Jimquisition: Toxic

Recommended Videos

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
It's not just a matter of whom you express your anger toward; it's also a matter of how that anger is expressed. There are constructive and non-constructive means and measures by which one can express anger or displeasure. Just getting mad and launching into a frightening fitful rage of destructive verbal abuse rarely does much more than cause the other party to either respond in kind, totally ignore you, or just shoot you in the face with a bazooka to get you to shut up. Either way, the result is often that either no progress is made or hasty decisions are made in the heat of anger and despondency that are then later regretted as it dawns on people the reasons behind the original decision that precipitated so much anger. Essentially, negativity only begets more negativity.

One of the properties of being an emotionally matured individual is that one is able to override one's own emotions such to not let emotions dominate one's actions and decision-making. Rather than act in the heat of the moment of anger, it is usually better to take time to calm down, think carefully about the other person's perspective and possible reasons for the decision being made. If after such careful consideration, one finds oneself still in severe disagreement, then CONTROLLED anger is warranted, and by controlled anger, I am meaning precisely my prior statement on being an emotionally matured individual. One is angry, yes, but do not allow that anger to goad you into hasty actions and responses that you may regret later. Even further, don't let that anger goad you into non-constructive actions that will only waste time, energy, and resources while still failing to solve the basic problem. At every moment, one should maintain a clear and level mind to be able to clearly perceive the problem and devise an appropriate solution to the problem.

No one forces us to buy particular games. There is no need to have a particular game. If one product does not satisfy your desires, simply find one that does and close your wallet to the companies that abstinently refuse to provide quality service and products in exchange for the money paid to them. Walk away from companies and deals whose only purpose to squeeze you for every penny you have while giving nothing in return. Stay away from companies that seek only to scam you out of your money, creating complex, obtuse schemes that on the surface seem like a deal but are, in reality, a total rip-off. Sure, you can write to the offending companies and let them know PRECISELY and DEFINITIVELY why you are not purchasing their product, and the anger can be clearly conveyed without having to resort to childish taunts, foul-language, or threats of physical harm. When enough people collectively respond to a company by closing the wallet, believe me, the company will change, immediately.

Remember, these companies want your money more than you do, and that gives you leverage over them, more than they actually have over you. The only reason game companies have had so much leverage over gamers is because we have become too "addicted" to the product. We have developed an attitude that has put games almost to a level of being a necessity of life, when the reality is that they are far from it. We simply need to find something else to occupy our time. Find constructive, productive hobbies or personal projects that will negate the need to engage in the "addictive" escapism that is often proffered in these games. Rebalance the mind such that this immature rage is no longer a necessary means to achieve an ends.

Everyone gets anger, even mad. Even the most mellow of individuals has moments of indignation and boiling inner rage. However, in order to use such anger responsibly, we have to not only choose the target of that anger carefully, we always must temper the degree to which that anger is applied and not let it be the factor that controls what action we take, only the motivator that brings us to take action. We must still remain in control of ourselves and our actions and remain self-accountable to exercise wise judgement in what action is taken, when the action is taken, the reasons for the action, and the means by which the action is manifest. In my opinion, short of being attacked by a rampaging bear, there's not much excuse for violent, tantrum-like, lashing-out outrage, especially not over a video game.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
It's too bad we weren't toxic enough to get refunds from Gearbox and SEGA over Aliens Colonial Marines. It's too bad we weren't toxic enough to get that lying douchebag Randy Pitchford removed from a job he is blatantly terrible at so somebody better could come in and turn Gearbox around and back into a company I would be willing to give money too again. It's too bad we weren't toxic enough to get whatever nitwit(s) at SEGA let Gearbox jerk them around for years and then decided to release a broken game to screw customers like me out of our money instead of canning the game and taking Gearbox to court removed from jobs they too are downright terrible at. Yep, it's too bad Gearbox and SEGA got away with it.

Yes I am still pissed about wasting money on Aliens Colonial Marines based on Randy's lies and SEGA's utter failure as a publisher. Fuck Gearbox and fuck SEGA.

As for the Phil Fish thing... I still have no sympathy for him. His isn't a case of people being too toxic for no reason. His is a case of him being a massively toxic douchebag and people responding to that in kind, with him taking his ball and going him as is usually the case of a bully: he can dish it out but can't take it. As before, I'm not saying that his being a toxic douchebag who told someone to go kill themselves justifies anyone else threatening to kill him or his children. I'm just saying that Phil Fish isn't worthy of my pity because he was no better a person than the people he complained about when he took his ball and went home.

Okay, all that out of the way, did anyone else find their mind drifting to this classic Mass Effect background conversation?
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
redknightalex said:
I think your overall position got confused halfway through (don't blame EA but do blame EA?) yet overall I think you're right.
I think you need to watch again. The point wasn't "don't blame EA, blame EA", but "don't blame the guy at Maxis who said they wanted the always-online DRM for SimCity, blame EA".
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
As the video drew to a close, I could feel that there was something missing... surely Jim couldn't let this titled episode pass without using a certain son- ah, there we go. And all is right with the world again.
 

Psychobabble

. . . . . . . .
Aug 3, 2013
525
0
0
Meh whatever. I get the "stop being unreasonable dicks to people", I'm not disagreeing with that idea Jim. My problem is no matter how accurate and maturely anger is focused on a company doing bad things, it still means fuck all if people keep on giving them their money. We can vote EA worst company of the year all we want, but what's really going to get their attention, bad publicity that we all know they have dump trucks full of money to spin with their own public relations people, or a big empty space where those huge piles of money coming in used to be? Case in point, the "Cupcake Incident".

As I've said before many of we gamers act like lemmings with credit cards and continually buy into the hype and buy any old shit mainly out of fear of missing out on something cool, or just because we are looking for our next fix to chase away boredom. Usually to our own mass disappointment. Maybe if we tried addressing that vicious cycle we could nip quite a lot of this toxic negativity in the bud.

Also I'm very sick of seeing the double standard when it comes to who can criticize what. You seem to feel it's okay to rage at Cooper Lawrence for "talking made up scare mongering bullshit." But it isn't okay to say the same of Sarkeesian due to some extremist trolling assholes, when she is just as guilty of the same behavior. I say rather than focusing on the extremist death threat assholes, like you and the rest of the gaming press always seem to do, how about for once you try to speak to the sane and rational MAJORITY of game players who would actually listen to what you have to say without trying to gnaw your face off. Because the sooner we stop letting our discussions be motivated by the actions of a minority of idiots, the sooner we can start talking to each other like adults.
 

Bruce

New member
Jun 15, 2013
276
0
0
Valderis said:
erttheking said:
You didn't provide any arguments to back up your statements. All you did was insult me and everyone who likes Anita.

And if I've said it before I've said it a thousand times, I think her videos are boring as Hell. But that's the thing, they're just boring. They don't warrant rape threats and the entire internet being up and arms over them.

Also I never got the whole White Knight being an insult thing.
White Knight. Its a stereotype that harms both men and women.

White Knighting is the kind of behavior of males to automatically come to the defense of any women who is being attacked. Its bad for women because the knight assumes that the women being attacked needs his help. Its bad for men because the knights type of behavior is expected from men in general. But it term's correct use is rather difficult, since its not all that common of a behavior on the Internet, most people come to other people's defense out of shared philosophy rather then some kind of chivalrous drive.

At least thats what I understand of it, not sure how correct this all is.

You can always just google it.
The thing that got me with the whole thing? The term was being used for men who disagreed with the treatment of Anita Sarkeesian and her videos on the Damsel in Distress trope.
 

kael013

New member
Jun 12, 2010
422
0
0
UberPubert said:
The system only seems rigged because regardless of what you as an individual choose, the rest of the market does not bend to your tastes and desires. But just because the side you voted for didn't win doesn't make the other side wrong or make the system pointless, you simply don't have as much control over it as you'd like. A lot of the anger I'm seeing directed at devs and pubs is a direct result of this realization, and it's not fair to them or healthy for the person making the complaint. No matter how pertinent you believe your opinion is, the industry does not exist for the individual consumer, sometimes you have to accept that your preferred game or feature is going to remain niche because that's the only kind of audience that exists for it. And there's nothing wrong with being part of a niche audience, it just means that the products they consume aren't going to have the biggest budgets.

I take issue with the implication that being a complainer is a profession, or even if we're talking about professional critics that anger somehow has a place in their repertoire. Anger is an emotion, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing righteous or just about feeling angry. It can be a good motivator, but it's not a good reason and it's not an effective tactic for persuasion or even a tool for debate, it's just what someone feels, and feelings are not how you make business decisions or build constructive criticism.
I know the system doesn't revolve around me; the American voting system disabused me of the notion that one person can make a difference long before I started studying the games industry's politics. However, that doesn't change the fact that the whole "vote with your wallets" thing is flawed. Think about this: How many times has a publisher PR representative asked you why you didn't buy a certain game? When was the last time they asked the consumer base why they didn't like their latest flop or commercial failure? I can't think of a single time. Instead they abandon the series or the sequel is broadened to "appeal to a wider audience". So my cry was lost in the tumult, that doesn't mean jack if the guys I'm yelling at aren't even listening to the tumult in the first place.

You're right about being in a niche audience though, so long as the niche is filled. Otherwise, it's just some hopeless dream of yours.

Also, I never implied being a complainer is a profession. I was using a carpenter analogy. A carpenter uses many tools. Rational debate has its place, but so does outrage. That outrage got us XCOM: Enemy Unknown (see ZP's [i/]The Bureau[/i] review -1 min mark- for how that worked), it got us the ME3 Extended Cut DLC, it got us stuff that I doubt we would have gotten through rational discourse because we would have been ignored -in fact I know it, because I've tried to be the rational voice while others raged about an issue. I was ignored and the complainers got attention. That you do not believe outrage is an effective tool (or even a tool at all) is another issue, since some people do see it as a tool and will use it as such. Some people (like you apparently) are always calm, while others (like me) have short fuses and need to learn how to direct our anger. This video was for the second group, telling us we need better aim.
 

Ryleh

New member
Jul 21, 2013
105
0
0
Although toxicity is something that is by no means unique to gamer culture, there is definitely a trend towards negativity and excessive skepticism among gamers. Now I'm not saying to stop being skeptical, it keeps us all from vegetating and allows us to direct our anger as Jim discussed. But I've definitely noticed a trend in many gamer circles where it's "cool" to hate on everything the moment it comes out. Every time a new console, smartphone, game, etc is announced there's always several people all racing each other to hate it first, competing with each other to have the most reasons as to why it sucks even though no-ones had a chance to try it yet. It reminds me of the kind of people this Apple vs Samsung war attracts, with people blindly supporting one or the other and hating the other with the utmost venom. Being in love with a brand / product / service is a beautiful thing, it helps you, it helps the company, etc etc etc. Hating something on the other hand does nothing. It's ok to dislike something and have your reasons, but blind, malicious hate wastes your time and contributes nothing to the greater community.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
UberPubert said:
I'm not even making a plea to side with the lesser evil here, I'm just saying not to embrace the philosophy of the side that is CLEARLY evil.
Who cares about what the philosophy of some fictional group in a sci-fi series which painted morality as straight black and white has to say about anger? It has zero bearing on the real world, and ignores the fact that anger is an extremely useful emotion for spurring on change.
 

Bruce

New member
Jun 15, 2013
276
0
0
kael013 said:
UberPubert said:
The system only seems rigged because regardless of what you as an individual choose, the rest of the market does not bend to your tastes and desires. But just because the side you voted for didn't win doesn't make the other side wrong or make the system pointless, you simply don't have as much control over it as you'd like. A lot of the anger I'm seeing directed at devs and pubs is a direct result of this realization, and it's not fair to them or healthy for the person making the complaint. No matter how pertinent you believe your opinion is, the industry does not exist for the individual consumer, sometimes you have to accept that your preferred game or feature is going to remain niche because that's the only kind of audience that exists for it. And there's nothing wrong with being part of a niche audience, it just means that the products they consume aren't going to have the biggest budgets.

I take issue with the implication that being a complainer is a profession, or even if we're talking about professional critics that anger somehow has a place in their repertoire. Anger is an emotion, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing righteous or just about feeling angry. It can be a good motivator, but it's not a good reason and it's not an effective tactic for persuasion or even a tool for debate, it's just what someone feels, and feelings are not how you make business decisions or build constructive criticism.
I know the system doesn't revolve around me; the American voting system disabused me of the notion that one person can make a difference long before I started studying the games industry's politics. However, that doesn't change the fact that the whole "vote with your wallets" thing is flawed. Think about this: How many times has a publisher PR representative asked you why you didn't buy a certain game? When was the last time they asked the consumer base why they didn't like their latest flop or commercial failure? I can't think of a single time. Instead they abandon the series or the sequel is broadened to "appeal to a wider audience". So my cry was lost in the tumult, that doesn't mean jack if the guys I'm yelling at aren't even listening to the tumult in the first place.

You're right about being in a niche audience though, so long as the niche is filled. Otherwise, it's just some hopeless dream of yours.

Also, I never implied being a complainer is a profession. I was using a carpenter analogy. A carpenter uses many tools. Rational debate has its place, but so does outrage. That outrage got us XCOM: Enemy Unknown (see ZP's [i/]The Bureau[/i] review -1 min mark- for how that worked), it got us the ME3 Extended Cut DLC, it got us stuff that I doubt we would have gotten through rational discourse because we would have been ignored -in fact I know it, because I've tried to be the rational voice while others raged about an issue. I was ignored and the complainers got attention. That you do not believe outrage is an effective tool (or even a tool at all) is another issue, since some people do see it as a tool and will use it as such. Some people (like you apparently) are always calm, while others (like me) have short fuses and need to learn how to direct our anger. This video was for the second group, telling us we need better aim.
You know there is a very important point here - why do we assume anger is irrational? There was nothing irrational in the anger against the XCOM FPS announcement, it was people pointing out exactly why it was a bad idea. Ditto ME3's ending - people pointed out why it was so bad.

Anger is often there for a reason, it is why criticising somebody for being angry just makes them angrier. If you don't deal with the reason for somebody's anger, it just goes nowhere and builds. It is one of the reasons why the worst, most destructive phrase in English is "Don't be a dick."
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
Anger and negatively can be useful, in the same sense group protesting or activism can be useful. But like MovieBob said on one of his early Game Overthinker videos, it can be powerful, but also hard to turn off. It's also hard to think logically and rationally when you're angry, as well as being in a group (you sacrifice your individual voice for the sake of the group). There's a time and place for these things... it's just most of the time, they're being wasted on stuff that really shouldn't be too bothered with... which is hard to say what should and shouldn't be bothered with, because different people find different things to get upset about, and while it's easy to dismiss one's angry and unimportant, that doesn't exactly help matters...

Also, I'm SO glad he played Britney Spears's Toxic at the end, that's immediately what I thought of when I saw the video's title, and I would have been disappointed if it wasn't used in some fashion.
 

UberPubert

New member
Jun 18, 2012
385
0
0
kael013 said:
I know the system doesn't revolve around me; the American voting system disabused me of the notion that one person can make a difference long before I started studying the games industry's politics. However, that doesn't change the fact that the whole "vote with your wallets" thing is flawed. Think about this: How many times has a publisher PR representative asked you why you didn't buy a certain game? When was the last time they asked the consumer base why they didn't like their latest flop or commercial failure? I can't think of a single time. Instead they abandon the series or the sequel is broadened to "appeal to a wider audience". So my cry was lost in the tumult, that doesn't mean jack if the guys I'm yelling at aren't even listening to the tumult in the first place.

You're right about being in a niche audience though, so long as the niche is filled. Otherwise, it's just some hopeless dream of yours.

Also, I never implied being a complainer is a profession. I was using a carpenter analogy. A carpenter uses many tools. Rational debate has its place, but so does outrage. That outrage got us XCOM: Enemy Unknown (see ZP's [i/]The Bureau[/i] review -1 min mark- for how that worked), it got us the ME3 Extended Cut DLC, it got us stuff that I doubt we would have gotten through rational discourse because we would have been ignored -in fact I know it, because I've tried to be the rational voice while others raged about an issue. I was ignored and the complainers got attention. That you do not believe outrage is an effective tool (or even a tool at all) is another issue, since some people do see it as a tool and will use it as such. Some people (like you apparently) are always calm, while others (like me) have short fuses and need to learn how to direct our anger. This video was for the second group, telling us we need better aim.
I'm not arguing about whether pubs and devs should listen to public opinions, I'm saying angry public opinion isn't going to move people as much as Jim posits it will, or might not move them in the right direction.

I also think you're attributing certain events to the wrong kind of criticism. My argument against the Bureau would not be "I'm sick of people turning things I like into stuff I don't.", but rather "How are you going to market a squad-based tactics game to the FPS market? Why not try the old way instead?" It's not anger, just a legitimate question framed as an argument to get XCOM:EU, which I thoroughly enjoyed as a streamlined reboot to it's predecessors. The same goes for Mass Effect 3, it's not "That ending sucked, I deserve a better one." it was "That didn't seem to explain things very well, what happened to the rest of the universe and characters?"

And I disagree with your "knowing" that you were ignored because of your pursuing a rational argument, I think you were ignored for the same reason I think anger would be ignored: Because someone's not interested in your opinion. That's not always fair. Pubs and devs aren't obligated to listen to feedback, but if there is a dialogue - if we have to say something, and they want to listen - our answers should be reserved and objective, rather than angry.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
May 2, 2011
2,315
1
43
Country
United States
Psychobabble said:
Meh whatever. I get the "stop being unreasonable dicks to people", I'm not disagreeing with that idea Jim. My problem is no matter how accurate and mature anger is focused on a company doing bad things, it still means fuck all if people keep on giving them their money. We can vote EA worst company of the year all we want, but what's really going to get their attention, bad publicity that we all know they have dump trucks full of money to spin with their own public relations people, or a big empty space where those huge piles of money coming in used to be? Case in point, the "Cupcake Incident".

As I've said before many of we gamers act like lemmings with credit cards and continually buy into the hype and buy any old shit mainly out of fear of missing out on something cool, or just because we are looking for our next fix to chase away boredom. Usually to our own mass disappointment. Maybe if we tried addressing that vicious cycle we could nip quite a lot of this toxic negativity in the bud.
:D A fair point.
Jim and others have said so as well. We can't just ask that the Publishers and Developers change.
We have to as well.

Don't know what you mean by bringing up the Cupcakes. Everyone expresses anger differently, but I'm not sure many people give out cupcakes when their mad.
Or do you mean that it was ineffective?
Psychobabble said:
Also I'm very sick of seeing the double standard when it comes to who can criticize what. You seem to feel it's okay to rage at Cooper Lawrence for "talking made up scare mongering bullshit." But it isn't okay to say the same of Sarkeesian due to some extremist trolling assholes, when she is just as guilty of the same behavior. I say rather than focusing on the extremist death threat assholes, like you and the rest of the gaming press always seem to do, how about for once you try to speak to the sane and rational MAJORITY of game players who would actually listen to what you have to say without trying to gnaw your face off. Because the sooner we stop letting our discussions be motivated by the actions of a minority of idiots, the sooner we can start talking to each other like adults.
Yeah, no.



In Cooper's case, she said things that weren't true about a game she hadn't played.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/01/26/cooper-lawrence-i-misspoke-about-mass-effect#.UlxWaqgo7wo

In Anita's case, she said she was going to talk about sexist tropes in video games.

These things are not comparable.
 

Vale

New member
May 1, 2013
180
0
0
THE TOXICITYYYY
OF OUR CITYYYYYY

Ahem.
Right good show pip pip cheerio roger dodger chaps!
 

UberPubert

New member
Jun 18, 2012
385
0
0
Vivi22 said:
Who cares about what the philosophy of some fictional group in a sci-fi series which painted morality as straight black and white has to say about anger? It has zero bearing on the real world, and ignores the fact that anger is an extremely useful emotion for spurring on change.
Well I'm mostly joking and only continued my dialogue with Zachary as some nerdy banter, this isn't my serious argument on the subject. I'd recommend my responses to kael013 as being more helpful.

But while we're at it, yes. I do think anger can be a useful emotion for motivating change, just like emotions such as love, hope, and even pride can. But our responses should not be built on anger, or any of these emotions, nor should the reasons for our response simply be anger. It is not "Venom" we should be cultivating, not anger we should be expressing - even carefully aimed - but arguments of sound reasoning and logic, even if the reason we were spurred to construct them was born of irrational thoughts and feelings. It's a matter of tempering those emotions into something tangible, something we can say that's worth listening to, not just because we're angry, but because it makes sense.
 

AstaresPanda

New member
Nov 5, 2009
441
0
0
MY ARMOUR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE HIS NAME LET NONE SURVIVE

GLORY TO THE GOLDEN THRONE
GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND
 

UberPubert

New member
Jun 18, 2012
385
0
0
AstaresPanda said:
MY ARMOUR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE HIS NAME LET NONE SURVIVE

GLORY TO THE GOLDEN THRONE
GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND
ROT WITH YOUR CORPSE GOD, LOYALIST SCUM!
 

Evil Smurf

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
UberPubert said:
This is just awful.

"Venom" is not a substitute for rational discourse, anger is not a proper alternative to logic and no amount of internet nerd rage is going to change the mind of someone who sees it for what it is: Impotent whining from someone who lacks the power to change things in the real world and has to take it to the internet, where they can hide behind an anonymous username and block dissenting opinions and comments, handwaving away legitimate complaints as virtual harassment.

"Embrace your anger"? You sound like a Sith lord.
To be fair, what do you expect from a guy whose online persona is a megalomaniac? It's all in good fun.