BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[Thorn14]

Was that the social justice warriors too? Damn them!

...No it wasn't and ME3's ending had nothing to do with SJW. Anyone who thought it was was an idiot.

What it was was Bioware lying to us about the endings (Dev even said "It won't be an ABC ending") and how basically our choices mattered less than the actual multiplayer game.

Because Bioware never actually said that if you read the whole quote.

And what was the whole quote?

And Bioware hyped the living shit out of your choices mattering, only for it to not matter, is what brought about the outrage.

 

[shrekfan246]

*Examples*

Something I notice is you're arguing "Well people don't care about those." Just because someone doesn't care about something does not make it subjective. If a car has a problem downshifting and it can hurt performance, thats a fact, but people can still go "Well I don't care." And thats fine! But framerate and resolution and aliasing and sound quality are all objective.

Except, you know, when they're not.

Here's a little anecdote for you. I primarily play games on my PC. I prefer to play games on PC because it's more convenient for me, and I prefer having options in how I play the game or customize it (be it through graphical options or controls).

However, my PC hardware is rather old now. I can only play Shadow of Mordor at an average of 30 FPS. So if I were to write a review of the game, it would be impacted by the fact that my experience of the game was not at an "optimal" 60 FPS. There is no objective way I can get around that; I cannot extrapolate on how my experience would be different if the game were running at 60 FPS. I cannot speak for how people playing the game on brand-new hardware would experience the game. But I can speak for how people who would be playing it on hardware that's years-old would potentially find their experience.

In a world where there was no score system and metacritic and paychecks of developers that relied on them, you would be absolutely right. If everyone took the Total Biscuit approach of reviews of "This is what is going on, and here is the gameplay. And here is how I feel" (I think he does that at the end?) with no score put to it, we'd be just fine.

But when we bring numbers and paychecks into things, it changes the field considerably.

Arthur Gies's opinion of Bayonneta is irrelevant to me. His political agenda affecting a score is.

That is not a problem with reviews, that is a problem with Metacritic and the weight publishers put on it.

 

[Fappy]

There are precedents set up in the federal courts that if a privately owned site that allows online bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, or other such things, that the person in question can take you to civil court and sue. This is why there are very strict rules. And why people get modded and banned for certain buzz words, phrases and other such things.

Uh, do you have the links to the actual case here? I find this claim rather dubious, as the Communication Decency Act of 1996 protects owners of sites from being held responsible for the comments posted by their users.

4ch, or for that matter Facebook and Twitter, would've been sued into oblivion years ago if people can actually sue them for the stuff that gets posted on there by the users.

Did reddit go overboard? Maybe. Were they covering their asses so they couldn't be held liable in case Quinn decided to start holding people accountable for people harassing her? Yes. And that is something no one took into account because they only saw what they wanted to see.

They can't be held liable anyway, ever. Hell, the whole celebrity nude leak a while back? Those people can't sue 4ch/reddit, or even legally force them to remove the pictures, and they have FAR more money, power, and lawyers than Quinn ever will.

And it wasn't like the Escapist didn't allow it to start up here immediately afterwards.

Which does not negate the censoring on reddit and elsewhere in the slightest bit. Is the Chinese censorship negated by the fact that people can use a VPN instead?

A nation censoring information available to its people is in a whole different league. In fact, I would argue that it violates basic human rights. Private institutions (who do not receive funds from the government) have every right to censor discussions if it feels it will hurt its community. That said, that community has every right to criticize it for its decision. While I don't believe it was the right thing to do, calling "censorship" and comparing it to actual censorship is disingenuous. No one with any real power is preventing you from having this discussion; there are just some places where the landlord doesn't want you to loiter.

EDIT: Think I may have gone off on a tangent there. Sorry.

 

[Thorn14]

*Examples*

Something I notice is you're arguing "Well people don't care about those." Just because someone doesn't care about something does not make it subjective. If a car has a problem downshifting and it can hurt performance, thats a fact, but people can still go "Well I don't care." And thats fine! But framerate and resolution and aliasing and sound quality are all objective.

Except, you know, when they're not.

Here's a little anecdote for you. I primarily play games on my PC. I prefer to play games on PC because it's more convenient for me, and I prefer having options in how I play the game or customize it (be it through graphical options or controls).

However, my PC hardware is rather old now. I can only play Shadow of Mordor at an average of 30 FPS. So if I were to write a review of the game, it would be impacted by the fact that my experience of the game was not at an "optimal" 60 FPS. There is no objective way I can get around that; I cannot extrapolate on how my experience would be different if the game were running at 60 FPS. I cannot speak for how people playing the game on brand-new hardware would experience the game. But I can speak for how people who would be playing it on hardware that's years-old would potentially find their experience.

Thats wonderful but you're not a professional reviewer whose voice reaches possibly thousands. I mean would you accept a professional review of "I'm missing left index finger so the fact the game uses the L1 button is why I give this game a lower score."?

A professional review has to reach out as many people as possible while avoiding personal bias in said review that could hurt it. Would you want someone who goes "I hate fighting games." to review a fighting game?

In a world where there was no score system and metacritic and paychecks of developers that relied on them, you would be absolutely right. If everyone took the Total Biscuit approach of reviews of "This is what is going on, and here is the gameplay. And here is how I feel" (I think he does that at the end?) with no score put to it, we'd be just fine.

But when we bring numbers and paychecks into things, it changes the field considerably.

Arthur Gies's opinion of Bayonneta is irrelevant to me. His political agenda affecting a score is.

That is not a problem with reviews, that is a problem with Metacritic and the weight publishers put on it.[/quote]

Absolutely. And barring a massive shift in video game journalism that eliminates the score system and/or metacritic, I'm going to demand as little bias and personal beliefs as possible.

But on the other hand we have now "graphics are shit because I PERSONALLY don't like the art-style". When people ask for "Objective reviews" they want reviewers to dismiss their own biases to see the bigger picture.

Provide those reviews. Please, for the love of god, link examples. Because I haven't seen a single one like that ever.

People who ask for "objective reviews" don't want the reviewer or critic to talk about their opinion of the game, they just want confirmation. And they don't want anyone to talk about the games problems (unless it is popular to do that). You need those fukken 10/10 for GTA 5 and DARE you mention the depiction of women! Then you are an ideology pushing SJW femnazi who needs to shut up or die or both.

Destiny reviews were spot on, and I liked the game. But I didn't go "OMG WHY IS IT NOT A TEN!?" because I read said reviews and they were dead on.

If a game has actual flaws that hurt it like long loading times, lack of mission variety, massive grind, and such, by all means let us know.

But if Destiny hurt your feelings because you think shooting aliens is unfair or some bullshit (this of course never happened) please keep it out of a review.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm a gamer. Have been for decades. Not pissed off. The "hit pieces" in question seemed pretty blatantly aimed at gaming's rather overtly evident asshole demographic, which we've all been discussing, joking about, or wringing our hands over for years.

Every "asshole demographic" is overtly evident on the internet. I believe the more meaningful correlation is between "internet users and assholes" than "gamers and assholes", but a lot of people seem quite motivated to paint it otherwise.

They're going to end up with the exact same audience they would have always had while the people they wanted to convince/convert turn away furious. And furious is far worse than apathetic.

I don't see why the default result for having your point of view challenged or even attacked is "turning away furious". Anyone could, at any time, choose to elevate the debate.

That wasn't my assertion. They aren't "turning away furious" because their point of view was challenged - that's actually more the calling card of third-wave feminists and identity politic'ers, in my experience. Gamers are turning away furious because journalists weren't being honest and open about their biases. They weren't being uniform or consistent with their lenses. "Problem games" were clearly singled out. "Correct games" were clearly elevated. All shrouded in the midst of traditional, "business as usual" criticism for the bulk of the bell curve, most likely because announcing your lens as third-wave feminists or identity politics would cost you a sizable portion of your audience.

They wanted to politicize the discourse without losing traffic because every page click matters when your paycheck is dependent on a dying, obsolete platform. When people see that your fundamental beliefs don't match their own, they often turn away apathetic. They recognize the futility of discussion and move on with their lives. But if you tried to fool them or swindle them or misrepresent either yourselves or them before they can get to the door? Congratulations: you've created opponents with motivation.

 

[Thorn14]

The professor had a lot more evidence for this, but this was last year... last May? 2013? And still things are changing. The websites like Reddit and others, including Facebook, are responding to that and watching for things that could implicate them should someone set an even higher precedent. They're watching the courts and asking their lawyers what to do, and their lawyers have already said, if it looks like someone could use this as proof that you allowed cyber bullying to happen, delete it right away. Don't let it stick around.

They're covering their asses. Because every day, more precedents are being set. And they're being set higher and higher and higher. And no one wants to be the first company to be sued into non existence because they didn't take down a thread that sent someone into the spiral that made them kill themselves.

Yep, they are indeed covering their asses, but I really wonder if a lawsuit against facebook would actually occur because someone sent harassment over it and someone killed themselves over it (Its of course happened a lot to teenagers. Very sad.)

But is Facebook truly responsible? If someone sent me a mean handwritten letter that hurt me, is FedEX or Paper responsible?

That wasn't my assertion. They aren't "turning away furious" because their point of view was challenged - that's actually more the calling card of third-wave feminists and identity politic'ers, in my experience. Gamers are turning away furious because journalists weren't being honest and open about their biases. They weren't being uniform or consistent with their lenses. "Problem games" were clearly singled out. "Correct games" were clearly elevated. All shrouded in the midst of traditional, "business as usual" criticism for the bulk of the bell curve, most likely because announcing your lens as third-wave feminists or identity politics would cost you a sizable portion of your audience.

And then they call us misogynist/sexist when we disagree with said criticism.

 

[shrekfan246]

Thats wonderful but you're not a professional reviewer whose voice reaches possibly thousands. I mean would you accept a professional review of "I'm missing left index finger so the fact the game uses the L1 button is why I give this game a lower score."?

A professional review has to reach out as many people as possible while avoiding personal bias in said review that could hurt it. Would you want someone who goes "I hate fighting games." to review a fighting game?

I'm sorry, I was working from the perspective of believing that you could engage in hypothetical situations.

And yes, I would want someone who hates fighting games to review a fighting game. You know why? Because as somebody who typically doesn't get into fighting games, them potentially saying they loved a fighting game is a pretty good indication that I might like it too. Again, it's one more opinion in the massive stack of opinions that already exists, and there is absolutely no reason to try silencing it just because you don't like it.

Absolutely. And barring a massive shift in video game journalism that eliminates the score system and/or metacritic, I'm going to demand as little bias and personal beliefs as possible.

So instead of demanding a change from Metacritic or games publishers, you're going to try protecting the bottom line of companies that have clearly and repeatedly proven that they care about literally nothing except for your wallet by demanding the reviewers change?

 

[Thorn14]

With the ending in Mass Effect 2, there were so many different variables and possibilities for the outcome and what could happen. As players reached the end, they started comparing notes and trying to figure out how it worked. A few months after it came out, we ran a chart in the magazine that showed the layout of how to get the different endings and how things happened. Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?

Yeah, and I?d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don?t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we?re taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.

It?s more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2?s...

The reason why you never see the full quote, especially the second paragraph, is because entitled fans deliberately excluded it because they wanted anger to be fueled by misquotes.

And how did your "choices not matter"? Because it was a game or because..?

First.

"Yeah, and I?d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don?t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we?re taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C."

He's discussing Mass Effect 3, that's pretty obvious there.

"It?s more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2?s..."

Mass Effect 2's ending is way more complicated. There is 3 endings and a failure condition that won't even allow 2 of them I believe.

"And how did your "choices not matter"? Because it was a game or because..?"

Readiness made your choices not matter because Multiplayer affected your choices way more. Your decision of the Rachni Queen didn't matter despite them hyping it in ME2 because if you kill her, they found a new one! You save her? Mind Controlled! And then she just gives you some workers or some shit to fix the Deus Ex Machina.

 

[kyp275]

I got to see a law professor talk about specific cases, Rebecca Sedwick in Florida is the newest one, but that's not civil, that's actually going for a full law. But some states allow civil cases to go full to court, and that many websites, like Reddit, upped their moderating after this started becoming a thing.

I'm going to be honest, it's 9pm where I am, and I'm not going to try to go through a bunch of lawsuits legalese for this, BUT, this website explains a bit about it. It's pretty informative.

http://www.ikeepsafe.org/educational-issues/the-civil-and-criminal-consequences-of-cyberbullying/

Also as I mentioned, I didn't think Reddit handled it well, just that they were trying to cover their asses. That's what privately owned companies do.

I don?t think Rebecca Sedwick is a particular good example to use here, considering how that case is more of an example of how fast people can jump to the wrong conclusions. And it?s not going anywhere, the charges have already been dropped due to lack of evidence.

I?m also not too fond of what that article says. They?re basically saying filing frivolous lawsuits to blackmail websites is a good thing.

Most importantly, in pretty much all cases I?ve seen, the authorities have attempted to charge the defendants in rather roundabout ways, because there IS little to no actual laws regarding things like cyberbullying etc. In US v. Drew? They tried to nab her not with the bullying, but for violating facebook?s TOS, because otherwise she literally have violated no law, state or federal.

It?s a problem that does need to be addressed in the legislature, but that?s a very far cry from ?established federal precedents? that can force major sites like reddit to acquiesce to mass self-censoring.

 

[Thorn14]

I'm sorry, I was working from the perspective of believing that you could engage in hypothetical situations.

And yes, I would want someone who hates fighting games to review a fighting game. You know why? Because as somebody who typically doesn't get into fighting games, them potentially saying they loved a fighting game is a pretty good indication that I might like it too. Again, it's one more opinion in the massive stack of opinions that already exists, and there is absolutely no reason to try silencing it just because you don't like it.

Fighting games can be extremely complex and have a ton of mechanics that someone who dislikes fighting games would not miss. I am missing info in a review because of that. That is unfair to the reader.

So instead of demanding a change from Metacritic or games publishers, you're going to try protecting the bottom line of companies that have clearly and repeatedly proven that they care about literally nothing except for your wallet by demanding the reviewers change?

Both are important, and I'll fight the fight against publishers exploiting reviews too. Asking reviewers to not please not include their personal beliefs and views is a much more realistic goal than "change the entire landscape of how publisher and review relationships work." At least for now.

A professional review has to reach out as many people as possible while avoiding personal bias in said review that could hurt it. Would you want someone who goes "I hate fighting games." to review a fighting game?

Since the reviewers I tend to read / listen are people who share my interest and perception in games:

Yes. I want that. I want to have a wide variety of reviewers, people from different interests reviewing. Someone who doesn't like fighting games is better to review the ease of entry to this genre than someone who is already proficient and knows all the lingo, tricks and basics which are shared in many games.

I doubt such a mindset would fly with cars. People wanna know mileage, how it runs, safety measure ratings, etc. And not "Eh I don't drive much but it seems alright."

I'd never read a review of a game of someone who outright states they do not like a particular genre because hey maybe the game isn't FOR you. My reviews of a sports game should be ignored because I can't stand sports games. Fifa would bore me to tears but someone who likes those games would rather hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Every "asshole demographic" is overtly evident on the internet. I believe the more meaningful correlation is between "internet users and assholes" than "gamers and assholes", but a lot of people seem quite motivated to paint it otherwise.

You could dilute it down to a correlation between "people" and "assholes" if you were motivated to protect the internet. I have no issue with someone pointing out that some people who self-identify as "Gamers" are colossal shitbags, because they clearly are, and we complain about them all the time. Hardly a minute goes by without someone commenting on how they had to quit X game because of the loathsome, howling community that inhabits it.

That wasn't my assertion. They aren't "turning away furious" because their point of view was challenged - that's actually more the calling card of third-wave feminists and identity politic'ers, in my experience.

Yes, it's often our experience that the people we disagree with behave abominably, and the people we're predisposed to be sympathetic towards do not.

Gamers are turning away furious because journalists weren't being honest and open about their biases.

Some gamers. This kind of hazy generalization is what got everyone into this soup to begin with, no?

They weren't being uniform or consistent with their lenses. "Problem games" were clearly singled out. "Correct games" were clearly elevated.

That was clear to you, was it? Can you give me some examples?

But if you tried to fool them or swindle them or misrepresent either yourselves or them before they can get to the door? Congratulations: you've created opponents with motivation.

Is this your assertion then? That there was a widespread collusion to swindle gamers of a certain political mindset or ideology out of valuable page-clicks by disguising a rampaging liberal bias under the guise of reporting on hobbyist entertainment? I'm paraphrasing, so if this strikes you as unfair I am happy to revise, I am not attempting to straw man.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

The professor had a lot more evidence for this, but this was last year... last May? 2013? And still things are changing. The websites like Reddit and others, including Facebook, are responding to that and watching for things that could implicate them should someone set an even higher precedent. They're watching the courts and asking their lawyers what to do, and their lawyers have already said, if it looks like someone could use this as proof that you allowed cyber bullying to happen, delete it right away. Don't let it stick around.

They're covering their asses. Because every day, more precedents are being set. And they're being set higher and higher and higher. And no one wants to be the first company to be sued into non existence because they didn't take down a thread that sent someone into the spiral that made them kill themselves.

Yep, they are indeed covering their asses, but I really wonder if a lawsuit against facebook would actually occur because someone sent harassment over it and someone killed themselves over it (Its of course happened a lot to teenagers. Very sad.)

But is Facebook truly responsible? If someone sent me a mean handwritten letter that hurt me, is FedEX or Paper responsible?

This all boils down to one sad truth: the only way to 100% prevent free people from sometimes doing bad things is to remove their freedom.

As a society, we've steadily shifted the blame for bad behavior from the individual to the group. We've also staunchly refused to accept the simple truth that it is impossible to prevent all bad behavior. Subsequently: there is always something wrong with society, and it must be altered (typically: restricted) to eliminate that which we should know cannot be eliminated.

It's a gray area, of course. There are some no-brainers. Other situations call for nuance, and still others need to be left alone entirely. But collectively, we pay the price for certain freedoms in blood. It can feel callous or inhumane to accept this, but the alternative is almost always worse in the end.