Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for .

Real Name .   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname Beamer
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Homepage None given.
Signed On Jan 9, 2003, 00:22
Total Comments 14561 (Ninja)
User ID 15739
User comment history
< Newer [ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ] Older >

News Comments > Saturday Interviews
12. Re: Saturday Interviews Oct 25, 2014, 16:36 Beamer
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 25, 2014, 16:29:
I'll give different advice. If you're saying or supporting what you think is right, and people are attacking you and viciously criticizing you, saying you're doing something wrong... and you, upon honest reflection, can't see that you're doing anything wrong... then you should keep doing what you're doing, and pay no mind to the people attacking you. Undermine them, and move on.

It's telling that you think you've done "honest reflection" and don't think Gamergate is doing anything wrong.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
146. Re: etc., etc. Oct 25, 2014, 16:09 Beamer
beremot wrote on Oct 25, 2014, 15:47:
I can't figure out how to post links here, but if you want some empirical evidence that my assertion is a fact, then go to Newsweek's site. They hired someone to look directly at the numbers, and the results don't lie.

Please don't try to tell me that a bland, middle of the road entity like Newsweek is part of the vast left wing media conspiracy against you too.

I linked to that Newsweek article below.

Frankly, people keep claiming it's about journalism ethics, but no one is talking about it! No one! On Twitter and Reddit it's all Zoe fucking Quinn and SJWs all the time. It's all whining about feminism all the time.

No one is taking journalists to task unless they write a perfectly ethical editorial they happen to not agree with.

Anyone saying "it is about journalism ethics" is either not paying close attention (which I think most on this board are) or delusional (which a very small few on this board are.)
To Twitter, it's about women.
To Reddit, it's about women.
To games sites, it's about women.
To technology sites, it's about women.
To mainstream media sites, it's about women.
To developers, it's about women.
To a significant number of gamers, it's about women.
To Milo from Breitbart, it's about women.
So who is it about journalism to?
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
144. Re: etc., etc. Oct 25, 2014, 15:40 Beamer
And if you're going to attack Breitbart, just go after Milo. Not only does he have a long history of mocking gamers, which was only second to hating women, he also has a background of White Supremecy, as well as rigging awards ceremonies, and, of course, ethically not paying the employees of his blog.

Why are all the celebrities that are a part of gamergate right wing nutjobs with long histories of hating women?
Meanwhile, the only "name" developer anyone can find supporting it is Brad Wardell, who isn't really a big developer and certainly has reasons, having been demonized in the press as a woman hater before (seemingly unfairly.) Again, like Milo, though, there's history there. Meanwhile, nearly every other developer who has spoken out has said that they don't agree with gamergate, don't agree with the message, want to hear the criticism, think there are issues with games that need to be fixed, and don't need their consumers fighting these battles for them.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Saturday Interviews
9. Re: Breitbart Oct 25, 2014, 15:34 Beamer
Prez wrote on Oct 25, 2014, 15:04:
Gamergate started as a response to the marked lack of journalistic ethics when reporting on the advancing agenda of notable feminists while ignoring all counterpoint. These concepts - ethics and feminism- are not mutually exclusive as they are irrevocably tied together in this case. In short it is about both. To say otherwise is being disingenuous.

But how much of the discussion is about ethics? 10%? 20%?
How much of the attacking is aimed at the media?
How much of anything even discusses the media, other than complaining about "SJWs" and editorials?

Hell, the best you get is people complaining about how reviews are done and demanding that people review something "on the merits," which is non-sensical, or demands reviews be unbiased, which is idiotic - how can an opinion on a product not have a bias? Aren't you reading a review specifically for a bias?
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
143. Re: etc., etc. Oct 25, 2014, 15:32 Beamer
Prez wrote on Oct 25, 2014, 02:11:
I disagree with your definition of misogyny Beamer. Every major dictionary I can find (at least a dozen) defines it simply as either 1) a hatred of women or 2) a feeling of superiority to women. Games are not misogynistic; I don't buy the Wikipedia pop culture definition you provide because it is not what misogyny is.

Objectification of women is not necessarily misogyny; you are abusing the definition. Sexist maybe, but not misogynist. Can the things you describe be symptomatic of misogyny? Yes, but they alone are not proof that misogyny exists. There are no misogynist games that I am aware of; you need to stop redefining the word.

By your all-encompassing definition I can equally make the claim that games are misandrist. Men are objectified by hookers and strippers as nothing but cash dispensers, and the depiction of men as sex-starved Neanderthals is quite denigrating. Are the three leads in GTA 5 anything but denigrating depictions of men? Alas, you can't just redefine a word to suit your argument.

Google "define misogyny":
noun: misogyny
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Note "ingrained prejudice."

"Hatred" is an extreme simplification. Even wifebeaters love women. But they still beat them. They're still misogynists. But they'll deny it all day long because they love women.

Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Saturday Interviews
6. Re: Breitbart Oct 25, 2014, 14:28 Beamer
Newsweek has Brandweek analyze tweets, and lo and behold, most aren't about journalism.

Similarly, here's the most frequent words used in KotakuInAction. "Ethics" is 593 uses. "Feminist" is 1979.

Not. About. Ethics. It's time to get over that fiction and let this thing die. If you consider yourself a moderate gamergater, just let it die. It isn't accomplishing anything other than making gamers look every bit like the awful stereotype people no longer feel is fair.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
124. Re: etc., etc. Oct 25, 2014, 01:20 Beamer
You can't disagree with the claims without misunderstanding it. Sorry. You don't get it.

I'm not projecting. You're being a typical dude and arguing about misogyny in games. You can't make that argument if you understand the concept. You keep talking about your opinion. It's not about opinion.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
120. Re: etc., etc. Oct 25, 2014, 01:01 Beamer
Each posts proves further and further that you do not understand the concept of misogyny, yet you insist on your strong misunderstanding and holding others to it.

I used to be like you. Then I realized maybe i was wrong, and more.l importantly, maybe my opinion on what was misogyny wasn't too important due to my lack of experience on the receiving end.

You don't care, though. You don't care what misogyny is. Most dudes don't. You just want a definition that makes you not guilty of it, and easy to rationalize thing away, without having to think about what you do or change your ways at all. You just want it to be something that other men do, cruel ones that exist mostly in fiction, that do things you'd never do. Your worldview can't allow that you are guilty of it, but you are. So am I.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
116. Re: etc., etc. Oct 25, 2014, 00:37 Beamer
Hell, I'll help you. You'll probably be like those here that disagree with climate change and claim Wikipedia is a terrible source, but here's what Wikipedia says about misogyny:
Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.

Sexual discrimination is fairly common in this industry - the IGDA just published a report on it.
Denigration of women is fairly common in games.
Violence against women is fairly common in games, meaning women not even fighting back or playing a role in the game, whereas men regularly do at least one of those.
Sexual objectification of women? Extremely common.

These are misogyny.
You disagree. You say it's a difference of opinion. Sorry, that's not a valid opinion. It's like saying dogs aren't alive, or the iPhone isn't a smartphone, or a pen isn't a writing utensil. It isn't a difference of opinion, it's just being flat-out wrong.

And this isn't demonizing you. It's calling you ignorant. Which is the correct term, because not understanding something is being ignorant on that topic.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
115. Re: etc., etc. Oct 25, 2014, 00:33 Beamer
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 25, 2014, 00:21:
beremot wrote on Oct 25, 2014, 00:15:
You talked about getting called names, and then said that there were "extremists on both sides," as if your getting called names was an example of "extremist" behavior. But it's not at all. Getting doxxed is an example of extremist behavior.

And people in GG have been getting doxxed.

By the way? Getting called names is an example of extremist behavior, as well as an example of bullying. We've actually had an anti-GG person in this thread justify out and out demonization of people who disagree with them about misogyny or feminism. You think maybe, just maybe, you've got a blind spot when it comes to your extremism?

But if you're looking for people doing something to stop bullying, well, I know a group you can cooperate with.

I didn't demonize you. Jesus. I said you were ignorant. And you are. You clearly do not understand what misogyny is.

Which makes you the extremist. Sorry. You don't understand something so, when told you're wrong, you claim to be "demonized" and you claim to be rational and reasonable.

But, frankly, you do not understand a concept and call your lack of understanding a difference of opinion. Again, it's just like the anti-vaxxers saying that their belief that it causes autism is a "difference of opinion." They don't understand science, it isn't a difference of opinion. You do not understand what misogyny is, it isn't a difference of opinion.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
110. Re: etc., etc. Oct 24, 2014, 21:17 Beamer
Here's another one: the lead writer of Dragon's Age comes out against all this nonsense.

I was recently talking to a colleague who suggested a notion thatís stuck with me. Itís the idea that many of these people donít think of feminism as a thing. Or, if it is a thing, it certainly has no bearing on them or on the game industry. Itís not real. A made-up problem.

Since itís not a real issue, so is the idea of women being subject to any kind of systemic abuse or oppression. ďHey, Iím a gameróIíve been ridiculed and marginalized as well. Why does nobody care about my problems? Everyone has issues, so why do I suddenly have to be the bad guy? You guys are oppressing me!Ē

In the light of that kind of opinion, a woman talking about feminism or a queer person talking about sexuality isnít them speaking from a place of disadvantageó they are, in fact, using an unfair advantage, one that not everyone has, to influence the game industry.

And, OH GOD, the industry is listening. 0.5% of game site articles are actually talking about this shit. Itís everywhere! Game developers are swallowing this stuff up. Not because itís true, of course, but because that unfair advantage makes them feel guilty, and theyíll act on it to score points because Political Correctness! If we donít stem the tide now, every game will soon become something between an After School Special and a United Benneton ad! Iíll have this shoved down my throat in every. single. game!

Yes. This is exactly the sort of thing that getís said to me, such as on Twitter. Constantly.

Look, you donít want to be lumped in with the bad guys? Then donít be a bad guy. Donít be the dick who makes everything about you.

And donít, for the love of God, act like nobody in the game industry is capable of a single discerning thoughtÖthat unless someone comes along and stomps that shit down right now, weíll all just mindlessly nod our heads and follow along.

He's right. The industry will listen to criticism that they feel is valid. Like the previous dev I linked to said - they don't need you to be their shield. They'll happily think for themselves and do what they feel is right.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Golden Joystick Winners
2. Re: Golden Joystick Winners Oct 24, 2014, 21:04 Beamer
shinchan0s wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 20:32:
List of nominees for those interested (needed some digging):

Pewdiepie sucks, but that list of nominees was full of total unknowns. If you're going to nominate people only known by gaming journalists, then restrict the voting to journalists.

Wait, you think only journalists know:
Anita Sarkeesian
Palmer Lucky
Aisha Tyler (she's frickin' Lana Kane)
Dean Hall
Rami Ismail

Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Out of the Blue
12. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 24, 2014, 17:21 Beamer
jdreyer wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 16:26:
Cutter wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 14:16:
Wow, a soldier and reservist murdered in Canada this week and now some lunatic attacked cops with a hatchet in NYC today. Ebola looks to be spreading. Sigh. Things seems to be getting pretty crazy out there atm. Stay safe people.

Seriously? You're talking 2 people out of almost 400 million. And Ebola is not "spreading" in North America. It's arriving here from out of country and being dealt with. What the hell? Crime is as low as it has ever been. Disease is as controlled as it has ever been. Just because the media is hyping shit for clicks doesn't mean things are getting crazy. When did you start to buy into that bullshit?

There are serious problems out there. Global warming is already killing thousands and will result in the deaths of millions perhaps 100s of millions of people through drought, extreme weather, famine, flooding, war, etc. And there are many more: government corruption, corporate corruption, income inequality, poverty, healthcare failures, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. Don't be like the pilot who puts his attention on why the light on switch 17 is broken while his plane augers in.

It's so weird to me how partisan ebola is.
Moderates and liberals: "it isn't a big deal and is unlikely to become one."
Conservatives: "oh my god Gwenyth Paltrow and that Outbreak monkey are going to kill us all, close the borders, it's too late we're all dead!"

I've never seen fear over a disease so clear cut across party lines like this and it baffles me.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Far Cry 4 Welcome to Kyrat Trailer, Part Two
3. Re: Far Cry 4 Welcome to Kyrat Trailer, Part Two Oct 24, 2014, 13:44 Beamer
I'm preordering this. I never preorder, but it seems worth it for the harpoon gun and I am 100% certain I'll want to play this on launch. It looks like more of the same, and I loved FC3 enough that more of the same is enough to get $60 out of me. It isn't a new engine or huge new feature changes, so seems safe.

I wish it was coming out before the new CoD. CoD I tend to play quite a bit on the 360 multiplayer, getting 4-6 weeks out of it. This game I'd blow through in a week. I'd rather do that then move on to Adanced Warfare... eh, who am I kidding, at this point in my life I think my desire to spend 2 hours a night on the couch playing CoD online has probably long since passed.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
98. Re: etc., etc. Oct 24, 2014, 12:58 Beamer
Here's another thing you keep hearing from developers:
"Stop stifling criticism. I want to hear criticism."

A lengthy post on Reddit titled "Hey, stop claiming to be my shield"
Hi KiA,

I'm here to tell you about a problem I have, not just to rant or whine, but to get your opinion and see if it makes sense -- because it's something that matters a lot to me as someone who's spent half of my life working on games. So keep that in mind as I explain my request to y'all and to games in general, and I will try to listen if you disagree or raise concerns I'm not thinking about.

I'm a game developer. I've been making games professionally for 15 years and as a teenage hobbyist before that, working on all sorts of games on various platforms and for different audiences. Many of you would recognize some of my games, and all of you would recognize some of the companies I've worked for. This is a throwaway account, not my usual reddit username, because there are trolls around targeting people on various sides of these issues and I'm not into taking that kind of risk.

I don't support gamergate as a whole, although I do support SOME of the things that GG has raised -- even if some people involved haven't raised those issues sincerely. Journalistic ethics, fine; some of the specific charges look like really trumped-up "gotchas" disguising other axes being ground, others only have extremely scant evidence, other things still verge on pure apophenia -- but some of the patterns pointed to should be aired and discussed. Harassment and threats in the air around GG -- obviously any decent person is against that. Neither of those things are why I am posting here.

Here's what I have to say. I oppose the idea that one set of people -- gamergaters, feminists, gamers in general, however you want to slice the crowd -- should get to dictate what's acceptable to talk about in reviews, feedback, criticism, writing, videos about games. And I see that demand -- to get to draw lines around what's acceptable or not in say, a game review -- WAY more from gamergate than from anyone else, ever in my career.

What am I talking about here? Demands that reviews not involve a political critique, or that politics, feminism, whatever only be a certain percentage of a review. Demands that game reviews should be purely, or closer to purely "objective" without the subjective opinions and experiences of a reviewer. Demands that feminsits should shut up, or shouldn't be listened to, for complaining about what female characters in games look like, can do, or are treated.

You know what? I might not agree with those critiques, I might think they're full of shit or don't represent the players I'm trying to reach. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear them, or that I'm afraid of how amplified or angry they are. A whole lot of game development is about listening -- to players, to critics, to people that hate your game, to people that love it, to your team and yourself. Listening is not the same thing as blindly obeying like a puppet -- and acting as if I or other game developers can't handle it or make our own decisions when someone says "hey this is sexist" is way more insulting and destructive than any amount of fake-social-justice white-knighting if it gets to the point of silencing feedback. You are not our shield.

I've seen gamergate supports complaining about things like how the Stanley Parable got criticized about one joke in the game being racist, and decided to change it. What I hear, as a dev, as the unwitting message of those complaints is "no, Davey Wreden CAN'T be the one to decide what he wants to change about his own game. He must be a brainwashed coward." Fuck that. Ironically, you know who criticized that one joke and got it changed? Oliver Campbell, the pro-GG journalist.

I've seen complaints about how Wildstar changed the breast size of their characters due to complaints from a relatively small group of players. What I hear is "game devs HAVE to obey the majority will of the players who are bothering to speak up in their forums, not think about how it affects a smaller group of players, even if they're going to add in more options to make everyone happy later." Fuck that.

I've seen the story about the Divinity: Original Sin artist over and over again, about how upset he was that his boss told him to cover up a character's belly. You know what I see in that story? A boss who maybe made a wrong call -- but if it WAS wrong, it's that developer's fault, not the people who complained, and it was still that person's call to make. And an artist who disagreed enough with his boss's call that he felt it necessary to complain about the internal decisions of his team in public until everyone's yelling censorship. You know what actual censorship would be? If the government, or some industry body, told the D:OS team what to do. What else would be censorship? If gamergate somehow managed to make the complaints about a bare belly disappear, quiet down, or go completely unheard.

And it's worth saying: when random trolls around gamergate (even if they're not "in" gamergate, and it's hard to say if any are or not) are acquiring targets to strike based on GG complaints about feminists, fear of threats and doxxing can definitely play a role in silencing & censorship too. Even if it's "not technically your fault" as an individual -- there's a net effect.

I see Daniel Vavra all over the place complaining about censorship, when his main gripe started with one person asking some historian on tumblr if there were any black people in Bohemia, and the answer was basically no. If you ask me, this makes Daniel Vavra seem like he's trying to milk a situation, which is like, eh, devs do whatever we can for promo -- but it makes it very ironic when people who support Vavra complain about others who "play the victim." Nobody censored Vavra, he did whatever he wants, he knows no horde of anti-racists is coming to keep his game sales down -- and yet he went on talking about how websites aren't covering his game. You know how not to get sites to cover your game? Moan about how you're being oppressed because nobody's paying attention to your game (even though, as shown in some recent threads here on KiA, it actually HAS gotten plenty of coverage from even the sites that gamergate's fighting with).

So yeah -- I have no respect for this stuff. Speaking for myself -- please do not ever get in the way of any criticism, no matter how stupid, that a developer of a game may want to hear. Do not be our shield or our earmuffs: fuck that. Some developers may disagree with me. They may say "no, I don't want to hear that stuff, it enrages me and makes it harder for me to make my games!" You know what? I have a big old side-eye for those devs. Plug your ears, if you can't handle it, if hearing a criticism is going to blow your shaky creative vision out of the water. Stay offline. We get death threats for adjusting sniper rifle firing time; the threat is not worth hearing, but "I hate this nerf" is, and how much more so is "the way women look in your game makes me uncomfortable" if someone feels that?

Three of my games have been criticized for being racist or for being sexist. Some of those criticisms were utterly stupid and I ignored them. I was annoyed for a little bit, then I shrugged it off. Others were actually valid criticisms, and led me to make some changes, at MY discretion. If you go around trying to stamp out "politics" or "feminism" or "social justice critiques" in general, you take away my creative right to decide which is which. Can you see why that might piss me off? I don't care if the criticism of my game makes you feel all bad and like you might be a terrible person for enjoying my game -- learn how to hold two different things at the same time, how to hear a critique and consider whether it's any good, and still enjoy everything you like about a game. It's still the game that I'm pouring my blood, sweat and tears into making, and I should get to hear whatever criticisms come at me about it, no matter how stupid I end up thinking they are, no matter if they form 5% or 20% or 70% of a review. I have never had a bad review that was clearly just one reviewer's opinion keep a game of mine down; do you really think a Kotaku review talking about how a game is sexist is going to affect potential players who don't care that much about sexism?

I am also a gamer, I've been playing video games for almost forty years, and as a gamer I even want to hear critiques -- yes, even messed-up ones that I don't disagree with -- about gaming culture. If you can't handle this kind of thing, fine -- rail against it, plug your ears, start your own site and express your opinions -- but I disagree with trying to get it pulled, or getting people fired, or trying to make those opinions disappear. I have only one "vote" in this matter as a gamer -- this is a different kind of issue than the rest of this post, which is about "don't fuck with what kind of input I get to hear as part of my creative process." But some of the same logic applies.

All of the above also goes for the "objectivists" who think there should be NO subjective opinions in game reviews. Come on.

Postscript: Metacritic scores are a huge problem, they strip the nuance from reviews and mush everything together, and I don't know anyone who agrees with the practice of basing publisher payments on Metacritic scores. That's utter BS that harms the industry. In fact, I think review scores in general are harmful, and I know a lot of you agree. Start another movement that's focused solely on that issue, without all this other garbage tagging along for the ride, and I will support it, as will many others.

And here's an initial response:
It wouldn't stop them. That is a good thing. Last I checked, no one is forcing you to read their work. However, given that clearly someone wants to read their work, or they wouldn't be getting paid, there is a market for people like me who care about the implications of a game, not just the game itself, and reviews which talk about that have a place. If you want games to be treated like art, it's time to start accepting they be reviewed like art, not like toys.

You want game reviewers to have different views and be biased. You WANT that. Find a reviewer whose tastes match yours, and listen to them above others. Do you just absolutely love this one niche genre of game, and want to see more games like it? Great, find a reviewer who loves those games, and take a look at everything they rated highly! Hate one genre of games, but know one reviewer loves them? Take their reviews with as much salt as you feel appropriate! Subjective reviews of any piece of media are the best thing possible for reviews. You don't hire a hip hop lover to review a metal album, you don't hire a romcom fan to review a horror movie, and yet you're asking for a platformer lover to review an action RPG and somehow take himself out of the equation (hint: that isn't possible).

And you're right, paying for good reviews is bad practice! But guess what, not only is that not the fault of the journalists, but rather the game devs- meaning you're shooting the messenger here- yelling at the journalists won't stop that.

It's a fucking game review. How fucking hard is it to just review the game based on it's own merits?

"It's a fucking movie review. How fucking hard is it to just review the movie based on it's own merits?"


It is, in fact, really fucking hard to review something based on its own merits, because you yourself have to play it. I fucking love music games, and I will probably rate any music games miles better than they merit. Beat Hazard? (huge epilepsy warning for that game/video btw) Frankly probably a mediocre to good game. But I fucking loved it, simply because it's in the genre I love, and I can't review it based on it's own merits. That isn't possible.

Objective reviews cannot exist, simply because a reviewer has to exist. If a reviewer hates a genre, even if they try to be objective about it, their view on the game will still be soured simply based off the fact they hate that type of game! I fucking hate modern military shooters, so you probably shouldn't listen to my opinion on whether or not Call of Duty 174 is any good, because even if it is, I'm going to say it's shit.

If you want games to be treated as more than toys, you have to accept what comes along with it. Take a look at any movie review- let's just grab one at total random off the front page of Metacritic. It literally opens up the first three paragraphs discussing some of the political culture surrounding the movie, and the implications of that, both the implication of society on the movie, and the movie on society. This is a good thing, and is important for any good review.

If you want games to be treated like toys, and want them to get "reviews" that look like a review for fucking Bop-It with a few words switched, be my guest. Sorry for wanting games to grow up and be treated like the medium they properly are. Sorry for wanting actually good reviews, and actually good reviewers.

Reviews, even bad ones, give devs feedback. Valid feedback. Things to think about that maybe they didn't realize. Maybe they shrug it off, maybe not.

And the whole Gamergate wanting something judged "on its merits" rather than as something larger contrasts so heavily with people claiming games are art, and art is never judged "on its merits."
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
96. Re: etc., etc. Oct 24, 2014, 12:38 Beamer
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 12:30:
Beamer wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 12:23:
But there's an enormous amount of AAA games that are almost definitely getting unfairly positive coverage. I'd say far less today than, say, the days of Doom 3 getting a 19 page review with a 97% despite being a heaping pile of shit, but yes, AAA games still get an advantage because the publishers throw enormous amounts of free crap at people. And this is questionable.
Yet, instead, female indie devs getting a few sentences of coverage has been all Gamergate has focused on when it comes to "ethics."

Gamers have been talking about the relationship between major companies and gaming journalists for a while now. It's old news, but it has been talked about.

The difference is that major companies generally don't try to demonize gamers or go on the attack against them for their criticisms or their disagreements.

Gamers mocked and attacked EA viciously over all kinds of things, from Mass Effect 3's ending to the whole SimCity debacle to worse. They've attacked score rigging allegations, misleading reviews, and more. And no one cares. They saved Phil Fish for behaving poorly.

Oh, but mock or criticize a female indie dev and it's a whole other situation.

If a heavyset female dev had people joke about her the way people joke about Gabe Newell, can you imagine the reaction?

If you don't understand the difference between hating the ME3 ending and what's happening to all the female "Literally Who's" then I'm sorry. I'm done with you.
You're saying so many disconnected things and just not seeing how some are massively damaging for tiny indescretions and some were basically ignored.

I mean, you mention SimCity and ME3, two games that didn't have review issues, in a discussion about journalist ethics.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
95. Re: etc., etc. Oct 24, 2014, 12:35 Beamer
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 11:57:

It's little surprise that developers would try to duck this shitstorm at this point. Early into it you had developers and journalists, particularly in the indie community, entirely willing to come out swinging against the evil misogynist woman-hating nerds who everyone despises (remember the 'gamers are dead/the past/shitty/etc' schtick that started all this?) Now that it turns out that they don't control the dialogue or the repercussions, those same people are about as reluctant to speak up as, oh... people who are critical of them used to be, and largely still are.

Plenty of "big" developers are very outspoken on this. Tim Schafer, Clint Hocking, Tom Hall, Cliff Bleszkinski, Rhinnna Pratchett, Neil Druckmann, Jonathan Blow, Richard Garriott, etc. These are names everyone knows.
Who that matters has come out in support of it?

Yeah, I think you'll typically find 'supporting women from harassment' usually cashed out to 'made it sound as if GG was some horrible, mean movement that everyone should disown'. There are various women who support GG, and of course men. Are GG people going 'These women are speaking! How dare they! This is a MAN'S movement'?

Ah, the women supporting GG. Yes, of course some do. Interesting how they are literally used as shields despite that whole "not my shield" thing. "How can we be against women when we have some standing right over there!?"

Yeah, this isn't about vaginas having opinions, and you should probably stop referring to women as 'vaginas'. It's about a particular subset of people, even a particular subset of feminists - a mix of both men and women - whose 'opinions' and antics have been pretty nasty and derogatory and yes, even unethical. You see plenty of criticism of men by GG people, because there's no lack of anti-GG men, and male journalists/developers in general, worth criticizing.


Yes, they have. Especially if 'harassment' is broadened to include contacting advertisers, being critical and dismissive, and more.

Yes, and if "harassment" is broadened to include saying hello to someone in the morning, I've been harassed by all my coworkers.

Yup, another person who defends and excuses demonization and attacking. Why? Because I disagree with you and your views on misogyny. You dislike my opinion, you think my opinion is 'damaging', and that justifies belittling, attacks, demonization, and silencing.

You're disagreeing with fact! That's the problem! Misogyny isn't like whether mushrooms taste good. It isn't subjective. It's a factual thing and you're disagreeing with what it is objectively.
How can I not say that's wrong and how can I say it's a rational thing to say that the sky is green and Nickelback is a great band?

And it never occurs to you that someone can listen to women, can read what feminists are saying... and still disagree on principle. It simply doesn't register to you that a woman who disagrees with your views isn't some victim who needs to be re-educated by you, the would-be merciful provider of wisdom.

Women: this is damaging to us
You: in my opinion, it isn't
Women: how can you say that?
You: it's my opinion, stop demonizing me and just accept this is my nature and it's fine!

I'm done with you. I'm sorry. You fundamentally do not understand what misogyny is. You keep kicking and screaming and claiming to be demonized. Sorry. You're ignorant. I know you'll find the word offensive, but you should find it educational. Ignorant literally means lacking awareness and understanding on a particular topic, and you lack awareness about what misogyny is. Dangerously, you feel comfortable telling people what it is and why they're wrong.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
92. Re: etc., etc. Oct 24, 2014, 12:23 Beamer
NKD wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 11:51:
Beamer wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 10:37:
Because absolutely no one really cares about that aspect,

I do. And a lot of other people do from what I've seen. You forget that this whole thing started over worries about conflict of interest in game reviews. It's long since been derailed, but that's the subject a lot of us were hoping we'd get back to. The bottom line is that if the conflict of interest was a non-sexual relation, like a blood relative or a business partner, the conversation would never have been derailed and we could have had a discussion about transparency when it comes to potential conflicts of interest.

It's odd, because I remember a time when Blue's News commenters were eager to point out funny business when it came to reviews and game coverage. I remember a time when we lamented the crapping-up of our hobby by "casuals" and "console gamers".

Now no one can even be fucked to post anything unless it's about the latest social media hipster bullshit.

But no one cares for the amount this is going on.
You care, but you aren't a "gamergater." You're a gamer.

And we all care, honestly. But where people care makes no fucking sense right now. Again, Ars published, back when Black Ops came out, an article about all the free trips and swag reviewers got from Activision. An entire vacation!
No one mentions this.

But an indie game developer gets two sentences in an article about indie games as a whole? Better make sure those two people were never seen in the same room! Wait, they were? Because the games industry is small and everyone knows everyone and it's impossible to go to any kind of games conference and not meet at least a half dozen indie developers?

And, of course, all the indie developers that people keep singling out are female.

It's a very small industry. And there's, at best, a symbiotic relationship between the press and the developers. One needs the other exclusively to exist, and the other thrives more thanks to the other. We can't expect that our reporters don't have friendships with the developers. That's not reasonable. These people spend enormous amounts of time with each other.
What we can expect is that their reviews won't be biased. And we've yet to see a single example of an indie developer getting an unfairly positive review.
Not one.
Not a single fucking one.

But there's an enormous amount of AAA games that are almost definitely getting unfairly positive coverage. I'd say far less today than, say, the days of Doom 3 getting a 19 page review with a 97% despite being a heaping pile of shit, but yes, AAA games still get an advantage because the publishers throw enormous amounts of free crap at people. And this is questionable.
Yet, instead, female indie devs getting a few sentences of coverage has been all Gamergate has focused on when it comes to "ethics."
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
87. Re: etc., etc. Oct 24, 2014, 11:28 Beamer
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 10:57:
Beamer wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 10:43:
See, but this is funny. Sarkesian may have made dissent demonized, but there was dissent.

In what world is dissent disappearing due to GG? You yourself repeatedly talk about how GG is portrayed in the media.

Well, I mean:
1) The only female developers The Escapist could find to talk to would do it solely anonymously
2) Several female reporters have been harassed to the point that they no longer cover games
3) When Felicia Day writes an article about how so many women won't discuss GG out of fear of retaliation, she's immediately retaliated against

If you don't think that developers, particularly female ones but also the male ones that aren't "big" enough to carry weight, aren't being silent out of fear you're incredibly wrong. Again, everyone seems to think the Clickhole article supports them, but it's pretty clearly about how, if anyone openly disagrees with Gamergate, they become outright fucked.

Because GG developed this 'contact advertisers and developers over content you disagree with' model, which was never, ever boosted by the anti-GG crew? Come on. What's different is that this is a tactic - once praised and seen as entirely legitimate - now being used by people who are used to being on the receiving end of such things.

I've certainly never contacted an advertiser, nor organized or supported a significant spam campaign because someone says things I don't like.
And yes, it's because people said things. Not a single one of these campaigns was around "ethics." Outside of the moron Sam Biddle, it was because someone said something supporting women from harassment. BAM! Goodbye ad dollars. ETHICS!

Once again - because harassment, namecalling, and doxing are new? It's deplorable, it always has been, and it's also been common. I've gotten death threats. I've been called names, including sexualized ones, male and female alike.

And it's not as if 'having a penis' makes you immune from GG criticism. See Gawker for only the latest example.

Gawker was more because of bullying comments than GG. And that's one example. Again, go to the idiotic KotakuInAction and look at all the devs the endlessly discuss. Each one has a vagina. And the celebrities they worship hate vaginas. And their mods all run anti-vagina subreddits.
Anyone claiming this isn't about vaginas having opinions is delusional.
And sorry, no male has received nearly the level and type of harassment the females in this are getting.

Catcalling is disrespectful, but it's also hardly defended. Half-naked heroines? That's not misogyny. And that's another problem: 'misogyny' has been defined to mean, in essence, 'disagreeing with a given group of feminists'. If you do not think it's a terrible thing that some comics feature sexy female characters, well then, you're a misogynist, you're a bad person, and you need to 'be educated'. The very possibility that people disagree on this is ruled out from the start, and the people who do disagree were demonized and attacked, including in media.

Yup, another guy that doesn't understand misogyny. Sorry, you simply do not get it. This is why you're demonized and attacked - you get so insanely defensive over having an opinion that's misinformed, ignorant and damaging. Rather than sit back and try to understand why this happens, you just get louder, angrier, more misinformed and more aggressive.

I've learned most men don't understand misogyny because they don't bother listening to women. They just go with what seems right and wrong to them. But misogyny doesn't impact them, so it shouldn't be their feelings that really matter here.
Sorry, endless waves of half-naked heroines is misogyny. Period. There's really no room for debate here.

I'm tired of people trying to find the silver bullet for their views of women and sex that allows them to bypass the whole "others can reasonably dissent, and not everyone has to conform to your view" step.

It's like people that try to reasonably dissent with evolution or climate change. Sometimes opinions are just wrong. There's no room for reasonable dissent when the opinion trying to dissent is just unreasonable.
Misogyny exists. You do not understand what it is. I am sorry about that. I understand it, too. It's only been in the past five years or so that I've begun to understand what it is and how stupid shit I said that I felt was totally innocuous and absolutely normal was actually neither of those things.

I suppose, further, you'd criticize feminists who protested / tried to pull advertising or funding or hurt the financial aspect of comics or video games or media that featured or defended the presence of sexualized female characters, saying they were "trying to shut down conversation"?

I never heard of anyone asking advertisers to pull funding. They ask companies to change. Companies often do. And advertisers often pull funding because they agree with the people complaining to the companies.
At the very least, there were never organized anti-ad campaigns on this level. We're talking Million Moms kind of stuff with Gamergate.

And yes, companies pull funding from other companies that they think are misogynist all the time. But it's because they think they're misogynist. Do you think Adobe thinks that about Gawker, or do you think Adobe just got scared into action?
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc., etc.
86. Re: etc., etc. Oct 24, 2014, 11:17 Beamer
Dagnamit wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 10:46:
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 10:06:
There's no discussion about it because there's no discussion to have. Everyone wants ethical journalists, there's no debate there.

That's not true. Everyone says they want ethical journalists. It's not what everyone actually wants.

And you can see as much in the coverage of #GG.

I denounce death threats. Whenever I see this come up among GGers, I never see a guy who says 'someone should send her a death threat' or 'X got a death threat, that's great, maybe it'll shut him up'. Find me the prominent outspoken GG supporter defending death threats, or encouraging them, as opposed to denouncing them.

Yet how many times is GG reported on as 'the group of people who send death threats to women because they hate women' by the media?

How ethical is that?

It's ethical because they're reporting the news and those people have the loudest voices. It's not unethical to report what people say. It's not the media's job to ignore the loudest most offensive voices. That's your job, sir edit:(or, ma'am.). Take some responsibility about what news outlets to trust. If the loudest voices were GG's denouncing the acts of the assholes then that might get some play as well. If you think the media is unfair, let them know with words and actions.

Loosely related: It isn't censorship to ignore you.
Music for the discerning:
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
14561 Comments. 729 pages. Viewing page 37.
< Newer [ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ] Older >


Blue's News logo