You're doing nothing of the sort.
-
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.
#GamerGate thread 2: it's about feminism in games journalism
- Thread starter ModBot
- Start date
- Status
You're doing nothing of the sort.
for patreon, which is how this discussion started, i stand behind what i said.
taking your real world example, no i would say that to expense a cost back to your company wouldn't strike me as influencing you.
however, with respect to the posts that i was responding directly to, would you be ok with reviewing a copy of the evil within if you were donating to the patreons of the development team? would that be something that you're on board with as a journalist? because THAT is what i was talking about, not being fans of a series you reveiw.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I'm honestly kinda left speechless on the Sexual dimorphism thing.
I really really wanna know what Anita said that got reconstrued into that. It's hurting my head to even try to think what it could be.
My one weakness: I cannot argue against that which I do not understand.
I really really wanna know what Anita said that got reconstrued into that. It's hurting my head to even try to think what it could be.
My one weakness: I cannot argue against that which I do not understand.
Are men and women really equal, though? Men are usually taller and heavier than women, which seems unequal to me. Maybe feminism saying that men and women are "equal" means that feminism is bad and wrong????????????
makes u think
Preorders are maximum bias because you're giving the developer money.
But free review copies are also maximum bias because the developer is giving you a money equivalent in value.
The only way to avoid maximum bias is for the game developer to send out someone to mug you for $50 while slipping a game disc back into your pocket. That way you didn't willingly give them money and they have have given you nothing in terms of net value.
Alternatively you can donate an equivalent amount of money to a charity of your choice, and the game developer can surreptitiously leave a copy of their game with someone who knows you. If that person then decides to pass the game on to you because they know you are a reviewer, it's not biased because you have not come out ahead in value or given anything to the developer, plus have no reason to give the game special coverage because your acquaintance is the one who gave it to you, not the dev.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
just askin questions!!!!!!!!!
Lalalandia
Member
Di-morphism is a thing but it is used as an excuse for 'Bio-essentialist/Social Darwinist' arguments that take that logic and work it back to justify existing social conditions or prejudices. In the end I meant the Sexual Di-morphism != Bio-Essentialism. I tend to be very dismissive of this and you're right it was not a constructive argument.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I can't even remember her even getting close. Which is why I'm so confused by this coming up and being curious about when he thinks Anita implied it.
I think he's more or less doing the equivalent of learning about evolution by listening to creationists.
I wasn't talking about bias toward a genre. I was talking about specific developers/people.
Ideally reviewers should only review games from publishers/developers they have no bias/preference about. Since in many cases it is impossible - they should disclose their bias.
In the case you mentioned Jim is very transparent about liking the series and it's your decision what to make of his review. In any case it would be preferable that someone who doesn't have that bias reviewed the game instead.
In other words - if you can avoid any kind of bias - do it. If you can't - at the very least disclose it, or don't do the review (because for most games there are a lot of other reviews around).
ShockingAlberto
Member
You probably shouldn't be so self-aggrandizing when looking in the mirror.
Lalalandia
Member
I genuinely laughed
Seriously though I fear for the number of people who went to IA for info on evolution or atheism and got a whole heaping of anti-feminist lies and distortions instead.
Nonsense. If a film critic liked Christopher Nolan's last movie, you believe they need to explicitly declare this in their review of his next movie?
MHWilliams
Member
I'd probably not be fine with it. We tend to not review games we Kickstarter-ed either.I'm just arguing that psychologically, buying a game with my own money, reviewing it and later expensing it, is probably as influencing as simply buying the game with my own money. The priming of the endowment effect - my money in exchange for a game - has already happened, imparting whatever subtle biases it did. The expensing part is a good after-the-fact rationalization, but honestly I'd think the effect was the same on the review whether or not it was expensed.
In as much as reviews can be shifted by subtle biases of that nature. Buying a game won't turn a negative review of a bad game into a positive one.
That's before you get into weird reviewer-specific issues like having to play and finish a game you hate. Pick a game you hate or bored you and imagine having to keep pushing through until the end? How does that effect your final thoughts on the game?
I agree with you in practice. In reality, I'm just on the bolded part. The last part ignores the fact that it's a business.
If they are a fan of his work as a whole and not just "liked his last movie" then yes. (Edit: that is bias towards Nolan himself and not a single creation of his)
Neoriceisgood
Member
Yeah that's an enormous stretch away from completely denying sexual dimorphism.
BlastProcessing
Member
A few points:
Sex ≠ Gender: It's always useful to keep these things in mind in these conversations.
Creating incredibly close ad libs is exactly how you go about constructing a good strawman argument. When you enter into a charged conversation, it's a good idea to be more clear with your points and stay away from Ad Libbing. We all now have to spend a bunch of time arguing about what you actually meant instead of your points. I doubt this is what you want.
And finally on the matter of whether or not Anita is a journalist. I would argue that her videos are Media Criticism and not journalism. She is an Academic and her Tropes videos follow that structure. Unless you think my Media Professor was a journalist and my classes was journalism, I don't think she is a journalist.
Journalistic ethics were developed as a means to gain the trust of readers. This was a financial necessity. Newspapers originally were biased towards a certain (mainly politically defined) audience. This limited a paper's reach so Newspapers created ethical mechanisms to become more universally trusted. It was a complete creation of the Free Market.
The Tropes videos are completely crowdfunded. There are no advertisers to please. There is no direct financial motivation to increase readership.
If you disagree with the content of her videos, thats fine. You are allowed to do that. You seem perturbed that there are people who agree with her videos, but people get to do that too. They are just videos on the internet. At the end of the day their reach will depend on their content. That point seems to be the one that makes Thunderf00t crazy. The idea that people will agree with Anita's take. All of his videos on Anita make him seem petty and small.
I genuinely laughed
Seriously though I fear for the number of people who went to IA for info on evolution or atheism and got a whole heaping of anti-feminist lies and distortions instead.
It's definitely disappointing!
That seems completely bizarre to me. Plenty of reviewers have people they are fans of. A reviewer's job is to offer their opinion about a thing. Why would I care if they are a fan? I can read what they're saying. I can evaluate their position.
What about a reviewer reviewing the work of a creator they dislike? How would you police that, ever?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
It's seeming more and more to me that Gamergate isn't upset about subjective reviews; they just really miss the detailed descriptions on the back of game boxes.
Mental Atrophy
Banned
Retractable penises are the next evolutionary step.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
So many people already tuck. We're closer than we think.
i'll disagree with you on the "bought outright vs expensed" topic since i think that knowing that that money is coming back to you would put you in a dfferent place than knowing you paid for said product with your own money. that disctinction, however, would be personal and i guess, as a reader, i'd have to rely on a writer disclosing a bias like that if it were ever to come up.
as far as a review being shifted based on buying a game, i agree it'd would be subtle for some and even non existent for others but it's a bias that can and should be avoided.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Is it time for another "Gamergaters' villain monologuing" ?
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
What's bizarre about mentioning that you are a fan/"hater" of the director in the review?
The problem is that you might think that their position is neutral while it is not.
I don't understand the "policing" question. If you know/think that you are biased - mention it (or don't do the review, if someone else can do it) . There is no way to force anyone to do it, same way you can't actually do anything about someone who is taking a bribe and doesn't disclose it. The policing in all cases is up to the writer himself and his managers.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
This feels more Tumblr to me than any feminist stuff.
Neoriceisgood
Member
If a writer takes a bribe and doesn't disclose it: that's a huge issue.
If a writer is a fan/not a fan and doesn't disclose it: ... I don't see the issue?
I don't see how those two are similar in the least.
BlastProcessing
Member
If this is what you want and expect from reviews, that's fine. But you need to understand that it deviates from what most people want and expect from reviews. A huge amount of bias is subconscious so avoiding it is a Sysiphean task that would exhaust almost all of a reviewers energy.
But again, if that's what you want, seek out and support the people who are doing it. Every critic can't (and shouldn't) speak to everyone. Reading any work of critique should be an active process. Readers should never just passively accept everything that is said. Because bias is impossible to eliminate, it is up to the reader to acknowledge that.
When I see people arguing that extreme measures should be taken to ensure that reviews are "fair", I always find it a little bit insulting and infantilising toward readers.
What I don't get about the Patreon thing is how no one can seem to clearly identify why it's bad. For every other supposed ethical breach it's easy:
Developers straight-up gives you cash money? Okay, if you give a bad review, you are probably not going to get money like that in the future, or even called out by the dev (if they have nothing to lose) for accepting the money to begin with. So there's a big incentive to give a positive review.
Developer gives you a free game? Same as above, but a much smaller concern, because that's what you actually need to do your job. The free game itself is almost never the issue (except for insane purists), it's more the issue of the developer being able to exert editorial control by threatening to revoke pre-release access. Definitely more complicated, but you can identify where the potential bias comes in.
You review a game made by your significant other or best friend? I guess they could be pissed at you if you give a bad review and it could hurt your relationship. So that makes sense.
You invest in a game project, as an investor with a direct financial stake? Well, how much money you get back depends on how well the game sells, so obviously you're incentivized to give a good review even if it's completely awful.
You donate money to a Patreon or whatever? So far I've heard it's for whatever reason wrong to give money before a game is released (no different from a preorder, which there's also no apparent reason to avoid), it shows that you like the developer and makes you biased (no different from saying you like the developer or liking the developer and not saying it), and that it has no effect on you expressing your honest opinion but maybe pushes your honest opinion towards one extreme or the other (something I don't believe there's any evidence for but probably wouldn't care about if true).
There's also been hints of well you put money into it you want to give a positive review to justify your choice of spending money, but this is something that's no different than paying for a game post-release (which many reviewers have to do, without reimbursement), which is itself something I'd be less concerned about than reviewing a game for free.
I'm not seeing any actual reasoning to justify it being a conflict of interest that doesn't immediately make standard industry practices in reviews (across all media, not just games) similarly conflicted, in which case I don't care.
Developers straight-up gives you cash money? Okay, if you give a bad review, you are probably not going to get money like that in the future, or even called out by the dev (if they have nothing to lose) for accepting the money to begin with. So there's a big incentive to give a positive review.
Developer gives you a free game? Same as above, but a much smaller concern, because that's what you actually need to do your job. The free game itself is almost never the issue (except for insane purists), it's more the issue of the developer being able to exert editorial control by threatening to revoke pre-release access. Definitely more complicated, but you can identify where the potential bias comes in.
You review a game made by your significant other or best friend? I guess they could be pissed at you if you give a bad review and it could hurt your relationship. So that makes sense.
You invest in a game project, as an investor with a direct financial stake? Well, how much money you get back depends on how well the game sells, so obviously you're incentivized to give a good review even if it's completely awful.
You donate money to a Patreon or whatever? So far I've heard it's for whatever reason wrong to give money before a game is released (no different from a preorder, which there's also no apparent reason to avoid), it shows that you like the developer and makes you biased (no different from saying you like the developer or liking the developer and not saying it), and that it has no effect on you expressing your honest opinion but maybe pushes your honest opinion towards one extreme or the other (something I don't believe there's any evidence for but probably wouldn't care about if true).
There's also been hints of well you put money into it you want to give a positive review to justify your choice of spending money, but this is something that's no different than paying for a game post-release (which many reviewers have to do, without reimbursement), which is itself something I'd be less concerned about than reviewing a game for free.
I'm not seeing any actual reasoning to justify it being a conflict of interest that doesn't immediately make standard industry practices in reviews (across all media, not just games) similarly conflicted, in which case I don't care.
"They want to take away an expressive art form and turn it into a cash grab."
Ummmmmm, are they really that far gone that they don't recognize the giant blaring siren of irony this statement is?
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
We've been discovered! I planned to make such a big cash grab by making a nonviolent narrative game with a female protagonist. I would have been filthy rich! Fuck all these artsy macho FPSes, I don't care about games becoming an art form through experiments like Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. I only care about blockbusters like Gone Home.
You're saying not doing so would be unethical, and I think that's ridiculous. If being a fan influences their opinion on something new to such an extent, there's no end to the number of things that could potentially influence their critique outside of the game's content.
Do we want the end of every review to include 40 paragraphs detailing the biases a reviewer entered the experience with? "I dislike jumping and mushrooms. Red is the best color, in my opinion, and I am generally deeply suspicious of dinosaur-like creatures. Also, Nintendo is my favorite developer." Phew! Now I can be sure his critique of the jumping mechanic is not taken seriously!
They aren't similar at all as far as ethics are concerned. The second paragraph was about his question of "policing". That is my implication that eventually, in either case, it depends on the integrity of the writer and the company he is working for.
I don't want them to disclose all the biases - only the major and obvious ones. Such as being a fan of the particular individual that his work you are reviewing. I see this similar to a case where you are a friend of that individual - in which case i think most people would agree that it requires disclosure.
BrittonPeele
Member
No, it's a debate game journalists have been having since at least the Double Fine Adventure (now Broken Age) Kickstarter.
For a peak behind the curtain (and another example at how the mailing list was a good source for discussion, not a place of collusion), this was a big topic of contention in GameJournoPros. At the time, myself and a few other writers saw no problem with Kickstarter (I don't think Patreon was a "thing" yet), at least at the lower tiers of funding, as we saw it pretty much like a pre-order. Things got a lot trickier when you spent money to get into the higher tiers, especially with perks like "Get your name in the credits!," but I personally backed a few gaming Kickstarters (Double Fine's among them) because I didn't see any issue. Other journalists in the group, however, saw it as a big problem and thought nobody who backs a Kickstarter should cover the backed game at any point in the future.
Broken Age presented an additional journalistic quandary when Double Fine tried to impose an embargo on the game for journalists who had backed it. So in that case there were writers who had paid money for the game, received the game (through Kickstarter, not through PR), and the developer wanted to say "You can't write about this yet," which... No. I like Double Fine's work, but that was a bad move to try to pull. Thankfully, they reversed the decision and didn't try to limit what their paying customers (writers or not) could do with the game they had bought.
When Patreon came along, the same debate was had again, with different people falling on different sides.
Personally, my opinion on both services has changed a lot over the months and years due to conversations like this with other writers. I've mostly stopped backing video game Kickstarters (I still back a lot of board/card games), but still kind of view them as pre-order-esque and therefore don't begrudge writers who do choose to back some. On Patreon, I'm personally of the opinion that it goes too far into conflict of interest territory, and so while there's no real return on investment I don't think it's OK to continue paying money to a developer when you don't know specifically what you'll be getting month-to-month in return (as opposed to am MMO subscription, a pre-order or even a Kickstarter). As such, I personally don't fund any Patreons. But again, the service is so new and these discussions are so fresh that I actually wouldn't be too surprised if my opinion on Patreon changed at some point in the future, too. I'm staying open-minded during all these discussions.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I think reviewers should disclose if they consider any character from a game their "waifu" or "husbando", because I think this would unfairly color their opinion on a game.
MHWilliams
Member
Put "should" before "can" and you have the right of it. Many try, not all can succeed. I'd still find the latter's work balance and ethical
I guess I need to fix my Persona 4 Arena Ultimax review. Chie-chan forever.
I totally forgot about that. I sub to WoW every month, but I'm still doing coverage of Warlords of Draenor. Again, I err on the side of disclosure, not avoidance.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Holy crap, that guy needs help.
I don't by any means endorse Pinker wholesale, but I do agree that feminism is better when it grounds itself directly in political concepts about justice, equality, and the integrity of the individual. Of course, this means that we admit this is about politics.
To which I say, deal with it. Describing things as political is usually just rhetoric; everything is political so it amounts to calling things out as politics you don't like.
It pales compared to many of the other casualties of this mess, but I feel bad for the people at femfreq because they deserve a better environment for feedback, one where they can see criticism and discussion of they arguments they're making, not about which ones they are or not.
Devolution
Member
I'm a Halo fan and the first to crap on Halo 4 when someone inquires about it.
fan =/= obsessed yes-man
Unfortunately the latter is all over gaming.
fan =/= obsessed yes-man
Unfortunately the latter is all over gaming.
Hey look, another skull. ^_^
Neoriceisgood
Member
Deep personal relationships, sure. Not "guy I grab lunch with when we go to E3" type relationships.
A review is the personal opinion of the person writing that review. Their perspective is the sum total of every experience, every feeling, every thought and every like and dislike. It's all bias. I don't need to know any of that to evaluate a review. Why does the reviewer like the way the guns feel in Call of Duty 19? Can they convey their reasoning? Do I get a chance to understand why this person feels the way they do without needing to adopt every bias they personally posses? If I can't, it's a bad review. A good review explains to me why they feel the way they do about something. I can judge that reasoning.
A decent analogy for GGers that occurred to me recently is the Satanic Panic. I started watching an ancient VHS that had been uploaded to YouTube on the subject, and some of the arguments are uncannily similar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHA3c-RE5MA
"IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES, HOW COULD YOU DENY IT?"
"ONLY A BIASED PERSON COULD DISAGREE WITH THIS OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE."
Also like GGers, the proponents of this shit ruined peoples' lives because of events that never actually happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHA3c-RE5MA
"IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES, HOW COULD YOU DENY IT?"
"ONLY A BIASED PERSON COULD DISAGREE WITH THIS OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE."
Also like GGers, the proponents of this shit ruined peoples' lives because of events that never actually happened.
chaobreaker
Member
There are way too many people with a secondhand understanding of what AS and her videos are about thanks to all of those rebuttal videos. Misconceptions piled upon misconceptions. Plus there's that narrative of her being a scam artist and professional victim.
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
It would certainly help the reader know it's okay to laugh off and ignore any of their critical opinions! : p
waifu/husbando crap is so juvenile and stupid
Neoriceisgood
Member
Seems legit to me.
My favorite part is that they still didn't fix the sexism.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll