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

Regularly scheduled events

User information for JB

Real Name JB   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname sdgundamx
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Sep 27, 2008, 04:05
Total Comments 73 (Suspect)
User ID 54381
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


News Comments > Free & Paid Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor DLC
7. Re: Free & Paid Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor DLC Oct 21, 2014, 23:08 sdgundamx
 
Prez wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 21:43:
This is my GOTY easily - I knew I would like it going in but I ended up LOVING it. No boredom here - it was a thrill a minute right up until the very end for me. The new DLC isn't enough to pull me back in just yet. I'll probably replay it but not until after Christmas.

Agreed. It doesn't try to be everything--it knows what it does well and gives you lots of it in a variety of flavors. I'm sensing the people who aren't thrilled with the game were hoping it would actually be something else (more RPGish with dialogue or more Diablo-esque with loot or something). I rather appreciate that they stripped away a lot of the superfluous stuff and just tried to answer the question: how many different ways can you kill an orc?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Interviews
21. Re: Evening Interviews Oct 21, 2014, 02:55 sdgundamx
 
PropheT wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 00:45:
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 00:10:
I haven't seen Gotham or Arrow, but my officemate says Arrow is kind of one those "guilty pleasure"-type shows: not great but reasonably enjoyable if you're willing to just kinda go with it.

I love Arrow, it's one of the few shows I really have gotten into. It's on Netflix so it's worth checking out if you have an account there, just make sure and stick with it when it feels like a bit of a lull in the middle of the first season as it gets much better toward the end.

My wife was telling me about Gotham earlier tonight and that she just didn't care for it at all, but I haven't had a chance to see it yet myself.

The Flash is actually pretty good. It's a bit more on the light-hearted side than Arrow is, but it's enjoyable so far.

Cool, I've got Netflix so I'll check out the first season.

I actually am old enough to remember the 90s Flash series, which I liked well enough as a kid but can't remember anything significant about it now. Will check out the new one as well.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Jade Raymond Leaving Ubisoft
72. Re: Jade Raymond Leaving Ubisoft Oct 21, 2014, 02:21 sdgundamx
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 22:40:
Cutter wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 22:25:
BitWraith wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 22:19:
You people lack empathy.

Go have a fucking rally already. Hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the other SJWs where you can all sit in a drum circle and commiserate about how fucking awful the rest of us are because we really don't give a shit about this stupidity - and that's all it is. I have plenty of empathy...for things that actually matter.

No empathy because we won't join the SJW circle-jerk. Holy blue flaming Jesus on a pogo stick! Rolleyes

Even those that hate me have to admit this guy adds the least value here, right?

I mean, come on. All those redundant posts about how evil Apple is but saying women shouldn't be allowed to talk is ok.

Cutter doesn't spend his WHOLE time here talking about these issues--he's made other posts that are completely reasonable about the games he plays. He's opinionated and occasionally crosses the line, but Blue cleans up the mess when Cutter poops on the floor. If he were a spambot or something advertising links to his product every thread I'd say a ban is in order but I don't see the need to ban him just for expressing unpopular opinions.

Though if I were Blue, I might consider a suspension or something for a couple of weeks every time he does go to far.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Interviews
15. Re: Evening Interviews Oct 21, 2014, 00:10 sdgundamx
 
NKD wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 22:07:
I propose that we create a new rule. If a comment thread has an article related to GamerGate in it, we talk about something else like hockey or TV shows we're watching.

Anyone been watching Gotham? What do you think so far? I feel like it has a lot of potential but it's not one of those shows I eagerly wait to watch each week. I've never really been able to get excited about procedurals. For example once Person of Interest became more about the overall plot and less about the number of the week, I liked it a lot more.

I haven't seen Gotham or Arrow, but my officemate says Arrow is kind of one those "guilty pleasure"-type shows: not great but reasonably enjoyable if you're willing to just kinda go with it.

What about The Walking Dead or Sons of Anarchy? I felt the first two episodes of the new season of The Walking Dead were reasonably good and getting back to what made the series interesting in the first place (i.e. exploring what is "moral" in a world of anarchy). SoA was a bit of a disappointment at first, but it started to get better around the 4th and 5th episodes.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Play Civilization V Free This Week
9. Re: Play Civilization V Free This Week Oct 21, 2014, 00:00 sdgundamx
 
Krovven wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 23:45:
Agreed that vanilla Civ V was rather weak. The expansions really made it a great game (particularly the G&K xpac). While I had played Civ 3 and Civ IV very briefly I could never get into them. Playing PBEM games of Civ V is what really got me into it and I ended up playing the game far far more, even solo, than I ever expected.

I can't wait for Beyond Earth. Here's to another 600hrs over the next 3+ years...


See, it was the exact opposite for me. Played Civ4 for I don't know how many hours but could never get into Civ5. Yeah, the new combat mechanics are neat--no more stacks of doom, for instance--but the whole package combined just couldn't hold my interest. Part of the problem I think was that it just felt slower than Civ4 to me. I mean that both literally (AI turn-taking seemed to take longer) and just the pace of games in general. Every time I play I find myself tapping my desk waiting to get to the "fun" parts and they just don't seem to come quick enough.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
49. Re: etc., etc. Oct 19, 2014, 08:23 sdgundamx
 
I'll admit that I was too quick to judge your mental acuity in that first post.

But I must then also admit--and I know this sounds harsh--you've done nothing to convince me that my original assessment was wrong. No, I don't expect you to state every argument on the Internet, I expect you to state YOUR argument or provide a link to someone who you think accurately represents your position--something you've yet again failed to do in this latest comment despite my repeated asking.

Look at it from my point of view. Anytime you're asked to state your explicit problems with Sarkeesian's argument you evade the question. Instead, our entire discussion has focused around your attempt to discredit Sarkeesian--a tactic I've pointed out is both tasteless and very often conveys that the arguer has nothing to support their side.

Now, as far as Summers goes, as I've already pointed out her argument consists of "I read some literature (but I'm not going to tell you what) and I didn't find any misogyny. You should trust me because I call myself a feminist." As if that isn't fail enough, she admits she hasn't touched a video game since the 80s. At this point I need to remind you that a huge part of your argument to discredit Anita is not a gamer and only played some of the games she talked about while watching videos of others. If you still can't see how absurd your choice of Summers--someone whose entire argument was an appeal to authority and according to your own standards was less qualified to comment on games than Anita--was to support your position, I honestly have to start questioning your reasoning abilities.

Regarding Thunderf00t, I pointed out just a few of the problems with the video in this very thread. Scroll down to read them. That post was long enough without continuing to pick apart the remainder of the video and again I need to remind you that the whole point of our discussion here is not to discuss my problems with Thunderf00t's video but YOUR problems with Anita's videos--something sadly we never got to despite the enormous fuck-ton of text that we've both written because you keep failing to answer the question.

Add into all of this the extremely aggressive tone of your posts and I'd have to admit my interest in continuing to engage with you about this topic has pretty much waned. I'd like to have a rational and reasonable discussion about the issues with you and I expect (as I've already stated) we'll probably agree about some of your complaints. But having a rational and reasonable discussion doesn't seem to be something you're interested in doing here so I'll just bid you good day and let you get back to... whatever it is you are trying to achieve here.

Prez wrote on Oct 19, 2014, 02:54:
You know sdgundamx, you lecture others on attacking the person and not refuting the message but ironically that is all I see you do. You have not presented one single solitary counter argument to Thunderfoot's points. You did not offer a single rebuttal to any of Christina Summers points yesterday. For someone who complains about it happening to Sarkeesian you sure don't waste time doing it to someone else. Anita's videos are garbage. I can go through each one and systematically pick apart each point that she makes and refute it with easily-found facts. But then you would just question my mental ability. Oh wait - you already did that. That others have already done exactly what you are asking for apparently doesn't register for you. I guess you think that this debate here on Blues only started once you joined it? Should we all go back and re-make all of our points, the ones we made before you graced us with your presence, for your benefit?

You also keep moving the goal posts. First no one was countering any of her arguments. Now people are only countering one of her arguments. Videos have been posted pointing out just how wrong she is but because you don't like the people making them the whole lot of them are null and void. You won't be satisfied until someone breaks down each point she makes, no matter how stupid, and spells it out for you why she is wrong -politely- I guess? Even then, I doubt you would be satisfied. My guess is that you know that no one here is actually going to take the time to do such a herculean task since we have better ways to spend our free time and don't have the benefit of kickstarter money (espectially when so many of her points are face-palm worthy and shouldn't need to be rebutted). So I guess you think you can therefore "win" because no one can rise to your challenge, thus we are all just Anita-hating morons. The fact is the onus is on her to try to make a coherent argument, not on us to try to pick them apart. Thus far she has come woefully short of that. You may agree with her message but if her facts, her methodology, and her logic are dishonest and wrong-headed (as they continue to be) that just isn't going to cut it for those of us not readily pre-disposed to her line of thinking. The gamergate issue came about when the media not only failed to call her out on her many fallacies she presents as truth, but actively ignored the opposition despite their responsibility to present all sides of an issue. They have abandoned their journalistic integrity in the name of agendas and activism.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
45. Re: etc. Oct 19, 2014, 07:42 sdgundamx
 
Thanks to both of you for answering the question honestly. I may not agree with your answers but I respect and appreciate the logical consistency of them.

NKD wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 22:13:
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 21:34:

But let's say for the sake of argument it IS reasonable. If the feminists receiving threats need to STFU about them then it logically follows that GG supporters getting threats need to STFU about it too. Otherwise the position is hypocritical--it's okay for my side to do it but not theirs.

Yes, everyone who thinks these Twitter threats are legitimate preludes to actual violence are ignoring objective reality and need to shut the fuck up and stop playing the victim, regardless of their opinions on other matters.

Like I said, it's a statistical fact that nothing is likely to come from these Twitter threats. That's not my opinion. It's not in any way subjective. It's an outcome that almost never happens. It's not reasonable to flee your home or post articles where you claim you're worried someone will kill your newborn child.

Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 22:06:
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 21:54:

Okay, so you agree that all GG supporters need to shut up about the death threats they're receiving? If not, why not?

They don't have the media on their side so they get no positive gain out of it - I suppose they are doing it for some sort of counterpoint. But honestly, they can STFU as well - I doubt any of it is credible. At any rate I am not a GG supporter; I am someone who finds the media's behavior in the last several months utterly deplorable. I identify with no group.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
36. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 21:54 sdgundamx
 
Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 21:49:
I don't have a problem with anyone taking the steps they feel necessary to ensure their own safety. That's common sense. However, I find playing the sympathy card to be sickening. "Oh look, poor me - I got an anonymous death threat - let me post it all over my social network pages so everyone can give me all kinds of positive coverage and exposure!" That's just BS. You seem tho think it is a matter of simple opportunism; I find it reprehensible because professional victims like Quinn and Sarkeesian, and now this tool at Polygon, use it as a tool for discrediting all opposition, including moderate and logical opposition. Invariably the "woe is me" sympathy parade leads to unfair parallels being drawn when those in the media shamelessly play it up to paint all opposition with a broad brush because they are NOT impartial, but extremist activists. That is to say nothing that there is enough evidence to suggest at least some of these supposed threats are fabrications; I certainly wouldn't put it past people of such poor character as Sarkeesian and Quinn. There is a sizeable amount of evidence showing their documented lack of integrity so don't even start with the character assassination comments.

Okay, so you agree that all GG supporters need to shut up about the death threats they're receiving? If not, why not?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
34. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 21:34 sdgundamx
 
NKD wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 20:22:

The same thing the rest of us do when we are threatened by dickless 13 year olds behind the anonymity of the Internet. Ignore it, or if you want a slim chance of maybe them getting in trouble for it, forward it to the authorities and go about your life.

You know how many cases there are of someone on the Internet getting mad because they disagreed with someone, and then finding them and killing them? I don't even know. I can only think of a couple, ever. The two I'm thinking of were in Korea and China respectively, and in both cases the people were already personally acquainted. It just happened to be an Internet disagreement that set them off.

Sorry, but this fantasy people have of some angry nerd finding them and killing them for liking what they don't like is just not something that people need to be worried about. That's just a fact. There is no data to support that there are real risks of this happening. What few "internet creepo kills someone" stories there are, it's usually some psychopath luring someone to his house, or some stalker obsessing over someone for years. It's like living in fear of getting hit by a meteor.

Well, there's a couple of things wrong with that argument.

First, you don't speak for "the rest of us." What you're really saying is that they didn't act the way you would have acted in that situation. It's a bit unreasonable to expect everyone to act exactly the way you do.

But let's say for the sake of argument it IS reasonable. If the feminists receiving threats need to STFU about them then it logically follows that GG supporters getting threats need to STFU about it too. Otherwise the position is hypocritical--it's okay for my side to do it but not theirs.

The second thing wrong with the argument is that "the rest of us" are not public representatives of a social movement. It's their job (as well as the job of prominent proponents of GG who are receiving threats) to draw media attention to the incidents to both publicize their cause and demonstrate how people are reacting to it.

One more thing: last I checked, the people who sent these threats have not been found. When the FBI says a threat is "credible" it means they know who sent it and therefore can make an analysis about the level of danger posed by the threat. They can't make that determination one way or the other until they know who sent the threat. So the GG notion that these threats not being credible = there is no risk is pretty much bullshit.

EDIT: What I'm saying is that when the authorities determine there is no credible threat, it means they either know who made the threat and have determined that person isn't likely or able to carry it out OR they don't have corroborating information that the threat isn't a one-off instance. In the former situation you could be reasonably sure that there is no risk. In the latter (this case) there is still a risk of something happening but without further information becoming available the authorities can't take any action other than increasing security and letting people know about the threat so that they're more alert of the potential situation.

EDIT 2: Took me a while to find it, but here's a link to a Polygon article in which they interview the FBI and it is explained how they come to the determination of whether a threat is credible or not:

Authorities continue to 'aggressively pursue' death threats to Sarkeesian, Utah university

This comment was edited on Oct 18, 2014, 21:53.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
31. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 20:17 sdgundamx
 
Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 13:07:

Dammit I don't want spin, I want NEWS. This is why I don't watch the vast majority of mainstream news outlets.

100% agree. At least we'll always have Blue's.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
30. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 20:13 sdgundamx
 
Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 19:18:
I often refer to Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian as professional victims because any persecution, be it real or fabricated, furthers their causes so they play it for all its worth. It's not a term I use generally about "the other side" as you put it. I find the section that NPD quoted to be nothing but sympathy-fishing melodrama.

I don't understand the disdain for using the things that happen to them as support for their positions. If you're in the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s and you get threatened for speaking out against racial discrimination, does it not make sense to use that event as evidence that attitudes need to change? Conversely, if it's wrong for these women to use the threats as support for their positions isn't it equally wrong for GG supporters to claim that the lack of reporting of threats against them is proof that journalism is treating the issue in a one-sided way? I mean, aren't both sides entitled to use the events for all their worth? In both cases, the threats are relevant to the argument.

Serious question: what exactly do you expect the women receiving threats to do when they are threatened? In your opinion, what's the proper response?

Also just FYI the term "professional victim" is commonly used to describe people who don't take responsibility for the things that happen to them even in the cases that what happened was likely their own fault (i.e. failing a test and blaming it on the teacher rather than a lack of studying). I don't think you're trying to imply that the abuse hurled at these women is their own fault, so maybe professional victim isn't the right term for what you're describing?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
14. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 12:49 sdgundamx
 
Henry Dorsett wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 12:44:
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 12:13:
But I think you're grossly underestimating what it takes to make a game, let alone get it sold somewhere (whether it be in a store or through Steam's broken Greenlight system). It's not a good analogy again because to write some Internet news all you need is an Internet connection and a word processor.
And all you need to make a game is GameMaker's free edition.

Disagree? I should hope so. It does take a lot more than to make a game that anyone is going to enjoy. But it also takes more than a word processor to write an article or an editorial. You have to be able to make a case and back it up with evidence (or, you know, you can write for any of the hack websites like Kotaku and Polygon). You have to either get it published on a site with a built-in readership, or cultivate a readership of your own.

So, yeah, anyone can make a game with shit programming, shit graphics, and no real plot to speak of, and then put it online and have nobody play it (Jim Sterling rants about this all the time). But to say that it is simple to get an article written and published in such a way as that people will notice it is kind of absurd, too, don't you think?

And, frankly, I'm all for a high bar in getting things published, whether they be games or news articles or editorials. We've seen what happens when shit gets given equal time. It's not pretty.

Just full disclosure, I worked in the game industry for years and did a brief stint in gaming journalism and based on my own experiences in both worlds I still think it's harder and incredibly more resource intensive to make a game--especially if you're aiming for a quality game--than it is to set up a quality news website.

Not saying game journalists don't work hard or that setting up a new website isn't hard... just saying (my original point) it's a really bad analogy.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
11. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 12:21 sdgundamx
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 12:19:
I can use flowery language too, but fact is that actions are what counts. And just 1 click away I see a scathing hate filled article on polygon that lumps every (gamer) together....

While some "editor" claims they have guidelines against that.. but apparently not for their own writing staff. So kudos Polygon, you are still boycotted

Could you let us know the title of the article you're referring to? I'd be interested in taking a look at it and comparing it to what they've written in their ethics code.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
9. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 12:13 sdgundamx
 
Redmask wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 12:03:
I feel like that's a bit of a false analogy though. Unlike Internet news, games have gatekeepers like publishers that they need to get through

No they don't. Anyone can make a game and put it on a digital service these days. I think the logic works fine, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't really have a problem with the representation of women in video games either, its been changing for the better for quite some time already. Let's not forget men are often portrayed as sub-human monsters in video games but that doesn't mean its always the case just like not every video game treats women like sexual objects.

Off to the gym then gone for the rest of the weekend but don't objectify any women while I'm gone you naughty gamers!

Oh, I absolutely agree it's getting better. But I think you're grossly underestimating what it takes to make a game, let alone get it sold somewhere (whether it be in a store or through Steam's broken Greenlight system). It's not a good analogy again because to write some Internet news all you need is an Internet connection and a word processor.

On the other hand, think about all the ingredients you need to make a game, both in terms of skilled human resources (programmers, artists, designers, sound engineers, etc.) and equipment (specialized graphics and coding software, PCs to run said software, dev kits if you're planning to publish to consoles, etc.) and I think you'll agree it is no where near as easy (or cheap) as you're trying to make it out to be.

EDIT: I should also mention the primary reason it is getting better is because people are critical of what has been produced so far. The Creative Director on The Last of Us has publicly stated that Anita Sarkeesian's work had a profound influence on the creation of the characters and story.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
130. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 12:01 sdgundamx
 
Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 03:06:
Where I see the problem occurring is if a website claims that it is a site for gaming and then has a bunch of pictures of scantily clad women. That's implicitly sending the message that gaming is only for hetero boys and the site is going to ignore the female/homosexual gamers.

So a website needs to claim that it's for hetero men for this to be okay? Somehow I think you and your ilk would still bitch about it. Hell, I would think that would be inherently obvious if they are showing pictures of hot scantily dressed women. (EDIT: Of course one could argue it is also geared towards lesbian gamers...) The way I see it, if you have a problem with sites like Action Trip which proudly posts a new "babe of the day" (today's is awesome too) then in the name of consistency you should have a problem with Vogue, Self, Glamour, and other rags for women because they ignore the hetero/homosexual male. Most websites cater to all types of gamers so what the hell is wrong with having a few that focus on a select group?

Sorry for the late reply, I had a wedding to attend today. On the plus side, it gave me a lot of time to think about how to reply to your comment.

Clearly, something I said in that comment angered you (judging by your use of the words "your ilk" and "bitch"). I apologize if you were offended by the comment because that wasn't my intent at all in quoting you. In fact, I was trying to agree with you that we shouldn't shame people for having an interest in the human form (or more specifically if you like, for males to have an interest in the female form).

You responded, though, like I'd just kicked your dog when I made what is the perfectly reasonable suggestion that it is disingenuous for a site to claim it is dedicated to gamers to then pander to only one segment of the gaming community and exclude the rest of it. I wasn't singling out any sites--it was more of a hypothetical.

Yes, you are correct--it IS inherently obvious if you visit a website that caters to a particular crowd that if you do not fit a specific gender or sexuality then you don't belong there. How is it not better better for everyone if the website either explicitly declares itself dedicated to a specific audience in the gaming community (i.e. GayGamer.net) OR provides content that is more inclusive (i.e. since you brought up the ActionTrip example, a "Hunk of the Day" to go with the "Babe of the Day")?

I'm not clear why this suggestion is outrageous to you. Vogue, Self, and Glamour are, as you said, magazines designed to entertain women. I see no problem with that as they are quite clear about who they want to attract as readers--Glamour, for instance, bills itself as the #1 magazine for women in the U.K. just as GQ makes it clear in the title (Gentlemen's Quarterly) who the magazine is designed for. All I'm saying is that gaming websites could use that same kind of clarity and easily avoid sending the message that games are only for a particular group of people.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
7. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 11:58 sdgundamx
 
Redmask wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 11:40:

Sure and I suspect that will be the result of whats happened here. That logic works both ways too. 'if you want more games with women in them then go ahead and make them, no one is stopping you'.

I feel like that's a bit of a false analogy though. Unlike Internet news, games have gatekeepers like publishers that they need to get through. And I don't think the argument is for more games with women, I think it's for better representation of women (or other minorities) when they do appear in games. If the games are being predominately made by Caucasian men that gets a lot more difficult to do. It's not that they can't do it (lots of great male writers for instance create believable female characters in their works) but only that it raises the hurdle a bit higher.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
3. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 11:12 sdgundamx
 
Redmask wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 11:09:

Gaming media is already very liberal minded to say the least so if that did happen it would just be providing something to an under served audience.

What do you think, though, is that a good thing or bad thing for the industry?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
1. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 11:07 sdgundamx
 
I have mixed feelings about the Polygon editorial.

I think some of the arguments made for coming out against GG are unfair. I've been to several GG forums--including the ones on The Escapist and (*gasp*) 8chan--and found them to be quite civil and focused on their primary message of ethics in gaming journalism. And they raise some good points about how most of the gaming media are ignoring the harassment coming in their direction but publicizing any harassment going the other way.

That said, I've also encountered (via Twitter and some other pro-GG websites) GG supporters who were anything but civil or focused on the primary message and quite well fit the media stereotype of man-children upset that their hobby was being criticized (most of this rage is directed at Anita Sarkeesian). There are most certainly people who have taken up the GG flag and tried to use it to push their own agendas (or have started trouble just for the sake of trolling). And their numbers are certainly not insignificant.

Getting back to the editorial, it makes some great points about Polygon's own ethics policy and ethics in journalism in general, and I think fairly explains why they didn't run the stories on Zoe when they first broke (a wise choice for them in hindsight as all of it proved to be nothing but tabloid fodder with the sex-for-good-press allegations turning out to be untrue).

Frankly, though, I don't see why they needed to come out against GG. How hard is it to decry the bullying and threats heading in both directions without taking a side? Okay, they clearly don't agree that the ethics problems are as big as GG supporters are claiming, but I don't see the need of trying to paint the whole movement as a bunch of women-hating bullies.

In summary, it was a disappointing editorial. It came across to me as jumping on the anti-GG bandwagon, like they were afraid of being late to the party or something.

One thing from the editorial really stood out though. It was the idea that gaming media is going to fracture (much as broadcast media did) into different channels for different people. So for example, people who want a conservative spin on their gaming news will go to one site and those who want a progressive spin will go to another.

I find that prospect a bit scary, actually. Look at how many people rely solely on either Fox News or MSNBC as their sources of information. They get to hear what they want to hear and don't ever have to encounter opinions that may be against their own views. I think that only entrenches people in their worldviews and makes it less likely to ever change their minds.

I would hate to see that happen in gaming, but I know the process has already started and I'm not sure there's any going back at this point.

EDITS: Spelling mistakes.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
123. Re: etc. Oct 18, 2014, 01:41 sdgundamx
 
Prez wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:16:

But, again, things come down to trends. Someone telling one racist joke isn't necessarily a racist. Someone telling many racist jokes almost definitely is.

I don't necessarily agree. But the more important part I think is to make a distinction between appreciating the human form and telling racially charged jokes. The former is natural and not at all off-putting to me, while the latter makes me squirm a bit when I hear it because of the consequences it can have.

I agree there is nothing wrong with appreciating the human form.

Where I see the problem occurring is if a website claims that it is a site for gaming and then has a bunch of pictures of scantily clad women. That's implicitly sending the message that gaming is only for hetero boys and the site is going to ignore the female/homosexual gamers.

Personally, I think that is most certainly worth criticizing. The "appreciate the human form" defense in that case would be dishonest as there are no pictures of the scantily clad men and, last I checked, they had human forms too.

Now, I don't see anything wrong with a website branding itself as a young mens' online magazine that focuses heavily on gaming and then including only pictures of female models in various states of undress. You go there and you get what's advertised.

I do find it disingenuous though for a website to brand itself as a gaming (or even entertainment website) and then blithely disregard large segments of the audience for games/entertainment.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
114. Re: etc. Oct 17, 2014, 19:01 sdgundamx
 
UHD wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 18:35:
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 18:22:
Oh? I guess that's why when you look at the tweets, you see all of those "game journalists" retweeting it and favoriting the pro-bullying message right?

It means they agreed with it. It doesn't mean Sam Biddle is a gaming journalist. You can agree with someone without being a part of their clique. The world is not that black and white.

Right they agreed with it... which means they agreed bullying is the answer? Even if the original tween didn't come from a gaming site, that is problematic and I don't mind GG supporters pointing that out.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73 Comments. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo