Support NeoGAF

[marrec]

But they aren't very transparent, unless you're like a superfan. How am I supposed to know they're friendly with Phil Fish by looking at the Fez review, for instance? It calls into question just how much the "movement" really is about transparency when it freely ignores one of the biggest and most popular offenders.

A good example is Ryan Davis' review of Rock Band 3.

You'd never know that the GB team is very close to the Harmonix team from the review alone.

Again, not that RB 3 needed nepotism to get good reviews or anything... but I don't see people targeting hatred at John Drake.

 

[Croyles]

Even with disclosure it should still be getting ire from people seeking higher ethical standards. Not reviewing a game but giving it four game of the year awards sends a mixed message.

If the rest of the field is perceived as bad then being better than most isn't much to be proud of or cheer for.

I think they have plenty to cheer about. I'm open for ideas but other than a big open letter on the front page I struggle to come up with disclosures that will help them be even more transparent without bottlenecking the "guys sit around a couch, drink beer and talk about games" style they have going for them.

At what point does it get to the stage where you can't even say if you like a game or not because you know the person who made it, even if you were as close to transparent about it as possible?

To what standards do we want to hold video game journalism?
The News is probably one of the least transparent mediums out there. Network and personal interests get in the way on what gets reported and how on a daily basis

I am all for transparency, any connections revealed do not bother me because I am aware of them. This is coming from someone who pretty much never agrees with Giantbomb views on games.

 

[Sylas]

The sooner people just get over the fact gaming 'journalism' is nothing more than outsourced marketing the better, lol.

This is just as true in the greased up hipster back rooms of indie game shows and review rags - where hipster cool kids bump uglies to be in the cool clique - as it is at the corporate review camps where the money laden AAA corporate titans wine and dine the review corps they fly out to 'cover' their latest rehashed, biannual travesty's release.

I really struggle to understand the gravitas that some attach to these issues in gaming versus far more important and socially relevant issues. Currently in the US, our real News journalism is in a state of utter crisis in the quality and integrity of reporting. In comparison, the plight of a bunch of disillusioned, creative writing majors being called out on their lack of 'professionalism' incredibly trivial.

Sorry, are you really posting on the gaming side of GAF to tell us that we shouldn't be concerned about something that's going on in the gaming industry?

 

[Vlade]

You guys are starting to appeal to the crazy hermit in me. Badged journalism is a freaky thing. I'm not hating the players, I mistrust the game

Let's take a look at the original article as it:



Literally passes judgement on the community.



On tge subject of missing the god damned point, you seem to be entirely unable to see mine, because you have not once addressed it in the entirety of our exchanges.

It's not a matter of pointing to Twitter and saying "gamers are being picked on."

It's a matter of people who have no idea of any context to this conversation pointing to Twitter and saying

"See, even the people who write for them say they're all awful people. Must be true."

"Ew, you're one of those misogynist assholes?"

"I thought you were smarter than to be a part of that"

Because no one professional writing in the public space (whether professionally or on Twitter) is making any distinction.



Fucking nothing. I didn't ask for this shit storm. It shouldn't have happened in the first fucking place because people should have more fucking respect for each other. But since that isn't ever going to happen, I would at least expect the people who write for my hobby, whose side on social issues I am constantly and consistently fighting on (despite how rare it is for them to be on mine. O can't remember the last time I saw an article about the portrayal of black characters, especially black males, in gaming not written by a black writer. Or the extreme lack of black female leads.) to leave me out of the shit flinging competition.

But lo and fucking behold, here I am up to my knees in human waste.

I'm going to self quote to try see if I'm getting the emotionless complaint.

There could be a point here, pulled apart from... things.

Gamers aren't all that well organized in a way in which they represent themselves. Critics and Games Journalism have been giving them their public face (game culture comics do not reach what i would call public), and it has entirely been criticism. Unfortunately that criticism has been reinforced lately making it pretty damned untimely to be thinking about writing anything that says "gaming with the family" or "how gaming helps you in school" or something that paints gamers well (I understand the words 'gamer' and 'gaming' are pretty tainted).

I've never felt that Kotaku (edit: as an example, not singled out) defines me, but I could see how gamers could be turned off when they see themselves defined as toilet people on twitter.

What's the answer tho? A community of gamers who generate game related news and editorial content for public consumption? Be more public with your hobby while simultaneously not being an asshole? Ultimately, I think the answer is having a diverse audience, and to get there we should have a nice place to be. to get that, yes, favorable perception would be a big part. Chicken or the egg I guess.

 

[unbias]

Why? If they are transparent about who they are and what they do, the rest is up to you. Why should they hinder their content at that point?

The problem people are having is about non-transparency imo.

Because there is something to gain from positive reviews, that is monetary or career wise. Just because you admit bias, doesn't absolve you from the appearance of, what I think, constitutes as unethical or at least ethically grey, using your platform to promote your friends. And remember, I said they are pretty ethical, I'm just saying if you want to be above reproach there is a way in doing it. I mean, I would think the simple fact that there are people who have problems with it, should infer that there is at least some perception of impropriety from reviewing products that could quite possibly benefit your friend, financially or career wise. While the statistical reality of this is low, if your goal is to be ethical, I do think it would be a way to achieve this.

They have no obligation to follow ethics(or at least the philosophy behind what being ethical is) that are not under law, so they can do what they want. I'm just saying that would be the best approach, imo. It's the same reason a lot of companies dont allow family to work in the same office if one of them is in a higher position, there is an implication of potential favoritism vs another group. If they want to embrace that they favor their friends in the industry, that is fine, but I don't think that means they are above scrutiny, either.

 

[Vice]

I do sometimes get annoyed with Giant Bomb. I think they're smart (and ethical) enough not to inflate their review scores for their friends in indie development, but they do tend to give a lot more coverage to developers they know in the SF area. It doesn't seem like a very level playing field.



Double check that.

They grade lower than other critics. The most important part. They also have a lower average game score. Since they, in theory, use the 1-10 point scale there are more chances for a game to be reviewed positively compared to the GB 5 star system. If IGN gave RE6 an 8.4 and GB gave them a 4 star review it would be reflected as an 84 for IGN and an 80 for GB so the % higher or lower than other reviews is misleading because people, for some reason, enjoy the X.X review system which results in a game getting a 2.6 rather than one star/20%.

 

[Shinta]

Attack is a bit strong , as you should never attack a developer or creator.

Too bad this happens frequently.

 

[Mully]

It'd be really interesting to see GB split in the next couple of years. Patrick certainly needs help when it comes to covering news and features, but his content totally contrasts with GB East and Base.

Patrick said before he's preparing for the future of video content in recent months. It'd be fascinating to see him spiral off from GB, but still be affiliated with CBSi and try to create the NPR of games journalism.

 

[The Adder]

True, but what community? Certainly not "gaming as a whole". That's passing judgement based on something that absolutely has happened and is separate from disparaging all gamers.

Which is context that does not exist in the actual quote that you have added yourself. If they aren't your words, you don't get to decide that yours is the only correct interpretation.

Why should anyone be out there fighting the fires of false impressions that have been being built based on the very real marketing around gaming for the last 2 decades? You're policing their tone when they've been inside gaming and writing about it for years but you're not asking the minority of gamers they were targeting to stop shitting all over themselves?

Well, not you specifically. You in a more general sense.

Glad you added that rider because I was about to light into you so hard, given that we've been in the same topics together doing just that before.

To answer your question, because I, specifically, exist. Because I have done nothing but fight at their side and their tone can have a very real negative effect on my interpersonal relationships if some 24 hour news station is having a slow day.

Hmm... good to know I suppose. I'm not sure what you're fighting for or against though if you're not seeking any specific recompense from anyone.

See above.

 

[Intheflorsh]

They grade lower than other critics. The most important part. They also have a lower average game score. Since they, in theory, use the 1-10 point scale there are more chances for a game to be reviewed positively compared to the GB 5 star system. If IGN gave RE6 an 8.4 and GB gave them a 4 star review it would be reflected as an 84 for IGN and an 80 for GB so the % higher or lower than other reviews is misleading because people, for some reason, enjoy the X.X review system which results in a game getting a 2.6 rather than one star/20%.

I don't understand any of that, but OK.

 

[CambriaRising]

This is an interesting stat to consider:

Eh, they used a 5 star review system, MC translates it to their 100 point scale. Not really indicative of anything.

 

[Jarate]

Attack is a bit strong , as you should never attack a developer or creator. With such content, criticism seeks to ask questions: Why is that character drawn that way? Who is the intended audience? Should that be the intended audience? How do games handle sexual content?

Stating that you don't find a content or feature good/relevant/etc, providing your reasons, and asking for changes is entertainment working as intended. Nothing is above criticism and feedback.

Part of the problem is people in any entertainment identify with content and in turn internalize any criticism of that content. "You don't like A, I love A, therefore you're attacking my identity."



Japan is more open about sex in that it tends to keep that stuff behind closed doors. Open repression of many of those sexual aspects, but celebration of them (and more extreme stuff) in private.

Sex is not necessarily bad, again it's about "Why" something is being done. If the answer is simple "because the creator wants to", is that good enough? Where's the line there? Outright racist work? Graphic depictions of rape? Violence against children? These are questions and idea to be explored.

In the case of frequently sexualized artwork, the larger questions are "what kind of community does this create?" and "what mindsets are fostered in those communities?". Google image search League of Legends and see the most popular images. Now do the same with Dota 2. Note the differences and ask why that's the case?

Essentially, let's not just consume the games we play.

Racism, graphic rape, violence against children are all reprehensible bad things, those are not morally the same as a video game girl with large breasts. (and even if they depict said items, it does not imply they condone those things or that the media itself is bad)

 

[Abelian75]

Having thought on it a bit, I think the bigger problem with videogame media right now is actually not the divergence but the convergence of its culture. Videogame media is too compressed right now, and as a result we can't comfortably separate any of these aspects in a manner that allows for clearer, cleaner lines to be drawn.

This is actually very much the conclusion I'm rapidly heading towards. I think there is a weird mix of markets being served that are actually very separate groups of people (with some overlap, for sure... in fact, possibly much of the overlap is exemplified by the gaming press itself, which would explain how it happened).

It might be that a charitable interpretation of what Leigh was trying to say is that she'd like to start serving only the more "what is the role of games in society, and how can we improve their role" market. Meanwhile, other people would be free to serve the "Man, games are fun as hell and I want to talk about which ones are the coolest" market. Those feel like very different discussions, and I'm not sure there are as many people interested in both of them at the same time as we might have been assuming.

 

[Vice]

I don't understand any of that, but OK.

Due to the nature of the 5 star scale, a review that would get a 4.X or 5.X on IGN would get a 2 star on Giant Bomb, assuming there's consensus that the game is pretty bad. Both say the same thing but on Metacritic each star is worth 20 points while on the 10-point scale the numbers are just turned into XX/100. So a 2 star review for Bill Bellamy's Battheship on GB would be a 40 on Metacritic while a 5.4 review for Bill Bellamy's Battleship on IGN would be 54 points despite both scores meaning, pretty much, the same thing.

 

[Das Mookid]

Sorry, are you really posting on the gaming side of GAF to tell us that we shouldn't be concerned about something that's going on in the gaming industry?

I play games, I don't work in the industry nor do I have any desire to.

I'm suggesting that the emotional investment in this particular 'issue' in games far, far outstretches its relevance. Enjoy games as games and let the marketers - sorry 'journalists' - waste their own time and client's money.

You can spend your life worrying about whatever you like, it doesn't concern me past pointing out you could be doing something more useful with your current passion and energy.

 

[MHWilliams]

Too bad this happens frequently.

Truth.

 

[Shinta]

You know, it really does highlight my other major grievance with the media online since 2005. I realize now it's kind of one and the same issue.

No Japanese games will really get to benefit from the kind of bias and close friendships many of these outlets seem to develop. And if they're not extremely rigorous in striving for impartiality, you can see the end result. In the news coverage, and in reviews.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Due to the nature of the 5 star scale, a review that would get a 4.X or 5.X on IGN would get a 2 star on Giant Bomb, assuming there's consensus that the game is pretty bad. Both say the same thing but on Metacritic each star is worth 20 points while on the 10-point scale the numbers are just turned into XX/100. So a 2 star review for Bill Bellamy's Battheship on GB would be a 40 on Metacritic while a 5.4 review for Bill Bellamy's Battleship on IGN would be 54 points despite both scores meaning, pretty much, the same thing.

Thanks, I get it now.

Honestly, I really like GB's simple review scores even if they cause trouble for metacritic.

 

[MHWilliams]

Racism, graphic rape, violence against children are all reprehensible bad things, those are not morally the same as a video game girl with large breasts. (and even if they depict said items, it does not imply they condone those things or that the media itself is bad)

But in some cases, racism in a work can be used for a point. Again, the point is "why" and generally we hope the answer is beyond "because I like it."

 

[bishopcruz]

if you mean "interesting" like the embarrassing MRA crap adam baldwin has been on this whole time then yes...interesting

Or not at all, actually. But whatever, pre-conceived notions and all that. And comparing it to MRA stuff is more than a little disingenuous. Or are people like OMGfloofy and Boogie sexist trolls too?

I said interesting last night, primarily because the whole tag was fairly new as of then, and I wasn't sure where it was going. Since then it's been fairly positive, though knowing twitter, I doubt that will last the day. It seems to come out more as a response to the attack on self-identified gamers than anything else.

 

[Sylas]

This is actually very much the conclusion I'm rapidly heading towards. I think there is a weird mix of markets being served that are actually very separate groups of people (with some overlap, for sure... in fact, possibly much of the overlap is exemplified by the gaming press itself, which would explain how it happened).

It might be that a charitable interpretation of what Leigh was trying to say is that she'd like to start serving only the more "what is the role of games in society, and how can we improve their role" market. Meanwhile, other people would be free to serve the "Man, games are fun as hell and I want to talk about which ones are the coolest" market. Those feel like very different discussions, and I'm not sure there are as many people interested in both of them at the same time as we might have been assuming.

I think there are absolutely a lot of people that would be interested in that kind of division. A lot of the "problems" crop up because the two are intwined so heavily right now.

I mean, hell. Let's take Giantbomb as an example again. Patrick routinely receives a bunch of trash because he likes to look at the games and, like your example above, goes "What is the role of this in society?" The rest of the site is dedicated to, "Man games are fun as hell. Look at this!"

The two are currently, more or less, mutually exclusive. A seperation would calm a lot of people down because, hey, it's cool if people don't care about the role of games in society. That's their decision, and on some level I can understand being a little kerfluffed at seeing that kind of discussion pop up in places that are otherwise about, "Yo check this sweet thing out!"

I play games, I don't work in the industry nor do I have any desire to.

I'm suggesting that the emotional investment in this particular 'issue' in games far, far outstretches its relevance. Enjoy games as games and let the marketers - sorry 'journalists' - waste their own time and client's money.

You can spend your life worrying about whatever you like, it doesn't concern me past pointing out you could be doing something more useful with your current passion and energy.

That's fair! I'm one of those people that would very much like to discuss the "how and why" of videogames, so I'm a little more invested in watching how this all goes down. I can understand the point of someone that doesn't particularly care, though.

 

[Croyles]

Because there is something to gain from positive reviews, that is monetary or career wise. Just because you admit bias, doesn't absolve you from the appearance of, what I think, constitutes as unethical or at least ethically grey, using your platform to promote your friends. And remember, I said they are pretty ethical, I'm just saying if you want to be above reproach there is a way in doing it. I mean, I would think the simple fact that there are people who have problems with it, should infer that there is at least some perception of impropriety from reviewing products that could quite possibly benefit your friend, financially or career wise. While the statistical reality of this is low, if your goal is to be ethical, I do think it would be a way to achieve this.

They have no obligation to follow ethics(or at least the philosophy behind what being ethical is) that are not under law, so they can do what they want. I'm just saying that would be the best approach, imo. It's the same reason a lot of companies dont allow family to work in the same office if one of them is in a higher position, there is an implication of potential favoritism vs another group. If they want to embrace that they favor their friends in the industry, that is fine, but I don't think that means they are above scrutiny, either.

Fair enough, I understand where you're coming from.

The only thing I hate is when someone tries to pretend they are completely impartial, and that is not just video game related. That shit happens everywhere in the media.

TBH I almost never read their reviews anyway, because I usually disagree with them.

 

[unbias]

But in some cases, racism in a work can be used for a point. Again, the point is "why" and generally we hope the answer is beyond "because I like it."

I agree with your point, which leads me to ask, do you ever find it challenging that some of the outlets that decide to call out for diversity in gaming, have almost no ethnic diversity with their hiring habits? Cause it bothers me.

 

[Sylas]

I agree with your point, which leads me to ask, do you ever find it challenging that some of the outlets that decide to call out for diversity in gaming, have almost no ethnic diversity with their hiring habits? Cause it bothers me.

That's a genuinely slippery slope to go down unless you have statistics to back it up, in my opinion. You can't know how many applications that come in, nor can you tell how many fill out the racial component of an application.

Worrying too much about it, especially if they aren't a high profile company, leads to affirmative action and the downsides that come along with that. There are a lot of factors involved with "breaking" into any industry -- far too many to simply go, "Hire more blacks! Hire more women!"

It is, however, almost entirely about cultivating a place that allows for diverse hiring practices. Something that far smarter people than I have put a lot of thought into.

 

[Cyrano]

This is actually very much the conclusion I'm rapidly heading towards. I think there is a weird mix of markets being served that are actually very separate groups of people (with some overlap, for sure... in fact, possibly much of the overlap is exemplified by the gaming press itself, which would explain how it happened).

It might be that a charitable interpretation of what Leigh was trying to say is that she'd like to start serving only the more "what is the role of games in society, and how can we improve their role" market. Meanwhile, other people would be free to serve the "Man, games are fun as hell and I want to talk about which ones are the coolest" market. Those feel like very different discussions, and I'm not sure there are as many people interested in both of them at the same time as we might have been assuming.

This isn't really what I mean. I mean that journalists are currently wearing too many hats and as a result are frequently ending up attached in ways that shouldn't be an issue, yet are as a result of the previous problem.

The people who think games are cool and whatever should definitely be talking to those whose interests lie in deeper analysis. Or at the very least, should be aware of them, in much the same way that people are aware of movie critics and their aims to both share and analyze movie culture while also being critical of it. I say this because the interests of these groups converge culturally.

 

[unbias]

That's a genuinely slippery slope to go down unless you have statistics to back it up, in my opinion. You can't know how many applications that come in, nor can you tell how many fill out the racial component of an application.

Worrying too much about it, especially if they aren't a high profile company, leads to affirmative action and the downsides that come along with that. There are a lot of factors involved with "breaking" into any industry -- far too many to simply go, "Hire more blacks! Hire more women!"

It is, however, almost entirely about cultivating a place that allows for diverse hiring practices. Something that far smarter people than I have put a lot of thought into.

I dunno man... If you are going to be an advocate for change, you should be talking about applying at least something similar to the rooney rule to the industry. If people truly care about diversity, tackling the stuff that makes us uncomfortable is part of a journalists job, is it not? And I think the fact that we have so many people in the industry that dont even have degree's in journalism writing for websites, I dont think degree qualification is a good enough excuse, either. We see in the fighting game and sports scene that there are plenty of diversity in this scene, so you would think it would be easier to find someone who could speak to an audience better. And there is some research that suggests black people and hispanic people play more games, per capita, then white people. So I find it hard to simply accept that it is simply due to a lack of qualified people of a minority.

 

[Gsak]

http://kotaku.com/im-conflicted-myself-about-whether-to-call-myself-a-gam-1628655973

So, it's entirely in the realm of fantasy, for someone to be a gamer, a movie-goer, a book-reader and more at the same time, right Stephen?

This is embarrassing, really.

 

[Sylas]

I dunno man... If you are going to be an advocate for change, you should be talking about applying at least something similar to the rooney rule to the industry. If people truly care about diversity, tackling the stuff that makes us uncomfortable is part of a journalists job, is it not? And I think the fact that we have so many people in the industry that dont even have degree's in journalism writing for websites, I dont think degree qualification is a good enough excuse, either. We see in the fighting game and sports scene that there are plenty of diversity in this scene, so you would think it would be easier to find someone who could speak to an audience better. And there is some research that suggests black people and hispanic people play more games, per capita, then white people. So I find it hard to simply accept that it is simply due to a lack of qualified people of a minority.

Some of this is easy to cultivate, sure. Others? Well, I don't wanna point to "society" but it could have a lot to do with it. How many of those people that play games care enough to write something about games? How many people are led to believe that they can even do that as a career?

It's never an employer's job to reach out to you (though recruiters exist for this reason). There's only so much you can do if the "diverse" applicants just aren't coming in. It's why I say it's a slippery slope unless you have hard numbers that you can point at and say, "Yeah, they are actively turning down a diverse group of people that want to work there."

 

[jschreier]

http://kotaku.com/im-conflicted-myself-about-whether-to-call-myself-a-gam-1628655973

So, it's entirely in the realm of fantasy, for someone to be a gamer, a movie-goer, a book-reader and more at the same time, right Stephen?

This is embarrassing, really.

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

 

[marrec]

http://kotaku.com/im-conflicted-myself-about-whether-to-call-myself-a-gam-1628655973

So, it's entirely in the realm of fantasy, for someone to be a gamer, a movie-goer, a book-reader and more at the same time, right Stephen?

This is embarrassing, really.

I'm really not trying to be mean here but are you intentionally missing the point now?

That's a fairly innocent comment that has nothing to do with you or anyone else and all you're doing is furthering animosity by saying his thoughtful reflection is 'embarrassing'?

What's the gain to posting this, completely missing the point, and then calling it embarrassing when he's literally just talking about himself?

 

[CamHostage]

Honestly, I really like GB's simple review scores even if they cause trouble for metacritic.

MetaCritic causes MetaCritic's problems.

 

[Sylas]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

Sure! I agree entirely. However, articles like this make me embarassed to even include gamer amongst the things that I do. I identify as a reader, a writer, a gamer, a designer. All sorts of things.

But I'm increasingly becoming wary of including gamer amongst that list because articles that constantly point out how dumb it is just calls attention to it and makes it the overriding "thing" that I identify with.

Lemme add some clarity.

It's not uncommon for one of the first things asked when you meet someone new to be, "So... what do you like doing?" Right? That's typically where something like identifying as a gamer, or a reader, or as a writer comes in to play. I don't want to tell people I'm a gamer, because of the old connotations that are coming back.

 

[Abelian75]

This isn't really what I mean. I mean that journalists are currently wearing too many hats and as a result are frequently ending up attached in ways that shouldn't be an issue, yet are as a result of the previous problem.

The people who think games are cool and whatever should definitely be talking to those whose interests lie in deeper analysis. Or at the very least, should be aware of them, in much the same way that people are aware of movie critics and their aims to both share and analyze movie culture while also being critical of it. I say this because the interests of these groups converge culturally.

I think I'm saying the same thing, or at least close to it. Maybe? I wasn't suggesting that the groups of "I love playing games" and "I'm interested in the role of games in society" are without overlap. Probably there is a lot of overlap (I'm certainly in both groups, myself). I guess I'm saying that there might be some value in it being more obvious WHICH thing is being talked about by a particular writer/gaming site. Right now they're all mushed together.

One of the more obvious problems I can see is that by presenting both things at once, when you are discussing a social issue, is that it can make it hard to distinguish between "I don't care about social issues, I just care about games" and "I don't agree with this approach to this social issue". As a result, it might be making it harder to have actual debate, because the people interested in a different approach are hard to distinguish from the people who don't give a shit.

I should probably clarify that I'm not actually sure this is a problem or that I'm right about this, but it is something I've been thinking about. Clearly SOMETHING is wrong. I'm definitely not on board with just assuming gamers are predominantly shitheads, and much more interested in finding out what is going on with the framing of these conversations that is causing them to, quite clearly, not work very well at all.

 

[poorlonelycomputer]

The sooner people just get over the fact gaming 'journalism' is nothing more than outsourced marketing the better, lol.

This is just as true in the greased up hipster back rooms of indie game shows and review rags - where hipster cool kids bump uglies to be in the cool clique - as it is at the corporate review camps where the money laden AAA corporate titans wine and dine the review corps they fly out to 'cover' their latest rehashed, biannual travesty's release.

I really struggle to understand the gravitas that some attach to these issues in gaming versus far more important and socially relevant issues. Currently in the US, our real News journalism is in a state of utter crisis in the quality and integrity of reporting. In comparison, the plight of a bunch of disillusioned, creative writing majors being called out on their lack of 'professionalism' incredibly trivial.

Yes. This. Wanna know why there aren't these ethical scandals about "film journalism" or "lit journalism" or whatever the fuck? Because nobody calls film or lit critics "journalists." Because the entertainment industries aren't news in the same way that politics or other actual events are. People are expecting fucking Woodward and Bernstein in entertainment reporting. It's ridiculous and it amply demonstrates the lack of real world perspective Alexander's article skewered. Try caring about actual things.

 

[CamHostage]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

Eh, I'd disagree with that statement actually. A century of baseball and all of the history of civilization after the invention of the futbol, we still have people identifying themselves (or being identified by others) as sports fans. And when I leave my office in the city and have to share the train with rowdy, drunken asshats on game day, the look of bitterness plastered on my face clearly identifies me as 'not a sports fan'. Scale changes the scope and need of the term, but even mass-media hobbies have stages of dedication.

I will be glad if in my life the term "hardcore gamer" means something similar to my grandchildren as it does to me.

But I digress from the topic...

...er, or, wait, is that the topic now?

 

[Punchy4486]

I do sometimes get annoyed with Giant Bomb. I think they're smart (and ethical) enough not to inflate their review scores for their friends in indie development, but they do tend to give a lot more coverage to developers they know in the SF area. It doesn't seem like a very level playing field.



Double check that. IGN and GS are both significantly less negative than GB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzY2pWrXB_0

 

[The Adder]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

That's a bizzare point, though. We've had film buffs for decades, for example. It's not their profession to know these films, but that film knowledge and the experiences they went through to gain it is a part of who they are. And thus a perfectly valid thing by which to identify themselves.

Likewise for gaming, gamers, and game knowledge and skill.

Hell, the NES and SNES were such integral parts of my childhood from 3 to 8 that I literally would not be the man I am today without them.

 

[unbias]

Some of this is easy to cultivate, sure. Others? Well, I don't wanna point to "society" but it could have a lot to do with it. How many of those people that play games care enough to write something about games? How many people are led to believe that they can even do that as a career?

It's never an employer's job to reach out to you (though recruiters exist for this reason). There's only so much you can do if the "diverse" applicants just aren't coming in. It's why I say it's a slippery slope unless you have hard numbers that you can point at and say, "Yeah, they are actively turning down a diverse group of people that want to work there."

I think it would financially benefit publications to apply the rooney rule. You are technically right, it is not their job to get diversity, you are missing my point. If you are going to advocate for diversity, you should probably be putting in practices that help expand said diversity. For instance I'm not obligated to be in Big Brothers and Sisters, to mentor children in school, however I believe getting kids interested in reading at an early age is incredibly important, so I support the Big Brother/Sister charity and involved in it and I use my own business to make a point to hire people out of the program. Am I forced to do this? Nope, I choose to do it, because I am an advocate for it.

My point is, sometimes it seems all people think they need to do is preach at the mountain top at the low hanging pleebs(crazy twitter posts) of random hateful speech on the internet and their job is done. Well no, if you truly care about these issues you get your hands dirty, and that means more then holding up a sign on 92nd street. At least that is my opinion on it.

 

[jetjevons]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

Thanks for enlightening me on how I'm allowed to/supposed to identify myself.

 

[jschreier]

Sure! I agree entirely. However, articles like this make me embarassed to even include gamer amongst the things that I do. I identify as a reader, a writer, a gamer, a designer. All sorts of things.

But I'm increasingly becoming wary of including gamer amongst that list because articles that constantly point out how dumb it is just calls attention to it and makes it the overriding "thing" that I identify with.

Lemme add some clarity.

It's not uncommon for one of the first things asked when you meet someone new to be, "So... what do you like doing?" Right? That's typically where something like identifying as a gamer, or a reader, or as a writer comes in to play. I don't want to tell people I'm a gamer, because of the old connotations that are coming back.

To generalize, I think the point of people who are declaring the death of the "gamer" is not that telling people you like video games should be embarrassing -- it's not! -- but that the idea of identifying as a "gamer" is embarrassing because that word has been co-opted and abused over the years to the point where to a lot of people it means something kinda gross.

I think Patrick Miller had the best take on this that I've seen so far: http://pattheflip.tumblr.com/post/96390223113/why-im-not-a-gamer

 

[Sylas]

I think it would financially benefit publications to apply the rooney rule. You are technically right, it is not their job to get diversity, you are missing my point. If you are going to advocate for diversity, you should probably be putting in practices that help expand said diversity. For instance I'm not obligated to be in Big Brothers and Sisters, to mentor children in school, however I believe getting kids interested in reading at an early age is incredibly important, so I support the Big Brother/Sister charity and involved in it and I use my own business to make a point to hire people out of the program. Am I forced to do this? Nope, I choose to do it, because I am an advocate for it.

My point is, sometimes it seems all people think they need to do is preach at the mountain top at the low hanging pleebs(crazy twitter posts) of random hateful speech on the internet and their job is done. Well no, if you truly care about these issues you get your hands dirty, and that means more then holding up a sign on 92nd street. At least that is my opinion on it.

I can agree with all of this. Sorry for missing the point!

To generalize, I think the point of people who are declaring the death of the "gamer" is not that telling people you like video games should be embarrassing -- it's not! -- but that the idea of identifying as a "gamer" is embarrassing because that word has been co-opted and abused over the years to the point where to a lot of people it means something kinda gross.

I think Patrick Miller had the best take on this that I've seen so far: http://pattheflip.tumblr.com/post/96390223113/why-im-not-a-gamer

Thanks for sharing the link! I haven't seen it before now.

While I can agree with the idea that the identity of being a "gamer" is effectively tarnished, I can't agree with the idea of abandoning ship and coining a different identity for it. We should seize it! Turn it into something that isn't gross and vile, if we truly believe that it's the case. There are a lot of people, and while I'm making an assumption I genuinely believe it's a valid one, that don't think gamer is this gross, awful term. I know a lot of people in the Seattle area, like I mentioned earlier, don't. Or didn't. It was an easy way to go, "Hey I like this thing!" A moniker moreso than an identity.

The word "gamer" used to be this evil thing that got a lot of people bullied and harassed, and the fact that it was beginning to disappear but is making a return -- and this time led by people in the game's industry itself? It's baffling.

I genuinely can't find the article right now, but Ben Kuchera wrote something that talked about how great it felt to talk about videogames without fear or reprisal nowadays. To say, "Yeah, I play games. I guess I'm a gamer."

To quote Patrick Miller:
""Gamer" says none of that. "Gamer" is selfish; preoccupied with one’s own pleasure over the advancement of the medium. "Gamer" is conservative; virulently opposed to change or innovation except in very specific, rigidly-defined areas. "Gamer" is tribalistic; defining oneself in terms of one’s tastes and factional allegiances above all."

That's not what I, or a lot of people, thought when they heard the word "Gamer."

 

[jschreier]

Thanks for enlightening me on how I'm allowed to/supposed to identify myself.

That is not what I said, nor is it what Stephen said. Are you just trying to pick a fight or what?

 

[Glass Shark]

Cinephiles are over. Bookworms are over. Basketball players are OVER.

Don't identify yourself by your hobbies or the writers covering your hobby are going to vilify you.

(Oh wait that only happens in video games for some reason.)

 

[marrec]

Sure! I agree entirely. However, articles like this make me embarassed to even include gamer amongst the things that I do. I identify as a reader, a writer, a gamer, a designer. All sorts of things.

But I'm increasingly becoming wary of including gamer amongst that list because articles that constantly point out how dumb it is just calls attention to it and makes it the overriding "thing" that I identify with.

Lemme add some clarity.

It's not uncommon for one of the first things asked when you meet someone new to be, "So... what do you like doing?" Right? That's typically where something like identifying as a gamer, or a reader, or as a writer comes in to play. I don't want to tell people I'm a gamer, because of the old connotations that are coming back.

It's odd though because I always tell people I play video games.

Sample conversation:

Person - "So, what do you do in your spare time?"

Me - I play video games. In fact I do a weekly podcast and blog about it all the time.

Person - "What's a podcast?"

The point being that I never identify as a gamer except to other gamers because "GAMER!" has always been an embarrassing moniker. Did you see The Wizard?

 

[Punchy4486]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

Which is why I don't feel personally attacked when people insult "gamers".

I don't like how "gamers" are perceived, but that's mostly aimed at the people causing the industry problems right now.

I love video games, they're my favorite hobby and I spend a lot of my time with them, or discussing them, or reading about them.

But in no ways does gaming define who I am.

The negative labels get associated with obsession. I like Star Wars too. I watch Doctor Who. But they are things that I enjoy, they don't color who I am as a person. Someone could easily be a good friend of mine and not know that I know what sabacc is (card game in Star Wars) or that I've ever seen an episode of Doctor Who or played a Final Fantasy. I'm a well-rounded person.

Most people play video games these days. Most people wouldn't self-identify as "gamers". Even people that regularly play and own modern consoles.

 

[poorlonelycomputer]

I think I'm saying the same thing, or at least close to it. Maybe? I wasn't suggesting that the groups of "I love playing games" and "I'm interested in the role of games in society" are without overlap. Probably there is a lot of overlap (I'm certainly in both groups, myself). I guess I'm saying that there might be some value in it being more obvious WHICH thing is being talked about by a particular writer/gaming site. Right now they're all mushed together.

One of the more obvious problems I can see is that by presenting both things at once, when you are discussing a social issue, is that it can make it hard to distinguish between "I don't care about social issues, I just care about games" and "I don't agree with this approach to this social issue". As a result, it might be making it harder to have actual debate, because the people interested in a different approach are hard to distinguish from the people who don't give a shit.

I should probably clarify that I'm not actually sure this is a problem or that I'm right about this, but it is something I've been thinking about. Clearly SOMETHING is wrong. I'm definitely not on board with just assuming gamers are predominantly shitheads, and much more interested in finding out what is going on with the framing of these conversations that is causing them to, quite clearly, not work very well at all.

To me, I read all the anti-"gamer" essays as a wake up call to decide who we really want to associate ourselves with. No one is saying stop playing/enjoying video games. But when 4chan is dominating the image of what a "gamer" is then that's not an identity I want for myself. And it's not just an issue of gamers not being a hive mind, that argument only goes so far. It reminds me of arguments about the Tea Party, where people say that not all members are racists. That may be true but when a prominent subset of your party IS racist, and virulently so, maybe you need to do some soul searching about who you want to affiliate yourself with.

At this point I'm thinking, if "gamer" is the label the man child contingent wants to claim, I'll leave them to it. I'll just be a guy who cares about social issues, doesn't conduct smear campaigns against developers/writers I disagree with, and also plays video games. I don't need some kind of solidarity with people I have absolute contempt for but happen to share a hobby.

 

[marrec]

Are you just trying to pick a fight or what?

A question that could be asked of the entirety of Twitter at this point it seems.

 

[The Adder]

It's odd though because I always tell people I play video games.

Sample conversation:

Person - "So, what do you do in your spare time?"

Me - I play video games. In fact I do a weekly podcast and blog about it all the time.

Person - "What's a podcast?"

The point being that I never identify as a gamer except to other gamers because "GAMER!" has always been an embarrassing moniker. Did you see The Wizard?

Person: So what do you do in your spare time?

Me: I'm a writer. Not an author yet, working on my first book. I do some musical composition and arranging. I'm a gamer, video and table top. Few other things to lesser degres. You?

Also, are you going to get back to me on my last post or are we just done having that conversation.

 

[Glass Shark]

But when 4chan is dominating the image of what a "gamer" is then that's not an identity I want for myself.

Is it, though? I mean, I thought this way not too long ago myself. But now I'm starting to think that the press, particularly those vocal about equality and inclusiveness, are too close to all the abuse to realize that most of us who enjoy video games are normal guys and gals. Ask your average person on the street what a gamer is. They might not have glowing things to say, they might bring up Cheetos or Mountain Dew or Call of Duty, but I don't think they're going to rant about abusive misogynistic white males. The hyper-enthusiast part of this culture, both writers and players, are perpetuating the idea of a stereotype that I don't think actually exists outside of our own heads.

 

[Riposte]

The attacks, or criticism, on the game's portrayal of women is for the sake of the medium as a whole. Whether or not you're interested in this game doesn't matter - you still stand to benefit from an industry that takes itself more seriously, and doesn't green light infantile images like the above. What's at stake is not necessarily the way a game is marketed, or whether or not it is "honest" in its representation, but rather the quality of its content. In this case, that content is a grotesque over-sexualization of its characters. It's trash, plain and simple, and deserves to be criticized for it.

And yet I was told that the criticism's purpose wasn't to prevent stuff from getting green-lighted. Sounds a lot like "trying to take your videogames away". Although I get the feeling Kamitani isn't all that less likely to green-light his own artwork and style. He would also probably disagree with the idea that he would be better off if his trash didn't exist.

It is not disrespectful or disingenuous to any artist to criticize their work.

"We are going to call you a man-child and you are going to like it!"


I wonder how many people think like CuckFupertino while voicing amicable ideas and solutions.

EDIT:

I wanted to agree with this post, but the thread got closed.

That said, I AM a bit tired of the "manchildren" insult. While it's totally warranted here, in general it has stopped meaning anything other than "people who don't conform to MY standards of maturity", which is in itself a very immature label to apply. In fact, I find this obsessive quest for the "maturity" holy grail that I've been seeing lately pretty childish in itself.

Maturity rarely ever means what it is suppose to and is instead used as a bludgeon to add a layer of moralizing to your arguments. It is calling something stupid or pointless, but then feeling the need to say "this is right" of top of that. Such ideas of maturity is often inconsistent with reality, such as in the way the great majority of adults consume pornography that is far more "immature" than any videogame. And it's in my opinion, some childish qualities are often underrated in such discussions. (One irony is that many ideas of maturity are tied directly to patriarchal (the proper man) and capitalistic (the proper economic unit) demands, which some of these individuals simultaneously against.)