression of that underlying fault.

It's certainly bizarre so many people in this thread decrying this as manufactured controversy, when not two weeks ago we had not one, but two enormous threads about people losing their shit that Fallout 4's graphics are kinda OK but not that great.

I mean we have huge outrage threads at least once a month about something or another, but when talking about diversity in gaming culture whoo boy, that's REALLY what gets people to wave the "manufactured controversy!" flag.

 

[Vinland]

Other people have written well in this thread about the stupidity of the line "diversity for the sake of diversity", as if merit trumps all and to hell with all else. Especially funny when we know what kind of merit is needed in this instance...

Anyway, that's not what we are talking about, we are among other things talking about diversity for the sake of representation - and as a product of that, diversity for the sake of legitimacy for the award show.

The problem with the legitimacy of this award show isn't just a lack of diversity. It is also the lack of qualification of the judging pool. The fact that we are treating these gaming journalist like pundits is quite odd. They are only junkets.

While the 4 male/female awards could easily be judged by a good diverse group of junkets the rest of the awards are geared towards pundits. And pundits are by definition given that title by merit of their body of work.

The Academy Awards this isn't. Only time and hard work in identifying a good diverse, recurring group of judges will grow the legitimacy of the show.

 

[Palculator]

It's certainly bizarre so many people in this thread decrying this as manufactured controversy, when not two weeks ago we had not one, but two enormous threads about people losing their shit that Fallout 4's graphics are kinda OK but not that great.

I mean we have huge outrage threads at least once a month about something or another, but when talking about diversity in gaming culture whoo boy, that's REALLY what gets people to wave the "manufactured controversy!" flag.

Pretty sure those threads get the same kind of comments though.

 

[down 2 orth]

Some hobbies are more popular among a specific gender. Glass ceilings or pay inequity issues I can sympathize with, but I won`t go up in arms if a fashion magazine has mostly female writers choosing the best shopping sites worldwide. That`s just stupid.

 

[travisbickle]

Agreed. I don't care what sex or ethnicity they are, I just want some fair judgement on great games!

It would be worse to throw in people that aren't qualified just to have diversity.

Unless these male judges all have Ph.D.s in philisophical applied logic, I don't see how they can be more qualified to judge video games?

 

[patapuf]

The problem with the legitimacy of this award show isn't just a lack of diversity. It is also the lack of qualification of the judging pool. The fact that we are treating these gaming journalist like pundits is quite odd. They are only junkets.

While the 4 male/female awards could easily be judged by a good diverse group of junkets the rest of the awards are geared towards pundits. And pundits are by definition given that title by merit of their body of work.

The Academy Awards this isn't. Only time and hard work in identifying a good diverse, recurring group of judges will grow the legitimacy of the show.

I mean, these are for the most part EIC's/senior editors that have been reviewing games for a while (long while). There is no diverse group of people in these positions. It's almost exclusively white males.

What's your idea of a pundit in the context of this award show? devs? That's not going to change much in the diversity make up either.

If people want them to reach out to popular youtubers/intedpendent bloggers to broaden the panel in terms of diversity that's fine, and considering the state of traditional gaming journalism it will come to that sooner or later. But there's not much other ways to broaden that panel.

 

[Gskyace]

The audience will be limited to 50% male and 50% female, to make it right.

 

[Metal B]

Some hobbies are more popular among a specific gender. Glass ceilings or pay inequity issues I can sympathize with, but I won`t go up in arms if a fashion magazine has mostly female writers choosing the best shopping sites worldwide. That`s just stupid.

Wasn't there a study, that say, that more woman then men are playing games? There also some huge successful niche games, which never gets mention at such events, since they mainly target woman and not are the games-industry image of mainstream.

To the topic itself, i would say, a diverse jury is always the better choice. This brings a much more variety of opinions and choices, which helps given the awards more value. But i believe, the people behind the curtain didn't want "complications" and a easier time "choosing" the winners ... The Game Awards are a joke for a reason.

 

[EatinOlives]

Pretty sure those threads get the same kind of comments though.

Yeah, and they're also called out for drive-by shitposting (and in several cases bans occur). And the arguments in those threads still continue despite that.

I should also point out several, erm, "popular" threads are outrage threads whenever a developer chooses to alter overly sexualized animations/textures/etc. of female characters, almost always being called "censorship". The point is, GAF has plenty of outrage threads (even ones that promote/defend shitty depictions of women) about TRULY pointless shit and they march along just fine, but threads like this have people trying to stifle the discussion at every corner.

Some hobbies are more popular among a specific gender. Glass ceilings or pay inequity issues I can sympathize with, but I won`t go up in arms if a fashion magazine has mostly female writers choosing the best shopping sites worldwide. That`s just stupid.

Women make up for 48% of the industry's consumer base, though.

Unless these male judges all have Ph.D.s in philisophical applied logic, I don't see how they can be more qualified to judge video games?

Exactly. What are these so-called "qualifications" people keep going on about? Don't people always complain that Game Awards judging is always a joke?