The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

Kirby

Cydoniac wrote: »

It was hilarious to see how outraged so many men were at Mass Effect having a not only optional, but very deliberately-choiced, gay romance.

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Were they?

Jesus wept.

Nobody outside middle America was "outraged". But that doesn't fit the narrative he's trying to tell. Mass effect was widely applauded both critically and by the masses for allowing same sex couples. It wasn't implemented perfectly, but they tried while others don't.

What people actually were outraged at was the "gay planet" in the Old Republic. That rightfully got some stick.

J_E

Kirby wrote: »

Nobody outside middle America was "outraged". But that doesn't fit the narrative he's trying to tell.

I'm not selling an agenda and frankly I do not talk about this often (there's enough of this argument spinning in circles on Twitter to last a lifetime. It's easy to dismiss it until you try to see it from another perspective and realise it's so commonplace that we're numb to it.

You got me on Rufus though, wobble wobble.

Shiminay

COYVB wrote: »

Sarkeesian's beef is not with sexism in video games, no matter how she frames it, it's with hackneyed storytelling in the medium, and if she framed it that way instead of trying to twist it into some dark, nasty attempt to push women down, she'd have gotten a much better reaction across the board.

I despise this "let's take offence to everything" mentality of the world today. The stories game writers tell are their creations, and they should be able to tell them however they want without having to pander. Don't like the stories they tell? Don't buy the games. Think games are inherently sexist? Don't play games. Why immerse yourself in something you've apparently got a major problem with. It's ridiculous.

Both of these X 100, well said.

COYVB

Cydoniac wrote: »

It's easy to dismiss it until you try to see it from another perspective and realise it's so commonplace that we're numb to it.

But isn't the argument being framed incorrectly?

It's not that games are sexist, but that their storytelling is unimaginative

J_E

COYVB wrote: »

But isn't the argument being framed incorrectly?

It's not that games are sexist, but that their storytelling is unimaginative

It's a trickle down effect from Hollywood I think, to be honest.

COYVB

Cydoniac wrote: »

It's a trickle down effect from Hollywood I think, to be honest.

I don't think it's got anything to do with Hollywood TBH. The hackneyed motivational elements of plots in the majority of games predate movies by centuries

J_E

COYVB wrote: »

I don't think it's got anything to do with Hollywood TBH. The hackneyed motivational elements of plots in the majority of games predate movies by centuries

AAA games have become more and more like blockbusters as time goes on. It would only make sense they follow such trends of action/thrillers/horrors. I think it's just going to get better in the future as we ask standards to rise.

Kirby

I'm pretty sure such pinnacles of feminism like the virgin mary and Mary Magdalene both predate Bayonetta by a few thousand years.

gizmo

House of Blaze wrote: »

In genres such as rpg's you have generally always had the opportunity to either play as a female character, or involve well crafted female characters in your party.

The number of RPGs which feature well crafted female characters in your party is incredibly low compared to the number of such games out there though. One could also argue that even those who do feature characters who are deemed as "well written" are only described as such because the standard is so low in the first place. Writing aside, look at the visual differences, the infamous boob armour for instance or, more specifically, the "Light Armour" class of Morrigan in Dragon Age.

While we're on the RPG subject, when it comes to marketing these games, who always gets the front cover, takes prominence on the posters, the live action or CGI trailers? Yup, the male character. "That's because these games are marketed at males because they're the largest demographic" is not a valid excuse for this either imo, because outside of the idea that it's insulting to those gamers who want some form of choice and may want to play as the superior character in terms of voice acting (see Mass Effect for examples of all of the above) it also intimates that men don't want to play games with female protagonists. If you want to use that point, then it's going to open the door to the issue of whether this is why there aren't more female gamers.

House of Blaze wrote: »

For every anita sarkeesian there are probably half a dozen female members of the industry who just get the head down and get on with the business of making great games.

I'm sure there are but that doesn't mean we also don't need some female industry members to speak up for the disparity in the gender representations though. Personally, I'd be far FAR more interested in going to a talk by someone like Corrine Yu on the subject than Sarkeesian, similarly I'd also be far more willing to support initiatives by the former to get more women into the industry in general.

Kirby wrote: »

Well said. A point that highlights some of the hypocrisy going on here.

So let me get this straight. A beautiful woman in gaming is sexist because it exists solely for men to gawp at.....where as a beautiful man is not because that's nothing to do with women, but more male wish fulfilment.

You know how this comes off right?

But they're not really the same thing though. Chris Redfield doesn't look the way he does because they wanted him fulfil the male desire to be beautiful, he's not there to be gawped at. He looks like that because they want him to look strong, powerful and hero-like as he saves the day looking like a badass in the process. The new Lara Croft, Faith from Mirrors Edge and Nilin from Remember Me could be considered the female counter-parts to this kind of character design. Ivy from Tekken, to take the worst example, could not.

On that note, to link both points. Wouldn't something like this cover or even this cover have been better than the one we got? And for the record, I'm not offended by any of this, I'm not angry or outraged, it doesn't get in the way of my enjoyment of these games nor make me want to stop playing games. I just see it and sigh a little, knowing that with only a small effort, it could make the medium look a little less immature and a little less like it's been controlled by some marketing guy who thinks that this, as a male in the 18-35 demographic, will make me want to play these games more.

COYVB

Cydoniac wrote: »

AAA games have become more and more like blockbusters as time goes on. It would only make sense they follow such trends of action/thrillers/horrors. I think it's just going to get better in the future as we ask standards to rise.

They're following blockbusters in presentation, but in terms of storylines and settings, they all go back hundreds, if not thousands of years. Games aren't copying Hollywood. They're copying established fiction tropes.

Hollywood follows those tropes too. Books followed them before Hollywood. Cave drawings followed them before books. Spoken stories followed them before cave drawings.

johnny_ultimate

COYVB wrote:

I despise this "let's take offence to everything" mentality of the world today. The stories game writers tell are their creations, and they should be able to tell them however they want without having to pander. Don't like the stories they tell? Don't buy the games. Think games are inherently sexist? Don't play games. Why immerse yourself in something you've apparently got a major problem with. It's ridiculous.

Saarkesian mentions it in every video she makes, although perhaps it should be constantly scrolling on repeat in the middle of the frame: it's wholly possible to enjoy or even love a game while being critical of certain aspects of it. It's not being outraged, it's trying to look at games in a critical manner and identify if and where there is room for improvement in the medium as a whole. I would say some of the people more vocal in their criticisms for or against certain aspects of how games do their thing are gamings most enthusiastic proponents, and want to see developers strive to do things in a more progressive and varied manner.

'Stop buying or playing them'? Well then you'd be missing out on the myriad of things I'm sure a lot of people do enjoy. I like the games of Suda 51, for example, because he's a unique, cheeky and even subversive auteur in a medium where unique creators often aren't as appreciated as they should be. But I also wish his games weren't so full of needless T&A - any satirical point he had to make about representations of women in games has long since become repetitive. I'd be much more willing to play through Killer is Dead if the game and its marketing wasn't so keen to emphasise how awesome its xray gigolo glasses are. But that doesn't take away from the fact that outside that his games are funny, clever and occasionally brilliant.

Passionate or honest criticism needs to stop being equated with outrage. Strongly worded criticism has proven to be vital to the development of the mediums that came before gaming, allowing it to evolve and address shortcomings. The French New Wave and it's revolutionary influence on an entire medium wouldn't have existed if critics didn't passionately look at films and decide they could do better and subsequently did, all while defining the way film fans still analyse and discuss cinema. It's not something to fear or dismiss or ignore (again, the head in the sand / 'everything's fine lalalalala' approach we sadly see too often in forums and comment sections the Internet over, but then that's the Internet for you) - an open, constructive critical landscape is much needed in any medium, even when it reaches definitive maturity. When there's all these borderline farcical comments online demanding reviews be 100% 'objective' when looking at individual games or the anger that seems to greet any opinion that differs from consensus, I'd argue the gaming community is quite far from engaging with critical perspectives the way it should be.

There's no onus to agree or disagree with any particular perspective, incidentally - the great thing about powerful criticism is that it inspires equally powerful responses and retorts. But apathy or indifference and a willingness to just shut up and put up? That's a road to nowhere at all.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Sometimes I feel like an awful lot of these arguments are caused by a few attention seekers looking to generate a fuss.

Theres a parallel to be drawn with governments, not just our own, but most countries have an under representation of women in office. Its not because they are being held back for the most part, its down to the fact that there are just less women involved. I die inside a little when i hear of companies being forced to have a certain number of women on the board or such like, just to fill a requirement. whatever happened to getting a post on merit.


There was a great article i read a few years ago, I cant remember what games studio it was, but the CEO had a picture of a big boobed lady as the game mascot. 2 of the women swapped out the logo for a picture of a guy in a hardhat and thong. It drove it home to the CEO how absurd it was.

And therein lies the rub, the only way for games to come more in line with other media is to have more women rise to the top. Forget lara croft as a role model, its the Likes of Bonnie Ross from 343 that are leading the way.

Potatoeman

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Sometimes I feel like an awful lot of these arguments are caused by a few attention seekers looking to generate a fuss.

Theres a parallel to be drawn with governments, not just our own, but most countries have an under representation of women in office. Its not because they are being held back for the most part, its down to the fact that there are just less women involved. I die inside a little when i hear of companies being forced to have a certain number of women on the board or such like, just to fill a requirement. whatever happened to getting a post on merit.


There was a great article i read a few years ago, I cant remember what games studio it was, but the CEO had a picture of a big boobed lady as the game mascot. 2 of the women swapped out the logo for a picture of a guy in a hardhat and thong. It drove it home to the CEO how absurd it was.

And therein lies the rub, the only way for games to come more in line with other media is to have more women rise to the top. Forget lara croft as a role model, its the Likes of Bonnie Ross from 343 that are leading the way.

Its a chicken and egg arguement though. As someone mentioned some games have neither sex like rts games but it seems to be the games that pander that are seen as the problem. I dont think these are going away unless people stop buying them.

johnny_ultimate

Here's a very sharp, provactive piece of writing from Leigh Alexander on the recent controversies:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of “gamer pride” and special interest groups led by a product-guide approach to conversation with a single presumed demographic.

This means that over just the last few years, writing on games focuses on personal experiences and independent creators, not approval-hungry obeisance to the demands of powerful corporations. It’s not about ‘being a reviewer’ anymore. It’s not about telling people what to buy, it’s about providing spaces for people to discuss what (and whom) they support.

---

Developers and writers alike want games about more things, and games by more people. We want -- and we are getting, and will keep getting -- tragicomedy, vignette, musicals, dream worlds, family tales, ethnographies, abstract art. We will get this, because we’re creating culture now. We are refusing to let anyone feel prohibited from participating.

“Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.

Clandestine

In relation to that (awful) Leigh Alexander article

Reading through any of the numerous threads on this whole debacle and you really do wish that people would just learn to get along.

On the whole Phil Fish public persona, well who really cares if he's the biggest asshole on the planet. Does Fish telling some random guy online to suck his dick take away from your enjoyment of play Fez? not in the least, like all art judge the art and not that artist. How many people stating that they will never play a Fish game have no problem throwing on a film by Polanski?

The Zoe Quinn frenzy is equally absurd. He game wasn't exactly all that great and her sleeping around with random people is no ones business but her own. Why should she be dragged through the mud simply because she cheated on her boyfriend? I'm assuming that everyone who is so quick to judge her has never cheated on a partner and the fact that she supposedly slept with people in the industry makes no difference.

Anita Sarkeesian and the hate directed toward her is just disgusting. I'm not a fan of hers and find her videos to be little more than her pushing her agenda and often twisting facts to suit it. But that doesn't give anyone the right to attack her or threaten her. It's simply not on and it's sad that people feel the need to be so aggressive and down right nasty. If you cannot engage in debate without using expletives or personal attacks then you shouldn't be commenting on or at another human being.

Potatoeman

Clandestine wrote: »

In relation to that (awful) Leigh Alexander article

People that claim to speak for 'us' on both sides are asking for trouble as we are a disparate group that share noting other than we play games.

Interested Observer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Here's a very sharp, provactive piece of writing from Leigh Alexander on the recent controversies:

I don't like that piece. I would say it describes a fairly small cohort of the people out there who play video games. People flinging abuse about the internet and the likes are very loud, but I doubt representative of your average gamer (and by games I mean person who plays video games, for lack of a better word).

I post here, I post on NeoGAF, I play video games online occasionally, I fairly quietly go about my business with a hobby I find enjoyable, and the author is trying to tell me that those idiots flinging abuse at Anita S. are representative of me? Sorry, nope.

BMMachine

Deleted User wrote: »

Reading through any of the numerous threads on this whole debacle and you really do wish that people would just learn to get along.

On the whole Phil Fish public persona, well who really cares if he's the biggest asshole on the planet. Does Fish telling some random guy online to suck his dick take away from your enjoyment of play Fez? not in the least, like all art judge the art and not that artist. How many people stating that they will never play a Fish game have no problem throwing on a film by Polanski?

The Zoe Quinn frenzy is equally absurd. He game wasn't exactly all that great and her sleeping around with random people is no ones business but her own. Why should she be dragged through the mud simply because she cheated on her boyfriend? I'm assuming that everyone who is so quick to judge her has never cheated on a partner and the fact that she supposedly slept with people in the industry makes no difference.

Anita Sarkeesian and the hate directed toward her is just disgusting. I'm not a fan of hers and find her videos to be little more than her pushing her agenda and often twisting facts to suit it. But that doesn't give anyone the right to attack her or threaten her. It's simply not on and it's sad that people feel the need to be so aggressive and down right nasty. If you cannot engage in debate without using expletives or personal attacks then you shouldn't be commenting on or at another human being.

The thing I also find fascinating is that the same people who care so much about these things are often the first in line to hate tabloid and TMZ type
media. Numerous threads, videos and pics all lambasting this unintelligent media and at the first opportunity they fall right the same patterns of thought themselves.

BMMachine

BMMachine wrote: »

The thing I also find fascinating is that the same people who care so much about these things are often the first in line to hate tabloid and TMZ type
media. Numerous threads, videos and pics all lambasting this unintelligent media and at the first opportunity they fall right the same patterns of thought themselves.

It's the worst kind of herd mentality. People getting offended and up in arms over other peoples private lives, it is TMZ fare and at this stage the entire Zoe Quinn thing has gotten so low that we've redefined the bottom of the barrel.


On the topic of sexism in gaming, well it exists and is something that I would like to see addressed but at the same time simply adding in a token female perspective isn't the answer. Assassin's Creed and the whole online crusade to get the developers to feature a playable female lead is more damaging than helpful. Simply throwing in a female character for the sake of it adds nothing bar being a token attempt at appeasing certain groups. The Assassin's Creed franchise may be mainly about the men but there was a Vita title, later ported to consoles and PC with a female protagonist that was damn good. Shame that it sold rather poorly and i would imagine that many who attacked the developers weren't even aware of its existence.

Timmyctc

Just RE: The ZQ thing. I could be wrong, but wasnt the outrage (again obviously the degree and manner of criticism was unmerited) regarding her (apparently) sleeping with reviewers of the game? Also I think 4chan's major gripe with her came from the fake doxxing and some claim she had a hand in trying to ruin TFYC jam and instead push her own jam..

(Again I tried to distance myself from that drama after repeatedly being shouted down over it)
But I don't think its just about her cheating with her BF

mewso

Timmyctc wrote: »

Just RE: The ZQ thing. I could be wrong, but wasnt the outrage (again obviously the degree and manner of criticism was unmerited) regarding her (apparently) sleeping with reviewers of the game? Also I think 4chan's major gripe with her came from the fake doxxing and some claim she had a hand in trying to ruin TFYC jam and instead push her own jam..

(Again I tried to distance myself from that drama after repeatedly being shouted down over it)
But I don't think its just about her cheating with her BF

Nobody she slept with reviewed her game. One guy mentioned the game in an article and another was on a panel that gave it an award. Read into it what you will. I don't find her to be a particularly appealing person from what I've seen but there is nothing shocking in any of it. If Kotaku give a game 10 out of 10 and you take their word for it that is your lookout. We all know the state of gaming media these days.

One interesting point I saw today. Jack Thompson got rape and murder threats. Were we all jumping to his defence?

Timmyctc

mewso wrote: »

Nobody she slept with reviewed her game. One guy mentioned the game in an article and another was on a panel that gave it an award. Read into it what you will. I don't find her to be a particularly appealing person from what I've seen but there is nothing shocking in any of it. If Kotaku give a game 10 out of 10 and you take their word for it that is your lookout. We all know the state of gaming media these days.

One interesting point I saw today. Jack Thompson got rape and murder threats. Were we all jumping to his defence?

I'm not saying x did or didn't happen. I'm just saying I heard thats where the outrage stemmed from. Not her personal choices. If the game jam thing is true it would be really frustrating. But again. No clue and we've not got many reliable sources to go off.

I don't know who JT is. But I will say that certain people know to filter out some of the more obvious troll abuse. Some let it get to them. I know a lot of youtubers have let the commenters get to them. I think it should be common knowledge that as long as the anonymity exists. Spasticaps will act accordingly via social media.

EDIT: I would add that in the current 'climate' it would suit a lot of people's agendas to create burner accounts, abuse people on their 'Side' in this manner and shout "Misogyny!" or "Proof that it wasn't sexist abuse!" So I for one, think the obvious trolls should obviously be avoided.

J_E

Timmyctc wrote: »

Also I think 4chan's major gripe with her came from the fake doxxing and some claim she had a hand in trying to ruin TFYC jam and instead push her own jam..

(Again I tried to distance myself from that drama after repeatedly being shouted down over it)
But I don't think its just about her cheating with her BF

Why would someone fake dox themselves with that much personal information? It just seems a bit absurd. However, whether it was fake, not fake, whether she uses any sort of scandal as leverage - it really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, nobody deserves the reams of abuse people like her do, or Anita, or anyone else. At the end of the day, it's better to just leave them to it if they're being rowdy, but not support the more malicious attacks.

She wanted to start her own jam because she was made an example of in a planned reality TV game jam in a really stupid way, that pretty much killed it on the spot. (“Two of the other teams have women on them. Do you think they’re at a disadvantage?”) On the other hand, you'd think the people entering this realised how shallow, stereotyped, artificially dramatic these reality shows generally are...

EDIT: I would add that in the current 'climate' it would suit a lot of people's agendas to create burner accounts, abuse people on their 'Side' in this manner and shout "Misogyny!" or "Proof that it wasn't sexist abuse!" So I for one, think the obvious trolls should obviously be avoided.

Not sure that's really fair...


Exporting Tumblr social justice to gaming has been the worst and best thing to happen. Well...maybe worse than better. Slow change...lots of drama. I'm just glad I don't care enough about that segment of game developers and the likes of 4chan to be really emotionally sucked in, it's a pure cesspit. I don't feel outraged, just a bit... disappointed.

Slot Machine

There is absolutely no part of human existence that can be improved by the addition of Tumblr's... unique take on social justice. I suppose part of my strong reaction to it is their insistence that they can speak for people like me. I don't like what they do, I don't like how they think it's okay to lie to get their way, I don't like the adolescent drama that suffuses the entire thing. And I don't want to be associated with it in any way.

And it really, really is a hivemind. Dissent is not tolerated and they will utterly tear into anyone that shows a hint of it. I've seen them denigrate rape victims because they don't conform to the espoused dogma! I simply do not consider them above sock-puppeting or anything equally dishonest because they can and do outright lie in the fact of conflicting facts.

Supporting equality is good and it's right that people should fight against attitudes like misogyny but Tumblr's way is nothing short of immoral.

e_e

Let's not lump all of Tumblr together though, there are so many different ideologies and groups on that one site. It's like any other website with an enormous userbase really and some of us are just there to share cool/funny/interesting pictures.

Slot Machine

I thought it was obvious I was only referring to Tumblr SJWs, just as people talking about 4chan are (I hope) only referring to the unpleasant parts of it.

House of Blaze

Kirby wrote: »

Nobody outside middle America was "outraged". But that doesn't fit the narrative he's trying to tell. Mass effect was widely applauded both critically and by the masses for allowing same sex couples. It wasn't implemented perfectly, but they tried while others don't.

What people actually were outraged at was the "gay planet" in the Old Republic. That rightfully got some stick.

+1

I hate the way that this whole debate spews out of america and dominates the whole scene though.

Honestly sometimes I wonder if we are on two different planets considering some of the shennanigans you hear about with regard to abuse etc.

ERG89

I see Eurogamer has a pure clickbait article up today about how the industry needs more people like Zoe Quinn making decisions on how they present their games. To be honest the article was drivel & looks like it was done 10 minutes before clocking out time. Have to say I'm fair tired of the way journalist's have reacted to this story. Holier than thou but still pumping out rubbish relating to it. Fair bitchy lot on twitter aswell

Potatoeman

mewso wrote: »

Nobody she slept with reviewed her game. One guy mentioned the game in an article and another was on a panel that gave it an award. Read into it what you will. I don't find her to be a particularly appealing person from what I've seen but there is nothing shocking in any of it. If Kotaku give a game 10 out of 10 and you take their word for it that is your lookout. We all know the state of gaming media these days.

One interesting point I saw today. Jack Thompson got rape and murder threats. Were we all jumping to his defence?

There has been censorship and spin on this story which touches on many of the sites reporting or not reporting on it. I heard very different versions of events on the whole thing but these videos are very informative:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-51PfwI3M&list=UUWB0dvorHvkQlgfGGJR2yxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmy5OKg6lo&list=UUWB0dvorHvkQlgfGGJR2yxQ