|
Gianthogweed posted:Well it's kind of like saying "I'm a guitarist" because I can play the guitar. There's different levels of playing the guitar. There's the guy who plays the guitar for a living and it's his professional identity, the equivalent would be the gamer who plays starcraft professionally in competitions, and then there's the guitarist who plays at open mics at Joe's pub after he gets off of work, this is like the guy who plays starcraft online in his bedroom after he gets off of work. Both are guitarists and both are gamers respectively, it's just that one is more "hardcore" than the other. in my experience most people regard others who describe themselves as 'guitarists' but just kind of tool around as kind of sad people Tokamak posted:It's an old gamer vs. young gamer mentality. Young people want to reclaim gamer, whereas the old gamers shun it as if it were a life or death situation. So what I'm saying is gently caress "gamers" and get off my internet lawn. this is completely valid. a fair amount of my objection to gamergate is just me being too old school and cranky to take any of this nonsense seriously. i can't really tell when internet youths are just smashing bottles in an alley versus internet youths actually having a point, but most of what i have observed strongly indicates that i should naturally be biased towards the former, because young people actually are really stupid and naive most of the time
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
I can't think of any review or preview of a game that I read on any of the "SJW game news sites" that I couldn't have gotten that same info from elsewhere in the great wide internet. What I'm saying is, who cares if an idiot said gently caress preview events while writing some article which got even bigger idiots to give it page views for the company who pays him to get page views. Mekchu fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:What I'm saying is, who cares if an idiot said gently caress preview events while writing some article which got even bigger idiots to give it page views for the company who pays him to get page views. i agree. gaming journalism being corrupt doesn't matter at all, because it seems most people ignore gaming journalism, and those who do not mostly take it all without too much serious consideration at that point it seems as though corruption in gaming journalism boils down to "other people are LYING on the INTERNET" so, uh, who cares
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:in my experience most people regard others who describe themselves as 'guitarists' but just kind of tool around as kind of sad people Again, the dude that plays guitar at Joe's pub after work probably wouldn't idenitify solely as a guitarist, that's just what he's done being whatever he is when he's at work. Being a guitarist is part of his identity. Just like being a gamer is part of people's identity. Most people wear multiple hats in their lives. Honestly, I don't know anyone who defines themselves solely as a "gamer".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:people's opinions, individually or in aggregate, can never be a cynical PR ploy. you're jumping at shadows here. you're afraid of monsters under the bed Not really. Like if we accept your argument that gamergate is a cover for misogynists as truth, why shouldn't we consider that accusing gamergate of being a cover for misogynists isn't a cynical PR ploy? Like an Occam's Razor test would find the idea that people would use "ethics in gaming" as a cover for misogynistic harassment unlikely. More likely people who want to harass women will use a number of causes as cover if the feel the need, like how anarchists normally use protests at cover for their activities. However Occam's Razer would find the cynical PR ploy more likely as companies have resorted to framing issues in such ways to garner sympathy in the past, or at least it's any less likely than the "misogynist conspiracy route". Popular Thug Drink posted:i don't believe you when you say that your main personal concern is censorship, when not even a half hour ago you were complaining about how some elements of hobbyist journalism might be corrupt. corruption in journalism is nowhere near censorship. it's such an absolute shift in argument and tone that i can only assume you're on the defensive, and rationalizing That would be because I like to debate and I'm now reasonably knowledgeable about the issue. Also I'm saying I can understand why people would care about journalism in gaming and say it's rational to do so, I haven't said I am really invested in ethics in gaming journalism. Popular Thug Drink posted:it very much appears to be organized to hate women, given that the catalyst of gamergate was a slutshaming campaign around a female game developer and the main targets of gamergate are women who have opinions about games, some of whom aren't even games journalists but social critics. the only common thread is women, and the only common action is to attack those women. this strongly implies that dislike of women is the main thrust of the movement Well here's a question, what's the test to disprove this notion? I mean there are women in gamergate, even in prominent positions. Many people in gamergate routinely condemns harassment and their main talking points are about how women are terrible. So what test or evidence would satisfy you? Because right now this sounds like a conspiracy theory that doesn't have basis in fact. Popular Thug Drink posted:i've already said i do not think you are a credible or worthwhile person to speak to individually, so i will not private message you. i will instead ask questions in a public thread, where your responses are visible to everyone who cares to read them Alright.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:at that point it seems as though corruption in gaming journalism boils down to "other people are LYING on the INTERNET" so, uh, who cares Most of those "lies" are, for the most part, mistakes made by the writer and editor and weren't done so intentionally. Edit - This board game review has Leigh Alexander in it, someone who apparently hates video games. Are these guys by proxy anti-video games and anti-gamer? http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/videos/v/review-witness/ Mekchu fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The first video literally has "MGTOW" in the title, and here is the boycott call: http://www.returnofkings.com/63711/our-call-to-boycott-mad-max-movie-spurs-avalanche-of-mainstream-media-anger Broniki posted:None of these have anything to do with MRAs. There's no evidence anywhere that an MRA boycott of the movie was ever planned or happened. You got suckered by a manufactured outrage that worked as a marketing tool for the movie. It's cool, you still got to watch a good flick out of it. But the fact your feminist victory is actually you getting owned by capitalism remains and is something you'll have to come to terms with. INH5 posted:MGTOW stands for Men Going Their Own Way and the short version is that they're the Western equivalent of Japan's herbivores, except they do it as a political statement and make lots of very sad Youtube videos telling everyone else that they're doing it. Kind of like a gender flipped version of feminist separatism, except without the political homosexuality. paranoid randroid posted:theyre red pill freakshows. Broniki posted:MGTOW isn't MRA and the article you linked explicitly says that they're not an MRA site, which they aren't, so yeah, this is all in your head. INH5 posted:ROK doesn't like MRAs because they think MRAs are beta cucks. Read this article if you want to know more details. MRAs, meanwhile, tend not to like ROK and other Red Pill types because they see them as helping perpetuate various social structures that harm men. In particular, one AVFM writer criticized ROK for supporting "alpha male" Vladimir Putin. http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201503/mens-rights-activism-the-red-pill Pictured: A helpful "dick and balls" diagram of the groups in question  ..."the manosphere" refers to an online network, nascent but vast and like the universe constantly expanding, each twinkling star in its firmament dedicated—obviously—to men. Men and their problems. Usually with women. Some galaxies of the manosphere are composed of self-declared "pickup artists" (PUAs) who want to help ordinary guys trick women into bed; other solar systems deal earnestly with child custody and the Adderallization of rambunctious boys. There are constellations of MGTOWs, "men going their own way," separatists and onanists and recluses. There are hundreds of websites and blogs, many openly hostile—SlutHate, Angry Harry, The Spearhead, NiceGuy's American Women Suck Page—and many more that are brutally lewd. For instance: Return of Kings, published by the author of a series of popular country guides such as Bang Ukraine: How to Sleep with Ukrainian Women in Ukraine. As the flagship political site of the movement (it had just shy of 9 million site visits last year), Elam's A Voice for Men functions as the closest thing there is to a center, an intelligence, a superego to the bloggy manosphere id of lust and fury...  ...The red-pill moment, explains one men's rights activist (MRA), "is the day you decide nothing looks the same." It's what the movement calls the born-again experience of opening your eyes to women's Matrix-like control of the modern world. For a young MRA named Max von Holtzendorff, the red-pill moment was being accused of sexual harrassment by a co-worker to whom he proposed sex, "being blunt and forthright, because that seemed the best way to ensure consent." For Dan Perrins, one of the security black shirts, it was the day he ended up in jail, after he says he lodged a complaint against his ex, the beginning of a legal battle that led him to a hunger strike. "I should have killed the bitch five years ago," he tells me. "I'd be out by now." For Gunther Schadow, an M.D.-Ph.D., it was a "meta-study" on domestic violence that inspired him to seed a foundation with about half a million dollars, with which he now hopes to overturn the Violence Against Women Act. For Dan Moore, whose MRA name is Factory, the red pill was a revelation in stages. First, he says, his wife cheated on him. Then she wanted him to know it. "She'd laugh at me." His low point: lying on the floor in a fetal curl while she stood over him mocking him. He says she had a butcher knife in her hand. (She denies this. All of it.) "Women gone insane with the power of the pussy pass" is how Elam describes the movement's raison d'ętre in an essay called "When Is It OK to Punch Your Wife?" Another one of his provocations. Elam's white, but he identifies with Malcolm X; he believes he needs to shock society to be heard. He says his talk of "the business end of a right hook" and women who are "freaking begging" to be raped is simply his version of Malcolm's "by any means necessary." To wit: Elam's proposal to make October "Bash a Violent Bitch Month," in which men should take the women who abuse them "by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won't fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles..."  etc. etc. The simple way to put it would be that we've been using the name of one of the less radical parts of the movement (MRAs) for the sum of it. Dapper_Swindler posted:ROK is trolling site if i remember.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Games journalism is hobbyist/consumption orientated, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. This is mostly due to the size and demographic of gamers. There isn't enough interest to financially support long form/investigative journalism. Amusingly this was a major component of Polygon's vision, until they discovered that they made more money on articles announcing the release date and trailer for a game, and that they can get a bunch of articles for the price of a single day of journalist field work. There are other reasons for why this won't happen but the audience/money factor makes it a non-starter. Alright, but then how's that different than the movie industry and reviews of it? If it's simply a matter of size, how large does gaming need to be for it to be something that isn't a hobbyist industry? I think we can agree that the Film industry and review of it isn't a hobbyist enterprise, so why is game journalism? Scrub-Niggurath posted:*in Dr. Evil voice* 'One billion dollar industry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY But seriously, what other piece of evidence do you need that the gaming industry and review of it are big enough to care?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Brannock posted:The thing about "SJW" is that it once described literally insane people like certain posters who participated in the D&D feminism threads circa 2011-2012 (to use a readily understood example) who castigated and excoriated nonadherents while not doing any actual activism of their own, but over the interceding years it got adopted by the rightwing and diluted about as hard as it could possibly be diluted and ended up being a generic term to describe someone who that person disagreed with who was further left than he was on the two-dimensional political spectrum. It's a completely useless term nowadays and mostly serves as a signifier that whoever is using it is being rhetorically lazy or is crypto-rightwing. Couple of pages ago, but no, as you know I was heavily involved in those threads and it's pretty much always been about people who are vocal about things that piss white male dudes off and the refrain has always been "buuuuuuuuuut we meant the otherkins". It's always been bullshit. Sure you can find those types of people but I'd say about 99% of the time that's just a fig leaf because nobody wants to admit they're getting mad about getting called out on bigotry, because how could you be, that would make you Bad and you're not Bad. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:there's this repeated focus on what people on kotaku say, and what people on polygon say, and what people on twitter say, but not so much what people in game informer or pc gamer or gamepro or whatever say. are we really worried about games journalism as a whole, or a subset of gaming journalism on the internet that has a certain lefitst demographic? You have to take into context it isn't so much the leftist politics, it is how they cover them. It is basically a tabloid that produces shocking headlines to get views. Remember the case of 'Hatred'. Polygon published tons and tons of articles on it. This caused an extremely mediocre game to sore to the top of the charts, where it honestly had no right to be. It got more coverage than necessary because it provided 'Polygon' with clicks and as a result it ensured its success. While other, perhaps more deserving games fell to the wayside. The sites that participate in this behavior tend to get more flack than those that don't. And the articles I referenced on Kotaku were actually good. I was actually lamenting it becoming an aggregation site and just full of bad articles. EDIT: To be honest, I don't really care. Polygon can do whatever it wants. I just find its serious articles funny. I mean, they had a Tropico 5 review where the reviewer was lamenting how he felt like he had the literal blood of people on his hands because he was playing a dictator sim. How is that not funny? Why would you want to change that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:You have to take into context it isn't so much the leftist politics, it is how they cover them. It is basically a tabloid that produces shocking headlines to get views. Remember the case of 'Hatred'. Polygon published tons and tons of articles on it. This caused an extremely mediocre game to sore to the top of the charts, where it honestly had no right to be. It got more coverage than necessary because it provided 'Polygon' with clicks and as a result it ensured its success. While other, perhaps more deserving games fell to the wayside. The sites that participate in this behavior tend to get more flack than those that don't. Who would have thought that a Gawker site would turn into a aggregator of blog articles and listicles that are sometimes good and researched and sometimes terrible? e: I read the LA Times most days and let me tell you, journalism being terrible a good portion of the time is true of just about every form of media ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/eZl9tKBARCA Humorous analysis of "Social Justice Warriors" Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Who would have thought that a Gawker site would turn into a aggregator of blog articles and listicles that are sometimes good and researched and sometimes terrible? Very true, I avoid their sites like the plague so I have no idea if the others are aggregators. I think the only good Gawker site that people mention is io9. And yeah, pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:You have to take into context it isn't so much the leftist politics, it is how they cover them. It is basically a tabloid that produces shocking headlines to get views. Remember the case of 'Hatred'. Polygon published tons and tons of articles on it. This caused an extremely mediocre game to sore to the top of the charts, where it honestly had no right to be. It got more coverage than necessary because it provided 'Polygon' with clicks and as a result it ensured its success. While other, perhaps more deserving games fell to the wayside. The sites that participate in this behavior tend to get more flack than those that don't. Why can't you just not read those sites though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:Why can't you just not read those sites though? I don't, I typically just read excerpts. Like I said, they can do whatever they want. I don't really care. It doesn't piss me off in the least and it is so not worth getting worked up over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Very true, I avoid their sites like the plague so I have no idea if the others are aggregators. I think the only good Gawker site that people mention is io9. And yeah, pretty much. It's an aggregator blog. They all have good stuff, and they all have bad stuff. This isn't new, people poo poo on digital media like the grey lady the ilk haven't been doing this poo poo for hundreds of years. Read news with a critical eye.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:Alright, but then how's that different than the movie industry and reviews of it? If it's simply a matter of size, how large does gaming need to be for it to be something that isn't a hobbyist industry? Film and television journalists are largely hobbyists as well. Most reviews are found in the back of local newspapers, and gossip magazines where they are to be read and forgotten. Places where reviews are given reverence is due to the medium being ubiquitous and forms the cultural fabric of society, and that and serious news journalists want to have serious reviews. And even then, there are only a handful of magazines/websites that treat film and television in depth (interviews with directions, discussion of filmography etc). It helps that in many cases people are paying a subscription money these magazines or are websites that supplement their income with news/clickbait. And even if there were an audience, you probably aren't going to get too much more than what you get now (interviews, developer profiles) due to the technical nature of the industry. People can intuitively understand film making, whereas the technical aspects of game development are abstract and need a science/computer science degree to decipher.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:need a science/computer science degree to decipher. lol me Ug caveman, major in finance, not understand how nerd man make picture move
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
I honestly haven't followed this shitstorm at all, but I like to play vidja games, and I'm a pretty big leftist, so I might as well ask: what exactly is the scandal at the heart of gamergate? Like, outside of all the drama, I suppose the pro-gamergate people have some point that they want to make. What is that point? What was the Bad Thing that means we need to have this discussion? Why should I start caring about this stuff? Genuine question, btw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
botany posted:I honestly haven't followed this shitstorm at all, but I like to play vidja games, and I'm a pretty big leftist, so I might as well ask: what exactly is the scandal at the heart of gamergate? Like, outside of all the drama, I suppose the pro-gamergate people have some point that they want to make. What is that point? What was the Bad Thing that means we need to have this discussion? Why should I start caring about this stuff? Genuine question, btw. It was mostly a spat between two former lovers It got big because there's a lot of misogyny in the community it was kind of the straw that broke the camels back for both sides after years of smaller battles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:It was mostly a spat between two former lovers I know about the Zoe Quinn Depression Quest thing, but that was the opposite of a scandal. I'm assuming that it's not just that but something more substantial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
botany posted:I know about the Zoe Quinn Depression Quest thing, but that was the opposite of a scandal. I'm assuming that it's not just that but something more substantial. No, it's really just that. A segment of the gaming community takes their sexism really really seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
botany posted:I honestly haven't followed this shitstorm at all, but I like to play vidja games, and I'm a pretty big leftist, so I might as well ask: what exactly is the scandal at the heart of gamergate? Like, outside of all the drama, I suppose the pro-gamergate people have some point that they want to make. What is that point? What was the Bad Thing that means we need to have this discussion? Why should I start caring about this stuff? Genuine question, btw. an ex boyfriend called his ex girlfriend a fat slut publicly on every forum he could. she made a free game once, and also used to sleep with a non-editorial staffer at gawker. people who really enjoyed seeing someone slutshamed defended his doing it as being a defense of journalistic integrity, because of her being a "developer" literally in bed with a "journalist" (who was not, at all, a journalist) this is literally the genesis of gamergate
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
botany posted:I know about the Zoe Quinn Depression Quest thing, but that was the opposite of a scandal. I'm assuming that it's not just that but something more substantial. For the most part it was just things hitting a boiling point/a pile up of smaller things that happened in the fallout of the Zoe Quinn thing. Like the attempts at silencing discussion, the GameJournoPros mailing list, people like Phil Fish melting down on twitter and getting doxxed and harassed as a result etc. etc. OMGVBFLOL posted:an ex boyfriend called his ex girlfriend a fat slut publicly on every forum he could. she made a free game once, and also used to sleep with a non-editorial staffer at gawker. people who really enjoyed seeing someone slutshamed defended his doing it as being a defense of journalistic integrity, because of her being a "developer" literally in bed with a "journalist" (who was not, at all, a journalist) Eron felt that he had been emotionally manipulated and abused, I do not recall him ever calling her a slut or insulting her weight, and IIRC he only posted the Zoepost in a few places, SA being the first. The Droid fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
botany posted:I honestly haven't followed this shitstorm at all, but I like to play vidja games, and I'm a pretty big leftist, so I might as well ask: what exactly is the scandal at the heart of gamergate? Like, outside of all the drama, I suppose the pro-gamergate people have some point that they want to make. What is that point? What was the Bad Thing that means we need to have this discussion? Why should I start caring about this stuff? Genuine question, btw. Games journalism. The fact that game reviews were paid off and talk about "unimportant" issues (Treatment of woman in game, giving game lower score because of it). That, and games journalism calling gamers "entitled" "whiny" etc. People have been angry at this but have mostly ignored it because what can you do. Then came the Zoe post and the mass removals of posts in reddit/forums which was the Franz Ferdinand moment that ended up kicking this whole thing off. The main thing is "games journalism is corrupt and we want to improve it". You shouldn't care. Its meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:Games journalism. The fact that game reviews were paid off and talk about "unimportant" issues (Treatment of woman in game, giving game lower score because of it). That, and games journalism calling gamers "entitled" "whiny" etc. People have been angry at this but have mostly ignored it because what can you do. Then came the Zoe post and the mass removals of posts in reddit/forums which was the Franz Ferdinand moment that ended up kicking this whole thing off. You see, it's really about ethics in video games journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:You see, it's really about ethics in video games journalism. This dumb catchphrase probably did more harm to AGG than good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
The Droid posted:This dumb catchphrase probably did more harm to AGG than good. Not really no, because it's loving hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
The Droid posted:This dumb catchphrase probably did more harm to AGG than good. How?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
People I know who only vaguely have heard of gg just know it's about gamers being children and think those memes are funny so i'm gonna go with "not at all"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:You see, it's really about ethics in video games journalism. It is, and the whole thing did get several sites to have/update their ethics codes. However, this being a 4chan campaign that mutated into a twitter campaign, a lot of vile people joined up to share their horrible opinion. Then the media simplified the issue by adding Sarkeezy to the gamergate mix, which caused more vile people to add to this horrible katamari. That, and the whole thing kicking off with the Zoepost means that already you had vile people operating with the well meaning people. The whole thing was a good idea at the very beginning, then it turned horrible. Same as any 4chan project, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Not really no, because it's loving hilarious. Because making the viral mocking phrase something sarcastic can lead to people missing the point/people only hearing part of it. If I just walked around saying "Brutus is an honorable man" without any context, people are going to get the wrong idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:Games journalism. The fact that game reviews were paid off and talk about "unimportant" issues (Treatment of woman in game, giving game lower score because of it). That, and games journalism calling gamers "entitled" "whiny" etc. People have been angry at this but have mostly ignored it because what can you do. Then came the Zoe post and the mass removals of posts in reddit/forums which was the Franz Ferdinand moment that ended up kicking this whole thing off. Those are important issues though and they should be talked about. And gamers are entitled and whiny. I mean, some aspects of games journalism are hilariously bought off and that's not a terrible thing to care about if you read games journalism, like companies pulling negative reviews under threat of lawsuit or the typical Doritos Mountaindew Sponsored Coverage (TM). But if that's what gamergate is about then I don't understand why e.g. Rock Paper Shotgun, who have consistently talked about this sort of behaviour, are seen as bad guys, simply because they're also interested in how women are portrayed. Every time I hear about gamergate it's always about women in gaming, and never about companies paying for bought reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
The Droid posted:Because making the viral mocking phrase something sarcastic can lead to people missing the point/people only hearing part of it. If I just walked around saying "Brutus is an honorable man" without any context, people are going to get the wrong idea. The point was that line is a load of bullshit and since it is, people got it pretty well botany posted:Those are important issues though and they should be talked about. And gamers are entitled and whiny. I mean, some aspects of games journalism are hilariously bought off and that's not a terrible thing to care about if you read games journalism, like companies pulling negative reviews under threat of lawsuit or the typical Doritos Mountaindew Sponsored Coverage (TM). But if that's what gamergate is about then I don't understand why e.g. Rock Paper Shotgun, who have consistently talked about this sort of behaviour, are seen as bad guys, simply because they're also interested in how women are portrayed. Every time I hear about gamergate it's always about women in gaming, and never about companies paying for bought reviews. Yeah when I first heard about it I was like "seriously, THIS is where you decided that games journalism is a joke?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
I think I'm pretty well informed about the internet/the news in general, but before I made this thread, the only things I knew about gamergate were:
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
Why aren't the GamerGate people putting their efforts towards getting the AAA publishers to stop doing lovely anti-consumer practices? Mekchu fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
botany posted:. Rock Paper Shotgun, who have consistently talked about this sort of behaviour, are seen as bad guys, simply because they're also interested in how women are portrayed. Every time I hear about gamergate it's always about women in gaming, and never about companies paying for bought reviews. That certainly is a major component of it to most of the people involved in this, but in RPS' case there were a few incidents after GG started two separate writers wrote about the same game that they both contributed to the Patreon for without disclaimer. Most people just got all frothy because "How dare they praise Gone Home!" of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:Why aren't the GamerGate people putting their efforts towards getting the AAA publishers to stop doing lovely anti-consumer practices? Games journalism sites are smaller, so its easier to hit them than say...Activision or EA. Anything that gg can do against Activision or EA is easily drowned out by the people who don't care about this and just buy games they enjoy from them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
hail satan kill femenists (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
The Droid posted:That certainly is a major component of it to most of the people involved in this, but in RPS' case there were a few incidents after GG started two separate writers wrote about the same game that they both contributed to the Patreon for without disclaimer. Most people just got all frothy because "How dare they praise Gone Home!" of course. And how is that a bad thing. If I write a positive review for a game, people can infer I like the game, right? How does me saying "I gave them money on patreon / kickstarter / whatever" say more than that? Especially since RPS actually got criticized for mentioning upcoming games fundraising efforts since it was seen as RPS trying to influence people to fund those games. Obviously if the game devs give me money I have to disclose that, but even journalists are allowed to fund things, surely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 09:56
|
|