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

Adamantium

House of Blaze wrote: »

+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.

It warms my heart/reassuring that despite globalized and americanised we supposedly are, that we have taken the worse elements of their work/abuse culture.

A lot of games are made outside the USA now anyways, couldn't imagine this going down in the Wichiter studios in Poland wouldn't have any time for this and would simply shake their heads and crack on with it.

I was reading an related off topic thread on Neogaf of how a poster who works in the industry in the posted a story of how on leaving on a workplace bathroom he made sure zip was up just to make doubly sure and he smiled. Female work colleague saw this and he was taken aside for possible sexual harrasement and inferred sexual advances/trauma, Guy almost lost his job.

Reading a little on the whole Zoe Quinn saga and some of the accusations really do need to be answered. As I said previously I don't care who she sleeps with or if she is a "slut" and think that dragging her through the mud because of it is wrong.

What I would like to know is did she deliberately set out to destroy a game jam so as to cash in with her own one, a game jam whose donation page links to her personal paypal account which she also has linked on a number of other sites. Does she have some way to separating out the tips from other sites and the donations for the jam? There's a number of other questions which need to answered but they have nothing to do with her sex life, though if she was sleeping around in order to get positive comment than that's says more about the standard of some gaming journalists than her. If people want to discuss what she did and if there is some cover up then fine, but there's no need to be so aggressive and nasty about it.

The biggest problem with the criticism of gaming journalism is that creditability within gaming journalism is nonexistent. There is no ethical code by which gaming journalists abide to and let's be honest, most of the big sites are little more than mouth pieces for various publishers and their biggest franchises. But that's beside the point, when you look at how the Zoe Quinn scandal developed one of the most striking aspects is that when reddit and others began to redact comments they didn't simply take down the hate filled comments but rather just erased all comments, including ones which were discussing the whole debacle without the need to resort of spouting hate.

There's a cynicism evident to many of the journalists covering the Zoe Quinn and it seems that Kotaku and the like feel that it's their right to tell gamers what they should think. It wouldn't be too bad if Kotaku were publishing anything other than click bait articles at the best of time. Most of the gaming journalists out there seems to think that they can use their articles to spread their own agenda, in essence to tell people how they should react and feel when they peddle what ever agenda they have. Gaming journalism is sadly more akin to The Daily Mail than it is anything else. It's all about getting as many clicks as possible and few care if the bigger issues are overlooked.

If there's anything to be taken away from the past week or so it's that gaming journalists and gamers both need take a look at themselves and recognise that there are issues within the gaming industry as a whole. The issue here isn't that some game developer slept but sadly that's what many are concentrating upon.

kunst nugget

Potatoeman wrote: »

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

Honestly, those videos are thinly veiled 'women ruin it for everyone' rants. Zoe Quinn seems to have become a figurehead for how feminism is destroying gaming. It's all very odd...

TomCo

Read this article today, enjoyed it:

http://midnightresistance.co.uk/articles/plight-grown-ass-gamer

Potatoeman

kunst nugget wrote: »

Honestly, those videos are thinly veiled 'women ruin it for everyone' rants. Zoe Quinn seems to have become a figurehead for how feminism is destroying gaming. It's all very odd...

If you want to be considered a journalist you have to disclose your association with those you report on. It seems it highlight an inner circle within the media. I don't really care who slept with who but there are issues raised with the relationship these people had and the position they were in.

kunst nugget

TomCo wrote: »

Read this article today, enjoyed it:

http://midnightresistance.co.uk/articles/plight-grown-ass-gamer

That's a great article. I'm in my late thirties now and I took a break from gaming (which I never took too seriously) for a good few years when my kids were born and a year and a half ago I picked up a Vita and then picked up a PS3 at christmas and I'm ploughing through games at the moment that I never got to play before. I don't know if it's me getting older but I was playing Hitman: Absolution and I found the representation of women in that was a bit of an embarrassment. A game trying to be edgy in that manner might appeal to a teenager but it does make it looks distinctly adolescent to my eyes.

kunst nugget

Potatoeman wrote: »

If you want to be considered a journalist you have to disclose your association with those you report on. It seems it highlight an inner circle within the media. I don't really care who slept with who but there are issues raised with the relationship these people had and the position they were in.

That's a nonsense tbh. The journalistic ethics angle is just a justification for people to continue with their prurient vilification of the people involved. The masses of money spent by the big studios on advertising would have way more sway on gaming journalism than a couple of indie developers being friendly with gaming journalists or who slept with who.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's a great article. I'm in my late thirties now and I took a break from gaming (which I never took too seriously) for a good few years when my kids were born and a year and a half ago I picked up a Vita and then picked up a PS3 at christmas and I'm ploughing through games at the moment that I never got to play before. I don't know if it's me getting older but I was playing Hitman: Absolution and I found the representation of women in that was a bit of an embarrassment. A game trying to be edgy in that manner might appeal to a teenager but it does make it looks distinctly adolescent to my eyes.

What I always find a little odd about the whole Hitman Absolution thing is that people only ever seem to have an issue with the fact that you can kill women. Nothing is said about the hundreds of non female NPCs that you can kill.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

What I always find a little odd about the whole Hitman Absolution thing is that people only ever seem to have an issue with the fact that you can kill women. Nothing is said about the hundreds of non female NPCs that you can kill.

It's not the fact that you can kill women but the high percentage of them that are in bondage gear.

gizmo

Adamantium wrote: »

A lot of games are made outside the USA now anyways, couldn't imagine this going down in the Wichiter studios in Poland wouldn't have any time for this and would simply shake their heads and crack on with it.

I love The Witcher series as much as the next guy but it's probably not the best idea to bring up the series where the male protagonist receives a collectable card for every female NPC he sleeps with when discussing sexism in gaming.

Deleted User wrote: »

What I would like to know is did she deliberately set out to destroy a game jam so as to cash in with her own one, a game jam whose donation page links to her personal paypal account which she also has linked on a number of other sites. Does she have some way to separating out the tips from other sites and the donations for the jam? There's a number of other questions which need to answered but they have nothing to do with her sex life, though if she was sleeping around in order to get positive comment than that's says more about the standard of some gaming journalists than her. If people want to discuss what she did and if there is some cover up then fine, but there's no need to be so aggressive and nasty about it.

The criticism of TFYC by both Quinn and other developers was pretty public at the time given the nature of the critique. I mentioned it earlier in the thread if you want to scroll back for it. Two things worth noting though, none of them seem to have deliberately set out to destroy it, they just didn't agree with it and urged people not to support it based on that. Secondly, it was also confirmed by one of the organisers that it was not she who released his personal details, contrary to what some of her critics are saying.

As for her relationship with the Kotaku journalist and the whole ethics furore that caused, it has since been clarified by the original author of the original blog post that due to a mistake in the timeline of events, it is unlikely said particular relationship could have caused any possible conflict of interest for Depression Quest.

That's not to say Quinn is entirely blameless though. While I think it's laudable that most publications didn't comment on the initial story due to it being so personal, that doesn't mean she gets to abuse the DMCA process via Youtube for the same reason.

With regard to games journalism as a whole, it will never really improve until the publications can get away from the ad-funded model which it requires to survive. In order to do that then gamers are going to have to move away from the forget the notion that we can get comprehensive and truly unbiased coverage for free.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not the fact that you can kill women but the high percentage of them that are in bondage gear.

The hyper sexualisation of women in the game and in gaming in general is an issue but many took offence because there was a level where you were encouraged to kill strippers. That no such thing occurs in the game didn't stop people from attacking it.

gizmo wrote: »

I love The Witcher series as much as the next guy but it's probably not the best idea to bring up the series where the male protagonist receives a collectable card for every female NPC he sleeps with when discussing sexism in gaming.


The criticism of TFYC by both Quinn and other developers was pretty public at the time given the nature of the critique. I mentioned it earlier in the thread if you want to scroll back for it. Two things worth noting though, none of them seem to have deliberately set out to destroy it, they just didn't agree with it and urged people not to support it based on that. Secondly, it was also confirmed by one of the organisers that it was not she who released his personal details, contrary to what some of her critics are saying.

As for her relationship with the Kotaku journalist and the whole ethics furore that caused, it has since been clarified by the original author of the original blog post that due to a mistake in the timeline of events, it is unlikely said particular relationship could have caused any possible conflict of interest for Depression Quest.

That's not to say Quinn is entirely blameless though. While I think it's laudable that most publications didn't comment on the initial story due to it being so personal, that doesn't mean she gets to abuse the DMCA process via Youtube for the same reason.

With regard to games journalism as a whole, it will never really improve until the publications can get away from the ad-funded model which it requires to survive. In order to do that then gamers are going to have to move away from the forget the notion that we can get comprehensive and truly unbiased coverage for free.

The sad thing is that with gaming publications happy to whore themselves for ad revenue little is ever likely to change. There needs to be a code of ethics in place that publications follow, why are stories about certain developers who have accusations of rape leveled against them fair game for multiple articles but others aren't commented upon. The Zoe Quinn sex saga is a non story and it seems to be one which has overshadowed the more interesting one.

I think that a lot of the ethics issues stem from the fact that many people involved in the various sites support Quinn financially. Editors of Kotaku pay her money each month through that patron site, same with editors at Polygon and then you have issues with sites such as the Escapist publishing articles about supposed attacks on her based on nothing but her word.

I think that many publications trying to make the entire thing into a story about sexism is more irritating than anything else. It seems to imply that those who disagree with her are men and it's just more oppression.

Genghiz Cohen

kunst nugget wrote: »

Honestly, those videos are thinly veiled 'women ruin it for everyone' rants. Zoe Quinn seems to have become a figurehead for how feminism is destroying gaming. It's all very odd...

Except he rails on the men involved and game journalism more than Zoe.
Did you even watch it?

kunst nugget

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Except he rails on the men involved and game journalism more than Zoe.
Did you even watch it?

Yeah, I watched. It starts off with a rant against op ed pieces that had anything to do with feminism,uses the faulty rape logic, implies that the journalists in any of the sites mentioned are white knights (which some probably are) and then tries to make comparisons to Watergate. Constantly ranting about who she fooked as a way to talk about 'journalistic ethics' is horse manure. That guy is an odious toad.

He was right about the Cards of Humanity fella and the rape accusation stories - something the New York Times didn't entertain when they published an article about him - but that's about it.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

The hyper sexualisation of women in the game and in gaming in general is an issue but many took offence because there was a level where you were encouraged to kill strippers. That no such thing occurs in the game didn't stop people from attacking it.

Honestly didn't know anything about that. I enjoyed the game for the most part and finished it but the get up of the saints or whatever they were called and the part with the sheriff and the dominatrix were very immature imo.

Genghiz Cohen

kunst nugget wrote: »

Yeah, I watched. It starts off with a rant against op ed pieces that had anything to do with feminism,uses the faulty rape logic, implies that the journalists in any of the sites mentioned are white knights (which some probably are) and then tries to make comparisons to Watergate. Constantly ranting about who she fooked as a way to talk about 'journalistic ethics' is horse manure. That guy is an odious toad.

He was right about the Cards of Humanity fella and the rape accusation stories - something the New York Times didn't entertain when they published an article about him - but that's about it.

So what part was the 'women ruin it for everyone' part?

kunst nugget

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So what part was the 'women ruin it for everyone' part?

Seriously, it's implied throughout the whole piece, like the part at the beginning where he gives out that gaming journalism has reached its nadir because of the articles being written about sexism in games or how he constantly ruminates on how many guys Zoe has fooked to have people defend her or suggesting that Anita Sarkeesian must be sleeping with the editor of Kotaku in that 'hey, just throwing it out there' manner he uses throughout the whole thing. The guy's an asshat. If you want to examine the ethics of gaming journalism, obsessing about who a female dev slept with isn't really the place to start with imo.

J_E

Potatoeman wrote: »

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

Had to close the video on "no, she's taking them down because of the people she slept with, she cheated on him with, and who they are, and specifically what they can do for her as an entrepreneur". Really sets the tone for the video, distasteful to the max. Can you really vouch for someone who actually thinks like that?

Strange isn't it? MundaneMatt's video is taken down. A website, Gamesnosh, which was one of the only sites talking about this is suddenly giving a 403 error. Zoe has had conversations on twitter with senior mods on r/gaming and suddenly all comments disappear. Threads are being deleted on /v/, /b/, and /pol/. At this point she has to be ****ing the President for this sort of power.

I mean, what the fawk? We're on reptilian level of conspiracy ****.


Why is it always women are sleeping with someone for power or to an advantage? What the **** is wrong with people? Now I see why the world considers 'gamers' overgrown, stupid boys.

TomCo wrote: »

Read this article today, enjoyed it:

http://midnightresistance.co.uk/articles/plight-grown-ass-gamer

Best quote of the lot right here;

"Fun game: Try explaining the events of the last two weeks to a friend who already thinks games are for socially stunted children."

Timmyctc

Cydoniac wrote: »

Why is it always women are sleeping with someone for power or to an advantage? What the **** is wrong with people? Now I see why the world considers 'gamers' overgrown, stupid boys.

I didn't watch all of them vids but is anyone suggesting that women frequently or exclusively do this? The only suggestion ever made was that ZQ did it, because at least one of the people she slept with was a reviewer (or someone who had or went on to review her game?) You clearly harbor a lot of hate for male gamers. Firing out a whole lot of generalisations the past coupla days.

johnny_ultimate

There are a lot of defensive comments, videos, articles and general rally cries we're seeing over the last few days suggesting 'they're trying to take our games and suck every bit of joy out of them! How dare they dictate what games should be made!'

No. Just no. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments being made. The 'critics' aren't trying to destroy gaming. They actually want to give you (and everyone else) more games and help you appreciate them more. 'They' want to put games on a higher pedestal then they already are, and to look at them as worthy works of culture as opposed to mindless escapism. There's a common misconception that looking at art deeply sucks the fun out of it - as a matter of fact, taking them seriously reveals deeper nuances and helps you appreciate them even more then if you treat them as mere disposable playthings.

I'm sure none of the most vocal critics of games - whether they're feminists or otherwise - want to see most of the great games that exist disappear. I'd say fierce critics can still be in utter awe of a Mario games' design or the detailed open worlds of Rockstar games while pointing out some concerns they had. I think its safe to say they'd be disappointed if they were to disappear completely.

ERG89 wrote: »

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

You know, I hate clickbait. I truly despise it. I think its a cynical (if sadly inevitable) tool that illustrates many of out collective, basest instincts. I have no doubt that the Eurogamer editors knew the mere mention of Zoe Quinn would attract huge numbers to the site, and the 'lively' comment section underneath is testament to that.

But the article is not crap. It might have a clickbaity headline, but actually the article itself subverts expectations. It reframes the argument by completely ignoring the tabloid nonsense and speculation. Whitehead doesn't attack any section of the gaming community like other articles have. No, he focuses on something more important, something that has repeatedly been obscured during the conversations of the last week: the games themselves.

The article has no interest in what Zoe Quinn did or did not do. Instead, it looks at the game she has made and what it represents, in isolation of the brewhaha has surrounded it. It merely suggests that it would be great to see more games like Depression Quest tackle more personal themes and concepts, and that developers try to experiment with familiar tools to achieve something new.

It's not trying to defend or attack what Quinn did or did not do in her personal life. It does not wildly exaggerate DQ's quality as the feature is modest in its praise (if you want to see a truly gushing article, the Hohokum article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-08-23-hooray-for-games-that-are-hard-to-talk-about) they published last weekend is a more pertinent example - and with good cause because its a ****ing fantastic game). It's just a simple, straightforward piece of weekend reading where the writer expresses his interest in seeing more games try the type of things Depression Quest does and its creators experimented with, all without the sly digs or battle cries even otherwise fascinating articles have resorted to.

It is, of all the articles published in this debacle, perhaps one of the few that has focused pretty much entirely on the games themselves. Disagree with it in a reasonable way, but headline aside there is nothing whatsoever in the article itself that is in any way objectionable or worthy of vitriol.

(Article here by the way: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-08-30-why-we-need-more-developers-like-zoe-quinn)

J_E

Timmyctc wrote: »

I didn't watch all of them vids but is anyone suggesting that women frequently or exclusively do this? The only suggestion ever made was that ZQ did it, because at least one of the people she slept with was a reviewer (or someone who had or went on to review her game?) You clearly harbor a lot of hate for male gamers. Firing out a whole lot of generalisations the past coupla days.

There have been consistent assumptions made by commentators over the years regarding most successful female developers - it's so embarrassing and immature. Your post is still suggesting that it's not a big deal that someone is suggesting that. There is no such review!

It's obvious that the context is not all gamers - it's a specific set of male gamers, I didn't think I'd have to clarify. The article I quoted points out exactly that.

I am not harbouring any such hate, and I don't feel outraged in that sense of the word - I'm just dumbfounded, really.

Timmyctc

Cydoniac wrote: »

This is a sad read. I would hate to be a woman in gaming nowadays. The same attitude is everywhere.

Cydoniac wrote: »

This just posted this evening!

Passive aggressive comic directed at what, Male gamers in general (When in fact this comic probably represents an absolute minority of people)

Cydoniac wrote: »

We have a problem with male gamers in the culture, it's a problem that's always been there but with social media has only become more exposed and intense. There are times I read stuff online that makes me so embarrassed as a male gamer, and as a gamer in general. We shouldn't be forcing women into gaming culture - they should never have been excluded in the first place.

Cydoniac wrote: »

Of course, if you do show a male character as sexy, it's swamped in stupid 'that's so gay'. 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.

Game was actually praised for this, again. These 'so many men' what. A fraction of middle America?

Cydoniac wrote: »

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.

Not a crass generalisation but 4chan isn't as bad a place as is made out. A lot of good comes from there. The support of TFYC was a nice time there.


Its not obvious that the context isn't at least the majority of gamers.

Above just some tarring of the male populous. I cba looking any further. I'm sure there were a few more I could quote. Your dismissal of AC Unity as a complete cop out and sexist etc because they wouldn't shoehorn a female character into the game could probably go up there in some capacity. (BTW remember how the game still got delayed because the Devs already had a full workload)

Cydoniac wrote: »

There have been consistent assumptions made by commentators over the years regarding most successful female developers - it's so embarrassing and immature. Your post is still suggesting that it's not a big deal that someone is suggesting that. There is no such review!

It's obvious that the context is not all gamers - it's a specific set of male gamers, I didn't think I'd have to clarify. The article I quoted points out exactly that.

I am not harbouring any such hate, and I don't feel outraged in that sense of the word - I'm just dumbfounded, really.

Well I've never come across these consistent assumptions tbh. All I hear (of the female devs I know of) is usually them being held up as examples, (Mostly Yu in fairness.)

My post isn't suggesting anything. Most of my posts aren't laced with these apparently sexist undertones you so often suggest I'm just pointing out where it is disingenuous to imply "EVERYONE IS ATTACKING ZQ BECAUSE OF HER SEX LIFE" or "THE MOST COMMON ATTACKS ON SARKEESIAN ARE HER APPEARANCE IN THE VIDEOS" etc etc . I didnt say a review existed. I said the suggestion was made that the reviewer and her had a sexual relationship prior to the review, when in fact the sexual relationship occurred with the journalist after the fact as clarified by her ex.

There was a typo up for a while that made it seem like Zoe and I were on break between March and June. This has apparently led some people to infer that her infidelity with Nathan Grayson began in early March. I want to clarify that I have no reason to believe or evidence to imply she was sleeping with him prior to late March or early April (though I believe they’d been friends for a while before that). This typo has since been corrected to make it clear we were on break between May and June. To be clear, if there was any conflict of interest between Zoe and Nathan regarding coverage of Depression Quest prior to April, I have no reason to believe that it was sexual in nature.

So they did have a relationship. Which is where people were suggesting she slept with someone for reviews. It was incorrect. But it was facetious to suggest that everyone was just running about saying "DA WEMMINZ ALWAYS SLEEP WITH MENZ FOR REVIEW POINTS"

J_E

You don't get it, that's fine. I'm not always right either!

gizmo

Timmyctc wrote: »

So they did have a relationship. Which is where people were suggesting she slept with someone for reviews. It was incorrect. But it was facetious to suggest that everyone was just running about saying "DA WEMMINZ ALWAYS SLEEP WITH MENZ FOR REVIEW POINTS"

It's worth pointing out that the timeline correction came well after the controversy first erupted. By then, the vast majority of criticism already focused on Quinn's alleged infidelity with said journalist and the ethical implications of it. Lack of actual evidence aside, that's why the nature of the criticism was so horrible, there was an immediate presumption that the point of the relationship from Quinn's perspective was to secure positive press for her game. An entire narrative was built around it, one which still exists despite the nearly every major point of it being corrected. So no, everyone wasn't running around saying things about all "da wemminz", they were just saying it about this one and just because it's a single case doesn't make it any less abhorrent.

TomCo

I continue to be disgusted with the relish people are taking in the dissection of a persons private life.

Genghiz Cohen

kunst nugget wrote: »

Seriously, it's implied throughout the whole piece, like the part at the beginning where he gives out that gaming journalism has reached its nadir because of the articles being written about sexism in games or how he constantly ruminates on how many guys Zoe has fooked to have people defend her

There have been some articles written with feminist tones for seemingly little reason where there were much meatier gaming related topics that could have been covered but were ignored.
I vaguely recall something about a PS4 presentation that was severely lacking in quality, but an article was written about how there were no female presenters instead of taking on the real gaming-related issues.

kunst nugget wrote: »

or suggesting that Anita Sarkeesian must be sleeping with the editor of Kotaku in that 'hey, just throwing it out there' manner he uses throughout the whole thing.

This was poorly done and the video isn't exactly perfect, he would have been better served to simply pose the question as to why she is getting so much attention where other feminist causes are being ignored.

Personally I think she gets the attention she does because she is controversial and gets clicks.
Things like The Fine Young Capitalists is great but it's hard to get people to argue about it so it's not worth so many clicks.

And I think that points out a big problem with all journalism today. Clicks are more important that the issues, more important than the truth and more important than integrity.

kunst nugget wrote: »

The guy's an asshat. If you want to examine the ethics of gaming journalism, obsessing about who a female dev slept with isn't really the place to start with imo.

But it's not really about the sex, it's about the corruption of games journalism. How is writing about a friends achievements in positive light, without disclosing they are a friend, fair to the reader?
Do you not think that such an article might be biased?
Do you think the reader should be informed as such?

What about the high profile people banding together to shut down conversations of the topic?


I think people are constantly referencing Quinns infidelity as a mark of character (or lack thereof). She is, by her own words, a hypocrite and (less literally) a rapist.

J_E

I think people are constantly referencing Quinns infidelity as a mark of character (or lack thereof). She is, by her own words, a hypocrite and (less literally) a rapist.

Can you elaborate on this?

How is writing about a friends achievements in positive light, without disclosing they are a friend, fair to the reader?

That makes an assumption that it isn't possible to critically judge something if you know someone. I find it strange when people cry for 'transparent journalism '. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism when it comes to art mediums, music, film, graphics or games. People will always review, taking their predisposed views with them. If a review was truly unbiased they would be the same for every game. People enjoy certain reviewers for being brash, or descriptive, or humourous. I don't think it's a very important point in the grand scale of things. If there was something wrong with the state of games journalism, it wasn't caused by a game developer, I can tell you that. If you want real corruption in journalism, start looking at the AAA companies and where their money goes into major game sites.

We're still making a lot of assumptions based on an emotive account from an ex. Pinch of salt and all that, yeah? We've all had an ex who felt bitter afterwards and tried to do something to ruin our day or worse, career.

What about the high profile people banding together to shut down conversations of the topic?

Someone is viciously being attacked and the subject of a multitude of 'chinese whispers' accusations, at a really scary level. The same would happen on Boards here if people started gossiping about a politician or public figure. Why entertain it, better for all if things are allowed to cool down. There are many avenues in which people are talking about it entirely unmoderated. Again, nobody talks about the game, just her, instead hopping onto Metacritic and Steam to give it a negative review 'because she's corrupting games journalism'.

Seriously, check those reviews. Every second one judges the game entirely on the fact that Zoe Quinn 'is a girl', or because she is being bullied, or because she slept with someone. How childish can you get? I am not hugely into the game myself, but that's merely more to do with the fact I just don't go for pure text adventures that cover more domestic topics. Loads of those reviews name dropping that video where Zoe is pontificated on for 'sleeping with men for her own gain as an entrepreneur'.

Slot Machine

Cydoniac wrote: »

That makes an assumption that it isn't possible to critically judge something if you know someone. I find it strange when people cry for 'transparent journalism '. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism when it comes to art mediums, music, film, graphics or games.

But reviewers are (or should be) open about their biases. They admit them to allow the reader to gain a context for their opinions.

And while it certainly is possible to review something by someone you know, the reader can't trust that you're not being biased. Even you can't say you're not because that bias could only be manifesting itself subconsciously. The whole point in being open with one's biases is that it allows more objective third parties to judge the fairness of the review.

I should point out that I don't believe biases are inherently bad, however. For example, I enjoy RTS games; I prefer to read reviews by people who are also interested in RTS games as they're more likely to criticise it on the basis of its success or failure specifically as an RTS game, rather than on it being a game that appeals to their other interests.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying this within the narrow context of the Quinn controversy; I don't really care what she does in her personal life. I'm just making a general point.

J_E

Right! Reviewers have their strong areas, and generally speaking they are there because they know what they're talking about and have the history of comparable games to judge against. What I mean to say is, people are making this big deal about journalistic integrity - when the guy in question that everyone says was corrupted, had produced a brief piece on Depression Quest while they were still in a professional environment. I think people are getting confused there was some sort of glowing review when there wasn't. It was mentioned in passing if anything else. If there was anything untowards, I doubt he would be at all associated with Kotaku today. Happy to call someone out when there is definitive proof - so far it's not really substantial. I do wonder what the story is with the Fine Young Capitalists jam though.




This is what the outside world sees when we encourage people to get into gaming or use it as a path to education. It's mortifying. When people ask if I play games I have to actually hesitate and shrug it off initially, I am that embarrassed to be associated with any such culture. Fortunately, there is a neutral majority.

Potatoeman

Cydoniac wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this?

She wrote an article where she said cheating on your partner is rape as you are explosing them to STD's and having sex under false pretenses. You don't seem to have watched the video link I posted before you criticised it.

J_E

Potatoeman wrote: »

She wrote an article where she said cheating on your partner is rape as you are explosing them to STD's and having sex under false pretenses. You don't seem to have watched the video link I posted before you criticised it.

Why is this relevant to anything again? Are we just going to go through process of 'Zoe Quinn is ___ because she/he/they said ___' again and again? When I said to elaborate I was hoping for more of a reason why it's so integral to a discussion. We've established she's not perfect, now what? This keeps going back to her own personal and sexual life, and suddenly everyone feels invited to make an analysis based on that, with little to nothing to solidly go on apart from 'well her ex said so it must be' and the chants of the internet. We all know on surface level Zoe has faults and has been caught out over a few things but things that are not in the realm of her own relationships. As I said, I feel better calling people out when there is more than anonymous commentary declaring 'facts'