• 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.

We need more talent>diversity in the gaming industry.

idrago01

Banned
Of course, the studies are dubious to you. They benefit people like you and your family. Congrats to you, while people like me and my family have to suffer being treated this way. But party on chief. Enjoy your 50 Meter head start.
where's my tiny violin so i can start playing for you, any "guilt" left evaporated with the riots
 
Why aren't you answering the question and deflecting? You are spending more time talking about me over the topic.
Why do you lack reading comprehension? Why do you continuously engage in Complex Question fallacies laced with strawman statements? Maybe actually provide honest questions rather than being deceitful.

I don't think being liberal or conservative has ANYTHING to do with gaming. Halo had clear issues with program management. The political perspective of anyone on the team is irrelevant. Diversity has nothing to do with it either. It's not black and white diversity OR talent.
Like this one is a strawman. What is being argued is that policies that are more concerned with "diversity" than talent will have a detrimental effect and these policies are more often upheld by liberals than conservatives.
 
Last edited:

idrago01

Banned
Really? How do you know if they are liberal? Liberals can't make good games now? Politics determines whether games are good? So Sony has all white conservative men running it so thats why they are successful? What is going on?
10201233.png
 

idrago01

Banned
Lets be real honest. Diversity, when used today, just means less white men, or no white men in many instances.
Having less or no white men is not a goal that inherently improves anything, in most instances it's more likely to be detrimental because you are excluding potential talent.
The long term effects of a society that emphasizes this current type of "diversity" over pure meritocracy will probably be devastating.

byQp0Y7.png
let's not forget diversity of opinions, true conservatives are much less represented in the video game industry than their actual representation in the population, so i guess we need quotas for conservatives, it's only fair right
 
I gave this some though and all in all a few dozen trans people that barely use paint is not gonna destroy you game. What destroys the industry is gargantuous companies like EA with dozens of chairmen pushing microtransactions and copy pasting games for over a decade.
 

Romulus

Member
The problem is alot of hiring managers are likely liberals, and they'd rather their team look diverse than be great.
 

Shmunter

Member
Of course, the studies are dubious to you. They benefit people like you and your family. Congrats to you, while people like me and my family have to suffer being treated this way. But party on chief. Enjoy your 50 Meter head start.
What’s the experience you’ve had?
 

idrago01

Banned
I gave this some though and all in all a few dozen trans people that barely use paint is not gonna destroy you game. What destroys the industry is gargantuous companies like EA with dozens of chairmen pushing microtransactions and copy pasting games for over a decade.
explain mass effect andromeda, wokeness killed that game, all we heard leading up to its release was how "diverse" their development team was
 

Ten_Fold

Member
Had to think about it some more an talk with people. So now I feel it’s more of a PR and money move to hire diversity over talent. If you can have some
Black, Latino, Asian and females who might not even be qualified just to say your company is diverse is good enough. At the end of the day whatever will draw them more money that’s what they will do.
 

tsumake

Member
These policies are arguably an extension of the Peter Prinicple. When any organization grows in personnel size, it also grows in complexity. This usually results in the growth of middle management, of cliques, and general balkanization of company culture. It becomes harder to ensure quality personnel because oversight becomes harder. So, you have middle managers who probably shouldn’t have that position looking for people who aren’t threat to their careers (stupid) to work under them.

What I’ve noticed is corporations don’t really mind subpar people into their organizations because they believe they have enough competent people - they want people “loyal” to the company. Companies that embrace these ideologies now have an effective way of unifying their workers.

I know I’m simplifying, but to sum I believe these policies are a continuation of mediocre corporate practices. If the world were to suddenly embrace Zoroastrianism, companies would look for those people. It doesn’t matter what the belief is - it’s how they can use it to their advantage.
 
Why do you lack reading comprehension? Why do you continuously engage in Complex Question fallacies laced with strawman statements? Maybe actually provide honest questions rather than being deceitful.


Like this one is a strawman. What is being argued is that policies that are more concerned with "diversity" than talent will have a detrimental effect and these policies are more often upheld by liberals than conservatives.
Care to present any proof to your assertions or will you stick to holier than thou attitude? Were you present when the team was hired? Outside of the fact that the game lacked good program management politics had nothing to do with it.
 
Care to present any proof to your assertions or will you stick to holier than thou attitude? Were you present when the team was hired? Outside of the fact that the game lacked good program management politics had nothing to do with it.
Why aren't you addressing the actual points put forth? Why are you continuing to engage in diversion tactics? Is it that hard for you to stay on topic instead of continuing to ask strawman questions?
 

idrago01

Banned
That game has many more problems than "wokeness". And it is an unispired cashgrab just to boot.
i agree but some of these problems, like the female main character's design, are at least in some part due to wokeness or inadequate talent due to diversity, so to get back to your point those 10 or so diversity hires can have a loud voice and impact development and the development culture
 
i agree but some of these problems, like the female main character's design, are at least in some part due to wokeness or inadequate talent due to diversity, so to get back to your point those 10 or so diversity hires can have a loud voice and impact development and the development culture

Those hires are PR, they impact nothing. They just work. The execs wanted a woke game because that's what their market analysis told them that would sell and look good.

That's my opinion TBF, i might be wrong but at those huge companies I think everybody is a cog.
 

EDMIX

Member
Why aren't you addressing the actual points put forth? Why are you continuing to engage in diversion tactics? Is it that hard for you to stay on topic instead of continuing to ask strawman questions?

Do you have any proof or not? I've noticed the meat of this argument is simply your assumptions of something with zero evidence. No different then Anita-Sarkeesian just had assumptions with nothing to really back up any real evidence to support the point.

Its the same argument bud.

So I could imagine Sarkeesian saying shit like "What is being argued is that policies that are more concerned with "alpha male representation" than talent will have a detrimental effect and these policies are more often upheld by conservatives than liberals"

Sarkeensian be like "his shirt half way tucked in shows its a agenda" and or "he can't kill 100 men, its just alpha male agenda as dats unrealistic as all games are simulationz"
Then you be like " her jaw shows an agenda" and or "I think she ugly, thus agendaz" and or "she can't kill 100 men, its just a sjw agenda as dats unrealistic as all gamers are simuationz"
 
The political perspective of anyone on the team is irrelevant. Diversity has nothing to do with it either. It's not black and white diversity OR talent.
Right now those pushing for identity hiring are on the left... The company clearly pushes and display their "diversity" efforts all over the place, they must be expanding efforts for this effort, either they let some talent go or hired some in the wrong basis (the team was not that bad before).

I think it's only fair to point out that they might have hired some people for the wrong reason (skin color, gender, sex, sexual preference)... Once you have hired people on this basis they also get to be "listened more" because when someone pushes back on a presumably bad idea from a "diverse" person there is a risk of it being misconstrued as bigotry.

We have seen the dynamics of this vision doing its magic in other forms of entertainment before.
 
Why aren't you addressing the actual points put forth? Why are you continuing to engage in diversion tactics? Is it that hard for you to stay on topic instead of continuing to ask strawman questions?
Haha OK man. I addressed the point of the thread far better than you have. I think it is a false choice with diversity and talent. Those two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Liberal and conservative have NOTHING to do with it. The strawman is blaming political perspective over the obvious failure to manage time and resources well. I stand by my statement.
 
Last edited:

idrago01

Banned
Those hires are PR, they impact nothing. They just work. The execs wanted a woke game because that's what their market analysis told them that would sell and look good.

That's my opinion TBF, i might be wrong but at those huge companies I think everybody is a cog.
some are PR but that's how it starts, like the other poster said one of the facial animators was a cosplayer and had little to no experience and we all know how terrible the animations were
 

idrago01

Banned
Do you have any proof or not? I've noticed the meat of this argument is simply your assumptions of something with zero evidence. No different then Anita-Sarkeesian just had assumptions with nothing to really back up any real evidence to support the point.

Its the same argument bud.

So I could imagine Sarkeesian saying shit like "What is being argued is that policies that are more concerned with "alpha male representation" than talent will have a detrimental effect and these policies are more often upheld by conservatives than liberals"

Sarkeensian be like "his shirt half way tucked in shows its a agenda" and or "he can't kill 100 men, its just alpha male agenda as dats unrealistic as all games are simulationz"
Then you be like " her jaw shows an agenda" and or "I think she ugly, thus agendaz" and or "she can't kill 100 men, its just a sjw agenda as dats unrealistic as all gamers are simuationz"
you must be one blind motherf*cker to the world or just willfully dumb to not see how terrible your point is
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Where I live, nobody can correctly read, let alone, write my surname and even name without errors.
I speak with funny accent.
When we needed a spot in kinder garden, we were told there were no places, but we are added to the queue.
Later on, our neighbors, who, to make it even more insulting, had less priority (stay at home mom vs working mom) got there after us, but somehow got the spot.

Of all the possible "know your privilege" ad hominem targets in this thread, you chose one of the least prominent ones.

You're taking it too personally. Clearly, when we are speaking about an industry, nobody is talking about one or two individuals or individual situations. People are talking about the macro. The bigger picture. You of all people are the one that's trying to explain that the gap in hiring isn't due to any racial bias. You're the one that said all the studies that show racial hiring practices are dubious.
 
Last edited:
Haha OK man. I addressed the point of the thread far better than you have. I think it is a false choice with diversity and talent. Those two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Liberal and conservative have NOTHING to do with it. The strawman is blaming political perspective over the obvious failure to manage time and resources well. I stand by my statement.

Do you understand the notion of chief criterion? I don't think you do. If merit is the chief criterion you sort out group A of candidates. Alternatively, If diversity is the chief criterion you sort out group B of candidates.

Imagine sorting a given population by age, say, above 50, group A, and by eye colour, say, green, group B. Does group A coincide with group B? I don't mean that there's some overlap, since probably at least a few people above 50 will also have green eyes.

I mean, do they coincide? Are they the same?
Please draw a Venn Diagram.

You seem to be claiming group A and group B will coincide.
I predict your comeback will still miss the point.
 

EDMIX

Member
I see you still don't understand what burden of proof is and who actually has it...

I see you still don't have any evidence or proof no different then Sarkeesian. Both are just arguing this whole "demographic in game, thus agenda" ...

Made no sense when Sarkeesian made that argument, it makes no more sense coming from you either
 
Last edited:
I see you still don't have any evidence or proof no different then Sarkeesian. Both are just arguing this whole "demographic in game, thus agenda" ...

Made no sense when Sarkeesian made that argument, it makes no more sense coming from you bud...
Where did I actually say that, though? Looks like there's more than one person who loves to engage in bad faith...
 
I see you still don't have any evidence or proof no different then Sarkeesian. Both are just arguing this whole "demographic in game, thus agenda" ...

Made no sense when Sarkeesian made that argument, it makes no more sense coming from you either

The fact you don't understand what burden of proof entails is not rectified by you constantly asserting you do whilst showing you don't. The fact you didn't quote him to provide an example in support of your accusation that he's doing what Anita Sarkeesian did should also help clear out who's making bogus claims.
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Member
The fact you don't understand what burden of proof entails is not rectified by you constantly asserting you do whilst showing you don't. The fact you didn't quote him to provide an example in support of your accusation that he's doing what Anita Sarkeesian did should also help clear out who's making bogus claims.

Nah, both are 2 peas in a pod.

When Anita sarkeesian first came out with those YouTube videos talking about someone shirt halfway tucked in MUST mean an agenda or the alt right or some guy who's completely fictional in video game killing 100 people is because of a right-wing agenda or because Chris Redfield has muscles there must be some sort of agenda was beyond fucking stupid. She offered no real evidence of this conspiracy.

Why are you surprised that I don't see any of the points on here any different than hers?

They all offer zero evidence and I wouldn't take that whole " burden of proof " non-answer from Sarkeesian either bud.

Be like "Chris Redfield muscles are too big, it MUST be a alt right agendaz"

Do you have any proof Anita?

Anita "you don't understand what burden of proof entails"

Ok..do you once again have any evidence of this?

Anita "his shirt be tucked it, it means alt right agenda clearly"

Any proof at all? Anything.

Anita "ummmmmm u don't understand what burden of proof is and who actually has it "
 
Nah, both are 2 peas in a pod.

When Anita sarkeesian first came out with those YouTube videos talking about someone shirt halfway tucked in MUST mean an agenda or the alt right or some guy who's completely fictional in video game killing 100 people is because of a right-wing agenda or because Chris Redfield has muscles there must be some sort of agenda was beyond fucking stupid. She offered no real evidence of this conspiracy.

Why are you surprised that I don't see any of the points on here any different than hers?

They all offer zero evidence and I wouldn't take that whole " burden of proof " non-answer from Sarkeesian either bud.

Be like "Chris Redfield muscles are too big, it MUST be a alt right agendaz"

Do you have any proof Anita?

Anita "you don't understand what burden of proof entails"

Ok..do you once again have any evidence of this?

Anita "his shirt be tucked it, it means alt right agenda clearly"

Any proof at all? Anything.

Anita "ummmmmm u don't understand what burden of proof is and who actually has it "
So you still haven't actually showed a post of mine that actually proves that I am making the same argument, but from the opposite side. Verbosity does not substitute for actual evidence.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
WOW! This thread is flaming with a high amount of intellectual dishonesty and a lack of emotional sympathy. But whatever. Like Trump said, "It is what it is". I've learning to live with people feeling the way most of you "Guys" do.
 

llien

Member
You're taking it too personally.
I'm pretty sure ad hominem attacks are to be taken personally.


Clearly, when we are speaking about an industry, nobody is talking about one or two individuals or individual situations. People are talking about the macro. The bigger picture. You of all people are the one that's trying to explain that the gap in hiring isn't due to any racial bias.
I'm "explaining" that had there been bias in hiring, making hiring "blind" would increase diversity, there isn't a single positive outcome of attempts to actually do it, more to it, there are calls to stop it (and on NYT, no less):


You're the one that said all the studies that show racial hiring practices are dubious.
I've never claimed anything about "all studies", if you know one, that isn't, please share it. Perhaps it would hint at why results of the study contradict results at hand.



And talking about studies:



And practice:
 
Last edited:

idrago01

Banned
So you still haven't actually showed a post of mine that actually proves that I am making the same argument, but from the opposite side. Verbosity does not substitute for actual evidence.
developers literally say they are subtlely and not so subtley injecting their left wing politics and agenda into their games it's out in the open and they're not really hiding it anymore, same is said for other forms of media i.e. comics
 

idrago01

Banned
WOW! This thread is flaming with a high amount of intellectual dishonesty and a lack of emotional sympathy. But whatever. Like Trump said, "It is what it is". I've learning to live with people feeling the way most of you "Guys" do.
good, go continue to live in permanent victim status
 

llien

Member
mckmas8808 mckmas8808
I've noticed that you've rarely responded to actual statement, most of the time it is "are you saying that" kind of response.
It is an emotional subject for you, for good reasons, but it would help if you would set aside emotions and just read what some here were trying to say.
 
Hiring should be without looking at sex or race. 100% anonymous to ensure you are hiring the best.
No, they tried that one and it didn't turn the way some expected, with more "representation"... So that made the lefties frown upon that solution (this was when I was on their side, well I could agree with the propositions in principle anyway). Also, there was something with people being mean to female programmers on GitHub a couple of years ago, it turned out to be another made up freakout.

Again.



I still think that this is a good idea to anonymise job application as much as possible, even if it did not turn out as we were led to believe.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I've never claimed anything about "all studies", if you know one, that isn't, please share it. Perhaps it would hint at why results of the study contradict results at hand.


That article says a little more than you led on to believe. You should read the full thing. The issue isn't just the "gender" checkbox. It's a complex issue, that needs complex conversation and understanding. Not hand waving a people wanting to play small violins for anyone that speaks about the matter.

mckmas8808 mckmas8808
I've noticed that you've rarely responded to actual statement, most of the time it is "are you saying that" kind of response.
It is an emotional subject for you, for good reasons, but it would help if you would set aside emotions and just read what some here were trying to say.

It's not totally emotional for me. I'd like to have a higher discourse of conversation about topics like this (you I believe would like the same). But sadly there's 5 people for every 1 person that just want to say things like "Oh poor baby" or "you want some cheese with that wine" type comments.

I see those types of comments so much, that sometimes it makes people like yourself "SEEM" like you are the same. It's hard to decipher who's here to have a real conversation and who just wants to troll.
 
Last edited:

llien

Member
"Oh poor baby"
I also wish we would not have attacks of that kind on GAF.

The issue isn't just the "gender" checkbox. It's a complex issue, that needs complex conversation and understanding
Finding of Australian officials: both women and minorities were less likely to get hired when switching over to blind recruiting.

It is indeed a complex issue and there could be many parameters, but we are talking about hiring bias.

Can you answer these questions:
1) Based on blind hiring trials, is there a hiring bias in Australia? (not country as a whole but that particular government organisation that tried to get more diversity)
2) How does call to abolish blind auditions align with hiring on merit?
3) Haven't you come across numerous open attacks on meritocracy as concept?


Last, but not least, I was told this change was voted 30 vs 10 in California (and needs to be confirmed by the public in November):

GFHS4fx.png


Source (wikipedia)

Why would anyone in the right mind initiate this change (that is the only change, removing that paragraph)
 
Top Bottom