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

Retr0gamer

Evac101 wrote: »

Actually, all that means is that the user base under 18 hasn't been measured (by that study). Unless you have research which shows that the majority of the user base is under 18 then all you're doing is making an assumption, presumably one based on personal experience, but hardly empirical.

Maybe but if you know your statisics that average age for gamers is highly inaccurate if you apply it to the whole industry and if it was to include all age groups that figure would plummet massively. It might just be an asumption but it's an educated one based on the fact that the market is getting smaller with the older audience while it's growing year on year with younger people.

wes

gizmo wrote: »

I certainly agree he should have know better, as EiC so too should Reed, but does it warrant termination do you think?

No idea, that is a financial decision that Gawker has to be make. The reputation is pretty much garbage at this point, so not sure firing him would make a whole lot of difference. Either way, there going to be looked at as a bunch of bullies regardless of any apologies, and again I find it hard to feel sorry for an outfit like Gawker.

gizmo wrote: »

As a matter of interest, do you, as a gamer, feel like you have been called a misogynist?

Its pretty clear what certain people are saying in regards to people who enjoy gaming as a hobby. I think certain members of the media have acted rather unprofessionally.

gizmo wrote: »

I mean I've read the offending articles and been keeping an eye on the twitter feed and I've yet to be offended by them as a gamer. I certainly disagreed with aspects of them, particularly the wording in some, but perhaps one of the reasons why I can't get behind the movement is that I haven't felt so angry about them nor can I understand why someone would really.

There is no reason to get angry at a few gaming journalists taking pot shot at there own readers. If I see a journalist acting the idiot, I stop visiting there web sites, and thats it. The situation isn't worth much more consideration than that.

Potatoeman

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

One thing I think is needed is better support systems for developers working in the mid-higher independent budget range, but aren't making particularly commercially viable titles. There are always some creators who are too radical for the mainstream, but have outgrown the limits of low-to-no budgets. Cinema is much better off in that regard, through the likes of MEDIA, Eurimages and even - from time to time - the local film boards. It allows major talents to make their more ambitious films while still enjoying a relatively generous budget. Hopefully as gaming matures and legitimises arts organisations and the like will have more time and resources for games - we can already see in some countries on a pretty small scale, but fingers crossed in ten, twenty years developers will have more opportunity to realise their grander ambitions. And it's great to see more experimental titles like The Vanishing of Ethan Carter being realised without technical or graphical compromises - again, something that there will hopefully be more of.

I dont know how good that would be, it frequentley is more about who you know rather than talent. You can do a kickstarter but if the idea is not apoealing to the mass market you are going to have the same problems.

DeVore

The question about funding really boils down to: are we ok with the idea that a piece of art has value to society only if it also has mass appeal?

I'm not sure either way on that, its a double edged question. Is there a point to be made that society doesn't know whats good for it? Or is that elitism and condescension?


If we're going to support some artists and not others, what criteria should we use to decide who? The highest impact on the most people would seem reasonable as otherwise we get into very subjective murky waters.... but it also values The Spice Girls over Wagner.

Evac101

As much as I hate to disagree with you DeV (you know what an agreeable fellow I am :P ) we only value the Spice Girls over Wagner in today's environment. In the 19th century they would have been incarcerated for lewd public behaviour while ol' Richard would still be mixing with the elite...

That said it's actually 'Trout' Schubert who's the bomb.

More seriously - culture is determined by people - what I regard as being valuable contributions to culture could be trash by your metric - there can be a general consensus that "X is cultural" but it's not a definitive state, culture, by the very criteria we use to measure it, isn't a binary "This is, that isn't" thing.

As an example has sprung to mind I'll throw it out there - many critic's would consider Bergmans work to be a cultural touchstone, personally I didn't find it spoke to me on any level I could appreciate. This may be a failing in my appreciation of/method of consuming film, but nonetheless, for me, I don't get the impact and significance of his work that makes many others consider his work, especially the later work, to have cultural importance. For me, I find films like The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile to have had a greater impact on me over viewings rather then Bergmans. Culture is a examination of society but it's perceived on a personal level I suppose I'm trying to say.

<edited to correct typo and add some context>

gizmo

Evac101 wrote: »

Surely the point of services like Indiegogo, Patreon, Kickstarter, etc is to allow things which would not receive corporate backing to seek funding from the people who would be interested in them? If you want to make a game regarding hermaphrodite sea monkeys and their quest to deal with insecurity in their society, without sacrificing your vision or ethics, then it's merely a matter of costing the exercise, putting together a pitch and seeing if the genuine interest in that exists enough for people to back it.

In theory yes, but in practice so far it appears gamers are as picky about the projects they back as publishers. :pac:

wes wrote: »

Its pretty clear what certain people are saying in regards to people who enjoy gaming as a hobby. I think certain members of the media have acted rather unprofessionally.

Hmm, I'd actually be really interested to see how many folk around here agree with that first assessment. I'd imagine it's a sentiment shared almost universally by those in support of the campaign but outside of it, I'm more unsure. Certainly no arguments from me on the second one though.

Potatoeman wrote: »

I dont know how good that would be, it frequentley is more about who you know rather than talent. You can do a kickstarter but if the idea is not apoealing to the mass market you are going to have the same problems.

I know absolutely nothing about the specific movie-based funding sources johnny_ultimate lists but if the same general facilities were made available for games, the only way I could see "who you know" realistically being a factor in the process is in the context of the strength of ones previous work. Games development is inherently high risk so such funding efforts will always err on the side of those with a proven track record regardless of the strength of the idea pitched.

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

In theory yes, but in practice so far it appears gamers are as picky about the projects they back as publishers. :pac:

There's been very few original ideas crowdfunded. The biggest successes seem to be either sequels to much loved properties or else games that build on older ideas that went out of fashion. Every crowdfunded game seems to advertise itself as a mix of rogue-like, dark souls, and countless other buzz words. It's just as hard to pitch an original idea to people who crowd fund as it is a publisher since they seem to go for tried and trusted features.

DeVore

If your only (or main) value is in your "original idea" then putting that on Kickstarter (as you will have to to gain "buy-in") is probably a bad idea

Also, proven-track-record is important too... which is why we are seeing lots of big names with established histories getting kicked. No one wants to fund someone's first time at the rodeo.

Evac101

Without meaning to be dismissive but if the punters aren't willing to foot up the cash maybe the concept isn't one which they can relate to? In addition there are a number of recent examples of games (circling back to ZQ and DQ here to a certain extent) which had very niche audiences but were produced and successful in their fashion and there's an example of a space exploration sim (Open Skies I think) which is being produced by a 2-3 person group and is receiving a lot of positive press. I find it hard to envisage a auteur game requiring move development then that so it becomes a question of will at that point (as Open Skies was a passion project for the folk involved and not publicly funded as I understand it).

kunst nugget

Evac101 wrote: »

Without meaning to be dismissive but if the punters aren't willing to foot up the cash maybe the concept isn't one which they can relate to? In addition there are a number of recent examples of games (circling back to ZQ and DQ here to a certain extent) which had very niche audiences but were produced and successful in their fashion and there's an example of a space exploration sim (Open Skies I think) which is being produced by a 2-3 person group and is receiving a lot of positive press. I find it hard to envisage a auteur game requiring move development then that so it becomes a question of will at that point (as Open Skies was a passion project for the folk involved and not publicly funded as I understand it).

Tbh, I think Depression Quest is more notorious than successful.

Evac101

Fair enough - how about The Disappearance and other 'indie' titles that have excelled - as far back as Super Meat Boy and Fez without even straining my brain.

Retr0gamer

kunst nugget wrote: »

Tbh, I think Depression Quest is more notorious than successful.

Kind of hard to make money from a free game as well.

Evac101

Is the point of the game to be an expression of art from the developer or to make them money - the original criteria which I thought was established was that indie dev's had a hard time producing games which were true to their vision - not that games which were true to their vision didn't make them lots of money?

The two goals can have completely dissimilar criteria to be considered successful.

<addendum>

Are we getting into what a certain group of people feel should be rewarded within the marketplace rather what is actually rewarded within the marketplace as things stand?

kunst nugget

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Kind of hard to make money from a free game as well.

It'd be interesting to see how much she made from donations.

Retr0gamer

kunst nugget wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see how much she made from donations.

Probably feck all until the whole thing blew over. Which is kind of ironic

Genghiz Cohen

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Kind of hard to make money from a free game as well.

And if the goal was to get her name out there then she has been very successful. Though, maybe, not the way she hoped.

gizmo

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And if the goal was to get her name out there then she has been very successful. Though, maybe, not the way she hoped.

Well she also hoped to raise some money for charity via the donations too.

After this appeared, those efforts worked out as well as you can imagine.

Evac101

I followed both links and while there's a lot of rhetoric involved it also seems that a bunch of Gamergate followers contributed to iFred specifically because they thought that DQ hadn't.... so the charity got the (belated) contributions from ZQ/DQ and from the Gamergate people - surely that's a win/win?

Genghiz Cohen

Evac101 wrote: »

I followed both links and while there's a lot of rhetoric involved it also seems that a bunch of Gamergate followers contributed to iFred specifically because they thought that DQ hadn't.... so the charity got the (belated) contributions from ZQ/DQ and from the Gamergate people - surely that's a win/win?

Lesson of the day; if you want donations, create a charity drive and cause it to fail because of some scandal and make it look like you were never going to donate. The Internet Spite Machine will kick it into high gear and super-fund the original target for you.

DeVore

It has to be said that ZQ, AS and BW have all made as much hay as they could while the sun-shone for them. No end of big name outlets getting interviews from them. I'm finding it hard not to be cynical. Off to play something.

gizmo

Evac101 wrote: »

I followed both links and while there's a lot of rhetoric involved it also seems that a bunch of Gamergate followers contributed to iFred specifically because they thought that DQ hadn't.... so the charity got the (belated) contributions from ZQ/DQ and from the Gamergate people - surely that's a win/win?

The donations weren't belated as far as I'm aware, they received them at the time but directly from her as an individual which led to iFred's initial response. It's only really win/win if you discount the additional abuse she got from the incident on top of the new accusations of fraud she received also.

Reekwind

DeVore wrote: »

It has to be said that ZQ, AS and BW have all made as much hay as they could while the sun-shone for them. No end of big name outlets getting interviews from them. I'm finding it hard not to be cynical. Off to play something.

I'd imagine that most of the interviews with "big name outlets" have been on the back of the death and rape threats that they've received. Which is awfully convenient for them...

...actually, no. It's just awful, full stop. Few of us would have any idea who Zoe Quinn was if it weren't for the malicious smear and abuse campaign that she's been subjected to. The Guardian would not be writing articles on Anita Sarkeesian if people weren't looking to prevent her talking via gun threats. If anyone is to 'blame' for their prominence, or indeed the prominence of this entire affair, then it's the morons who can't take critiques of their past-times without flying into a spluttering rage.

So I'm a pretty cynical person but I'd never describe being subjected to pretty unpleasant abuse as the having the sun shine on them.

Shiminay

DeVore wrote: »

It has to be said that ZQ, AS and BW have all made as much hay as they could while the sun-shone for them. No end of big name outlets getting interviews from them. I'm finding it hard not to be cynical. Off to play something.

You don't think that the victims of a series of hate crimes committed against them have a right to speak out about it and to tell as many people as possible about what's happening to them?

They have literally been forced to leave their homes because of these threats man, how much worse does it have to be for it to be "ok" with them talking to the press about it? I don't see them "making hay" or anything of the sort here, really disappointed to see that this whole mess would leave anyone (especially one of my best friends ) so cynical as to suggest that these people are somehow capitalising on their situation.

I'm reminded of the crazy and equally deranged Pro-Life types that suggested that Praveen Halappanavar's time spent talking to Irish media after the death of his wife and child was some sort of publicity stunt.

Let's maybe leave that alone and not go there?

COYVB

Shiminay wrote: »

You don't think that the victims of a series of hate crimes committed against them have a right to speak out about it and to tell as many people as possible about what's happening to them?

They have literally been forced to leave their homes because of these threats man, how much worse does it have to be for it to be "ok" with them talking to the press about it?

Not for one second making excuses for the kind of behaviour that results in death threats - but if everyone in the gaming industry left their home because of threats of violence against them, there'd be a lot of empty houses . Most people simply report it to the relevant authorities and get on with it, they don't go on publicity drives, but perhaps that's because they haven't necessarily got agendas to push that requires them to do so

Shiminay

COYVB wrote: »

Not for one second making excuses for the kind of behaviour that results in death threats - but if everyone in the gaming industry left their home because of threats of violence against them, there'd be a lot of empty houses . Most people simply report it to the relevant authorities and get on with it, they don't go on publicity drives, but perhaps that's because they haven't necessarily got agendas to push that requires them to do so

[unintentionally slightly longer and ramblier post than I intended]

I broadly agree with your point here, but I think we can maybe accept that when the volume of threats, the graphic nature of them and the posting of someone's home address along with all this is taken into account, we're talking about a very different scenario here.

DeV mentioned some of the threads Boards has received and I have been one of the people dealing with these threats directly (I'm Dav the site's Community Manager here on Boards btw, just in case some of you don't know that). I would be lying if I said I brushed all of them off because one or two of them were very explicit and precise in what they said. Times, addresses where I could/would be found etc were mentioned too. Until it hits you that personally and that "real," it's difficult to know how you'll feel about it.

In my last job (Hotel manager) I had a much worse incident with a drunk guy claiming he was The Monk's brother and that he'd be waiting for me with 3 guys at half 7 and they'd take me into the woods, tie me to a tree and start cutting - all because I wouldn't serve him drink at 1:30 in the morning. Pearse St Gardaí were there within 5 minutes of my calling them and again the next night when I spotted him again. I don't think I over-reacted at the time, but now that I look back on it many years later, I know it wasn't a genuine threat (and the logical part of my brain says that if this particular cretin *was* a brother of The Monk, he'd not be throwing his name around like that and in that manner).

I'm bringing us on a tangent somewhat so I'll leave it there and say I absolutely accept that 99.9999% of internet keyboard warrior threats are all talk, but when every part of your body and mind is being forced to deal with a potentially dangerous situation as whatever the situation you find yourself in has triggered your fight or flight response, it's not as simple as being able to rationally say to yourself "this isn't a real threat" and to think less of someone because of that uncontrollable completely reflexive response is unfair and to further suggest that they're attempting to personally capitalise on that is also unfair.

I don't think any of the three ladies mentioned above have done anything more than highlight a broad and deep rooted issue with what some people (I think) incorrectly call "gamer culture" in an effort to help put an end to it; I think that sort of misogyny goes beyond gamers. Is that pushing an agenda? Yea, it is, to deny that is to deny a functional understanding of what the word agenda means I guess personally I feel that pushing this issue (as well as the issue of corruption in journalism in the gaming and publishing industries or any other of the genuine questions being asked in all of this) is the sort of thing that needs to happen. But that's me, everyone else is free to agree or disagree with some or all of that as they see fit.

I don't know how to put it into words really, but I feel that broadcasting a message of "look at the hate we are being exposed to because we are women with opinions and ideas that we wanted to share" is morally "right."

A bigger question (and it's a fair one) is do people really feel that the ladies in question have sent out a "look at the hate I've been exposed to because I made a game (which you can buy now)" sort of message (or varying degrees of that), which I don't think is the case here.

Kirby

It's awful to have to endure the death threats and vile things that have been said to her, but lets not pretend she hasn't ridden this wave of publicity and gained a lot from it. She has made a career out of this.

The more she talks and tweets about herself, the more self serving she appears.

Retr0gamer

She's making the most of a bad situation. Honestly I don't envy her. She'll have to watch her back where ever she goes or lives for years. That's no way to live and could cause her serious mental problems down the line. Sounds great all round.

Reekwind

Kirby wrote: »

The more she talks and tweets about herself, the more self serving she appears.

Let me get this logic straight:

• Person A makes a critique, video series or computer game
• Persons B responds to this by issuing death threats to silence Person A
• Person A refuses to be silenced and instead reveals that she has been threatened
• Person A is now a self-serving publicist, manipulating events to further her own career

Really? We're blaming people for refusing to passively let themselves be silenced by threats? I just do not understand how people can hold against Sarkeesian the fact that, despite the abuse, she continues to tweet (the horror!) and is open about the hostility she faces. It's almost as if she's refusing to try to live as normal in face of mob hostility.

In any sane world people would be unanimous in their praise for someone who refused to be cowed by a baying mob of morons. In our unfortunate reality we instead get this bizarre doublethink: "Yeah, it's terrible that a tiny number of extremists are sending her threats but the publicity-seeking woman should really just shut up".

Kirby

Would you like a top hat to put on that strawman? It would make him dapper.

Reekwind

So you wouldn't like to elaborate on why a woman who has received death threats shouldn't publicise this fact or otherwise 'tweet less about herself'? What exactly do you think is 'self-serving' about someone intimately bound up in this whole affair, through no choice of her own, commenting on it in the media? I mean, I laid the logic out above for a reason.

If I was truly cynical, and I swear that I'm not, then I'd be pretty wary of those people bemoaning the fact that Sarkeesian is able to talk articulately to the mainstream press while her fiercest critics make poorly researched youTube videos. But I'm sure that you can convince me otherwise by demonstrating how she's just a publicity chaser.