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

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

There have been some articles written with feminist tones for seemingly little reason where there were much meatier gaming related topics that could have been covered but were ignored.
I vaguely recall something about a PS4 presentation that was severely lacking in quality, but an article was written about how there were no female presenters instead of taking on the real gaming-related issues.

On paper, there's nothing wrong with also having an article written about the lack of female presenters on stage though. Remember the assumptions made when Ubisoft got Aisha Tyler as their keynote speaker? There's also nothing wrong with an article on the lack of games featuring female protagonists on stage or about how the only female shown on stage at the Ubisoft presentation was the helpless mother being held hostage in Rainbow Six. The fact that these articles exist, however, hasn't stopped plenty of other articles being written on the subject from, in this instance, the poor pacing of the presentation to the lack of Vita games on-display.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

This was poorly done and the video isn't exactly perfect, he would have been better served to simply pose the question as to why she is getting so much attention where other feminist causes are being ignored.

The topic is getting lots of attention in the gaming press and across related sites. The amount of abuse that Quinn and Sarkeesian has gotten is what has caused it to get so much coverage by other non-game specific outlets. For instance, if you were into comics you'd probably have heard about Milo Manara's pretty awful variant cover for the new Spider-Woman comic or going a bit further back, the representation of female hero's in Marvel's New 52 run. There has been plenty of open criticism of both of these topics yet, since there hasn't been a campaign of abuse waged against their authors, the stories have predominately stayed within the sphere of comic-book and other related sites.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Personally I think she gets the attention she does because she is controversial and gets clicks.
Things like The Fine Young Capitalists is great but it's hard to get people to argue about it so it's not worth so many clicks.

There's also a snowball effect on display. Look at some of the bigger commentators and how they worded their articles. Whether it was larger sources like some of the Editorial pieces from some gaming sites to the relatively smaller responses from the likes of Total Biscuit and Jim Sterling, they nearly all start with "we've been asked to comment on this so here it is". People, gamers, are inundating these people with requests to talk about it, give their opinion on it and write articles on it. The more that happens, the more coverage it gets and the longer the issue will be discussed.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

But it's not really about the sex, it's about the corruption of games journalism.

No, it's not about the sex, it was made about the sex by a large number of the commentators though. Not only that, but news outlets were criticised for not commenting on the story despite the total lack of evidence against Quinn. There was a blogpost written by an ex-boyfriend about their private lives, one which was ultimately shown to be factually incorrect in a key area, removing the potential for conflict of interest for "reviews" which, as it happens, never existed in the first place. This is not "evidence" and wouldn't be considered as such in any other realm of media save for maybe the likes of TMZ or the Daily Mail.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

How is writing about a friends achievements in positive light, without disclosing they are a friend, fair to the reader?
Do you not think that such an article might be biased?
Do you think the reader should be informed as such?

What about the high profile people banding together to shut down conversations of the topic?

While I'm very much in favour of the press being transparent when it comes to their relationships with developers or publishers, it's not a completely black and white subject. For instance, should journalists recuse themselves for writing about people or projects which they've back on the likes of Patreon and Kickstarter?

In your specific example, I suppose I would like to see the author say they are friends with that person but, at the same time, I don't believe such an article would have been inherently biased in the first place. I mean sure, it could be but if I felt that way about a certain writer then why would I trust anything they write? Why not just go and read someone else's work?

As for people banding together to shut down conversation, again they appeared to be trying to shut down a specific type of conversation even if it was done in an overly heavy handed way. A barge pole type manner, if you will. From a cursory glance of it before the mass deletions, the two topics were so completely intertwined due to the complete lack of actual evidence that the chance of one being discussed without the other was completely remote. On top of that, the assumptions immediately jumped to were again completely over the top. The Reddit Mod communication on Twitter, for example, was framed in a manner to show there was secret collusion between the two and ignored the fact that it's generally reddit policy to inform a person if they believe they're going to be the victim of a doxx attack.

kunst nugget wrote: »

This is a nonsense and you know it. In nearly every other instance if someone used this logic there'd be an outcry about the definition of rape being twisted but because it suits an agenda suddenly people are able to shout from the rooftops that Zoe Quinn is a rapist. What if she used condoms that let's say for argument's sake are 98% effective against STDs. Is she then only 2% of a rapist? Like I said already the logic is extremely shoddy and being used merely as smear tactic. She might be a hypocrite but she's not a rapist.

I have no problem judging someone by their own standards no matter how crazy they are. She judged people that cheated on their partners as rapist so why cant we hold her to her own standard.

Cydoniac wrote: »

This is what the outside world sees when we encourage people to get into gaming or use it as a path to education. It's mortifying. When people ask if I play games I have to actually hesitate and shrug it off initially, I am that embarrassed to be associated with any such culture. Fortunately, there is a neutral majority.

This sort of sentiment is daft to me.

If someone is basing their opinion of gaming on gobsh*tery like this, why would their opinion matter to you?

It's like someone writing football off because some of the crowd act like dickheads.

If they're not making any effort to understand their opinion is worthless.

I lost my half written reply to a dodgey computer and lame internet. At my own now so lets get back to it!

Cydoniac wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this?

The video linked to by Potatoeman shows some chat logs and such by Quinn where she rails on people who cheat in a relationship.
Which she did, making her a hypocrite.
He also shows that she thinks people who are cheated on and not told are not able to give consent to their partner if they are not told about the affair. Quinn cheated, didn't tell and after had sex with her boyfriend.
By her logic (and she admits this on Twitter) she is a rapist.

Relevant section of the video

Cydoniac wrote: »

That makes an assumption that it isn't possible to critically judge something if you know someone. I find it strange when people cry for 'transparent journalism '. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism when it comes to art mediums, music, film, graphics or games. People will always review, taking their predisposed views with them. If a review was truly unbiased they would be the same for every game. People enjoy certain reviewers for being brash, or descriptive, or humourous. I don't think it's a very important point in the grand scale of things. If there was something wrong with the state of games journalism, it wasn't caused by a game developer, I can tell you that. If you want real corruption in journalism, start looking at the AAA companies and where their money goes into major game sites.

If there were a journalist who could write without bias we would only need one journalist.
I want a game critic with the same biases as myself (I want one for you too), so I can know if he likes the game, I will like it. It's also important to have a reviewer like a game in spite of his biases, E.G. Say Yahtzee finds that he likes the upcoming Heroes of the Storm, in spite of his dislike of multiplayer games, that would be a huge point in Blizzards favor.
So no, I don't want a world where journalists have no biases, I want one where their biases are based on what the game is rather than who made it. And if they can't do that then we should be told at the start of the article.

Cydoniac wrote: »

We're still making a lot of assumptions based on an emotive account from an ex. Pinch of salt and all that, yeah? We've all had an ex who felt bitter afterwards and tried to do something to ruin our day or worse, career.


Someone is viciously being attacked and the subject of a multitude of 'chinese whispers' accusations, at a really scary level. The same would happen on Boards here if people started gossiping about a politician or public figure. Why entertain it, better for all if things are allowed to cool down. There are many avenues in which people are talking about it entirely unmoderated. Again, nobody talks about the game, just her, instead hopping onto Metacritic and Steam to give it a negative review 'because she's corrupting games journalism'.

Seriously, check those reviews. Every second one judges the game entirely on the fact that Zoe Quinn 'is a girl', or because she is being bullied, or because she slept with someone. How childish can you get? I am not hugely into the game myself, but that's merely more to do with the fact I just don't go for pure text adventures that cover more domestic topics. Loads of those reviews name dropping that video where Zoe is pontificated on for 'sleeping with men for her own gain as an entrepreneur'.

I think everyone in this thread agrees that hurling abuse at anyone across the internet is a reprehensible thing to do. I would much rather see this all laid out nice and plain without rabid abuse, lies and DMCA Takedowns.

Keep in mind there is abuse flying both ways, TotalBiscuit had quite a level-headed commentary on the topic and Phil Fish attacked him, straight out.
Here is his TL:DR of the situation

TL:DR - If Zoey Quinn did engage in censorship via the abuse of the DMCA on Youtube then I thoroughly condemn her actions as being both ****ing stupid and unethical. If outlets did provide her favourable coverage because she had intimate relations with some of the writers, they're goddamn idiots for doing it, why the hell would you compromise the trust of your readers for that? The ****storm is too insane right now to make a huge amount of sense of and I have no idea what is true and what isn't. Cooler heads prevail, heard of that phrase? Calm the **** down and things might become clearer. Also please stop shouting at me, thanks.

Phil's response.

That boy ain't right...

Cydoniac wrote: »

Honestly though, if we're lowering the discussion to 'Zoe said she's a rapist so I think she's a rapist'... Let's not go there, please? .

Why not? Nobody here said that....she said it herself.

If people are going to post such crazy tirades, it's only right that they are held up to their own standard....which she didn't manage to do. She's a hypocrite.

Cydoniac wrote: »

"it will destroy gaming for the male population forever" :pac::pac::pac:

At this stage I'm just laughing at everyone. :pac:

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

"Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

On another note, seems several of the actresses that had personal photos stolen and shared online are the latest victims of the misogynist mob Hopefully it will highlight in more mainstream outlets how this small minority really need to have some serious action taken against them. There should be real life consequences to these sort of threats and attacks.

Please don't paint all anons/ gamers with the same brush.
It is simplistic and ignores basic logic.
The more important question is, why would you visit a site that publishes these privacy violations, and give them ad revenue for doing so?

kunst nugget wrote: »

I really, really don't understand the hysterical levels of hate directed at this woman. So she examines things from a feminist perspective? Big fúcking deal! She's not forcing people to eat aborted fetuses. So she made money for herself? Again, whoop-de-fooking-doo! I make money for myself in my job. Should people hate me for that?

Christ on a stick, there's some of the stuff in her videos that strains credibility and some it is slightly hectoring in parts but you'd swear she was advocating chemical castration the way some people go on about it.

I don't understand the hysterical level of hate either, but then we both know you mean me.

I do not hate Sarkeesian, I just don't like her method and think she can and will stretch the truth and exaggerate her findings to suit her needs. For the record I also find people like Thunderfoot and the Amazing Atheist go do the same thing, and don't like them either.

She's fine to make money from her career, got no problem with that that, I just don't like the sheer amount of lies she tells and gets away with because we're not allowed call her out. She does not deserve the disgusting levels of abuse she gets and anyone sending her death threats and worse should be sent to jail.

I think at this point Zoe Quinn doesn't really matter imho, its the insane lenghts some sites have gone to defend there own (fellow game journo's), basically slagging everyone who plays games.

Its astonishing to see so many site apparently collude at the same time to take a dump on there readership and gamers in general. It pretty much proved that regardless of the veracity of the original accusations, that collusion does go on, and that these sites, hold there readership in utter contempt, and that the accusations leveled at them, are basically true, that there a cliquey corrupt group, and they quite frankly do not deserve the title of journalist.

Yes, there are a minority of racist, homophobic, and misogynist assholes, and many of us who play games have encountered such nuts (especially if you are from a minority or are a Woman), but they are a vocal minority of assholes, who use the Internet as a loud speaker, to spout there vile ****. To claim that all people who play games are like these people, is utter bull****, and likes of Kotaku, and there ilk haven't exactly shown themselves in the best light, and a lot of crap is coming up about just how corrupt these guys are.

Lets take Gawker media who own Kotaku, another one of there sites posted the leaked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, so I don't see how Kotaku can claim any kind of moral high ground in this. There sister site is a smut peddler, that don't give a crap about Woman, and will happily join in violating Women privacy when it profits them. Sorry, but anyone working for Gawker media is no position to claim any kind of moral high ground, when they do **** like, just so they can make some money.

Cydoniac wrote: »

Honestly sites like IGN and Kotaku I can never really stand anyway, there's just something exploitative about the sites in how they target the more rabid subset of gamers when they don't really seem interested.

The irony here is that IGN of all sites, seem to have nothing to do with this entire mess. Oddly enough, they seem to be the best of a bad bunch.

wes wrote: »

I am not talking about all games journalists, just the one who took a dump on every single person who plays games. I taught I was clear in what I saying, but to reiterate it here, I am talking specifically about the sites who apparently got together and decided to have a go at every single last person who play games, and anyone who dared question them. Seriously 10 different website post basically the same thing over a 2 day period, having ago at there readership, and you don't see this as any issue?

Simply because I don't see them doing it. Any criticism I've seen levelled by such publications has been levelled at the groups specifically responsible for the myriad of abuse thrown at various developers and commentators. It never read nor was it ever intended to apply to everyone.

wes wrote: »

Have you not read the articles will nonsense like the end of gamers and other such bull**** that Kotaku and there ilk have posted? Just look at Twitter, and see a lot of these people insulting people who have the temerity to point out there corruption, and you know a seemingly coordinated effort to attack there readership, as they made no distinctions here.

Kotaku, and these other sites have brought an almighty **** storm on themselves, and imho deserve 0 sympathy. They could have handled this like adults, but lashed out like the children, that they accuse everyone else of being.

I've read a few articles and again, they weren't talking about everyone who plays games nor those who were pointing out instances of unreported conflicts of interest in a civilised manner. In fact, the Kotaku article specifically states...

Note they're not talking about everyone who plays games, or who self-identifies as a "gamer", as being the worst. It's being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by gaming's widening horizons. If you call yourself a "gamer" and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person.

This is why it doesn't bother me. I see gamers as people who play video games, simple as that. I don't care if you pump hundreds of hours into CoD and FIFA, have built a €1500 gaming PC to play the latest titles at 1440p60, prefer more off-beat titles such as Gone Home, Proteus or Hohokum or are simply happy to tap away at Candy Crush of Clash of Clans. You play games? You're a gamer in my mind.

Gamer Culture, on the other hand, is to me at least, a term which due to being applied so broadly to such a diverse group, often ends up being associated with the more negative aspects of that group. If there's a move away from that which brings it back in line with just the act of playing games, whatever they may be, then I see that as a positive thing. To quote Mike Bithell on this...

https://twitter.com/mikeBithell/status/506402576322281472

gizmo wrote: »

I've read a few articles and again, they weren't talking about everyone who plays games nor those who were pointing out instances of unreported conflicts of interest in a civilised manner. In fact, the Kotaku article specifically states...

The term gamers as they know full well is a general term used to describe people who play games. Claiming that is means something different is bull****. Kotaku know exactly what there doing, and they are paying for it severly, what with being the center of this **** storm.

Still the fact remains, 10 different site in the space of 2 days, basically saying the same thing. Certainly smacks of collusion imho.

gizmo wrote: »

This is why it doesn't bother me. I see gamers as people who play video games, simple as that. I don't care if you pump hundreds of hours into CoD and FIFA, have built a €1500 gaming PC to play the latest titles at 1440p60, prefer more off-beat titles such as Gone Home, Proteus or Hohokum or are simply happy to tap away at Candy Crush of Clash of Clans. You play games? You're a gamer in my mind.

And yet Kotaku, seems to think that Gamer mean something altogether differently.

gizmo wrote: »

Gamer Culture, on the other hand, is to me at least, a term which due to being applied so broadly to such a diverse group, often ends up being associated with the more negative aspects of that group. If there's a move away from that which brings it back in line with just the act of playing games, whatever they may be, then I see that as a positive thing. To quote Mike Bithell on this...

https://twitter.com/mikeBithell/status/506402576322281472

Unfortunately, a lot journalists and there supporters are instead attacking and making fun of people, calling them losers etc all over twitter, here is an example of Leigh Alexandra having a go at actor Adam Baldwin:



This is the level of professionalism that we get from so called games "journalists".

Slot Machine wrote: »

Found this earlier: i.imgur.com/uSGUiBS.png

Jesus Christ...

Dat headline tho

LYING, GREEDY, PROMISCUOUS FEMINIST BULLIES ARE TEARING THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY APART