Support NeoGAF

[Dugna]

All of this just seems so small time to me. It cracks me up that people are so worked up about this stuff.

So questioning the AAA being associated with the press is alight but not when a indie is questioned as being associated with the press? Both sides should be constantly scrutinized equally if we can sit their and hound a higher up for stupid crap we can do the same to indies.

So what happens when the indies becomes AAA and that person is still being promoted by the press and still giving awards by their friends, do we then finally questioned them about this practice? No that's stupid to do and should never be allowed.

 

[Dugna]

....you guys seriously just allow this because it's indie? Well guess it doesn't matter who calls themselves a journalist anymore because being friends with everybody in the biz is so fine, we should totally trust every single freaking thing they said.

 

[Gsak]

Jessie. Take a look at how many pages this thread is, how many views it has and how many posts. Guess what: People do care about gaming journalism and corruption in it. Simple as that.

 

[JesseEwiak]

....you guys seriously just allow this because it's indie? Well guess it doesn't matter who calls themselves a journalist anymore because being friends with everybody in the biz is so fine, we should totally trust every single freaking thing they said.

Allow or don't allow it. It's how every independent scene in entertainment works. Books, movies, music, and so on. It's not a surprise the games industry works the same way. People who know how to interact with other people are going to have an advantage over introverts or people who are out and out jerks. Sorry, that's how life in general works. Not everything can be an IT job.

Jessie. Take a look at how many pages this thread is, how many views it has and how many posts. Guess what: People do care about gaming journalism and corruption in it. Simple as that.

I could like you to a liberal or conservative website where there's many more pages talking about things we know are false. The loudness of the conservation doesn't actually mean a lot of people care. It means a number of people have a lot of free time to talk about stuff. And I include myself in that number. Plus, there's plenty of posts in here from people like me, who don't see it as the end of the world.

 

[unbias]

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Tadh...e_Of_Gamings_Truthers_And_Their_Gamergate.php

Here's great piece that articulates for me why I find so much of this shit to be infuriating. The people who are imagining their hobby is being wrecked are lot like the people who make believe that concern about climate change is some secret plot to wreck the western economy. Long but great.

And, I've had a hard time keeping up with everything over the holiday weekend here in the US but it sounds like there's some YouTube manifesto floating around. Is that real?

http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/31/why-i-feel-bad-for-and-understand-the-angry-gamergate-gamers/

And another good one.

I read both of those, and neither of them were that good. I mean, I literally just twittered gamersgate, because I thought it was just, literally, a false hashtag that people used to describe outrage. After looking through some of it... All I see is a bunch of people coming from all sorts of different perspectives being pretty petty, but I'm seeing more insults, right now anywats, from the supposed... more reasonable? I dunno if you are jumping online on twitter to argue with this subset I'm not sure how you can claim you are any better.

As for the articles, the 1st one created a red herring, in terms of creating a talking point, really, unrelated to what I'm seeing people complain about. There was nothing substantive in the article and it was completely op-ed, with nothing empirical to support the notion of what exactly the "real" talking point was. Seemed more of a tirade against truthers and the tea party honestly. Essentially saying nothing other then saying people are mad because of death threats and women in gaming.

When in reality, these people are getting mad at what they think is conspiracy, but instead is just seeing click bait and stirring the pot for a recognizable platform and money.

The 2nd article...well all it is doing is what I can only guess is taking the worst of tweets(honestly if you are debating on twitter you are already losing) and starting an argument from there to prove an entirely different point. The whole thing is odd. But this is what happens in print, you get used to saying anything you want, via op-ed and not supporting your claims with anything other then anecdotal experiences.

Honestly, it just looks to me that there is a bunch of click bait, journalists doubling down on click bait and some consumers seeing the rather large amount of click bait and assume collusion, when in reality it is just about a bunch of amateur bloggers calling themselves journalists. Which is funny, because these are the same people, I bet, that consider themselves head and shoulders above Forbes.

I totally understand that tweet. Put it this way. I have way more respect for the 9/11 bombers for standing up for their beliefs upfront, even if they're abhorrent, than the masses of people who wanted War with Iraq, but weren't willing to spill their blood for it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are a dem? Here are the dems you just called less respectable then terrorists.

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Ya, congrats man, compare a bunch of people yelling at video game journalists to terrorism AND THEN comparing people in government to terrorists. Congrats man, you are a real gentleman and scholar. FFS, I swear some people are unhinged from the world.

 

[Gsak]

I could like you to a liberal or conservative website where there's many more pages talking about things we know are false. The loudness of the conservation doesn't actually mean a lot of people care. It means a number of people have a lot of free time to talk about stuff. And I include myself in that number.

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are a dem? Here are the dems you just called less respectable then terrorists.

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Ya, congrats man, compare a bunch of people yelling at video game journalists to terrorism AND THEN comparing people in government to terrorists. Congrats man, you are a real gentleman and scholar. FFS, I swear some people are unhinged from the world.

Yup. All assholes. Some for understandable reasons at the time, and just some because they were wrong.

But, I really was talking about the guys of age who could serve, who did support the War, but who didn't enlist. I'm wasn't expecting McCain or Cheney to enlist, either.

Also, respect doesn't equal agreement. I have a weird respect for the Tea Party to do the actual work of shifting the GOP to the right, even if I find their views abhorrent. But, this is getting too political.

 

[jschreier]

Jessie. Take a look at how many pages this thread is, how many views it has and how many posts. Guess what: People do care about gaming journalism and corruption in it. Simple as that.

Caring about game journalism is way different than caring about indiecade awards.

 

[JMargaris]

Um, welcome to every industry. It's called networking. I mean, am I the only person on GAF who ever got a job 'cause I knew a guy?

Dude, come on.

Zoe's game was chosen as a Night Games selection at IndieCade. She was sleeping with one of the people in charge of IndieCade Night Games and her PR agent was another person in charge!

I'm not sure if this is entirely true - I don't know the exact timing of these events. But I would like everyone involved to come clean. I would like any personal and paid relationships to be disclosed and laid out in painstaking detail.

It's not "networking" or just "knowing a guy." She PAYS the PR person to do PR for her. The point of IndieCade is that any indie developer can enter a game and the best games get accepted and highlighted. Not that their game gets accepted and chosen to be highlighted because they paid someone to do so.

This is like if the people deciding the Oscar award for Best Actor are Robert Downey Jr's manager and mistress. Oh wow, he won! Totally above-board!

The indie game scene is already extremely suspect. At the IGF a guy is a judge and his good friend wins the award, then the next year that entrant is the judge, the judge is now the entrant, and the award exchanges hands. Meanwhile people submit their game, the judges don't bother to play it AT ALL, then when called out say "we're busy it's not our responsibility to actually play the entrants." (This actually happened!)

Yes, there is going to be a certain amount of closeness in a smallish scene. But if you are sleeping with a judge, or a judge is on your payroll, you should be disqualified. This is common sense stuff.

IndieCade is coming up again in October. Are the games this PR person represents barred from winning awards? Or do they at least do full disclosure and have a selection process where this person is recused when discussing these games? What about the process of even selecting the games in the first place?

These events always have had the appearance of being suspect - certain games are rejected and others aren't for reasons that appear to have less to do with merit than friendship. But now that it's been revealed that some of the entrants are literally sleeping with the decision makers and people's PR people are doing the organization this stuff needs to be 100% clear with policies and disclosure to make sure it's fair.

There are a lot of devs who don't enter these sorts of events because they believe, rightly or not, that they have no chance. This sort of thing contributes to that.

For an indie dev exposure is everything. It really sucks for indie devs who don't live in major metropolitan areas, have social anxiety, are minorities (especially certain types of minorities - ones without graduate degrees for example), can't afford to travel to a bunch of cons and game jams, can't afford a PR person, etc, if whether or not they can win an award is determined not by merit but whether they are friends with a specific clique of white hipsters.

These events are supposed to be about helping everyone based on merit, not helping the people willing to pay for PR.

 

[Gsak]

Caring about game journalism is way different than caring about indiecade awards.

Both are parts of the industry and parts of gaming culture aren't they? So when shady dealings are involved, I care all the same.

 

[Dugna]

Yup. All assholes. Some for understandable reasons at the time, and just some because they were wrong.

But, I really was talking about the guys of age who could serve, who did support the War, but who didn't enlist. I'm wasn't expecting McCain or Cheney to enlist, either.

Also, respect doesn't equal agreement. I have a weird respect for the Tea Party to do the actual work of shifting the GOP to the right, even if I find their views abhorrent. But, this is getting too political.

The reason that the people who supported the war but wouldn't enlist is because they respect the troops fighting over there. they give no shits about the political agenda or the reason all they know is that some of their friends of family members are over there for reason and they want to live because they will stay alive.

It kinda reminds you of something huh? Like the mass populace DOES NOT care about agendas, maybe there is another group that maybe apposes that at this very moment? ehh nahhh

 

[Steel]

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s71k8k

This should be an article. Completely level headed, and I agree with it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

The reason that the people who supported the war but wouldn't enlist is because they respect the troops fighting over there. they give no shits about the political agenda or the reason all they know is that some of their friends of family members are over there for reason and they want to live because they will stay alive.

It kinda reminds you of something huh? Like the mass populace DOES NOT care about agendas, maybe there is another group that maybe apposes that at this very moment? ehh nahhh

Since I didn't get your witty analogy, all I'm going to say is I remember the 2002-04 era quite differently than you do. I don't remember a lot of "supporting the troops." That was the reasoning the pro-war side came up with to continue things after it went to pot. All I heard was a lot of "let's go kill some terrorists, and by let us, I mean, you poor saps who didn't get into college over there, while we go to our College Republican's meeting."

 

[unbias]

Yup. All assholes. Some for understandable reasons at the time, and just some because they were wrong.

But, I really was talking about the guys of age who could serve, who did support the War, but who didn't enlist. I'm wasn't expecting McCain or Cheney to enlist, either.

Also, respect doesn't equal agreement. I have a weird respect for the Tea Party to do the actual work of shifting the GOP to the right, even if I find their views abhorrent. But, this is getting too political.

It's still pretty messed up you respect terrorists more then you respect people who thought going to war wasnt bad. That is some philosophy you got there to be able to respect terrorists more. I mean, I guess it would make sense if you were someone who believed in the non-aggression principle, but I doubt you believe in that?

 

[Dugna]

This should be an article. Completely level headed, and I agree with it.

That I can agree on if this is what was posted on Kotaku instead of that "gamers are dead" crap then I think a lot of this stuff wouldn't be hitting them so hard. Well minus that Ubisoft stuff because I still believe in freedom of expression even if that expression offends somebody.

I guess that's my main problem with all of this, all of this rhetoric crap is forcing people to do what they don't want. If they don't they have their heads cut off publicly in articles that are mainly opinions pieces masquerading as articles to influence peoples thought processes. If people would stop stiffling art because they're offended it would help.

Make more games for more people and let everybody have their own personal toys, not take away a toy or break it in half to let the unhappy person happy. Because half a toy never makes anybody happy but a full toy does.

Man do I wish people in the west would adopt Japan's ideas about video gaming again *sigh*

 

[Shingro]

So, the press does have an "Us Vs Them" approach often. But something for fellow gamers to understand that might help with the empathy of this from the perspective of the press. You know those crazy 5% on the top and bottom of issue? They get to hear from that portion every time from pretty much any article, opinion or review with even a hint of interest in it. So the crazy people that are making the average people of both sides look bad? They get to deal with them all the time.

Now remember all that research showing that people are prone to recognizing titles as true even if revealed to be false and how the brain builds associations? They've been building associations of the crazy people to their readers for ages. They are going to hear disproportionately from the people who take an opinion to extremes. Those people naturally have more motivation to write/comment/etc then the people less swayed.

It's not right for the press to be so antagonistic and dismissive, but it's also completely understandable how they got there. These crazy people always existed, it just wasn't as easy to hear from so many of them. And if an article gets 20000 views? That's a cool 1000 insane rants. No way some of that doesn't get through and start mucking up someone's perceptions of their audience. I just don't think the brain is really prepared to handle that sort of thing gracefully.

I don't know how you counter that, but speaking up and trying to stick to being reasonable and rational regardless of your position would probably help.

 

[Shingro]

That I can agree on if this is what was posted on Kotaku instead of that "gamers are dead" crap then I think a lot of this stuff wouldn't be hitting them so hard. Well minus that Ubisoft stuff because I still believe in freedom of expression even if that expression offends somebody.

I guess that's my main problem with all of this, all of this rhetoric crap is forcing people to do what they don't want. If they don't they have their heads cut off publicly in articles that are mainly opinions pieces masquerading as articles to influence peoples thought processes. If people would stop stiffling art because they're offended it would help.

Make more games for more people and let everybody have their own personal toys, not take away a toy or break it in half to let the unhappy person happy. Because half a toy never makes anybody happy but a full toy does.

Man do I wish people in the west would adopt Japan's ideas about video gaming again *sigh*

Well, I've got good news for you, if there is a hole in an appeal, it will eventually get filled. Doubly so as development tools become more pervasive and ease of use is expanded. Games fundamentally are fantasy based. Practically every game idea could basically be preempted with some variation of "Wouldn't it be cool if you could..."

Between sex and sexuality being one of the most fundamental of human drives, virtual reality knocking on our front doors, and a budding indie scene, to say nothing of better and better voice recognition which will at some point cross into automated translation tools.... Well there's no way that anyone controls that train for better or for worse.

Even if there becomes major social pressure against some types of fantasies, we'll be drowning in the game fantasies of other cultures all over the world soon enough. There will be content forever, and just like violent video games there'll probably be a hubub (we're probably in it now) and eventually people will relax. "Stop liking what I don't like" will cool off from both sides and people will be able to indulge whatever their personal preferences are through a wide medium of entertainment.

I think we're just in some rough growing pains right now.

(Edit: Sorry, thought the thread was moving faster then that)

 

[Dugna]

So, the press does have an "Us Vs Them" approach often. But something for fellow gamers to understand that might help with the empathy of this from the perspective of the press. You know those crazy 5% on the top and bottom of issue? They get to hear from that portion every time from pretty much any article, opinion or review with even a hint of interest in it. So the crazy people that are making the average people of both sides look bad? They get to deal with them all the time.

Now remember all that research showing that people are prone to recognizing titles as true even if revealed to be false and how the brain builds associations? They've been building associations of the crazy people to their readers for ages. They are going to hear disproportionately from the people who take an opinion to extremes. Those people naturally have more motivation to write/comment/etc then the people less swayed.

It's not right for the press to be so antagonistic and dismissive, but it's also completely understandable how they got there. These crazy people always existed, it just wasn't as easy to hear from so many of them. And if an article gets 20000 views? That's a cool 1000 insane rants. No way some of that doesn't get through and start mucking up someone's perceptions of their audience. I just don't think the brain is really prepared to handle that sort of thing gracefully.

I don't know how you counter that, but speaking up and trying to stick to being reasonable and rational regardless of your position would probably help.

Which is what this whole week hasn't been *sigh*

 

[unbias]

That I can agree on if this is what was posted on Kotaku instead of that "gamers are dead" crap then I think a lot of this stuff wouldn't be hitting them so hard. Well minus that Ubisoft stuff because I still believe in freedom of expression even if that expression offends somebody.

I guess that's my main problem with all of this, all of this rhetoric crap is forcing people to do what they don't want. If they don't they have their heads cut off publicly in articles that are mainly opinions pieces masquerading as articles to influence peoples thought processes. If people would stop stiffling art because they're offended it would help.

Make more games for more people and let everybody have their own personal toys, not take away a toy or break it in half to let the unhappy person happy. Because half a toy never makes anybody happy but a full toy does.

Man do I wish people in the west would adopt Japan's ideas about video gaming again *sigh*

If you think that is what most of this is about... I'd say your opinion on the press was, originally, much higher then it should have been. Since new media has taken over, this is what your press has looked like. You are not seeing people stifle art(that wont happen, unless consumers stop buying it) you are seeing people click bait for career advancement. If people actually cared you wouldn't see the large % of people in the press be white or at the very least they would be complaining about it a lot more. They are going for the low hanging fruit, because there is no risk and the climate that they are reaching for applauds it.

They are not taking your games away, they are just making themselves more irrelevant by taking advantage of click bate spike at the cost of lower traffic at the end of it. You need to stop being so worried. Ya, sure, talk about what you disagree with, point out what you dont like and ect, but just stop clicking on their stuff, that will help far more then anything else. If you think this is about a battle of idea's, I just wish I was that idealistic and not cynical...but I'm not seeing anything here that is any different from the mainstream press. This is about money, clicks, and promotability(I swear this is a word google), always has been, it's been the game since before new media and there is no indication it is going away anytime soon.

IMO, you may think you are being cynical but I dont think you are being cynical enough. MSNBC and Fox news are not doing what they do because they care, they do it because it gets raitings. The world isnt motivated by agenda it's motivated by money, so as long as the money is there you wont have to worry. I mean, ya, sure maybe you will get boob sizes to shrink, characters more clothed, or less plot porn in "gritty" narratives, but I bet not by much.

 

[NateDrake]

What is this 'Us vs Them' thing all about? I stay off social media and GAF for one day & things seem to have evolved to another beast.

 

[Dugna]

If you think that is what most of this is about... I'd say your opinion on the press was, originally, much higher then it should have been. Since new media has taken over, this is what your press has looked like. You are not seeing people stifle art(that wont happen, unless consumers stop buying it) you are seeing people click bait for career advancement. If people actually cared you wouldn't see the large % of people in the press be white or at the very least they would be complaining about it a lot more. They are going for the low hanging fruit, because there is no risk and the climate that they are reaching for applauds it.

They are not taking your games away, they are just making themselves more irrelevant by taking advantage of click bate spike at the cost of lower traffic at the end of it. You need to stop being so worried. Ya, sure, talk about what you disagree with, point out what you dont like and ect, but just stop clicking on their stuff, that will help far more then anything else. If you think this is about a battle of idea's, I just wish I was that idealistic and not cynical...but I'm not seeing anything here that is any different from the mainstream press. This is about money, clicks, and promotability(I swear this is a word google), always has been, it's been the game since before new media and there is no indication it is going away anytime soon.

IMO, you may think you are being cynical but I dont think you are being cynical enough. MSNBC and Fox news are not doing what they do because they care, they do it because it gets raitings. The world isnt motivated by agenda it's motivated by money, so as long as the money is there you wont have to worry. I mean, ya, sure maybe you will get boob sizes to shrink, characters more clothed, or less plot porn in "gritty" narratives, but I bet not by much.

Guessing I'm taking a break from all of this....I should've been getting excited all week about TGS and this stuff has come up =/ Still gunna tweet but I guess I'm done discussing this on here because the majority just don't seem to really care. As evident by the above posts.

 

[tengiants]

What is this 'Us vs Them' thing all about? I stay off social media and GAF for one day & things seem to have evolved to another beast.

I know I'm so lost. I was away from the computer all day. I just read an article comparing the whole situation to 911 truthers. Wtf is going on.

 

[unbias]

What is this 'Us vs Them' thing all about? I stay off social media and GAF for one day & things seem to have evolved to another beast.

There are, to some, 2 stances "For diversity" "Not for diversity". No sane person actually thinks there are literally 2 stances to anything, so it is just click bait press who never heard of empirical evidence in their jobs existence and some gamers who are convinced the game press has the power to take away game design in any significant way. I mean, unless you believe everything on twitter you read. I understand why #gamersgate exists, the media is always blaming the consumer, instead of themselves and pubs/devs, but they need to just stop giving them clicks, that would solve most of the problem(literally).

I know I'm so lost. I was away from the computer all day. I just read an article comparing the whole situation to 911 truthers. Wtf is going on.

Haha, ya, that article was incredibly dumb. My curiosity got the better of me though and I read the whole thing. People literally say whatever pops into their head and it gets published by the press. It truly is amazing the clickbait attempts.

 

[NateDrake]

There are, to some, 2 stances "For diversity" "Not for diversity". No sane person actually thinks there are literally 2 stances to anything, so it is just click bait press who never heard of empirical evidence in their jobs existence and some gamers who are convinced the game press has the power to take away game design in any significant way. I mean, unless you believe everything on twitter you read. I understand why #gamersgate exists, the media is always blaming the consumer, instead of themselves and pubs/devs, but they need to just stop giving them clicks, that would solve most of the problem(literally)

Sounds like the cause is getting a little bit off-course and losing focus.

 

[unbias]

Sounds like the cause is getting a little bit off-course and losing focus.

"Working as intended" says everyone getting clicks from it all.

 

[Menome]

Has Jason ever...talked about this? I'm seriously baffled as to why Kotaku would write a piece about the Cards Vs Humanity allegation, but not the Quinn sexual abuse/ mental illness abuse allegation.

Kotaku got a lot of flak for running that story based off a (Tumblr/Facebook?) post. Now, a few months on, they've *not* run a story based on an Internet post. That's not disingenuous, that's them realising it was a mistake to do so first time around and not repeating that same mistake.

It's exactly the "better journalism" that people are asking for. .

 

[unbias]

Kotaku got a lot of flak for running that story based off a (Tumblr/Facebook?) post. Now, a few months on, they've *not* run a story based on an Internet post. That's not disingenuous, that's them realising it was a mistake to do so first time around and not repeating that same mistake.

It's exactly the "better journalism" that people are asking for. .

Ya, the problem is the press just stirs shit on twitter, so people dont even care, they just want to lash out... Which hey, coincidentally, when you post an article about the issues, guess where they will probably go to vent(the theory anywho)? Apparently the games media is so healthy, that they can risk numbing everyone to the game press antics. But hey, keep losing market share to youtube, twitch and whatever the hell else social media decides to take.

Of course, when I twitter searched gamer gate, I literally read one blogger/game press writer(forgot his name, but he was probably pretty insignificant if I cant even remember their name) press person say "good, then we can broaden out readers". It's like what in the actual fuck do you think it takes to broaden your readers about video games? But hey shit post on twitter and clickbait, I bet it will keep working. But hey, gives me something to do while I'm recovering from ankle surgery.

Glad Kotaku is trying to make things better(although I wish they added kickstarter as well, personally), but none of it will matter if their colleague(well peers I guess) keep shit posting on twitter and making terrible articles, cause it's clear Kotaku always gets blamed in some way, when this stuff happens.

 

[Durante]

I mean, maybe I just figured out a long time ago that life isn't a meritocracy. It's about luck, who ya' knew, how you sell yourself, and how good you are, kind of. It also helps not be an ass to people for no good reason.

This is one of the most flimsy excuses for unethical behaviour I've ever read. "It's OK because that's how the world works". Have we really sunk so low?

 

[Frog-fu]

I never had much faith in the games journalism industry to begin with outside of a few sources I trusted, but if #GamerGate has shown me anything it's that this industry does not deserve to be taken seriously. The sheer contempt and unprofessional conduct demonstrated by journalists from popular gamer new outlets has been revolting. Broad-brushing and demonising your consumers because they are justifiably outraged when evidence has come to light of not only gross breaches of ethical conduct, but also volumes of proof that point to nepotism and the like... you don't treat your readership like they're the scum of the earth because they're concerned.

Granted, the vitriol is both undeniable and unavoidable, but I've been called some of the worst things simply for supporting #GamerGate. What do social injustices and misogyny have to do with unethical journalism and news outlets that treat us all with contempt and can't keep their house in order?

Of course it's not all bad, there are writers in the industry like Jason that have my respect. It's just a shame there are so few of you .

 

[Petrae]

This whole mess can have a good outcome, provided that gaming press listens to the people, engage them in civil discussion and work for improving gaming culture and the industry, together. As it is now, it all but seems like the gaming press is against their audience.

Press and audience alike, must make coordinated efforts to minimize the voices of the people who are hate-mongering, the negative issues/aspects of the industry, etc. Gaming is open for all. Let's act like it. Let's act like the damn open-minded community we want to be.

Nothing will change. We've been embroiled in this press vs. consumer war for more than two years now. It ebbs and flows, but it won't end... and why should it? Gaming press doesn't work for the consumer; I've been reminded of this several times since this whole thing began. As one member of the gaming press put it this weekend, consumers need to be "put in their place". The "us versus them" mentality won't fade; there may be forgiveness, but things won't easily be forgotten... nor should it.

After this skirmish, maybe things will be said during meetings or via e-mails this coming week. Perhaps some Editors-in-Chief will ask staff to reign in their social media usage-- or at least be aware of what's being said. That'll last for a little while, until the next incident happens, consumers get angry, and the press goes on the offensive once again.

It's a damned shame that things were allowed to get this bad. There's been a whole ton of wrong on both sides that voices of reason might have been able to prevent... or maybe limit, at least. There wasn't much of an attempt to find out why people were so angry; there was only side-choosing, verbal salvos, and foolish threats from consumers and from the media.

I'd love to be proven wrong. I hope I get a nice helping of crow to eat. For now, though, my faith is nil.

 

[Gsak]

Nothing will change. We've been embroiled in this press vs. consumer war for more than two years now. It ebbs and flows, but it won't end... and why should it? Gaming press doesn't work for the consumer; I've been reminded of this several times since this whole thing began. As one member of the gaming press put it this weekend, consumers need to be "put in their place". The "us versus them" mentality won't fade; there may be forgiveness, but things won't easily be forgotten... nor should it.

After this skirmish, maybe things will be said during meetings or via e-mails this coming week. Perhaps some Editors-in-Chief will ask staff to reign in their social media usage-- or at least be aware of what's being said. That'll last for a little while, until the next incident happens, consumers get angry, and the press goes on the offensive once again.

It's a damned shame that things were allowed to get this bad. There's been a whole ton of wrong on both sides that voices of reason might have been able to prevent... or maybe limit, at least. There wasn't much of an attempt to find out why people were so angry; there was only side-choosing, verbal salvos, and foolish threats from consumers and from the media.

I'd love to be proven wrong. I hope I get a nice helping of crow to eat. For now, though, my faith is nil.

More or less agreed, but one can only hope. By the way, is there a link for "put in their place"?

 

[Dugna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjpvCVdFVdE I....just wow....0.0

 

[Kayhan]

Maybe greater introspection would serve everyone well right now.

 

[Kayhan]

In the grand scheme of things, the actual corruption in the gaming news industry isn't all that important. Even within the gaming press, especially since there's not a lot of evidence of any actual corruption. At most, we have that a reporter who was in a relationship with an indy developer heaped praise on her games. OK, so what, that developer got to be kinda poor instead of stupidly poor? The horror.

Honestly, that is kind of absurd to me.

It all ends for me regarding games media if corruption is accepted as the way things are done.

 

[Zaph]

This thread used to be filled with great discussion on the on-going debate and malleable ethics behind game journalism.

Now it's people bashing one of the few good publications for running a completely accurate and relevant story on a previously alleged harassment/theft incident (as well as responsibly following up with the outcome); and conspiracy bullshit with nasty intrusions and assumptions on people's personal lives based on a clearly unstable individual.

 

[Kayhan]

This thread used to be filling with great discussion on the on-going debate and malleable ethics behind game journalism.

Now it's people bashing one of the few good publications for running a completely accurate and relevant story on a previously alleged harassment and theft incident (as well as responsibly following up with the outcome); and conspiracy bullshit with nasty intrusions and assumptions on people's personal lives based on a clearly unstable individual.

Not really. Kotaku gets lots of points for at least engaging in debate. That alone puts them above the rest. Others would fare much worse. Criticism isn't bashing. And considering the absolute contempt games media have shown for their audience it is absurd to expect gamers not to be critical in return.

 

[Marsyas]

Not really. Kotaku gets lots of points for at least engaging in debate. That alone puts them above the rest. Others would fare much worse. Criticism isn't bashing. And considering the absolute contempt games media have shown for their audience it is absurd to expect gamers not to be critical in return.

No, games media has not shown "absolute contempt" for their readers and the things some "concerned" readers have written go far beyond criticism.

The general argument (of a rather small number) of articles was: "ugly shit happened, that's bad" and "don't harass people, try to be better." Only a handful of articles connected what happened to some "gamer identity"/"gamer culture" and the decline of said identity (with ham-fisted arguments.) Heck, the biggest outlets didn't even cover this stuff. Just because someone feels insulted by an article or by the lack of coverage of a story doesn't mean games media has an absolute contempt for the audience. The offended person is not representative of some generalized audience. Readers who feel angry should maybe have a long look at themselves and ask: why am I so offended? What is it that a Leigh Alexander piece (or any other article) can get under my skin? Why am I incapable to just dismiss a text? What's the problem with me?

Criticism of journalism is fine and valuable. But you – as a reader – do not have an absolute right to have your criticism (or insults, or conspiracy theories) heard. Writers do not have to take the time to listen to it, especially when there are tons of people giving feedback at the same time. If you have something to say about an article, write a comment below it. If it's something very substantial, you may write an email to the publication to voice your concern (or make a threat on NeoGAF). If you have a serious issue with some conflicts of interest, then write to the editor of the publication (or make some post on Reddit or in this threat). And if you think there's a story that needs more coverage (like the harassment of the TFYC founder, corruption at IndieCade or something else), then ask a friendly journalist/editor to write something about it. But spamming journalists with insults over Twitter and making imgur images with 4chan comments is not reasonable. And when an obsessed person produces a 30 min long YouTube video about a conspiracy in journalism, then the problem is him and not the gaming media.

/rant over

 

[Widge]

Zoe's game was chosen as a Night Games selection at IndieCade. She was sleeping with one of the people in charge of IndieCade Night Games and her PR agent was another person in charge!

I'm not sure if this is entirely true - I don't know the exact timing of these events. But I would like everyone involved to come clean. I would like any personal and paid relationships to be disclosed and laid out in painstaking detail.

This bolded part. Did you read what you wrote there?

You have made a particularly strong opening statement, then followed it up with "might not be true, I don't know all the facts"?

 

[TCKaos]

No, games media has not shown "absolute contempt" for their readers and the things some "concerned" readers have written go far beyond criticism.

So you're saying the dozen(s) of articles that all came out within 48 hours screaming from the rooftops that the "gamer" identity/culture is dead/dying, is stupid/childish and is better of being dead wasn't media outlets showing absolute contempt for their own audiences?

 

[JMargaris]

This bolded part. Did you read what you wrote there?

You have made a particularly strong opening statement, then followed it up with "might not be true, I don't know all the facts"?

My first line was a restatement of the accusations. Not a statement of what I believe to be fact. I admit my phrasing left much to be desired, fair enough. How about this:

"Zoe's game was chosen as a Night Games selection at IndieCade. She had a relationship with the person in charge of Night games, though I don't know the exact timing of that relationship. Her PR person is also involved with Indiecade - specifically Night Games this year. I'm unsure of her exact involvement in past years."

The point of reporting is that reporters are good at getting information and sharing it with the public in a way that is digestible, rather than each individual doing their own sleuthing. I don't know all the facts. I did some basic research and the timeline wasn't obvious, nor was the IndieCade policy on PR people involved in the event, who made the decisions in 2013 or how that process worked. I want someone to find out the facts then tell me what they are

So you're saying the dozen(s) of articles that all came out within 48 hours screaming from the rooftops that the "gamer" identity/culture is dead/dying, is stupid/childish and is better of being dead wasn't media outlets showing absolute contempt for their own audiences?

It was certain outlets, or certain members of certain outlets. At the same time some media folks were bashing gamers others were getting excited about N64 wrestling or writing about League of Legends events. There definitely is some contempt for the audience there, but it's not fair to call it absolute or attribute it to the press as a whole.

 

[Marsyas]

So you're saying the dozen(s) of articles that all came out within 48 hours screaming from the rooftops that the "gamer" identity/culture is dead/dying, is stupid/childish and is better of being dead wasn't media outlets showing absolute contempt for their own audiences?

No, of course not. Have you actually read these articles? They write things like "Okay, gamers, let’s have a talk. First of all, my cred—rest assured I am one of your tribe" (Arthur Chu / The Daily Beast) or "If you call yourself a "gamer" and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person" (Luke Plunkett / Kotaku). The one by Leigh Alexander was a bit rougher, so what? "Gamer culture" and "gamer identity" are huge right now: Amazon agreed to buy Twitch for $970m; e-sports was on the front page of the New York Times. Why should anyone care if one or two niche writers declare "gamer culture" to be dead? It's their problem that they are out of touch with reality, not mine.

Wake me up when Game Informer puts "Fuck You" on it's cover and pewdiepie goes on a 50-min long rant about how dumb his audience is.

 

[APF]

A lot of outlets posted about that subject because like me--a "gamer"--they probably feel pretty shitty about being in this "community" right now. Those articles are speaking to an audience. Their audience.

 

[PrivateRyan]

Why should anyone care if one or two niche writers declare "gamer culture" to be dead? It's their problem that they are out of touch with reality, not mine.

Wake me up when Game Informer puts "Fuck You" on it's cover and pewdiepie goes on a 50-min long rant about how dumb his audience is.

This.

It's ridiculously sensitive to interpret these articles as a widespread attack on gaming culture that can have any sort of impact and they don't merit any response - written, emotional or otherwise. We're the ones empowering those articles by discussing them, linking to them, sharing them, etc. We're the ones giving those articles a platform and an audience.

Why bother? Just ignore them.

It's not hard.

 

[JMargaris]

This gamer bashing stuff really isn't in line with this thread. This thread is about ethics, the relationship between the press and corporate influence, etc. Not about how some people in the press are childish jerks.

Writing a piece about how nerdy virgins are the worst is laughably pathetic but it's not an ethics violation.

 

[Jarate]

This gamer bashing stuff really isn't in line with this thread. This thread is about ethics, the relationship between the press and corporate influence, etc. Not about how some people in the press are childish jerks.

Writing a piece about how nerdy virgins are the worst is laughably pathetic but it's not an ethics violation.

Actually its a hate article bullying people

That is massively unethical.

No, games media has not shown "absolute contempt" for their readers and the things some "concerned" readers have written go far beyond criticism.

The general argument (of a rather small number) of articles was: "ugly shit happened, that's bad" and "don't harass people, try to be better." Only a handful of articles connected what happened to some "gamer identity"/"gamer culture" and the decline of said identity (with ham-fisted arguments.) Heck, the biggest outlets didn't even cover this stuff. Just because someone feels insulted by an article or by the lack of coverage of a story doesn't mean games media has an absolute contempt for the audience. The offended person is not representative of some generalized audience. Readers who feel angry should maybe have a long look at themselves and ask: why am I so offended? What is it that a Leigh Alexander piece (or any other article) can get under my skin? Why am I incapable to just dismiss a text? What's the problem with me?

Criticism of journalism is fine and valuable. But you – as a reader – do not have an absolute right to have your criticism (or insults, or conspiracy theories) heard. Writers do not have to take the time to listen to it, especially when there are tons of people giving feedback at the same time. If you have something to say about an article, write a comment below it. If it's something very substantial, you may write an email to the publication to voice your concern (or make a threat on NeoGAF). If you have a serious issue with some conflicts of interest, then write to the editor of the publication (or make some post on Reddit or in this threat). And if you think there's a story that needs more coverage (like the harassment of the TFYC founder, corruption at IndieCade or something else), then ask a friendly journalist/editor to write something about it. But spamming journalists with insults over Twitter and making imgur images with 4chan comments is not reasonable. And when an obsessed person produces a 30 min long YouTube video about a conspiracy in journalism, then the problem is him and not the gaming media.

/rant over

This post is absolutely laughable.

Yes there has been a huge contingent of games journalists who have shown massive contempt for their own audience. That in itself is not theoretically bad, but you dont air that shit to the public because its bad for your image and just servers to piss off your fan base.

You can write articles about the "ugly shit happened" but blaming a group of people who are generally innocent is not the way to go. Yes, people who support Zoe Quinn and such have gotten harassed and such, but ive seen plenty of people on both sides recieve death threats. Where's the article lambasting "disgusting fat nerds" for harassing Totalbiscuit, or many of the other people who have dissented against this entire situation. But that doesnt fit their narrative of events. They want a pity party and no one wants to watch that horse shit.

Your third point is absolutely asinine because practically every site has either ignored this issue entirely, or has lambasted anyone who actually cares about breaches in ethics in journalism with some thought process of "YOURE A BIG FAT UGLY NERD WHO HAS SOCIAL PROBLEMS." People care about this shit, amd thats why you get conspiracy theorists and ms paint imgur compilation pics to cover this story, because professionals refuse to cover it objectively. Thus youre giving an audience to idiots who also want to push an agenda, but since they are the only people actually covering this shit, then they are becoming important players in this entire ordeal.

The right thing to do would be to cover the thing objectively instead of throwing a temper tantrum when people call you out on your horse shit. This just reinforces a lot of people of why they dont go onto gaming news sites. Hell, I havent visited one in quite a while due to this type of horse shit behavior.

This entire situation has been so completely unnecessary. This couldve died down so easily if people were actually competent. But no, we have to deal with game journalism defending Leigh Alexander, who wrote a horrid, hate filled piece meant to bully a people.

Thats why people are upset. This is a huge fuck up by a lot of massive players in the industry

 

[RockTurtle]

when gamers donate money to a charity thats failing, or for a hospital for kids, we are showing that gamers aren't all nerds.

when a gamer complains about dlc price gouging, f2p nickel and diming, or cutting of features for full price titles then we are entitled children who don't care about the health of the industry.

when 48% of gamers are confirmed women, it's a show that gamers aren't a monolithic entity and the definition of gamer becomes varied through console of choice or genre.

when a few idiots make insult or do stupid shit on twitter, then gamers are 99% white male neckbeard who hate women and gays and blacks.


flavor of the week.

 

[RadarScope1]

As for the articles, the 1st one created a red herring, in terms of creating a talking point, really, unrelated to what I'm seeing people complain about. There was nothing substantive in the article and it was completely op-ed, with nothing empirical to support the notion of what exactly the "real" talking point was. Seemed more of a tirade against truthers and the tea party honestly. Essentially saying nothing other then saying people are mad because of death threats and women in gaming.

When in reality, these people are getting mad at what they think is conspiracy, but instead is just seeing click bait and stirring the pot for a recognizable platform and money.

The 2nd article...well all it is doing is what I can only guess is taking the worst of tweets(honestly if you are debating on twitter you are already losing) and starting an argument from there to prove an entirely different point. The whole thing is odd. But this is what happens in print, you get used to saying anything you want, via op-ed and not supporting your claims with anything other then anecdotal experiences.

Honestly, it just looks to me that there is a bunch of click bait, journalists doubling down on click bait and some consumers seeing the rather large amount of click bait and assume collusion, when in reality it is just about a bunch of amateur bloggers calling themselves journalists. Which is funny, because these are the same people, I bet, that consider themselves head and shoulders above Forbes.

Yes, they are both opinion pieces. Not sure why that negates what they have to say. I largely agree with what was said in them, which is why I linked. I'm having a really hard time trying to separate when we can and cannot post opinions in this debate.

 

[Das Mookid]

Haven't visited Kotaku much since they butchered the format a few years back. All this drama was enough for me to click it again... It was never a particularly good gaming site, but I'm amazed at how much further the content 'quality' has degraded.

It must be enormously frustrating for these journalistic virtuosos being stuck covering an industry they hold in such contempt.

 

[unbias]

But spamming journalists with insults over Twitter and making imgur images with 4chan comments is not reasonable. And when an obsessed person produces a 30 min long YouTube video about a conspiracy in journalism, then the problem is him and not the gaming media.

You had me agreeing with most of what you were saying, up until this. The game press, on twitter, is so bad it is almost a firable offense how unprofessional some of them are. Also, the amount of times they engage in debate, on twitter, should be absolutely embarrassing. I mean, most of the outrage from both the press and the consume is on twitter... I mean how can someone in the press possibly think shit posting on twitter at an audience is anything other then stirring the pot? But hey, at least you can get a lot of publicity by fighting on twitter(possibly).

Yes, they are both opinion pieces. Not sure why that negates what they have to say. I largely agree with what was said in them, which is why I linked. I'm having a really hard time trying to separate when we can and cannot post opinions in this debate.

And I'm saying those articles were so incredibly shallow and devoid of actual discussion of what people were actually complaining about, that it just seems to be more complaining about the boogymen, that apparently is more prevalent in game communities. I mean, not like a writer would back that up with anything more then hearsay, to prove it is an actual "problem", but hey all those horrible twitter arguments he got into, that CLEARLY proves his case. I cant possibly see why that would be considered stirring the pot. Oh, oh, and using truthers and 9/11 to create a pinata, and then not really talk much about anything, other then all consumers have to be mad about is they dont want diversity. But the goal here is inclusiveness, right?

 

[Petrae]

The game press, on twitter, is so bad it is almost a firable offense how unprofessional some of them are. Also, the amount of times they engage in debate, on twitter, should be absolutely embarrassing. I mean, most of the outrage from both the press and the consume is on twitter... I mean how can someone in the press possibly think shit posting on twitter at an audience is anything other then stirring the pot? But hey, at least you can get a lot of publicity by fighting on twitter(possibly).

Strict social media guidelines should arguably be in place for gaming press websites, I think. It's not even just berating consumers that gaming press tends to do so well-- it's picking fights with colleagues where all parties involved wind up looking awful and embarrassing the sites they work for.

That said, it'll never happen. The first to do such a thing will get called out by others (not bound by said guidelines) for infringing on the right to express opinions. They'll argue that a person's opinion is his/her own and does not necessarily represent the employer.

You'd like to think that some modicum of civility would come from professionals-- or, at least, that they'd know when to respond, when to self-censor, and when to just close that social media program for awhile and do something else. It's obvious to me that this just isn't the case, and it's most unfortunate.