I have a whole thing re: ideas that I'm working on, but to keep it simple, lets start with the anti-gg's pet topic - diversity and creative freedom in gaming. A few questions that flow:
1) Is diversity in gaming a good thing, something worth trying to achieve?
2) If yes to 1, is the efforts of people like McIntosh and others actually helping diversity?
3) If no to 2, what is a better way to do this?
4) Is developer creative freedom in gaming a good thing?
5) Should developers be allowed to make any game they want without the risk of powerful people destroying their games on political disagreement?
6) Is attacking games like hatred and/or walking simulators contradictory to promoting either diversity or creative freedom? Should social backlash like those games have faced be a) shunned b) permitted c) encouraged?
1) Yes. As Rodyle said, this is better both socially and in terms of producing more diverse games.
2) I think "people like McIntosh" is a very vague group. As I've said earlier in the thread, I think feminist criticism of media is worthwhile for making people confront their unexamined attitudes. I think some of the 'SJW' crowd make the mistake of attacking individuals instead of their works, which is ultimately a PR failure for their cause and a waste of their energy (and a dick move), but, at the same time, I don't think there have been many changes in power structures without someone pissing people off. (Also, even when they do attack the games, people often interpret them as attacking the games' creators/fans/every gamer in the universe.)
3) Highlighting good diverse games will help, but the only reason we're having this conversation at all is that people (on both sides) got mad. A bunch of people quietly agreeing with one another is not usually a good way to shake things up.
4) Enormously yes.
5) What do you mean by "destroying their games"? If you mean actually destroying them and rendering them unplayable or unpurchasable, yes. If you mean ruining their sales, no. To take such a stance is to put games above criticism; I consider politics as good a reason to dislike a game as gameplay, art, or any other aspect (see the Dead Rising 3 review I've previously discussed in this thread).
6) No. Acknowledging--and even celebrating--the creative freedom of artists does not mean that every work is equally good. Social backlash against art should be permitted for the same reason social backlash against anything should be permitted.
It sounds to me like you think no one should say any game is bad ever. What do you think are valid criticisms of video games, and how do they materially differ from politically motivated 'attacks'?
EDIT: removed a stupid analogy founded on the ambiguity of the word 'diversity'.
FURTHER EDIT: when I mention criticizing things for politics, I expressly don't mean simple political differences with the creators, but rather problems with the politics of the work itself--I think Orson Scott Card is a pretty terrible person, but that doesn't make Ender's Game a bad book. On the other hand, I didn't feel like supporting him with money, so I decided not to see the film adaptation on moral/political grounds.
I have a whole thing re: ideas that I'm working on, but to keep it simple, lets start with the anti-gg's pet topic - diversity and creative freedom in gaming. A few questions that flow:
1) Is diversity in gaming a good thing, something worth trying to achieve?
2) If yes to 1, is the efforts of people like McIntosh and others actually helping diversity?
3) If no to 2, what is a better way to do this?
4) Is developer creative freedom in gaming a good thing?
5) Should developers be allowed to make any game they want without the risk of powerful people destroying their games on political disagreement?
6) Is attacking games like hatred and/or walking simulators contradictory to promoting either diversity or creative freedom? Should social backlash like those games have faced be a) shunned b) permitted c) encouraged?
1) Yes. As Rodyle said, this is better both socially and in terms of producing more diverse games.
2) I think "people like McIntosh" is a very vague group. As I've said earlier in the thread, I think feminist criticism of media is worthwhile for making people confront their unexamined attitudes. I think some of the 'SJW' crowd make the mistake of attacking individuals instead of their works, which is ultimately a PR failure for their cause and a waste of their energy (and a dick move), but, at the same time, I don't think there have been many changes in power structures without someone pissing people off. (Also, even when they do attack the games, people often interpret them as attacking the games' creators/fans/every gamer in the universe.)
3) Highlighting good diverse games will help, but the only reason we're having this conversation at all is that people (on both sides) got mad. A bunch of people quietly agreeing with one another is not usually a good way to shake things up.
4) Enormously yes.
5) What do you mean by "destroying their games"? If you mean actually destroying them and rendering them unplayable or unpurchasable, yes. If you mean ruining their sales, no. To take such a stance is to put games above criticism; I consider politics as good a reason to dislike a game as gameplay, art, or any other aspect (see the Dead Rising 3 review I've previously discussed in this thread).
6) No. Acknowledging--and even celebrating--the creative freedom of artists does not mean that every work is equally good. Social backlash against art should be permitted for the same reason social backlash against anything should be permitted.
It sounds to me like you think no one should say any game is bad ever. What do you think are valid criticisms of video games, and how do they materially differ from politically motivated 'attacks'?
EDIT: removed a stupid analogy founded on the ambiguity of the word 'diversity'.
FURTHER EDIT: when I mention criticizing things for politics, I expressly don't mean simple political differences with the creators, but rather problems with the politics of the work itself--I think Orson Scott Card is a pretty terrible person, but that doesn't make Ender's Game a bad book. On the other hand, I didn't feel like supporting him with money, so I decided not to see the film adaptation on moral/political grounds.
I guess we worked with different definitions of 'attack' here. Here's some things I'd see as an attack:
- Hatred is a murder simulator
- GTA5 is mysoginistic
- Only feminazis and white knight think that Gone Home is a good game
I'd like to contrast this to good criticism, which a: is upright about these things being an opinion and b: is honest in its argumentation and representation of the thing being critiqued.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Honest question: how do you suppose Gamergate would react to a wave of layoffs at Gawker?
Back for a brief moment, possibly longer. Interesting to see this thread still alive and well.
IMO, if gawker revised ethics policies and fired the writers that have been harassing people online, and apologize to the community, we'd celebrate.[/quote]
That would be an interesting moment. I can't like Gawker for other reasons. (Trigger warning: Jezebel bat*****tery. Oh, and child molestation.) Oh, and of course the general obsession with celebrities.
See? That post offended me. The idea that spree killers could be morally 'nuanced' in any way makes me want to vomit. But, do you see me harassing her? Let alone murdering her? Obviously no. Because I'm a decent human being, unlike some people.
A bit off-topic, but since this entire thread has spun way off of Anonymous apparently being some dude's personal army after he *****es about his ex-girlfriend on his blog...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I guess we worked with different definitions of 'attack' here. Here's some things I'd see as an attack:
- Hatred is a murder simulator
- GTA5 is mysoginistic
- Only feminazis and white knight think that Gone Home is a good game
I'd like to contrast this to good criticism, which a: is upright about these things being an opinion and b: is honest in its argumentation and representation of the thing being critiqued.
Sure, those unsupported statements on their own are pretty worthless, but I don't see any reason why an up-front and honest op-ed couldn't be written arguing that, for instance, GTA5 is misogynistic (or at least that certain elements are). I haven't played the game and can't speak to whether it is or not, but it seems like a plausible conclusion one could reach after playing the game, and I think we would lose more by dismissing it out of hand than by allowing its author to present their case.
Not actually relevant to the main conversation, but I also don't see much problem with calling Hatred a murder simulator--that's essentially the game's creators call it:
"You will go out for a hunt, you will clear the New York outskirts of the humans with a cold blood. You will shoot, you will hurt, you will kill, you will die. There are no rules, no compassion, no mercy, no point of going back. You are the lord of life and death now and you have the full control over lives of worthless human scum."
Elsewhere they say "Wander the outskirts of New York State, seek for victims on seven free-roam levels." "Murder simulator" seems like a pretty accurate description of a game about killing human scum victims in cold blood.
I don't think the fact that it's a murder simulator is damning per se. As I played it, Hitman: Absolution is essentially a game about garroting unsuspecting victims and dragging their corpses into boxes, stabbing dudes in the neck with screwdrivers, and putting sniper rifle rounds through people's skulls from 1000 feet; I enjoyed that game a lot, but I don't think "murder simulator" is a bad description of that game, and it doesn't seem like a bad description of Hatred, either.
I guess we worked with different definitions of 'attack' here. Here's some things I'd see as an attack:
- Hatred is a murder simulator
- GTA5 is mysoginistic
- Only feminazis and white knight think that Gone Home is a good game
I'd like to contrast this to good criticism, which a: is upright about these things being an opinion and b: is honest in its argumentation and representation of the thing being critiqued.
Sure, those unsupported statements on their own are pretty worthless, but I don't see any reason why an up-front and honest op-ed couldn't be written arguing that, for instance, GTA5 is misogynistic (or at least that certain elements are). I haven't played the game and can't speak to whether it is or not, but it seems like a plausible conclusion one could reach after playing the game, and I think we would lose more by dismissing it out of hand than by allowing its author to present their case.
Sure. If you write a well-argumented piece on why it should be that, awesome. We can have a discussion about that. I would most likely disagree, but that's fine. We don't all have to think the exact same thing. However, as I said: the statement on its won is pretty useless.
Not actually relevant to the main conversation, but I also don't see much problem with calling Hatred a murder simulator--that's essentially the game's creators call it:
"You will go out for a hunt, you will clear the New York outskirts of the humans with a cold blood. You will shoot, you will hurt, you will kill, you will die. There are no rules, no compassion, no mercy, no point of going back. You are the lord of life and death now and you have the full control over lives of worthless human scum."
Elsewhere they say "Wander the outskirts of New York State, seek for victims on seven free-roam levels." "Murder simulator" seems like a pretty accurate description of a game about killing human scum victims in cold blood.
Look, this is argumented and actually adds to a discussion. The statement on its own does not.
I don't think the fact that it's a murder simulator is damning per se. As I played it, Hitman: Absolution is essentially a game about garroting unsuspecting victims and dragging their corpses into boxes, stabbing dudes in the neck with screwdrivers, and putting sniper rifle rounds through people's skulls from 1000 feet; I enjoyed that game a lot, but I don't think "murder simulator" is a bad description of that game, and it doesn't seem like a bad description of Hatred, either.
Eh. The statement has 'murder simulator' has a dark past in gaming. It was one of the things that Jack Thompson liked to say about games. While I agree that from a purely objective perspective, the statement is neither damning nor endorsing, this baggage makes the statement sting a bit and therefore tends to tends to draw a stronger response than it should from the gamer crowd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Sure. If you write a well-argumented piece on why it should be that, awesome. We can have a discussion about that. I would most likely disagree, but that's fine. We don't all have to think the exact same thing. However, as I said: the statement on its won is pretty useless.
Gotcha, my mistake. I thought you were saying the positions were attacks, rather than just the statements. We are essentially in agreement here.
That error is completely on me. I wasn't entire awake when I wrote my reply. I was planning to also write on other stuff there, but I forgot somehow.
As for other figures: I think it's unfair to lump them into a single group, for the very reason I don't like to be lumped in with /baph/. There are genuine issues with some video games, and discussing these should be possible, possibly even encouraged. However, just saying X is sexist, or games are anti-women is not adding anything to that discussion.
2) I think "people like McIntosh" is a very vague group. As I've said earlier in the thread, I think feminist criticism of media is worthwhile for making people confront their unexamined attitudes. I think some of the 'SJW' crowd make the mistake of attacking individuals instead of their works, which is ultimately a PR failure for their cause and a waste of their energy (and a dick move), but, at the same time, I don't think there have been many changes in power structures without someone pissing people off. (Also, even when they do attack the games, people often interpret them as attacking the games' creators/fans/every gamer in the universe.)
While I do agree that every one of the more vocal SJW's has their own perspective, I see a pervasive negative mentality within these groups. Instead of focusing on things they like and are good about the industry, they almost exclusively point out the worst of the worst parts and generalize them to apply to the whole. Maybe if I put it like this - Do groups that primarily advance a negative image of the industry and gamers contribute anything meaningful to the discussion? I think they don't, and any valid points that might come up through them could be approached in far better and more productive ways.
Eh. There are some *****ty communities. Console shooters are some of them (and stick fighters seem to be another, I'm not too sure about that), but that's partially due to the large amount of younger (teenager-aged) people on there, I think. Although I admit that this might very well be utterly wrong and a bias on my part.
There are. I play DotA - one of the most hostile communities around. It isn't fair to take the worst aspects of that and make outsiders believe that everyone is like that. It scares newcomers away and hurts the "diversity" goals they work for.
how can we incentivize people to promote good games instead of assault games that don't sit with their politics, and should we push out people that have these destructive attitudes?
You can't, not completely. Gabe's Greater Internet ****wad Theory makes sure of this. At best, we can ask people to ignore those with the negative attitudes, while we, as the SJW crowd calls it, signal boost people who do it correctly. Despite all of their biases and whatnot, game journalism is still a business. I hope that when they see how positivity gets more clicks, they might adopt this radical idea.
I really wish there was a more effective way to do this. Since signal boosting can only go so far - should we actively encourage things like boycotts and shunning people who promote clickbait and hate?
It sounds to me like you think no one should say any game is bad ever. What do you think are valid criticisms of video games, and how do they materially differ from politically motivated 'attacks'?
I think you guys have discussed this pretty sufficiently - blanket statements are pointless, reasoned arguments are not.
There is another thing I want to address regarding game reviews. Unlike in other industries, reviewers have an enormously greater level of control in gaming. Take metacritic for example - a LOT of dev contracts have riders that give bonuses ONLY if a game breaks, say, 80 on metacritic. There are few enough reviewers that a few deciding that a game is bad for political reasons can wreck the bonuses devs were expecting to get, even if the game itself was great (See bayonetta 2 and polygon's BS). So, I guess that to me, gaming needs to be more insulated from social criticism to the same degree that critics have more power than in other industries. - if that makes sense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Wow. When you guys stop slinging mud at each other you pretty much agree about everything.
(It's almost like mudslinging is extremely counterproductive.)
We don't agree on one thing - methods. I find what sjw's do to be destructive, and I feel corrput individuals like McIntosh and others need to be chased out of the industry. The other side believes anything from "they make good points" to "we must destroy all white men and these people will lead us"
Myself, and pretty much every gg-er I've ever spoken to, agree that disveristy is great. We just don't think that it should be mandatory and we don't think it should come at the expense of any subgroups in gaming, and we're happy to work with anyone that agrees - like TFYC, a group that promotes and helps women making games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Wow. When you guys stop slinging mud at each other you pretty much agree about everything.
(It's almost like mudslinging is extremely counterproductive.)
Sadly, I think the agreement is illusory; consider the Bayonetta 2 review that DokuDokuH has described as "Polygon's BS." Here are the relevant parts:
"Less positive is the same exaggerated sexualization that hung heavy around the last game's neck. I'll forgive the high heels and the exaggerated proportions, if only because there's so many other things to criticize. Bayonetta's new outfit delivers bold new developments in revealing clothing with the introduction of diamond cutouts on the ass of her jumpsuit, creating what I can only refer to as "under-butt" cleavage. When standing in place her shoulders are bent back to point her chest at ... whatever.
But even this is minor compared to the game's camera, which zooms in on Bayonetta's parts like they're products being sold in a commercial. There are enough gratuitous ass-shots, cleavage jokes and spread legs to fill an hours long super cut. The camera doesn't look at Bayonetta — it leers at her.
This is frequently provided as an implicit reward for doing well. For anyone who didn't play the first game, here's a bit of premise: Much of Bayonetta's supernatural power is tied into her hair. Her clothing is actually composed of this hair magic, and as she performs more powerful attacks, more of this hair magic is diverted from covering her to compensate. Put simply, Bayonetta's strongest attacks result in her clothes flying off. For more intense quicktime sequences, she'll even do a sexy pose as it flies off, with the absolute barest minimum covered.
It's sexist, gross pandering, and it's totally unnecessary. Bayonetta 2 needs prurient rewards even less than the original Bayonetta did, because the on-screen chaos you can wreak through skilled play is infinitely more satisfying."
And the conclusion of the review:
"When Platinum Games is on, it's really, really on, and Bayonetta 2 is in almost any respect that counts a better game than the first, whose mechanics were already exemplary. But every time I'd feel on a roll, enjoying my time with Bayonetta 2 immensely, I'd be broken out of it by another cheap shot of T&A. I would be wrecking a flock of angelic or demonic enemies, sliding in and out of witch time almost at will, and then the special weapon I had picked up became a literal stripper pole for Bayonetta to dance on, because ... well, because, I guess.
I won't guess why the blatant over-sexualization is still there, often more intensely than before. But it causes an otherwise great game to require a much bigger mental compromise to enjoy."
Polygon gave the game a 7.5, which is not a bad score (and this was less than 1/3 of the review), but more importantly, I think this is a valid criticism, and it's backed up with evidence and reasoning. If the reviewer felt Bayonetta 2 was uncomfortably pandering and it hurt their enjoyment of the game, they should mention that in the review. This isn't an ethical breach--ironically, not mentioning it to protect the game developers would be. A reviewer's job is to honestly describe their experiences, not keep devs employed.
You might disagree with the reviewer's opinion, and you might not be uncomfortable about the same things, but that doesn't mean the reviewer is being remiss. If someone reviewed a Bioware RPG and docked points for homosexual relationships out of moral disagreement, I would disagree with that criticism, but if the reviewer is honestly describing their experiences, they are doing their job.
Awhey - you may have missed the last bit of my last post. The polygon score was absolutely a malicious attack at the devs - scoring below an 8 was done in hopes that devs wouldn't receive their bonuses, which are usually based on either metacritic or all major sites giving your game an 8/10 or better. For developers, getting scored under an 8 means the game failed, and reviewers at major sites are fully aware of this.
I have no problem with the reviewer disagreeing with what he thinks is pandering content in the game. Heck, dinging the game a tiny bit for it is fine. I DO have a problem with these reviewers abusing their positions to force devs to pander to them by threatening their paychecks in a way that only they can - and scoring a GOTY candiate at 7.5 for one "problem" is absolutely that. Fact is, reviews like the polygon one send a CLEAR message to developers - "make games that appeal to us reviewers, and not your player base, or we'll ruin you." While I do think that getting more people from more backgrounds into gaming is great, I absolutely refuse to force diversity at the cost of developer creative freedom.
As for bayonetta's "Sexualization" - her designer was a woman, and bayonetta was meant to be that woman's power fantasy. Why do sjw's, in a climate where they accuse every strong attractive male lead of being a power fantasy, not celebrate this fact? Even more importantly, the studio that developed bayonetta INSISTED that a woman be the designer - they felt that only a woman could have achieved the look and feel they wanted. The bayonetta story should be one of the ones that people working for inclusiveness should highlight - a woman dev designed her fantasy character exactly how she wanted, and her female lead is one of the hottest properties on nintendo. Instead, they blindly applied their assumptions about gaming in general and made it about sexism.
You might disagree with the reviewer's opinion, and you might not be uncomfortable about the same things, but that doesn't mean the reviewer is being remiss. If someone reviewed a Bioware RPG and docked points for homosexual relationships out of moral disagreement, I would disagree with that criticism, but if the reviewer is honestly describing their experiences, they are doing their job.
Sure, but if that reviewer scored the game at 7.5/10 for that reason alone, and it cost bioware a fat bonus check every time they included homosexual relationships in their games, would you be fine with that? I wouldnt.
So, just to make sure I understand this, because of the nature of developers' contracts, it's unacceptable for anyone to review games on criteria different than Doku's. If I want to talk about any factors that aren't important to Doku in my review, I have to artificially inflate the score above what I feel it deserves, in an attempt to satisfy a hypothetical contract clause, because my job as a journalist is to be concerned about the paychecks of developers. Furthermore, this system is in the interests of ethics in journalism.
Myself, and pretty much every gg-er I've ever spoken to, agree that disveristy is great.
Obviously you don't stop by the chan or KiA. I've heard all of their views on diversity.
The polygon score was absolutely a malicious attack at the devs - scoring below an 8 was done in hopes that devs wouldn't receive their bonuses, which are usually based on either metacritic or all major sites giving your game an 8/10 or better. For developers, getting scored under an 8 means the game failed, and reviewers at major sites are fully aware of this.
Do you have a citation for this? Or is this just "common knowledge," so you can avoid giving one?
Note that I am neither for nor against GG in the broadest of terms. I argue against GG the most because of the right wing neoreactionaries that hide in your midst and try to use it as a way to combat diversity and social development in general.
So, just to make sure I understand this, because of the nature of developers' contracts, it's unacceptable for anyone to review games on criteria different than Doku's. If I want to talk about any factors that aren't important to Doku in my review, I have to artificially inflate the score above what I feel it deserves, in an attempt to satisfy a hypothetical contract clause, because my job as a journalist is to be concerned about the paychecks of developers. Furthermore, this system is in the interests of ethics in journalism.
I find that a lot of things that they do go right in the face of the "journalistic ethics" they claim to support. This usually involves citing Breitbart unironically and sucking up to the journalists (gee, isn't that ethical).
Myself, and pretty much every gg-er I've ever spoken to, agree that disveristy is great.
Obviously you don't stop by the chan or KiA. I've heard all of their views on diversity.
Interestingly, Moot kicked all #Gamergate-related ****ery off 4chan. Though I'm not sure what it means with his retirement.
I could just as easily say I've heard all of Tumblr's views on indigenous people, that we're 'privileged' because Suey Park likes the Washington Redskins, or something.
I find that a lot of things that they do go right in the face of the "journalistic ethics" they claim to support. This usually involves citing Breitbart unironically and sucking up to the journalists (gee, isn't that ethical).
Well, Breitbart isn't really a gaming magazine. They just want their hobbyist magazines to be more ethical and really don't care about the ethics of political publications. Or something.
Yeah, it demonstrates where their priorities are. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how ****** is more corrupting than money. Especially since (with every bit of crudeness intended) you can always rent ******.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Obviously you don't stop by the chan or KiA. I've heard all of their views on diversity.
Actually, I do plenty of times. While a tiny minority of people on both are asshats, the vast majority, when engaged in an actual discussion, range from very pro-diversity to, at worst, neutral. If you approach them with the same tone that this post seems to have, I wouldn't be surprised if they responded in an inflammatory way.
Do you have a citation for this? Or is this just "common knowledge," so you can avoid giving one?
Honestly, you could have googled that instead of coming off like a jerk about it, though.
Edit: Heck, if you want to get into it even more, review scores directly impact your ability to get hired.
Note that I am neither for nor against GG in the broadest of terms. I argue against GG the most because of the right wing neoreactionaries that hide in your midst and try to use it as a way to combat diversity and social development in general.
You have clearly either done very little actual research into gamergate, or you just take kotaku articles at face value. An incredible minority of GG voices on twitter and sites where GG is permitted are of the conservative variety. While a few of the more known voices are affiliated with conservative sites, even the vast majority of people that respond to them clearly aren't - and this can be seen easily by looking through their feeds, follows, and favorites. However, if you want to attack a very positive movement because a small percentage of the people that claim to be a part of it are absolute garbage, maybe you'd be interested in persecuting muslims, liberals, or even anti-gg, which has handfuls of unsavory hatemongers in their ranks.
I find that a lot of things that they do go right in the face of the "journalistic ethics" they claim to support. This usually involves citing Breitbart unironically and sucking up to the journalists (gee, isn't that ethical).
Examples, please? In the interest of protecting developer creative freedom, since reviews hold far more power in this industry than in any other, I think that discouraging outrage over non game-related, political ideologies is a positive thing. This goes both ways - see my response to awhey above - and screwing with developer contracts to force an ideology is not the right thing to do, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you are on. To reiterate; I am equally against a game getting 7.5/10 for being "too sexy" as I am against a 7.5/10 for it being "too gay". In the context of Bayonetta 2, the score was very clearly not proportional to the criticism and was very clearly meant to hurt the developer.
What I have learned today is that GG is about literally the opposite of ethics in journalism. Not only does Doku support cronyism between developers and reviewers, he demands it.
What I have learned today is that GG is about literally the opposite of ethics in journalism. Not only does Doku support cronyism between developers and reviewers, he demands it.
TIL that one person's views represent the views of an entire movement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
What I have learned today is that GG is about literally the opposite of ethics in journalism. Not only does Doku support cronyism between developers and reviewers, he demands it.
TIL that one person's views represent the views of an entire movement.
Doku has frequently referred to his views as representative of the movement in this thread. I certainly agree that doesn't make it so, but if I'm taking him at his word, this is what GG is about.
What I have learned today is that GG is about literally the opposite of ethics in journalism. Not only does Doku support cronyism between developers and reviewers, he demands it.
TIL that one person's views represent the views of an entire movement.
I'd like to know how I'm demanding cronyism (though I've got tiax blocked, so if anyone reasonable is up for the challenge...)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
The demand you're making is that journalists must make their honest opinions subservient to concern for the financial well-being of the developers. The idea that they have a personal responsibility to the developers they're reviewing that trumps any journalistic responsibility to their readers is perhaps the clearest definition of unethical behavior in journalism one could imagine.
If you approach them with the same tone that this post seems to have, I wouldn't be surprised if they responded in an inflammatory way.
Funnily enough, it was the response to my initial inquiries that have made me so hostile (i.e. telling me to kill myself, calling me, a gay guy, a ***, etc). I was polite and questioning what their movement might have for me. They decided that I was one of the dreaded "SJWs" and things went downhill from there.
It IS common knowledge to anyone with a remote amount of experience with game development, but here is an article about scores being tied to metacritic (ars opposes GG):
The point was that you said the low score was literally an attack to try and get the devs fired/reduce their pay/no bonus/whatever. I questioned your knowledge of that, not of the reviews affecting score. Prove that it was deliberately done to get the devs in hot water.
An incredible minority of GG voices on twitter and sites where GG is permitted are of the conservative variety.
Uh huh. That's why everyone, even in this very thread, are complaining about the dreaded "SJWs."
However, if you want to attack a very positive movement because a small percentage of the people that claim to be a part of it are absolute garbage
Unfortunately, if you're running an open movement with no leaders, the views of everyone are of equal merit. The anti-social justice crowd have far overtaken the ethics crowd in almost every arena that matters, leading to your movement being seen as a hate movement.
Examples, please?
There was literally an example in that post. But okay.
Among millions of other examples. But hey, ethics.
Edit:
The demand you're making is that journalists must make their honest opinions subservient to concern for the financial well-being of the developers. The idea that have a personal responsibility to the developers they're reviewing that trumps any journalistic responsibility to their readers is perhaps the clearest definition of unethical behavior in journalism one could imagine.
I couldn't agree more. It seems like a running theme is "free speech is great, but only if I agree with it."
Funnily enough, it was the response to my initial inquiries that have made me so hostile (i.e. telling me to kill myself, calling me, a gay guy, a ***, etc). I was polite and questioning what their movement might have for me. They decided that I was one of the dreaded "SJWs" and things went downhill from there.
I'll be honest here - I don't believe you. You entered this discussion with "Im not anti-GG but.." and proceeded to bash gg pretty hard. IF anything, people on KiA are good at sniffing out BS, and yours wouldn't have gotten past them. I JOINED reddit to check out KiA - an account with no history, could be a troll, and they were more than pleasant when I posted in discussions.
The point was that you said the low score was literally an attack to try and get the devs fired/reduce their pay/no bonus/whatever. I questioned your knowledge of that, not of the reviews affecting score. Prove that it was deliberately done to get the devs in hot water.
Maybe I should call it common sense then - You don't knock a game down 25% for any single issue ever. In fact, I'd like to see you find a single game reviewed by polygon that suffers from the same problem. (hint: there isnt).
Aside from that, the author himself has a pretty sexist past (involved with suicidegirls), and spouts the SJW agenda regularly on twitter. Its pretty obvious that he is pushing and agenda.
Finally, the actual article itself ignores the game - with barely 2 paragraphs dedicated to discussing gameplay - while focusing exclusively on the "Sexualization" - every bolded sentence, and every other paragraph in the piece. The only way this could be a more obvious hit piece would be if it actually punched you in the face.
Uh huh. That's why everyone, even in this very thread, are complaining about the dreaded "SJWs."
If your bar for "not conservative" is agreeing with the insane agenda of the people we call SJW's, then I've only met 2 or 3 non-conservatives in my life - and I live in Chicago.
Unfortunately, if you're running an open movement with no leaders, the views of everyone are of equal merit. The anti-social justice crowd have far overtaken the ethics crowd in almost every arena that matters, leading to your movement being seen as a hate movement.
Your pejorative labeling aside, you really haven't answered my question - if the views of %1 or less of a group where all views are equal is enough to condemn it, they why aren't the views of 50% of a group where only a few voices count enough to condemn that group?
There was literally an example in that post. But okay.
So, 1) Is an anti-gger asking why GG doesn't fight every instance of doxxing that occurs online ever, 2) is unrelated to gg in any way, and 3) is gg-ers upset that someone on ghazi wants to legalize child porn? GREAT evidence. A regular sherlock. I like how all of these make sense and somehow oppose journalistic ethics.
The demand you're making is that journalists must make their honest opinions subservient to concern for the financial well-being of the developers. The idea that have a personal responsibility to the developers they're reviewing that trumps any journalistic responsibility to their readers is perhaps the clearest definition of unethical behavior in journalism one could imagine.
I couldn't agree more. It seems like a running theme is "free speech is great, but only if I agree with it." [/quote]
So, I'll do this one last time. Point 1: Reviews in gaming have a disproportionate power over developers, more than in any other industry or creative art. Point 2: As gamers, we should seek to limit the ability of reviewers to leverage this additional power to push a non-gaming, personal, or political agenda in their reviews, regardless of what side of the political spectrum these views fall on.
But hey, your side is the one wanting to ban free speech by attacking games like hatred. Keep on hypocrite-ing on.
You might disagree with the reviewer's opinion, and you might not be uncomfortable about the same things, but that doesn't mean the reviewer is being remiss. If someone reviewed a Bioware RPG and docked points for homosexual relationships out of moral disagreement, I would disagree with that criticism, but if the reviewer is honestly describing their experiences, they are doing their job.
Awhey, let me ask these two things then:
First, do you recognize that developer creative freedom and the methods that SJW's employ to push a diversity agenda are at odds with one another in the current gaming industry? (As in, supporting one will come at the expense of the other?)
Second, if you do, then do you value the SJW's approach more than you value creative freedom for developers?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
So, I'll do this one last time. Point 1: Reviews in gaming have a disproportionate power over developers, more than in any other industry or creative art. Point 2: As gamers, we should seek to limit the ability of reviewers to leverage this additional power to push a non-gaming, personal, or political agenda in their reviews, regardless of what side of the political spectrum these views fall on.
Fundamentally, the reviewers have no responsibility to ensure the developers get paid the most amount of money. If there were a situation where a reviewer is omitting criticism or adjusting their scores because they want to ensure the developer gets paid a bonus, that'd be wildly unethical. If you're in favor of ethics in journalism, you should find what you're suggesting repulsive.
If you're unhappy that developer pay is decided in part by ratings, complain about the publishers who write those clauses into contracts, and the developers who agree to them. The notion that the problem here is reviewers who publish their honest opinion is completely asinine.
This has nothing to do with sides of the political spectrum. Reviewers putting the income of the people they're reviewing above the honest expression of their opinion of the game is flatly unethical.
I'll be honest here - I don't believe you. You entered this discussion with "Im not anti-GG but.." and proceeded to bash gg pretty hard. IF anything, people on KiA are good at sniffing out BS, and yours wouldn't have gotten past them. I JOINED reddit to check out KiA - an account with no history, could be a troll, and they were more than pleasant when I posted in discussions.
It goes against your worldview, therefore it is a lie. Impeccable logic m8.
I'm not against GamerGate in the sense that ethics in journalism is good. I'm against it in the sense that you've been hijacked by Nazis and child pornographers. Therefore im mostly neutral regarding the message. It's the establishment I have a problem with (and your methods).
As for KiA, I asked them what was up in Subreddit Drama. They decided that, since I said I didn't like TiA, I was an evil SJW and should die. Real welcoming.
If your bar for "not conservative" is agreeing with the insane agenda of the people we call SJW's, then I've only met 2 or 3 non-conservatives in my life - and I live in Chicago.
Don't be coy. We all know that "SJW" is a term applied to anyone KiA/TiA/8chan and whoever disagree with. I've been labeled an SJW for suggesting that maybe you shouldn't call people n*****s. That is not an insane agenda, it's human decency.
But hey, your side is the one wanting to ban free speech by attacking games like hatred. Keep on hypocrite-ing on.
How am I being hypocritical? Did I say that I support free speech over everything else?
Oh wait.
Point 1: Reviews in gaming have a disproportionate power over developers, more than in any other industry or creative art. Point 2: As gamers, we should seek to limit the ability of reviewers to leverage this additional power to push a non-gaming, personal, or political agenda in their reviews, regardless of what side of the political spectrum these views fall on.
Isn't that limiting free speech? Who was being hypocritical again?
Maybe I should call it common sense then - You don't knock a game down 25% for any single issue ever. In fact, I'd like to see you find a single game reviewed by polygon that suffers from the same problem. (hint: there isnt).
Aside from that, the author himself has a pretty sexist past (involved with suicidegirls), and spouts the SJW agenda regularly on twitter. Its pretty obvious that he is pushing and agenda. Finally, the actual article itself ignores the game - with barely 2 paragraphs dedicated to discussing gameplay - while focusing exclusively on the "Sexualization" - every bolded sentence, and every other paragraph in the piece. The only way this could be a more obvious hit piece would be if it actually punched you in the face.
This is an obvious lie, and it's not the first time you've misrepresented your ideological opponents in easily falsifiable ways. Here's (not all of) what the Polygon review has to say about Bayonetta 2's gameplay:
"Bayonetta 2 has the same basic mechanics of the original. It's a character action game — meaning that it's you against enemies who can kill you quickly if you're not mindful of what's happening. Proper timing and combo use are important, but Bayonetta 2, like Bayonetta, adds a very specific, very cool wrinkle to the genre: witch time.
Witch time is invoked by dodging with the right trigger just before an enemy's attack would connect. When done properly, this turns the world purple and temporarily slows down time around Bayonetta, allowing her free reign to manhandle enemies. Witch time is a luxury early, on, but it's an absolute necessity later; it forces the kinds of considerations that other action games just don't. If you want to have a maximum advantage in Bayonetta 2, you have to put yourself in a position to get hit by an enemy, which can be extremely detrimental to your health.
To do well, you have to take bigger and bigger chances. The risk makes the reward even more appealing. There's also an unforgiving but nonetheless motivating rating system in place that assesses your performance and rewards you with currency to use at an in-game shop. It creates a feedback loop: I wanted to do better to get more stuff to do better and get more stuff. And though Bayonetta 2's levels are full of secrets and items to pick up and use in battle, even Platinum knows that the excellent combat is the draw — fights are hidden around each level along with pickups, and when you finish a level, you can see whether or not you found them all.
There are also golden LPs hidden around Bayonetta 2, frequently in pieces. Redeeming them at the in-game shop The Gates of Hell rewards you with new weapons, each of which can radically change the way Bayonetta fights. She also has weapon slots on her legs and arms, and many weapons can be used on either (or both, if you're willing to cough up the cash to buy duplicates), with very different, often surprising results — hence my complaints about not being able to put a scythe on my feet.
Still, you can accessorize your heels with a pair of chainsaw weapons, which turns them into murderous rocket skates. I'd classify that as a reasonable consolation prize.
These systems aren't new to Bayonetta 2, but the whole package feels a lot more considered. The weapon systems in particular feel more relevant than before — combat trials encourage experimentation with different weapon combinations, which in turn lends itself to more variety in the main game than I experienced in the first Bayonetta.
Bayonetta 2's difficulty curve is also much less harsh, and I imagine it will feel more accessible to players with less experience in this genre. There's less time spent fighting the same massive boss monster over the course of half an hour, more time spent moving forward, which eases off on the grind that Bayonetta often became. There are even more collectibles this time around, many of which unlock challenges to be played in the new cooperative mode — though, sadly, this is limited to challenges alone. The sequel is also shorter, though it feels that way in part because of the reduction in retreading and overextended boss battles. Both of these are, to me, net positives."
I suppose this is "barely two paragraphs," in that it doesn't at all conform to the description "two paragraphs." There's also a bolded paragraph about multiplayer:
"Bayonetta 2 introduces online multiplayer to the series, but it's a limited implementation. Matches are limited to trials, which blur the lines between cooperative play and competitive design, as each player has their own score and their own in-game currency on the line. Everything works, but at times the mode's design seems at odds with itself. It's hard to force yourself to revive a downed partner when it provides an opportunity for you to get your score up even more."
Yeah, this sure reads like a hit piece. It has all the telltale signs: effusive praise for parts of the subject and criticism of other parts. The bastards!
If you don't want reviewers to have undue influence on developers' livelihoods due to review score clauses in their contracts, why are you going after the reviewers, whose job it is to review games, and not the publishers, whose job it is to pay developers (and who wrote those contracts)?
Awhey - you may have missed the last bit of my last post. The polygon score was absolutely a malicious attack at the devs - scoring below an 8 was done in hopes that devs wouldn't receive their bonuses, which are usually based on either metacritic or all major sites giving your game an 8/10 or better. For developers, getting scored under an 8 means the game failed, and reviewers at major sites are fully aware of this.
As others have said, claiming this was a malevolent effort to throttle developers' livelihoods is a pretty extraordinary claim, and thus far your evidence is "OBVIOUSLY!" Do you have an actual reason to believe this is true?
As for bayonetta's "Sexualization" - her designer was a woman, and bayonetta was meant to be that woman's power fantasy. Why do sjw's, in a climate where they accuse every strong attractive male lead of being a power fantasy, not celebrate this fact? Even more importantly, the studio that developed bayonetta INSISTED that a woman be the designer - they felt that only a woman could have achieved the look and feel they wanted. The bayonetta story should be one of the ones that people working for inclusiveness should highlight - a woman dev designed her fantasy character exactly how she wanted, and her female lead is one of the hottest properties on nintendo. Instead, they blindly applied their assumptions about gaming in general and made it about sexism.
How is Bayonetta's designer's gender relevant to the reviewer's experience of the game?
Awhey, let me ask these two things then:
First, do you recognize that developer creative freedom and the methods that SJW's employ to push a diversity agenda are at odds with one another in the current gaming industry? (As in, supporting one will come at the expense of the other?)
Second, if you do, then do you value the SJW's approach more than you value creative freedom for developers?
This question is hopelessly vague. If you mean a review like this one, no, I do not; following your logic to its conclusion, every publisher in the world should openly state that their developers don't get paid unless their games get perfect scores, so that every reviewer in the world would be obliged to award their games 10/10. It is not the reviewer's job to care about developers--in fact, it runs completely counter to their purpose, which is to act as an honest evaluator of products.
I have a question for you: do you consider developers' freedom to be more important than reviewers'? If so, why?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) Yes. As Rodyle said, this is better both socially and in terms of producing more diverse games.
2) I think "people like McIntosh" is a very vague group. As I've said earlier in the thread, I think feminist criticism of media is worthwhile for making people confront their unexamined attitudes. I think some of the 'SJW' crowd make the mistake of attacking individuals instead of their works, which is ultimately a PR failure for their cause and a waste of their energy (and a dick move), but, at the same time, I don't think there have been many changes in power structures without someone pissing people off. (Also, even when they do attack the games, people often interpret them as attacking the games' creators/fans/every gamer in the universe.)
3) Highlighting good diverse games will help, but the only reason we're having this conversation at all is that people (on both sides) got mad. A bunch of people quietly agreeing with one another is not usually a good way to shake things up.
4) Enormously yes.
5) What do you mean by "destroying their games"? If you mean actually destroying them and rendering them unplayable or unpurchasable, yes. If you mean ruining their sales, no. To take such a stance is to put games above criticism; I consider politics as good a reason to dislike a game as gameplay, art, or any other aspect (see the Dead Rising 3 review I've previously discussed in this thread).
6) No. Acknowledging--and even celebrating--the creative freedom of artists does not mean that every work is equally good. Social backlash against art should be permitted for the same reason social backlash against anything should be permitted.
It sounds to me like you think no one should say any game is bad ever. What do you think are valid criticisms of video games, and how do they materially differ from politically motivated 'attacks'?
EDIT: removed a stupid analogy founded on the ambiguity of the word 'diversity'.
FURTHER EDIT: when I mention criticizing things for politics, I expressly don't mean simple political differences with the creators, but rather problems with the politics of the work itself--I think Orson Scott Card is a pretty terrible person, but that doesn't make Ender's Game a bad book. On the other hand, I didn't feel like supporting him with money, so I decided not to see the film adaptation on moral/political grounds.
I guess we worked with different definitions of 'attack' here. Here's some things I'd see as an attack:
I'd like to contrast this to good criticism, which a: is upright about these things being an opinion and b: is honest in its argumentation and representation of the thing being critiqued.
Back for a brief moment, possibly longer. Interesting to see this thread still alive and well.
IMO, if gawker revised ethics policies and fired the writers that have been harassing people online, and apologize to the community, we'd celebrate.[/quote]
That would be an interesting moment. I can't like Gawker for other reasons. (Trigger warning: Jezebel bat*****tery. Oh, and child molestation.) Oh, and of course the general obsession with celebrities.
But in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, we now have more proof that you guys hate SJWs for all the wrong reasons!
See? That post offended me. The idea that spree killers could be morally 'nuanced' in any way makes me want to vomit. But, do you see me harassing her? Let alone murdering her? Obviously no. Because I'm a decent human being, unlike some people.
A bit off-topic, but since this entire thread has spun way off of Anonymous apparently being some dude's personal army after he *****es about his ex-girlfriend on his blog...
On phasing:
Sure, those unsupported statements on their own are pretty worthless, but I don't see any reason why an up-front and honest op-ed couldn't be written arguing that, for instance, GTA5 is misogynistic (or at least that certain elements are). I haven't played the game and can't speak to whether it is or not, but it seems like a plausible conclusion one could reach after playing the game, and I think we would lose more by dismissing it out of hand than by allowing its author to present their case.
Not actually relevant to the main conversation, but I also don't see much problem with calling Hatred a murder simulator--that's essentially the game's creators call it:
"You will go out for a hunt, you will clear the New York outskirts of the humans with a cold blood. You will shoot, you will hurt, you will kill, you will die. There are no rules, no compassion, no mercy, no point of going back. You are the lord of life and death now and you have the full control over lives of worthless human scum."
Elsewhere they say "Wander the outskirts of New York State, seek for victims on seven free-roam levels." "Murder simulator" seems like a pretty accurate description of a game about killing human scum victims in cold blood.
I don't think the fact that it's a murder simulator is damning per se. As I played it, Hitman: Absolution is essentially a game about garroting unsuspecting victims and dragging their corpses into boxes, stabbing dudes in the neck with screwdrivers, and putting sniper rifle rounds through people's skulls from 1000 feet; I enjoyed that game a lot, but I don't think "murder simulator" is a bad description of that game, and it doesn't seem like a bad description of Hatred, either.
Sure. If you write a well-argumented piece on why it should be that, awesome. We can have a discussion about that. I would most likely disagree, but that's fine. We don't all have to think the exact same thing. However, as I said: the statement on its won is pretty useless.
Look, this is argumented and actually adds to a discussion. The statement on its own does not.
Eh. The statement has 'murder simulator' has a dark past in gaming. It was one of the things that Jack Thompson liked to say about games. While I agree that from a purely objective perspective, the statement is neither damning nor endorsing, this baggage makes the statement sting a bit and therefore tends to tends to draw a stronger response than it should from the gamer crowd.
Gotcha, my mistake. I thought you were saying the positions were attacks, rather than just the statements. We are essentially in agreement here.
While I do agree that every one of the more vocal SJW's has their own perspective, I see a pervasive negative mentality within these groups. Instead of focusing on things they like and are good about the industry, they almost exclusively point out the worst of the worst parts and generalize them to apply to the whole. Maybe if I put it like this - Do groups that primarily advance a negative image of the industry and gamers contribute anything meaningful to the discussion? I think they don't, and any valid points that might come up through them could be approached in far better and more productive ways.
There are. I play DotA - one of the most hostile communities around. It isn't fair to take the worst aspects of that and make outsiders believe that everyone is like that. It scares newcomers away and hurts the "diversity" goals they work for.
I really wish there was a more effective way to do this. Since signal boosting can only go so far - should we actively encourage things like boycotts and shunning people who promote clickbait and hate?
I think you guys have discussed this pretty sufficiently - blanket statements are pointless, reasoned arguments are not.
There is another thing I want to address regarding game reviews. Unlike in other industries, reviewers have an enormously greater level of control in gaming. Take metacritic for example - a LOT of dev contracts have riders that give bonuses ONLY if a game breaks, say, 80 on metacritic. There are few enough reviewers that a few deciding that a game is bad for political reasons can wreck the bonuses devs were expecting to get, even if the game itself was great (See bayonetta 2 and polygon's BS). So, I guess that to me, gaming needs to be more insulated from social criticism to the same degree that critics have more power than in other industries. - if that makes sense.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
(It's almost like mudslinging is extremely counterproductive.)
We don't agree on one thing - methods. I find what sjw's do to be destructive, and I feel corrput individuals like McIntosh and others need to be chased out of the industry. The other side believes anything from "they make good points" to "we must destroy all white men and these people will lead us"
Myself, and pretty much every gg-er I've ever spoken to, agree that disveristy is great. We just don't think that it should be mandatory and we don't think it should come at the expense of any subgroups in gaming, and we're happy to work with anyone that agrees - like TFYC, a group that promotes and helps women making games.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Sadly, I think the agreement is illusory; consider the Bayonetta 2 review that DokuDokuH has described as "Polygon's BS." Here are the relevant parts:
"Less positive is the same exaggerated sexualization that hung heavy around the last game's neck. I'll forgive the high heels and the exaggerated proportions, if only because there's so many other things to criticize. Bayonetta's new outfit delivers bold new developments in revealing clothing with the introduction of diamond cutouts on the ass of her jumpsuit, creating what I can only refer to as "under-butt" cleavage. When standing in place her shoulders are bent back to point her chest at ... whatever.
But even this is minor compared to the game's camera, which zooms in on Bayonetta's parts like they're products being sold in a commercial. There are enough gratuitous ass-shots, cleavage jokes and spread legs to fill an hours long super cut. The camera doesn't look at Bayonetta — it leers at her.
This is frequently provided as an implicit reward for doing well. For anyone who didn't play the first game, here's a bit of premise: Much of Bayonetta's supernatural power is tied into her hair. Her clothing is actually composed of this hair magic, and as she performs more powerful attacks, more of this hair magic is diverted from covering her to compensate. Put simply, Bayonetta's strongest attacks result in her clothes flying off. For more intense quicktime sequences, she'll even do a sexy pose as it flies off, with the absolute barest minimum covered.
It's sexist, gross pandering, and it's totally unnecessary. Bayonetta 2 needs prurient rewards even less than the original Bayonetta did, because the on-screen chaos you can wreak through skilled play is infinitely more satisfying."
And the conclusion of the review:
"When Platinum Games is on, it's really, really on, and Bayonetta 2 is in almost any respect that counts a better game than the first, whose mechanics were already exemplary. But every time I'd feel on a roll, enjoying my time with Bayonetta 2 immensely, I'd be broken out of it by another cheap shot of T&A. I would be wrecking a flock of angelic or demonic enemies, sliding in and out of witch time almost at will, and then the special weapon I had picked up became a literal stripper pole for Bayonetta to dance on, because ... well, because, I guess.
I won't guess why the blatant over-sexualization is still there, often more intensely than before. But it causes an otherwise great game to require a much bigger mental compromise to enjoy."
Polygon gave the game a 7.5, which is not a bad score (and this was less than 1/3 of the review), but more importantly, I think this is a valid criticism, and it's backed up with evidence and reasoning. If the reviewer felt Bayonetta 2 was uncomfortably pandering and it hurt their enjoyment of the game, they should mention that in the review. This isn't an ethical breach--ironically, not mentioning it to protect the game developers would be. A reviewer's job is to honestly describe their experiences, not keep devs employed.
You might disagree with the reviewer's opinion, and you might not be uncomfortable about the same things, but that doesn't mean the reviewer is being remiss. If someone reviewed a Bioware RPG and docked points for homosexual relationships out of moral disagreement, I would disagree with that criticism, but if the reviewer is honestly describing their experiences, they are doing their job.
I have no problem with the reviewer disagreeing with what he thinks is pandering content in the game. Heck, dinging the game a tiny bit for it is fine. I DO have a problem with these reviewers abusing their positions to force devs to pander to them by threatening their paychecks in a way that only they can - and scoring a GOTY candiate at 7.5 for one "problem" is absolutely that. Fact is, reviews like the polygon one send a CLEAR message to developers - "make games that appeal to us reviewers, and not your player base, or we'll ruin you." While I do think that getting more people from more backgrounds into gaming is great, I absolutely refuse to force diversity at the cost of developer creative freedom.
As for bayonetta's "Sexualization" - her designer was a woman, and bayonetta was meant to be that woman's power fantasy. Why do sjw's, in a climate where they accuse every strong attractive male lead of being a power fantasy, not celebrate this fact? Even more importantly, the studio that developed bayonetta INSISTED that a woman be the designer - they felt that only a woman could have achieved the look and feel they wanted. The bayonetta story should be one of the ones that people working for inclusiveness should highlight - a woman dev designed her fantasy character exactly how she wanted, and her female lead is one of the hottest properties on nintendo. Instead, they blindly applied their assumptions about gaming in general and made it about sexism.
Sure, but if that reviewer scored the game at 7.5/10 for that reason alone, and it cost bioware a fat bonus check every time they included homosexual relationships in their games, would you be fine with that? I wouldnt.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Obviously you don't stop by the chan or KiA. I've heard all of their views on diversity.
Do you have a citation for this? Or is this just "common knowledge," so you can avoid giving one?
Note that I am neither for nor against GG in the broadest of terms. I argue against GG the most because of the right wing neoreactionaries that hide in your midst and try to use it as a way to combat diversity and social development in general.
I find that a lot of things that they do go right in the face of the "journalistic ethics" they claim to support. This usually involves citing Breitbart unironically and sucking up to the journalists (gee, isn't that ethical).
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Interestingly, Moot kicked all #Gamergate-related ****ery off 4chan. Though I'm not sure what it means with his retirement.
I could just as easily say I've heard all of Tumblr's views on indigenous people, that we're 'privileged' because Suey Park likes the Washington Redskins, or something.
Well, Breitbart isn't really a gaming magazine. They just want their hobbyist magazines to be more ethical and really don't care about the ethics of political publications. Or something.
Yeah, it demonstrates where their priorities are. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how ****** is more corrupting than money. Especially since (with every bit of crudeness intended) you can always rent ******.
On phasing:
Actually, I do plenty of times. While a tiny minority of people on both are asshats, the vast majority, when engaged in an actual discussion, range from very pro-diversity to, at worst, neutral. If you approach them with the same tone that this post seems to have, I wouldn't be surprised if they responded in an inflammatory way.
It IS common knowledge to anyone with a remote amount of experience with game development, but here is an article about scores being tied to metacritic (ars opposes GG):
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/03/why-linking-developer-bonuses-to-metacritic-scores-should-come-to-an-end/
Honestly, you could have googled that instead of coming off like a jerk about it, though.
Edit: Heck, if you want to get into it even more, review scores directly impact your ability to get hired.
You have clearly either done very little actual research into gamergate, or you just take kotaku articles at face value. An incredible minority of GG voices on twitter and sites where GG is permitted are of the conservative variety. While a few of the more known voices are affiliated with conservative sites, even the vast majority of people that respond to them clearly aren't - and this can be seen easily by looking through their feeds, follows, and favorites. However, if you want to attack a very positive movement because a small percentage of the people that claim to be a part of it are absolute garbage, maybe you'd be interested in persecuting muslims, liberals, or even anti-gg, which has handfuls of unsavory hatemongers in their ranks.
Examples, please? In the interest of protecting developer creative freedom, since reviews hold far more power in this industry than in any other, I think that discouraging outrage over non game-related, political ideologies is a positive thing. This goes both ways - see my response to awhey above - and screwing with developer contracts to force an ideology is not the right thing to do, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you are on. To reiterate; I am equally against a game getting 7.5/10 for being "too sexy" as I am against a 7.5/10 for it being "too gay". In the context of Bayonetta 2, the score was very clearly not proportional to the criticism and was very clearly meant to hurt the developer.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
TIL that one person's views represent the views of an entire movement.
Doku has frequently referred to his views as representative of the movement in this thread. I certainly agree that doesn't make it so, but if I'm taking him at his word, this is what GG is about.
I'd like to know how I'm demanding cronyism (though I've got tiax blocked, so if anyone reasonable is up for the challenge...)
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Funnily enough, it was the response to my initial inquiries that have made me so hostile (i.e. telling me to kill myself, calling me, a gay guy, a ***, etc). I was polite and questioning what their movement might have for me. They decided that I was one of the dreaded "SJWs" and things went downhill from there.
The point was that you said the low score was literally an attack to try and get the devs fired/reduce their pay/no bonus/whatever. I questioned your knowledge of that, not of the reviews affecting score. Prove that it was deliberately done to get the devs in hot water.
Uh huh. That's why everyone, even in this very thread, are complaining about the dreaded "SJWs."
Unfortunately, if you're running an open movement with no leaders, the views of everyone are of equal merit. The anti-social justice crowd have far overtaken the ethics crowd in almost every arena that matters, leading to your movement being seen as a hate movement.
There was literally an example in that post. But okay.
Here is them promoting doxxing.
They like to swat people.
Here they are condoning child pornography, which is as opposite from ethical as you can get.
Among millions of other examples. But hey, ethics.
Edit:
I couldn't agree more. It seems like a running theme is "free speech is great, but only if I agree with it."
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
I'll be honest here - I don't believe you. You entered this discussion with "Im not anti-GG but.." and proceeded to bash gg pretty hard. IF anything, people on KiA are good at sniffing out BS, and yours wouldn't have gotten past them. I JOINED reddit to check out KiA - an account with no history, could be a troll, and they were more than pleasant when I posted in discussions.
Maybe I should call it common sense then - You don't knock a game down 25% for any single issue ever. In fact, I'd like to see you find a single game reviewed by polygon that suffers from the same problem. (hint: there isnt).
Aside from that, the author himself has a pretty sexist past (involved with suicidegirls), and spouts the SJW agenda regularly on twitter. Its pretty obvious that he is pushing and agenda.
Finally, the actual article itself ignores the game - with barely 2 paragraphs dedicated to discussing gameplay - while focusing exclusively on the "Sexualization" - every bolded sentence, and every other paragraph in the piece. The only way this could be a more obvious hit piece would be if it actually punched you in the face.
If your bar for "not conservative" is agreeing with the insane agenda of the people we call SJW's, then I've only met 2 or 3 non-conservatives in my life - and I live in Chicago.
Your pejorative labeling aside, you really haven't answered my question - if the views of %1 or less of a group where all views are equal is enough to condemn it, they why aren't the views of 50% of a group where only a few voices count enough to condemn that group?
So, 1) Is an anti-gger asking why GG doesn't fight every instance of doxxing that occurs online ever, 2) is unrelated to gg in any way, and 3) is gg-ers upset that someone on ghazi wants to legalize child porn? GREAT evidence. A regular sherlock. I like how all of these make sense and somehow oppose journalistic ethics.
I couldn't agree more. It seems like a running theme is "free speech is great, but only if I agree with it." [/quote]
So, I'll do this one last time. Point 1: Reviews in gaming have a disproportionate power over developers, more than in any other industry or creative art. Point 2: As gamers, we should seek to limit the ability of reviewers to leverage this additional power to push a non-gaming, personal, or political agenda in their reviews, regardless of what side of the political spectrum these views fall on.
But hey, your side is the one wanting to ban free speech by attacking games like hatred. Keep on hypocrite-ing on.
Back to actual disccusion:
Awhey, let me ask these two things then:
First, do you recognize that developer creative freedom and the methods that SJW's employ to push a diversity agenda are at odds with one another in the current gaming industry? (As in, supporting one will come at the expense of the other?)
Second, if you do, then do you value the SJW's approach more than you value creative freedom for developers?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Fundamentally, the reviewers have no responsibility to ensure the developers get paid the most amount of money. If there were a situation where a reviewer is omitting criticism or adjusting their scores because they want to ensure the developer gets paid a bonus, that'd be wildly unethical. If you're in favor of ethics in journalism, you should find what you're suggesting repulsive.
If you're unhappy that developer pay is decided in part by ratings, complain about the publishers who write those clauses into contracts, and the developers who agree to them. The notion that the problem here is reviewers who publish their honest opinion is completely asinine.
This has nothing to do with sides of the political spectrum. Reviewers putting the income of the people they're reviewing above the honest expression of their opinion of the game is flatly unethical.
It goes against your worldview, therefore it is a lie. Impeccable logic m8.
I'm not against GamerGate in the sense that ethics in journalism is good. I'm against it in the sense that you've been hijacked by Nazis and child pornographers. Therefore im mostly neutral regarding the message. It's the establishment I have a problem with (and your methods).
As for KiA, I asked them what was up in Subreddit Drama. They decided that, since I said I didn't like TiA, I was an evil SJW and should die. Real welcoming.
Don't be coy. We all know that "SJW" is a term applied to anyone KiA/TiA/8chan and whoever disagree with. I've been labeled an SJW for suggesting that maybe you shouldn't call people n*****s. That is not an insane agenda, it's human decency.
How am I being hypocritical? Did I say that I support free speech over everything else?
Oh wait.
Isn't that limiting free speech? Who was being hypocritical again?
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
This is an obvious lie, and it's not the first time you've misrepresented your ideological opponents in easily falsifiable ways. Here's (not all of) what the Polygon review has to say about Bayonetta 2's gameplay:
I suppose this is "barely two paragraphs," in that it doesn't at all conform to the description "two paragraphs." There's also a bolded paragraph about multiplayer:
Yeah, this sure reads like a hit piece. It has all the telltale signs: effusive praise for parts of the subject and criticism of other parts. The bastards!
If you don't want reviewers to have undue influence on developers' livelihoods due to review score clauses in their contracts, why are you going after the reviewers, whose job it is to review games, and not the publishers, whose job it is to pay developers (and who wrote those contracts)?
As others have said, claiming this was a malevolent effort to throttle developers' livelihoods is a pretty extraordinary claim, and thus far your evidence is "OBVIOUSLY!" Do you have an actual reason to believe this is true?
How is Bayonetta's designer's gender relevant to the reviewer's experience of the game?
This question is hopelessly vague. If you mean a review like this one, no, I do not; following your logic to its conclusion, every publisher in the world should openly state that their developers don't get paid unless their games get perfect scores, so that every reviewer in the world would be obliged to award their games 10/10. It is not the reviewer's job to care about developers--in fact, it runs completely counter to their purpose, which is to act as an honest evaluator of products.
I have a question for you: do you consider developers' freedom to be more important than reviewers'? If so, why?