Worth Reading: 02/14/2014

@flindip said:

Yeah, the point you've just outlined is why I continue to find the Twitter portion of Worth Reading kind of bizarre.

I'm sure all the tweets make sense to Patrick, but when he just dumps them all into Worth Reading with no context, when some of them are clearly part of some kind of back and forth, they can be hard to follow if you don't follow the exact same people as Patrick on Twitter. Either that or you have to read through like the entire recent Twitter account of one of the people to even get a sense of what discussion they were having.

Example: The one from The Mountain Goats is just a complete non sequitur taken by itself. Is he making a twee indie rock song about IMDB reviews? I'll never know!

Example: The Rami Ismail one really does sound ridiculous without the greater context of the discussion he was having. Presented the way it is in this article, he's just coming out of nowhere to loudly support gender bias.

Engage the flap.

Hilmar Petursson's talk was great. Us placing so much value on virtual goods is fascinating, to me. Imagine if EVE integrated bitcoin into it's economy.

In the SpelunkinWithScoopsRIP v.1 video, at the beginning there is a song which really intrigued me. I went to the v.2 video, and it provided the source. It is part of a cover of a song from 1968 called "In the Hall of the Mountain Queen", full cover here:

Never heard of Raymond Scott before. This has opened a whole wing in the castle of my mind, one I've been looking for, for a long time. Thank you for linking that video!

Beating games: I say "clear"

Tell us! Tell us what it means.

That is good that you do that, but at the same time the reader should be provided with that necessary context in order to form a story. The basic story itself should present that useful contextual information and if the reader decides to dig deeper then that is their prerogative. The blurb or story should be able to cover all the bases to be effective...just like any book, etc. To expect your readers to fill in context is not effective, concise or clear in my opinion. Any good book or piece of writing does not leave the reader in the dark and allow them to be confused. My only point was that the twitter lead up to those Rami tweets is necessary contextual information to make sense of his words...I understand that I am probably asking a bit much for a section that simply posts tweets Patrick found interesting...I am very much willing to concede that, but I can be a bit of a stickler (grouch) sometimes when it comes to the written word. Also, I concede that Patrick is busy as fuck making original content so I can understand why that contextual misunderstanding of Rami's tweets occurred.

@chocolaterhinovampire: meh, not really. usually when I see something like that, or anything that catches my attention in any way I usually dig deeper. like if a youtube video is posted, I'll click through and look at their channel, same goes for a twitter.

I'm totally going to say I've "clocked" a game from now on. That's the best phrasing.

Not trying to slam anyone...I totally believe in reader responsibility, but I also believe that effective authors provide that necessary context and to be perfectly honest I think twitter is terrible because it facilitates situations like this...I personally do not believe that reading days of twitter posts is under the heading of reader responsibility when a single sentence could have cleared up any important contextual issues

@patrickklepek:

Cmon... you have to provide context for a tweet like that instead of just dumping it out there. Dude was right in his criticism of the Rami tweet and you should have provided some contextualization instead of expecting your reader to go read a bunch of tweets. Any chance on the readers part to become confused will immediately be acted upon...that is your problem...not his

So now you don't just check your privilege, but your invisible privilege. Woah this is a lot to keep up with.

@generic_username:

I agree with you about having strong opinions. It's difficult to agree with someone who's screaming at my face, even if I know they're right.

@themanunknown: I guess would say that noir doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's a recent creation that's a reflection of our world and lives within our world's rules, albeit in a stylized way. Take the femme fatale for example. A big reason why she is interesting (aside from the obvious) is because she bucks the system in place for her. She rejects traditional gender roles and desires freedom, both sexual freedom and independence. Her independence, which may or may not be a charade depending on the story, is very appealing.

But a dude can't have this dynamic, because men are already independent and it's pretty much socially acceptable for a man to do whatever the heck he wants, expect maybe partake in traditionally feminine things. It's reasons like this that I think gender is important to be aware of in this genre.

But I'm not going to try to be the expert on this stuff, it's just my observations and musing. But here is a link to some essays on the subject if you wanna read about it and draw some of your own conclusions.

I wish I wasn't so insecure and prone to self-loathing. Then I wouldn't feel so bad every time someone decides to shame me for being a white man.

More on-topic: I think Noir can work with a woman lead fine, I'm pretty sure I've seen it done in comic books before. Huntress, Renee Question, Batwoman, etc. Could be wrong though.

Oh man, that Dark Souls map viewer! I always wanted to know what the Cave of the Giants looked like.

Also, as someone mentioned the kickstarter by the creator of Final Fantasy Tactics made its goal....which strangely enough no one seems to be talking about. I guess its because most aren't sure what it even is. All I know is that I means a JRPG coming to PC.

It seems like making a public claim that he's only hiring women belittles his intended purpose. It reminds me of the University of Michigan quotas for racial students a couple decades ago. When you try to combat racism or sexism with some kind of system, whether it be an explicit one (the quota) or an intended one (the game developer), you end up characterizing your desired population as some kind of delicacy, or something that will put you over the top in regards to being equal.

See, there's already laws in effect that prevent discrimination of any kind at the employment level, and while I concede that they only work nominally, they are there so that no one need feel that they were hired to be put on a pedestal and called an example of diversity. If the law is followed, there is no need to be the vigilante and declare that you're only hiring "x" population to balance out the effects of racism. I've talked to a few friends who've gotten internships as a result of minority hiring, and they feel as though they're only there because upper management decided that they would be good on said pedestal. They're certainly qualified, but they probably would have felt better if they weren't hired because of a quota system.

Sometimes imbalanced hiring does work. I'm thinking of inner-city organizations that hire ex-gang members and criminals to run bakeries (I know this has helped in El Salvador, for example). In that case, the bakeries aren't hiring the most-qualified bakers for the job, but are hiring to combat a perceived social ill. I'm fine with that, and think it's a great thing.

I don't believe that "free-market hiring" need be a rule in all sectors of the job industry. But as others have said, why did he need to say what he said? He could have chosen, as someone stated, the most qualified female candidate behind closed doors without fuss, while still contributing to whatever diversity metrics the company has. Maybe this hire would have been the best choice, gender notwithstanding. Or maybe not. As an employer, as someone else stated, he has a responsibility to find the best talent he can for his team, whether that talent fills a quota or doesn't. By declaring his search for female hires publicly, he instantly makes whomever he hires feel as though she is there not because of her qualifications (or because of her qualifications relative only to other women), but because she needs to be put on the aforementioned pedestal. This is wrong. It makes diversity possible at the possible expense of talent and employee morale.

I know that there is an imbalance before the hiring process vis a vis opportunity and education. This problem would theoretically not exist if all communities had the same fortune and societal natures. There needs to be education for those who cannot afford it, and opportunities for those whom society has unfairly cast aside. I don't know the solution to that problem, and if I did, I would be Head Sociologist or something. But as a microcosm of the situation at large, the hiring environment should not be a platform for vigilantist hiring. It is unfair to those turned down despite qualification, and unfair to those hired despite qualification. Either keep it in your mind to minimize the impact on your employees, or don't do it all. But don't use an opportunity for hiring as a soapbox on which you declare war on racism or sexism, because it'll backfire in ways you hadn't anticipated. Shameful move.

I think that's a valid point, but the way those tweets are written are the issue to me. He doesn't make it seem like he's trying to get diversity in the man's company which is perfectly fine. He just makes it seem that because you seclude another sex your opening people's eyes. In any kind of science, or engineering, women are a minority, so calling out for women to be hired isn't to open people's eyes (I would hope) it's to get diversity, like you said. What few girls go to my school that are engineers/computer science majors none of them have said they couldn't get a job because they're women, so if that is the statement he's making it did it for the wrong career path.

Jon Ronson, a fine choice.

Man that Spooklunkin video, reminds me of those good times!

I'm not so concerned about curating Steam as separating the Early Access stuff from the released games. That, I would like to see.

That Dark Souls 3D Map Viewer is pretty neato! Also saw that video of Partick's Spelunky deaths on his twitter, just great.

@themanunknown: As I was telling koolaid, noir is a broad genre. There are certain sub genres that are partly defined by its masculinity(probably always will be). But, in a general sense, noir is broad enough that it can have various perspectives/approaches within its boundaries. Its not defined by masculinity as a whole.

Also as far as the death of chivalrous romance; I wouldn't say it died more that custom's changed. Chivalrous romance just evolved into romantic fiction which is still very much alive and well. Even modern romantic fiction shares many of the tropes from those old chivalrous poems.

In excluding men as potential applicants he effectively cut his pool of applicants. The smaller your pool of applicants the more hamstringed you're likely to be in finding the most qualified applicant for the job. By specifically broadcasting that he was looking for a woman for the position and explicitly requesting that women apply, he took substantive a step to increase that pool of applicants he had just cut the size of, and improved his ability to find someone most legitimately qualified for the position. People can argue whether he was morally right in cutting the pool of applicants in the first place,* but as an employer it is still his obligation to find the most qualified employee whether he made the initial cut or not. It would be truly hypocritical of him to maintain that excluding men won't compromise the quality of the applicant he accepts while not simultaniously taking every step available to find the most qualified woman for the job.

I do not know of any way he could have done that without making such a public statement.

*(It largely depends on whether you conclude the cut makes a meaningful or only arbitrary difference in respect to the quality and character of resultant employee.)

@bushlemon: Yeah I don't know; it sounds like a feminist fortune cookie.

It is not reverse sexism: fighting invisible privilege always seems unfair to the privileged. That's why we call it 'invisible privilege'.

The fuck

@koolaid:

This conversation interests me. I cannot say that I am as well versed in noir fiction as I would like, but I ask you will bear with me while I offer some thoughts.

I think you're making a valid albeit arguable assessment of the historic role of women in noir fiction, but I'm not perceiving any clear conclusion on your part as to whether it's ultimately a positive or healthy outcome. I have certainly encountered many finely nuanced woman characters in the (too few) noir stories I have had the opportunity to read, but if they are to be in some respect the only characters I shall ever encounter in this genre, and it turns out their personalities and plot roles are ultimately almost perfectly representative of all women I shall henceforth encounter in this genre, then I can express my sincere disappointment, and call those characters flat regardless of how compelling they execute on that archetype. If Jane Austen ultimately had only two female personalities she employed throughout her entire body of work, we would not hesitate to call her works flawed however compelling and round and robust those two characters were. That is to say, in most any instance I can imagine I would rather a genre have more characters than less, and you seem to be suggesting that the range of women characters in noir fiction is strikingly limited compared to other genres.

Now given my relative lack of experience with this genre I do not want to get ahead of myself and definitively declare this to the present case. But I must say your discussion of patterns and description of noir as a "male" genre is concerning. I cannot find it healthy for a genre to pigeonhole all women into a few select roles, and fundamentally position them as ultimately auxiliaries to a male experience.

Let me digress a moment. There are many reasons we do not see chivalric romances being written anymore, but among the most prominent is that its formula prevented the sustained development of new, round characters, and consequently eventually came to obstruct authors attempts at developing original stories. Instead of robust personalities, the characters of such romances eventually became little more than archetypes, precisely because the genre had comparatively strict notions of the sort of roles the male protagonist and female damsel and devilish antagonist had in respect to the plot.

And it can be rightfully said there is nothing inherently wrong with that formula, but I will still maintain that it contributed directly to the genre's eventual demise. The greatest risk any genre faces in respect to its longevity is the possibility of its stories becoming formulaic and indistinct from each other. There are many respects in which stories can distinguish themselves from each other: plot, setting, premise, etc. But I think the most prominent and obvious must surely be characters.

Now again, I cannot reasonably draw any conclusion in this conversation given my lack of familiarity with the genre of noir; but if what you here say concerning noir fiction is true and representative, then I can only say that the present noir genre seems to be quite restrictive in respect to women characters, and it is not obvious to me that this is an intrinsic or necessary element to the genre. If it truly isn't, then it seems to me authors either will come to (as they ought) discard these restrictions and continue writing noir fiction ad infinitum, or discard the label of noir and write the stories that ultimately want to be written. The latter case happened to the chivalric romance, and that is exactly why we today have instead "fantasy" fiction. I suspect the former could be said to have happened with the detective story itself with respect to the rise of Noir fiction. So far as I understand, before the emergence of Hammett and his contemporaries, detective stories had the rather arbitrary burden of being whodunnits—effective mental puzzles. Until clearly demonstrated otherwise, would people have similarly associated the rigamarole of Poirolian whodunnit as an intrinsic, foundational element of the detective story?

This is, I suppose, a very long winded way of asking you first whether you find noir fiction's "maleness" to be a necessary or intrinsic part of the genre as a whole, and whether or not you feel the introduction of a female element outside your listed examples would somehow fundamentally undermine the genre's identity. If so on either account, I would appreciate any elaboration you could provide as to just why.

This post turned out considerably longer than I anticipated. It is probably much too early in the morning for me to be fooling around on message boards, but I hope you will excuse my sleep addled brain.

Kotaku actually apologizing for a fuck-up for once? Did hell freeze over?

Schreier should be ashamed for writing the piece that brought them to this, and Totilo should be ashamed for letting that absurd attack piece go up in the state it was first published.

That modding video was about the most self-indulgent thing I've ever watched.

First he sets up the ludicrous notion of mods being "troublesome" because they make his own self-styled criticism theoretically irrelevant (as if video games were meant to be studied instead of enjoyed), and then, of course, he swats it down with a long-winded explanation of something everyone already knew: optional user contributions to make games better is unambiguously a good thing. How trite.

It's really a bit more complex than that. For instance, whatever you feel about affirmative action now, one of it's original purposes to facilitate integration in places of the US where it was incredibly common to simply not hire non-whites due to near omnipresent racism - a law was absolutely necessary. But that was a desperate times thing. Before I think this is okay, I'd need someone to show me the step-by-step on how a discriminatory hiring practice now paves the way for a better state of affairs in the future. If someone can do that, I'll be more on board, until then, I think it's a bit dubious.

Qualified individuals should always take place over gender/race hiring procedures, period.

Theres nothing wrong with women or minorities working the same jobs or doing the same things white men do... But they better be able to do just as good (if not better) of a job and not just get a free pass for their skin tone or XX chromosome.

No, you aren't.

Twist: The "project" is a kickin' bachelor party and @adamatomic is hiring for the position of who pops out of the cake. Progressive!

@thehumandove: I'm on the moon, U?

Where do you think we are?

@koolaid: Well, in CSI case those shows are purely procedural in nature(and shitty). I guess you could add some sort of character examination as a requirement for noir.

The outsider/cynical/self reflective character are merely just common archetypes. I don't feel its necessarily a requirement.

@flindip: I dunno, I think sexual tension, a main character that's an outsider/cynical/self reflective, and being dark as hell are also requirements for noir. If it was just crime, then CSI would be noir.

But thats kinda the point. Its so broad its hard to define outside of murder/crime. For sure there are consistent archetypes that appear in that genre; but that doesn't make much of an argument for purity. Unless of course your going for a very specific type of feel.

I mean, I guess it is up to how you define noir as a genre. I'd bet you'll get some purists who will say "That's not a game!"

er.. I mean...

"That's not Film Noir!"

@koolaid: Well noir as a genre is not necessarily tied specifically to masculinity. I mean noir is such a broad term to begin with. The only real tying thing to noir is that usually revolves around murder/crime. Granted, the hardboiled gumshoe approach is definitely masculinized. But there has always been leeway in that genre. The postman always rings twice or Sunset Blvd are examples getting away from the detective approach. Not to mention, that female detective/male casanova approach was done in Silence of the Lambs(Its neo noir).

With that said, I don't think LA Noir was particularly at fault for not having a major female character. First off, characters, in that game, moved rather fluidly with Cole being the only real constant. Secondly, Elsa was a pretty significant character in the game. Thirdly, there were plenty of female characters who were the main focus during the actual narrative missions.

@dannyhibiki:

Hell, I want it to work. I think that getting character dynamics right is gonna take a lot extra work and care in addition to all the hard work that goes into constructing a good story. If it's just gendered swapped film noir, I'm afraid it will come off as corny or as a gimmick. That's why I think it will be a challenge.