The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

gizmo · 25-10-2014 4:10pm

C14N wrote: »

It also does seem to kind of unfairly tip the scales for indies looking to make it big in the industry. There are only so many games they can write reviews for and shine a light on, how are the ones with no connections to critics or writers supposed to compete?

That would only be true if Polygon were one of the few publications to review the game, had brought undue attention to it or if their score wasn't reflective of the average score. This was certainly not the case with RPS, amongst many others, posting their review on the same day and Editor John Walker giving it a similarly glowing review. As for how indies can compete, well the same way as the Fullbright Company, make something interesting, show your game off at the various expos around the world and enter it into as many festivals as you can. Get as much exposure as you can and if your game is good, it'll likely be reviewed.

C14N wrote: »

I don't think the reviewer gave that score just because of the friendship with the composer and a lot of problem I've had with GG has been people spinning it this way. Much the same way as Zoe Quinn clearly did not just go to Nathan Grayson and say "I'd do anything for some good coverage ;>", this image GG are presenting of Riendeau sitting at a desk twiddling her moustache as she hands out 10s to friends with abaddon is a load of bull-hockey. I greatly doubt anyone at Polygon played Gone Home and thought to themselves "oh s**t, how are we going to spin this pile of garbage to make it seem like a good game?".

Totally agree and it's why these kinds of infographics dumps irk me.

C14N wrote: »

I think it's much more subtle than that. The problem I have is that if you play something that your close friend worked on, you're just much more inclined to view it positively, even if its only subconscious. Especially if you do a podcast with said just days before its release and the podcast is very friendly on a personal level with the director of the game (who was a regular on the show not that long before) it seems very unlikely that you're going to go in as unbiased as you could be, in much the same way as you are less inclined to be critical of a project that you have donated money to. It's not open and shut of course, it's not like nobody ever gives bad reviews to things they were invested in, but it certainly does influence it.

The highlighted bit is incorrect, she has an existing friendship with the freelance Composer who worked on the game. He's not a member of the Fullbright Company. If he was then the conflict of interest would be far more severe and you would (or at least should) be looking at severe disciplinary action rather than just the action I mention below.

C14N wrote: »

I think that she should not have written the review, even if she recused herself, because she was already too invested in this. Someone else at Polygon should have done it instead, regardless of whatever life experience she had that made her "uniquely suited" to review it. I don't think its a case of malice or deliberate deceit on the part of Riendeau or Polygon, but I do think it's terribly unprofessional for them to wade into these muddy waters and then act surprised that people think there's a conflict of interest.

As I said already, that's completely true however Polygon could only have given the review to someone else if they knew this beforehand. What they should have done after the fact is either add a disclaimer to the review stating their relationship, made some form of wider comment on it or just pulled the review if people felt strongly about the conflict of interest. Their failure to do any of these is a rather good example of the kind of general failure COYVB spoke about above.

C14N wrote: »

Agreed on this one, although at the same time most of these things are being made by amateurs with no guidance or diplomatic experience.

True although I don't see that as an excuse, especially when it's being held up by a large number of people, each of whom are free to edit it or call for it to be edited, in order to illustrate their point. You may notice, for instance, that the image was already updated via a note on it, this update was because the original referred to Remo as the "Gone Home creator" when in fact he's a freelance Composer who worker on the game. If this can be corrected why not the rest?

It ties into one of the reasons why I'm critical of the movement, even if you ignore the harassment emanating from it, they're still doing an utterly terrible job at achieving their aims. For one, what are those aims exactly? Secondly, the loudest voices in it are utterly awful and wear their own agendas on their sleeves, I mean listen to the latest stream from IA. They rally against SJWs and for victories which have nothing to do with ethics in games journalism, they constantly make snide jokes about various figures in the industry and it's not until Total Biscuit comes in that there's even close to a sane voice on show. How could I align my self with these people? There are some positives to be taken from it, such as calling out Brian Cresente as a good guy in this whole affair, but it's totally overshadowed by the rest.

For instance, here's a piece by the Columbia Journal Review which tears Gawker a new one for their actual output. It's nothing to do with GamerGate obviously but it's a factually accurate piece that one can easily point to as a reason to rally against the site. Polygon, on the other hand, may have some review(er)s I don't agree with (sup, Phil Kollar) but their feature work is top notch (some good examples here) compared to their rivals so to see them become a target for what currently appears to be an isolated event is somewhat disheartening.

C14N · 25-10-2014 5:49pm

gizmo wrote: »

That would only be true if Polygon were one of the few publications to review the game, had brought undue attention to it or if their score wasn't reflective of the average score. This was certainly not the case with RPS, amongst many others, posting their review on the same day and Editor John Walker giving it a similarly glowing review. As for how indies can compete, well the same way as the Fullbright Company, make something interesting, show your game off at the various expos around the world and enter it into as many festivals as you can. Get as much exposure as you can and if your game is good, it'll likely be reviewed.

That just plays back into the worries about cliquishness among critics though and the reveal of the GameJournosPro Google Group, which I believe some RPS writers were/are a part of (correct me if I'm wrong).

gizmo wrote: »

The highlighted bit is incorrect, she has an existing friendship with the freelance Composer who worked on the game. He's not a member of the Fullbright Company. If he was then the conflict of interest would be far more severe and you would (or at least should) be looking at severe disciplinary action rather than just the action I mention below.

Right, but what I was saying is that the composer she is friends with who worked on Gone Home was good friends with Steve Gaynor, the director. He was a recurring guest on the podcast and Gaynor referred to him as his friend in a blog post when they took him on to do the music for Gone Home. My point being that right before she reviewed the game, she appeared on a podcast that did seem to have some personal ties to the creator.

gizmo wrote: »

the original referred to Remo as the "Gone Home creator" when in fact he's a freelance Composer who worker on the game. If this can be corrected why not the rest?

Well is there anything else technically wrong? It seems to me that it was just written with a rather adversarial tone.

gizmo wrote: »

they're still doing an utterly terrible job at achieving their aims. For one, what are those aims exactly? Secondly, the loudest voices in it are utterly awful and wear their own agendas on their sleeves, I mean listen to the latest stream from IA. They rally against SJWs and for victories which have nothing to do with ethics in games journalism, they constantly make snide jokes about various figures in the industry and it's not until Total Biscuit comes in that there's even close to a sane voice on show. How could I align my self with these people? There are some positives to be taken from it, such as calling out Brian Cresente as a good guy in this whole affair, but it's totally overshadowed by the rest.

I agree with you on this. It's very hard to come up with specific aims for the group because there is nobody in charge and there's been no list of demands made so it's hard to see a scenario where GGers just say "okay, I'm satisfied now". Everyone seems to have their own interpretation of it and unfortunately, some like Internet Aristocrat or Mundane Matt seem to be intent on cashing in with anti-SJW/feminist nonsense.

What I will say in favour of them though is that they're more open to correcting themselves and discussing their problems than the other side, at least on the KotakuInAction subreddit. People do point out bad information and try to correct themselves (at least that Reno thing did get fixed), which is more than can be said from what I've seen on the other side where most people seem to think that to even hear them out would be a tacit condonation of sexual harassment (for the record, this absolutely does not relate to you or anyone on boards which seems to be an oasis for even headed discussion).

gizmo wrote: »

Polygon, on the other hand, may have some review(er)s I don't agree with (sup, Phil Kollar) but their feature work is top notch (some good examples here) compared to their rivals so to see them become a target for what currently appears to be an isolated event is somewhat disheartening.

I'm really not familiar with Polygon's work but I still didn't like the fact that they allowed employees to contribute to Patreons or other fundraising sources of developers they covered in their articles without even disclosing it.

Honestly, sometimes I just feel very meh about the whole thing myself. It's hard to keep track of allegations and what was proven or disproven or what Gamergate "wants". I really wish there was a solid source of information on this that didn't come from dodgy sources like the Youtubers mentioned above but unfortunately any official media seems to be showing this as "some women were attacked for being women and that's the entire story", which makes it very easy to sypathise with the non-gaming layperson who hears about it and thinks it's just a dreadful thing altogether.

gizmo · 25-10-2014 7:57pm

C14N wrote: »

That just plays back into the worries about cliquishness among critics though and the reveal of the GameJournosPro Google Group, which I believe some RPS writers were/are a part of (correct me if I'm wrong).

Sorry, I'm not following, which part of what I said could be construed as problematic with respect to cliquishness? Surely each of those points tend towards a meritocratic approach to coverage?

As for RPS, I just used them as an example but there were plenty of other 9/10+ scores given within the same period. As for their presence on the GameJournoPros list, according to the full list published by Breitbart, none of them were.

C14N wrote: »

Right, but what I was saying is that the composer she is friends with who worked on Gone Home was good friends with Steve Gaynor, the director. He was a recurring guest on the podcast and Gaynor referred to him as his friend in a blog post when they took him on to do the music for Gone Home. My point being that right before she reviewed the game, she appeared on a podcast that did seem to have some personal ties to the creator.

Ah! Well in this case I'm somewhat unsure whether being friends with the friend of the creator of the game qualifies as an ethical concern in itself. Admittedly, the appearance on the podcast muddies things somewhat, but I feel her relationship with Remo to be of far more ethical concern than the more tenuous one with Gaynor. In either case, however, since it still gives the appearance of a conflict of interest it should at best, be avoided and at worst, be accompanied by a rather clear disclaimer under the article.

C14N wrote: »

Well is there anything else technically wrong? It seems to me that it was just written with a rather adversarial tone.

Nope, it was just the tone I was asking about. In the context of the source, the tone is explained somewhat by the language used by the poster presenting it. Their use and assumption of corruption and nepotism being a similar source of exasperation.

C14N wrote: »

What I will say in favour of them though is that they're more open to correcting themselves and discussing their problems than the other side, at least on the KotakuInAction subreddit. People do point out bad information and try to correct themselves (at least that Reno thing did get fixed), which is more than can be said from what I've seen on the other side where most people seem to think that to even hear them out would be a tacit condonation of sexual harassment (for the record, this absolutely does not relate to you or anyone on boards which seems to be an oasis for even headed discussion).

Quite true, I think the strength of a discussion board with a closer community, even if it's a Reddit subforum, has allowed them to greater police some of the nonsense that gets posted. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for some of the Youtubers. In the context of what I would consider non-fringe based figures, their videos have been the worst for some of the more objectionable content posted and rather than actually apologising for it when shown to be wrong, they seem to just dismiss it as no longer important, if even acknowledging it at all.

As for the other side, also quite true. I'd go even further than that though since I think the gaming publications have themselves completely dropped the ball on this. Rather than posting occasional articles on various people who have been harassed, they could instead examine the statements being made, things being posted and events that occur and allow people to gain a better understanding of what's actually happening. As I'm sure you're aware, there's a hell of a lot of misinformation out there and by failing to inform their readership, they're doing everyone, not just themselves, a great disservice.

C14N wrote: »

I'm really not familiar with Polygon's work but I still didn't like the fact that they allowed employees to contribute to Patreons or other fundraising sources of developers they covered in their articles without even disclosing it.

I'm not sure they did actually, I believe the problem was that there was no mention of it in their Ethics Policy prior to all of this. Here's Polygon EiC's statement on the matter.

C14N wrote: »

Honestly, sometimes I just feel very meh about the whole thing myself. It's hard to keep track of allegations and what was proven or disproven or what Gamergate "wants". I really wish there was a solid source of information on this that didn't come from dodgy sources like the Youtubers mentioned above but unfortunately any official media seems to be showing this as "some women were attacked for being women and that's the entire story", which makes it very easy to sypathise with the non-gaming layperson who hears about it and thinks it's just a dreadful thing altogether.

I think many people who lean to either side share a similar sentiment. Hell, even some journalists who have tried to cover the campaign have had similar problems. Jesse Singal of the Boston Globe took to KiA recently to vent his annoyance at this, for instance.

Reekwind · 26-10-2014 6:14pm

wes wrote:

If someone feels strongly about it, then its there right. They may very well be doing it for some stupid reasons, but what there doing is perfectly legal.

I'm not sure why you're brining legality into this or conflating it with morality. It's not illegal; no has said that it was. But then this is not about 'rights', ie what you are legally entitled to do. It is about whether something is the right thing to do. For example, sending someone sexist abuse (short of open threats) online is not, AFAIK, a crime in the US. Do you believe that it's acceptable to send someone sexist abuse? Or, more pertinently, it's not illegal to review a game/film/whatever that your girlfriend has worked on. Don't you have a problem with that?

It's ironic that I have to point this out to someone who (I assume) is arguing for stronger ethics in journalism.

So it's not illegal to attack a site's revenue streams by writing to advertisers on exceptionally tenuous grounds. But that doesn't prevent it being an attempt at censorship. Let's take another example, hypothetical this time. Let's say that Elder Scrolls VI is released and a site gives it a less than glowing review. You are suggesting that the game's fanbase are entirely correct if they decide to write to the site's advertisers in an attempt to get the article withdrawn or the journalist fired. Just because they're outraged by a review? Are they doing anything illegal? No. Are they massively over-reacting? Yes. Do they have a leg to stand on when it comes to preaching about free speech? Not a chance.

(And if you think that that hypothetical reaction is implausible then just look at the posts above on Gone Home. It got good review, GG people don't like it. Conspiracy! To the barricades! Bring out the poor quality JPEGs!)

Which is why I think this Polygon case is so revealing. It shows that:

Like most of what GG does, this was not about ethics. There was no collusion between developers and journalist, no suggestion that anyone had bought the press or was otherwise manipulating it. No dirt. Some people just didn't like the article in question and therefore decided to attack the site. Simple as.
It has nothing to do with free speech. Rather than respond to the article in any way that might be considered a dialogue (ie, 'you're wrong because…') there has been an attempt to force Polygon into changing its editorial line and staff roster by attacking its revenue streams. It may be legal but it trashes the idea that GG is concerned with free speech or engaging constructively with its critics.

What we're seeing here, and largely what I think GG is about, is the assumption that a narrow band of consumers have the automatic and exclusive right to dictate content for all. That is, journalists should only write that which is acceptable to a vocal section that is organised enough to write enough letters. Any suggestion that this is not the case – eg journalists who dare to think differently, any feminist critiques of the industry – is to be smacked down. (Which, ironically enough, is pretty much what those 'gamer as consumer' articles were warning of.) Again, this call clashes with the idea of GG as a campaign for ethics.

Your dare is nonsense. I am not running the campaign, and am not involved in it. It clear that some people are pissed of about it, go ask them, and not someone who isn't involved in it. I already said I would stop visiting the site, and wouldn't be bothered enough to anymore than that.

Well yeah, it's tough to defend the indefensible. There is no reasonable grounds in that article for an advertiser to take seriously. None. Yet hundreds of letters will have been sent in claiming otherwise and encouraging Absolut to withdraw advertising revenue. That ain't right.

C14N wrote:

See, that's not what upset people though and I think you know that. You cut off that article right before it got into the meaty stuff that caused the gamergate campaign to take off so big in the first place. What did upset people was stuff like:

I'm sorry, what? You're suggesting that I deliberately misquoted someone when you then proceed to quote from an entirely different article? I really shouldn't be surprised. The article that I was referring to is here.

I repeat: explain to me what is so offensive about that article that GG decided to organiser a mail campaign to Polygon's advertisers.

I would agree that it's unfair and childish to do something like this if someone has an opinion you don't agree with. However, when the person's opinion is so venomously and personally insulting to most of the readers, it kind of makes sense. I support free speech but not consequence-free speech and she said some pretty hurtful stuff there.

Wait, what? How was anything in Alexander's article "venomously and personally insulting"? Never mind comparable to racist stereotypes. Did she single you out for insult? Did she claim that all 'gamers' are morons? Or is any critique of 'gamer culture', even when it comes from within the milieu, just unacceptable?

(There is of course a deep irony in a 'movement' that's hostile to 'SJWs getting upset about things' themselves proving to have wafer-thin skin and lashing out at anyone deemed to have caused them offense.)

This is what journalists do. They discuss and critique culture, evaluating its merits and bemoaning where it falls short. They are not just there to dole out scores to games or breathlessly gush over previews. They have a role, amongst others, in curating culture.

Which is the massive irony in all of this. Alexander and others are calling for a better form of journalism, a broader one that goes beyond attending press junkets and shaking hands. It's one of the reasons why the indie scene – with its fewer commercial constraints and willingness to explore new ground – has been such a breath of fresh air. It allows journalists to explore themes like sexuality and depression and loss in a way that AAA titles rarely do. It let's them step outside the elaborate, and corrupting, constraints and set-pieces of PR and publishers.

And then they get slapped down by a section of the community who feel that they have exclusive rights to the 'gamer' label and that any criticism of the industry's culture (or any criticism that suggests that they are no longer front and centre) is personally insulting. It is vexing. It is incredibly annoying to see so much of the progress in escaping the computer game ghetto undone by the failure of these dolts to accept change. People fly into a rage because someone suggests that "queuing passionately for hours… to see the things that marketers want them to see" is something that most people who play games don't have an interest in (and therefore more is needed from games culture).

No one has threatened to take away 'gamer' toys or to stop people queuing for tat. But some of us happen to feel that what we have now isn't enough, that gaming culture needs more. Apparently that very suggestion is grounds for a crusade of unabashed anger.

The only thing you have to ask is what sort of groups are okay to be talked about this way. If it's acceptable because it's a group associated by hobby instead of nationality or race, then what other kinds are fair game? People associated by school attended? University degree? Occupation? Preferred operating system? Team supported?

So now it's impossible to comment on, say, the environment inside sports stadiums? The quality of a social scene in a university? The level of cultural education provided by a school? The degree to which people become personally invested in a brand of OS or phone? The impact of X Factor on popular culture?

I would expect journalists to do all these things. Not worry that X Factor viewers will take offence and declare themselves to be a persecuted group, vilified by the media and suffering discrimination akin to racism. Because in every other medium people are mature enough not to flying off the handle when someone ponders the state of their medium and its accompanying culture. Which is why I think that the problems with GG go well beyond a few 'extremists' sending death threats. That's just a manifestation of a much broader cultural meltdown.

BMMachine · 27-10-2014 1:23am

good article (may involve satire )

gizmo · 27-10-2014 3:26pm

So TotalBiscuit posted this piece on Soundcloud yesterday about the whole affair. It contains a whole bunch of excellent talking points, starting at around the 07:45 mark, including some very actionable ones by games journalists, and is probably the first decent summation of something approach a series of aims for the campaign thus far.

Hopefully we see some kind of response from both sides on this.

Sonics2k · 27-10-2014 11:12pm

gizmo wrote: »

So TotalBiscuit posted this piece on Soundcloud yesterday about the whole affair. It contains a whole bunch of excellent talking points, starting at around the 07:45 mark, including some very actionable ones by games journalists, and is probably the first decent summation of something approach a series of aims for the campaign thus far.

Hopefully we see some kind of response from both sides on this.

I've been a big fan of TB since his early WoWRadio days and though in the past I've gotten bored of him, I rarely disagree with him. Fantastic little bit there.

BMMachine · 28-10-2014 12:55am

in true TB style he doesn't say anything new or anything that isn't obvious, though he is popular so maybe people need to hear it from him. I dunno, I'm really loving the "actually its about ethics in gaming journalism" memes. helps put things in perspective, especially the walter white one

Timmyctc · 28-10-2014 1:10am

BMMachine wrote: »

in true TB style he doesn't say anything new or anything that isn't obvious, though he is popular so maybe people need to hear it from him. I dunno, I'm really loving the "actually its about ethics in gaming journalism" memes. helps put things in perspective, especially the walter white one

Thats one thing about TB I never 'got'. On Reddit and that he is lauded as this genius but he's never really saying anything more incisive than what is an average sensible opinion. (Granted, online a lot of those sensible opinions are buried by the unthinking majority)

BMMachine · 28-10-2014 1:28am

Timmyctc wrote: »

Thats one thing about TB I never 'got'. On Reddit and that he is lauded as this genius but he's never really saying anything more incisive than what is an average sensible opinion. (Granted, online a lot of those sensible opinions are buried by the unthinking majority)

i said something a long those lines on reddit, essentially saying how he isn't really that special and perhaps people should broaden their horizons.

attacked, downvoted to hell (what an abhorrent system btw. thank god boards doesnt have similar) and then dozens of random messages and insults on my twitter from his fans

I don't even know how they found my twitter!?
personally, I think its people taking insult at the potential of being insulted. they draw a line from a to b to c in their heads without thinking things through and then puke and piss all over whoever might be potentially 'insulting' them. I think thats at the crux of this whole thing. "im not a chauvinist how dare you call me one! well eat this!"

Timmyctc · 28-10-2014 2:39am

BMMachine wrote: »

i said something a long those lines on reddit, essentially saying how he isn't really that special and perhaps people should broaden their horizons.

attacked, downvoted to hell (what an abhorrent system btw. thank god boards doesnt have similar) and then dozens of random messages and insults on my twitter from his fans I don't even know how they found my twitter!?
personally, I think its people taking insult at the potential of being insulted. they draw a line from a to b to c in their heads without thinking things through and then puke and piss all over whoever might be potentially 'insulting' them. I think thats at the crux of this whole thing. "im not a chauvinist how dare you call me one! well eat this!"

Again. Not an issue with Radical Feminists/Misogynsts/Homophobes etc. Just a massive issue with 90% of Internet users being unmitigated asshats. :pac:

DeVore · 28-10-2014 2:28pm

And then people still complain at me about the Boards.ie Civility rule and how we will die off and blah blah blah... Boards has its faults but as the internet has evolved, I'm going to chalk those decisions up as a win and walk away from an explosion, casually ignoring it.

Reekwind · 28-10-2014 7:54pm

Film Critic Hulk has waded into the melee and, as always, he smashes it.

gizmo wrote: »

It contains a whole bunch of excellent talking points, starting at around the 07:45 mark, including some very actionable ones by games journalists, and is probably the first decent summation of something approach a series of aims for the campaign thus far.

Hopefully we see some kind of response from both sides on this.

Any attempt to actually articulate what GG wants is certainly welcome. The fact that most of these items are nonsense isn't so welcome. Some requirements for journalists that jumped out at me:

Apologise for the mere 'appearance of impropriety' in a number of cases. What they did was fine but some people think it looks dodgy
'Acknowledge the possibility' they caused offence with 'incendiary language' in those 'death of gamer' articles. Which is the first time I've heard someone request one of those 'I'm sorry that you were offended' faux apologies
Don't 'hang around' with professionals in your field because you're supposed to be in competition
Automatically append counter-arguments to comments/articles on Sarkeesian. That one in particular is just a bizarre intrusion

(Paraphrasing because someone decided that Soundcloud is a better medium for this sort of thing than the written word.)

None of those require apologies because they are part and parcel of journalism. They're part of any profession or small cultural scene. Trying to put up a concrete wall between journalists and journalists or journalists and developers is not just pointless but counterproductive. Some of the above, particularly the suggestion of enforced editorial policies on Sarkeesian, are just unacceptable and betray a real ignorance as to how journalism or the world works. I don't believe that there is anything new to be said on those points.

Then there are those points that are debatable (eg Patreon) and those that are probably fair. But with the exception of a few named cases (eg Gamespot and Metacritic, neither of which have been at the centre of the storm) I don't see what other concrete actions this list provides for. Nor am I sure why a youTube personality should be offering to mediate in a dispute supposedly over ethics.

But then nor do I believe that this has ever been about 'sides'. Trying to identify parties to involve to a sit-down would be a fun game in itself.

Grumpypants · 28-10-2014 8:26pm

Reekwind wrote: »

None of those require apologies because they are part and parcel of journalism. They're part of any profession or small cultural scene. Trying to put up a concrete wall between journalists and journalists or journalists and developers is not just pointless but counterproductive. .

Why can't they say "my friend made this game, that might cloud my judgement but I still think it is a really good game and if you like games XYZ then you are likely going to like this one too, you don't have to buy it but if you do i think you will enjoy it".

Rather than just saying "you must buy this game" and not mentioning that the person who made the game is your friend.

Lots of journalists are friends with developers but they mention that, once they are open about it no one cares. No one wants a clear impossible divide between the two they just want to the journalist to be objective or if they can't be, to be honest.

kunst nugget · 29-10-2014 1:00am

Reekwind wrote: »

Film Critic Hulk has waded into the melee and, as always, he smashes it.

Honestly, that is the most fantastic article I've read on the whole ball of snot that is gamergate. Really enjoyed that.

Reekwind · 29-10-2014 9:01am

Grumpypants wrote: »

Why can't they say "my friend made this game, that might cloud my judgement but I still think it is a really good game and if you like games XYZ then you are likely going to like this one too, you don't have to buy it but if you do i think you will enjoy it".

Rather than just saying "you must buy this game" and not mentioning that the person who made the game is your friend.

Because, with what looks to be a single possible exception (ie Patricia Hernandez), the second case has not been happening. It just hasn't. We hear that games journalism is incredibly corrupt but the trawl of the past two months has picked up zero evidence of this. Happening to know someone who worked on the sound design for a game does not qualify as a conflict of interest.

(Do film critics append their reviews with notes like 'I occasionally have a drink with the grip who worked on this flick'? Or 'here's a list of acquaintance of mine who was involved in this project in any way'?)

Which is why if you took a marker to TB's list and split it into 'no grounds for complaint', 'debatable or needs investigation' and 'definitely needs action', there are very few points sitting in that last bucket. The cynic in me would suggest that that is precisely why this list hasn't been articulated before now. Instead there's been badly made JPEGs and conspiracy theories.

It's also why everyone is so deeply sceptical about the charge that this is about ethics in gaming. If a massive scandal had been unearthed then that charge would have a lot more weight. Which is what I think TB, in accepting the GG demands at face value, has missed entirely.

Nody · 29-10-2014 3:11pm

You know having watched this video which is a summary of a woman walking around NY not talking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

and knowing she got rape threats with in two hours of the video going up; you have to really ask is there a Gamer issue which is what Gamergate tries to portray or is there simply a general issue with how females are treated no matter the media (and games and gamers are at best peripheral if that to the problem at hand). I'm inclined towards the second; there is no Gamergate issue because the issue is not about games or gamers; it's about the general attitude to women everywhere at all times.

kunst nugget · 29-10-2014 3:32pm

Nody wrote: »

You know having watched this video which is a summary of a woman walking around NY not talking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

and knowing she got rape threats with in two hours of the video going up; you have to really ask is there a Gamer issue which is what Gamergate tries to portray or is there simply a general issue with how females are treated no matter the media (and games and gamers are at best peripheral if that to the problem at hand). I'm inclined towards the second; there is no Gamergate issue because the issue is not about games or gamers; it's about the general attitude to women everywhere at all times.

But don't you know that it's about ethics in games journalism?

You're right though. Gamergate is not really the be all and end all of harassment against women, it's just another battleground for gender flame wars.

Evac101 · 29-10-2014 4:58pm

Honestly, I'm sick of this discussion because the people who feel x don't want to have their minds changed and the people who feel y equally don't. Both sides actually have some points:

whether there is extensive corruption in the gaming press, I have no idea, there's definitely legitimate examples which have been mentioned in this thread and others which have not + however many we're completely unaware of. Given the GG movements ability to PR I don't have huge faith in their ability to investigate journalists.
there seems to be a general vibe of the gaming press feeling that it can dictate what is and is not important to their readers, instead of the other way around. Editorial policies seem to re-enforce this impression and the spate of "Gamer is dead" articles either indicate that the writers can spit out a fully considered article in less then 24 hours and don't mind seeming to be plagiarising their competitors or that something fairly unsubtle was going on in an attempt to shape a discussion.
there is absolutely sexism on the internet, there's also sexism in lots of other arenas so let's not pretend that this is a horrific example of a attitude which the rest of society has moved past - it's a reflection of society coupled with, relative, anonymity. It's hateful and abhorrent but it isn't limited to the internet and the most unpleasant examples of this behaviour aren't even to be found there (except as articles on news websites)
people on both sides of the divide have done stupid, hateful and, hopefully at some point, legally actionable things which are best reported to the authorities for investigation and, if there is any fairness in life, brought to court at a later point for criminal processing
both sides have figures attempting to reap personal benefit from the ongoing scuffles. No, I'm not even referring to Anita S, Brianna Wu or Ms Quinn, there are plenty of others being much more overt in their attempts to manipulate the discussions/debates/arguments/fights to bring themselves and their agendas to the forefront of their respective sides

While I, of course, like CRITIC HULK I found his assertion that there is no evidence of corruption in the gaming press (a claim which he feels can be dismissed in half a second) to be naive at best - if (clueless generally) I know of examples of it prior to this whole thing blowing up then surely HULK would too?

And, without meaning to be petty Kunst for every flippant "But don't you know that it's about ethics in games journalism?", we could equally say of the Anti-GG movement, "But don't you know that everyone against it is full of sweetness, light and gender tolerance?". I really hate the whole dismissive tone of it, the idea that the people supporting it aren't worthy of debating is the impression it gives me. Unless they've been equally dismissive towards you it seems disrespectful and, as you've posted that this is about sexism that seems contradictory*. If they have then I absolutely retract that :P

Whether the Gamergate tag/movement/whatever has been poisoned irreparably by horrible people who have been involved/become involved/adopted it for trolling purposes I couldn't tell you, however as long as people on either side are posting what seem to be reasoned statements, I'll continue to do them the courtesy of reading them and then making my mind up based on the merits of the argument rather then the side of the fence. Unless they've been mean to Kunst, in which case f*ck em.

*Post posting it occurred to me that I should expand on my feeling that most of life's woes are down to people not respecting each other as individuals. I'm an individual who happens to be a man, my wife is an individual who happens to be a woman, as long as I respect someone primary as an individual everything else is window dressing, more or less.

PS As someone with a beard which sometimes (when I'm being too lazy) invades my neck, can we please stop using that as an derogatory term? Pretty please?

gizmo · 29-10-2014 5:51pm

Evac101 wrote: »

While I, of course, like CRITIC HULK I found his assertion that there is no evidence of corruption in the gaming press (a claim which he feels can be dismissed in half a second) to be naive at best - if (clueless generally) I know of examples of it prior to this whole thing blowing up then surely HULK would too?

There is a very large difference between "there is no evidence of corruption in the gaming press" and "there is no evidence that the gaming press is corrupt" though. Inappropriate use of the word corruption aside, the movement appears to have been pushing the notion that the industry as a whole is corrupt, that it is a widespread or systemic problem. In order to prove this they've pointed to very limited number of examples where journalists and their respective editors have appeared to fail to live up to the ethical standards expected of them. It is this fallacy which I believe Film Critic Hulk is referring to.

kunst nugget · 29-10-2014 5:53pm

Evac101 wrote: »

And, without meaning to be petty Kunst for every flippant "But don't you know that it's about ethics in games journalism?", we could equally say of the Anti-GG movement, "But don't you know that everyone against it is full of sweetness, light and gender tolerance?". I really hate the whole dismissive tone of it, the idea that the people supporting it aren't worthy of debating is the impression it gives me. Unless they've been equally dismissive towards you it seems disrespectful and, as you've posted that this is about sexism that seems contradictory*. If they have then I absolutely retract that :P

Honestly, I was just joking using the tagline of all those memes but if you perceive me as being dismissive about the whole movement, you know what - maybe I am. I've been examining all areas of this and I just don't find anything I can really see as anything valid about gamergate. If it's about ethics in journalism then why is it only about a few very minor issues and perceived indiscretions about indie games and not the absolutely massive elephant in the room that is ad revenue from. Honestly, it's total bullshít. I've seen reams and reams of claims and counter claims and do you know what, it's all utter nonsense. It's people grasping at straws to have something to give this movement meaning. And for what? What does it achieve besides hounding people on twitter and potentially destroying lives? Cleaner games journalism? Jesus, it's puff piece reviews about games with a couple of op eds thrown in for clickbait. It's essentially fluff and yet some people need to make into some sinister cabal of conspiratorial white knights hoping to destroy the industry by giving good reviews to indie games in exchange for sexual favours because that's obviously the only way that women can compete. It's nonsense. People complaining and people complaining about people complaining and doxxing and counter doxxing and people getting offended all over the place. And at the very core of it? Nothing, absolutely nothing…

Reekwind · 29-10-2014 7:07pm

Evac101 wrote: »

While I, of course, like CRITIC HULK I found his assertion that there is no evidence of corruption in the gaming press (a claim which he feels can be dismissed in half a second) to be naive at best - if (clueless generally) I know of examples of it prior to this whole thing blowing up then surely HULK would too?

You have examples of the "WIDESPREAD PROBLEM [with corruption] IN GAMING JOURNALISM (ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH INDIE DEVELOPERS)"?

Which is, as I said above, very much the issue here. Where are the damning outputs of the past few months of trawling through tweets and game credits? Where is the list of examples of outright corruption that GG has produced? To me, the most damning element of all of this affair is that nothing, nothing, has emerged that compares to the most notable previous -gate in the industry. But I've covered this above and would be quite happy to see someone try to defend TB's more absurd requirements.

Now, I would still have disagreed with Film Critic Hulk if he hadn't have gone on to acknowledge that "THERE IS A PRETTY DECENT ARGUMENT TO BE MADE ABOUT THE WAY THE AAA DEVELOPERS TRY TO CONTROL MEDIA OUTLETS, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FOLKS BEHIND GAMERGATE DO NOT SEEM AS INTERESTED IN THAT ISSUE (THOUGH WHEN YOU BRING IT UP, THEY SAY THEY ARE, THEN PROCEED TO DIRECT ZERO IRE THAT WAY AND INSTEAD CRITICIZE PEOPLE SPEAKING UP ON MISOGYNY... AND IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A MOVEMENT IS REALLY ABOUT, LOOK AT WHO THEY ARE REALLY TARGETING / THE EFFECT)."

And when GG starts doing that - starts uncovering examples of real corruption, real transgressions that amount to more than Indie Developer A being an acquaintance of Games Journalist B - well, then I'll start believing that it's actually all about ethics.

johnny_ultimate · 29-10-2014 7:39pm

One of the things GamerGate has further highlighted for me is the continued amount of irrational hatred, spite and anger over indie games that exists out there. I can't get my head around the level of vitriol people have against Gone Home particularly (I was not remotely surprised when that happened to be the title involved in the case people decided to rally behind). Here's this small, brave little game that successfully attempts to do something we haven't seen in games before, and the ire directed its way is genuinely astonishing. It's not just that isolated case either - have a look over at the Playstation Plus thread in the PS forum and see the response that happens everytime Sony announces another batch of smaller, acclaimed independent titles for PS+ instead of AAA ones (there were more announced just today, and the reaction was inevitable). A lot of people ****ing hate independent games, despite the fact that description covers an immensely vast and diverse spectrum of titles.

I think Leigh Alexander hit the nail on the head with the description 'hyper consumers', and there's probably a bit of that in all of us who play games. Look at how excited everyone gets about E3 - which is effectively an incredibly successful advertising event held by the seven or eight companies with the most money, where millions tune in to what is in essence a glorified infomercial. I think the big publishers have had a fundamental impact on the way games are discussed, covered and appreciated to a pretty dangerous degree, and yet that seems to have been completely ignored throughout this whole process.

jill_valentine · 29-10-2014 8:07pm

Nody wrote: »

You know having watched this video which is a summary of a woman walking around NY not talking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

and knowing she got rape threats with in two hours of the video going up; you have to really ask is there a Gamer issue which is what Gamergate tries to portray or is there simply a general issue with how females are treated no matter the media (and games and gamers are at best peripheral if that to the problem at hand). I'm inclined towards the second; there is no Gamergate issue because the issue is not about games or gamers; it's about the general attitude to women everywhere at all times.

I don't know if any of you guys follow Canadian indie music news but what I've seen happen in a lot of discussions - outside of the real cesspits - about gamergate rather reminds me of what's going on with Jian Ghomeshi.

Ghomeshi is a popular and until now well liked radio personality. A while ago it emerged that he has been both sexually harrassing co workers and being sexually violent to young women he picked up over Facebook.

When the word got out, a lot of Canadian indie dudes were absolutely outraged at the accusations because it seemed to them impossible. They couldn't imagine Ghomeshi being capable of this stuff, so it seemed to them like a terrible conspiracy against a good guy out of the blue.

Canadian indie women, on the other hand, with one notable exception, were not surprised. At all. In fact, their general reaction was "finally". Plenty of them had some nasty anecdotes of their own, and I have it on very good authority that what's emerged so far is the tip of the iceberg.

The thing is, the guys who jumped to defend Ghomeshi aren't bad guys. From their POV, a terrible injustice was happening to their friend. They couldn't imagine him being capable of these horrifying things because they'd never seen him in action, and they were never going to be the target of them. Therefore, the accusers - all 7+ of them and counting - must be acting out of some terrific malevolence. There's also a sense that they feel like they're being held as complicit - "if people think Jian's guilty, they must think I knew he was doing it" is a pretty good reason to feel defensive.

But that's not the deal. I don't know how many guys around Toronto media knew. But I absolutely believe most of them didn't, not really. Admitting Ghomeshi has very certainly done some utterly terrible things while travelling in their company doesn't leave them with anything to defend themselves against. Yes, as Owen Pallett laid out, there were warning signs he might have picked up on if he'd known to look, but Pallett was never going to be intuitively suspicious of his friend. He wasn't on the look out - all he knew was that Ghomeshi was a "very bad date".

I know not all dude gamers are misogynists, and nobody's saying they are. But it's okay to acknowledge that there is serious and widespread misogyny in gaming. The problem is there whether the consensus admits it or not. Women gamers know it because they experience it. Guy gamers are never going to understand the full extent of it because they aren't the targets - they aren't tuned to see the low level stuff because they don't have to be, and they aren't going to see it in full bore action because it's not aimed at them. It's also true to say that Gamers aren't uniquely or inherently prone to misogyny, and I've spoken before about my sincere belief that it's a relatively recent import from "mainstream" pop culture.

Also of note, was that the four women who kicked off the scandal all cited death threats and intense online harrassment of a previous woman as a major reason they did not come forward. It's not a phenomenon unique to gaming circles by any means.

Incidentally, the first thing Ghomeshi tried to do when the poop started hitting the fan was try to pretend the actual thing he was fired for wasn't the issue. It was really about...

DeVore · 29-10-2014 8:15pm

that's quite a reasonable and probably accurate summation Jill.

In addition there is something else which will add to the problem. The latest trend of "ITS ABOUT ETHICS IN JOURNALISM" is damaging and counterproductive. It will lead the reasonable people who maybe don't understand how bad its gotten for women recently, to feel like they're points are being simply shouted down. When moderates begin to feel like that, its my experience that they quickly become less moderate

Evac101 · 29-10-2014 10:43pm

Reekwind wrote: »

You have examples of the "WIDESPREAD PROBLEM [with corruption] IN GAMING JOURNALISM (ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH INDIE DEVELOPERS)"?

Which is, as I said above, very much the issue here. Where are the damning outputs of the past few months of trawling through tweets and game credits? Where is the list of examples of outright corruption that GG has produced? To me, the most damning element of all of this affair is that nothing, nothing, has emerged that compares to the most notable previous -gate in the industry. But I've covered this above and would be quite happy to see someone try to defend TB's more absurd requirements.

Now, I would still have disagreed with Film Critic Hulk if he hadn't have gone on to acknowledge that "THERE IS A PRETTY DECENT ARGUMENT TO BE MADE ABOUT THE WAY THE AAA DEVELOPERS TRY TO CONTROL MEDIA OUTLETS, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FOLKS BEHIND GAMERGATE DO NOT SEEM AS INTERESTED IN THAT ISSUE (THOUGH WHEN YOU BRING IT UP, THEY SAY THEY ARE, THEN PROCEED TO DIRECT ZERO IRE THAT WAY AND INSTEAD CRITICIZE PEOPLE SPEAKING UP ON MISOGYNY... AND IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A MOVEMENT IS REALLY ABOUT, LOOK AT WHO THEY ARE REALLY TARGETING / THE EFFECT)."

And when GG starts doing that - starts uncovering examples of real corruption, real transgressions that amount to more than Indie Developer A being an acquaintance of Games Journalist B - well, then I'll start believing that it's actually all about ethics.

Seems neither of us can attribute his quote correctly - I conflated it with the general state of journalism, you took it down a completely different rabbit hole when, rereading the source, he was only referring to the original quinn/kotaku accusations. Two wrong, it seems, just completely make no sense.

Once again, as I said in my last post, I have no idea of what the current state of gaming journalism is. I know of specific examples of corruption in gaming journalism, other examples of exceeding poor professional eithics in gaming journalism. I can point to these and say "Bad journalists!". I can't say that I know, honestly, whether or not there is a pervasive or endemic corruption issue in gaming/non-gaming journalism. What I am saying is that blindly assuming that there isn't might, on the face of the evidence already present before this GG business ever blew up, not be the smartest judgment call.

I'm also saying that as long as people are trying to put their argument forward in a constructive manner that I'll try to listen and understand their points, with a view to improving my understanding of the overall situation. Feel free to discount the opinions of anyone doxing you for sure but if someone is genuinely trying to foster a dialog, allow them to try.

COYVB · 29-10-2014 10:56pm

The tag Gamergate has been tarnished to such an extent, and been jumped upon my so many people who aren't helping it, that it's time to walk away from it for anyone who is ACTUALLY concerned with ethical game journalism. There's absolutely, definitely, 100% the need for something there to ACTUALLY be concerned with journalistic ethics, and there's no reason those who support those ideals, but don't support the baggage of GG can't mobilize and get something started on that front

Sonics2k · 29-10-2014 11:05pm

COYVB wrote: »

The tag Gamergate has been tarnished to such an extent, and been jumped upon my so many people who aren't helping it, that it's time to walk away from it for anyone who is ACTUALLY concerned with ethical game journalism. There's absolutely, definitely, 100% the need for something there to ACTUALLY be concerned with journalistic ethics, and there's no reason those who support those ideals, but don't support the baggage of GG can't mobilize and get something started on that front

I don't see why any discussion can't be done without invoking that bloody hashtag, this goes for both sides.

Let's discuss misogyny in games, gaming culture and game development. Great, let's do this. But let's ignore the extremely obvious trolls who seek to get cheap thrills from sick threats. Rule #14 of the Internet. Do not argue with trolls.

Let's discuss ethical journalism, and developers taking huge advantages of their friends who are journalists to get great reviews and push their games on their websites. But let's not resort to name calling and insulting them for whatever reason.

And finally, to open a can of worms. Why aren't there more strong Latina female heroes in gaming. I'm sure a decent percentage of female gamers are latino. :pac:

johnny_ultimate · 29-10-2014 11:12pm

The whole Gamergate tag doesn't even make any sense anyway. How can you be pro and anti-Gamergate? It's like someone saying they're pro-Watergate :pac:

The English language demands that we move on.

BlitzKrieg · 29-10-2014 11:12pm

funny thing is it would have been very easy to move to a new tag without all the baggage

except it was one of the first things suggested by Zoe Quinn (she suggested the tag "#GameEthics) for those saying it was about ethics and were trying to rid themselves of the baggage of the hatred.

Say's a lot about the "minority" of gamergate targeting Zoe Quinn that they were able to make everybody dig their heels in with gamergate rather then dropping the hate very early on.

The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

Comments