Worth Reading: 05/09/2014

You have a point in the first part. I've been following Maddy Meyers and her friends on Twitter for quite a while, so it's altogether possible that I'm just accustomed to their humor and see them interacting with men positively on a day to day basis. I was trying to keep down the accusatory tone by offering up that people might simply be mistaken OR purposefully casting it in the wrong light, but now I realize that still sounds way too accusatory, and that people might really think the "kill all men" thing is legitimate.

On empathy: I'm really sorry if I made it seem like people who didn't think it was a big deal were immediately against me. Wasn't my intention. I'm frustrated with the subset (not necessarily on this site) who say it isn't a big deal and that we should just get over ourselves, but it's altogether possible that people don't find it a big deal and aren't saying it to shut down and hurt others. It just feels like... well, when someone just says "I don't see the problem" and doesn't really add anything else, it sometimes feels like they're trying to purposefully negate your feelings on a topic that doesn't impact them, but certainly impacts you. And that causes terse standoffs, confrontations, dismissals, etc. It's a complex issue, and one that isn't necessarily helped by the faceless, often quick nature of Internet discourse.

As for why what Nintendo said hurt... saying that they didn't want to make "social commentary" by including gay relationships is really dehumanizing. They, like so many others, consider my sexuality to be a political statement, which is something that can be objected to or dismissed as illegitimate. I already face rejection and "other-ing" from the vast majority of the world, where I'm treated as a novelty or an abomination. The last place I expected to be told that my mere existence was social commentary and that I didn't belong in their wacky little world was Nintendo, purveyors of the "fun for everyone" mentality.

Like most of you, I grew up with a Nintendo console or two; I went through several Game Boy models, and my first home console was a Nintendo 64. I'm also autistic, and while that's become easier to manage as time went on, at the beginning, it was really hard to socialize and make friends. But Nintendo was another way into the good graces of fellow kids, so I could focus on getting good at games like Smash Bros. and find commonality with them through that. I couldn't stare straight into someone's eyes or react properly to social cues, but Nintendo games made it easier to jump into conversations about trading Pokemon or beating Star Fox, and slowly work through there. And I was pretty thankful that Nintendo helped me with my social anxiety and struggles with communication, when others would write me off as "the weird kid" without making the effort to know me.

To make a long story short (too late!), Nintendo's comments made me wonder whether I was ever welcome in the first place. Sorry if that sounds melodramatic, but it really hit me that way when I read the press release for myself. I know, Nintendo have been terrible at PR and expressing themselves in a non-bumbling manner as of late, but there was something that felt real and cold about their statement. Maybe because I've seen echoes of it in the reactions I've received from others. Regardless, of all the mistakes Nintendo have made in the last few years, it was the very first one that had me considering abandoning the company altogether.

Again, I apologize if my earlier statements sounded like they were attacking anyone. I'm just really sore about this subject, and am used to seeing everyone react in a certain way to others like me in the LGBT community. I'd like nothing more than to have a good time with all of you, and I'm grateful that most of you are much friendlier than the people I would find in other communities.

@patrickklepek You actually don't need the PS4 camera for voice command stuff. Any headset plugged into the controller will work (I use my iphone headphones)! Super convenient. Of course you probably still wanna test the camera as well.

@thecheese33:

To make a long story short (too late!), Nintendo's comments made me wonder whether I was ever welcome in the first place. Sorry if that sounds melodramatic, but it really hit me that way when I read the press release for myself. I know, Nintendo have been terrible at PR and expressing themselves in a non-bumbling manner as of late, but there was something that felt real and cold about their statement. Maybe because I've seen echoes of it in the reactions I've received from others. Regardless, of all the mistakes Nintendo have made in the last few years, it was the very first one that had me considering abandoning the company altogether.

You really shouldn't have to explain why a lack of diversity is hurtful in this day and age, but thank you for taking the time to do so.

As much as I love The Thing I must admit I never liked the game, even though I really wanted to like it. It didn't help that I apperently ran into a game breaking bug that meant I couldn't finish the game after having spent hours upon hours on the game. As cool as the whole fear system sounds on paper it really didn't function that well in the actual game thanks to the bad A.I. I played the game when it was new and I still found it pretty boring back then. I even tried to finish it twice, but I ran into the same bug again so...

Also when you start fighting armed soldiers the game falls completely apart. As someone who has seen The Thing like 8 times I must say I think the game is shit, even though I wanted to like it more than anything else.

@thecheese33: Thank you for taking the time to respond and for clarifying your stance.

I don't blame you for feeling hurt by Nintendo's initial press release. It turned out to be poorly worded on their part, but I think it's also fair to say that Nintendo was in no way trying to cause offense. But now we have people attempting to continue justifying their outrage despite Nintendo stating an apology/clarification. I know that first impressions are the most important, but when someone makes a mistake, how important is it that people stay angry when the person or corporation or what have you that caused that offense apologizes for it and makes an effort for that apology to be sincere? Particularly when that outrage isn't universally shared, or when some of the people engaging in the outrage come off as significantly more in the wrong than those that caused the initial offense?

As much as I'm sure some people would love it if this situation were black and white, it's not. Words have been poorly chosen on both sides, and the way that this whole argument has been structured, neither is on some innate moral high ground. Those castigating Nintendo might like to think that they are, but when they take it too far and make baseless accusations of bigotry and homophobia, that is not helping their case. That just paints them as extremists and makes their side of the argument come off looking worse than it had any reason to be.

To echo a lot of people here, The Thing game was pretty fun when I had played it, it actually managed to be one of my favorite games for a while ,but at some point you just can't help but notice the flaws. I think it was a worthy shot they did regardless.
This one particular issue I had with the game is that every once and a while when you entered a new area, your team mates were just gone, they wouldn't load into the new area at all, but sometimes they would, heck sometimes when they loaded I even got doubles of them! Which was pretty cool for me back in the day.

I've always wanted to see someone take another shot at a Thing game, can you imagine a game whenever you play it, a different NPC is randomly infected? Or hell, do that with a multiplayer game, spawn a bunch of people, one is 'The Thing' the possibilities for that would be most fun.

The only thing in Samantha Allen's article that seemed a little out of bounds to me was the "hatred" line. Get past that, and it's actually a well-reasoned, smart critique of why Nintendo's original statement was totally tone deaf and hurtful to LBGT people.

Not sad at all!

I loved this game back in the day. They really nailed the atmosphere, especially in the first half. It kind of lost that towards the end, when you start going up against mostly human enemies in outdoor environments.

Several moments still stand out, but my favorite is when I had to hold out in a tiny room filled with ammo, with three broken windows and a door, as wave after wave of aliens rushed me and my two buddies from all sides. I was impressed with how well the friendly AI handled itself during that sequence (after several trials and errors of selecting just what weapons suited them best) and fell in love with the pump action shotgun.

Along with Escape from Butcher Bay, this is my favorite movie tie-in game.

@patrickklepek This is kind of random, but reading that article about The Thing and finding out that their studio was closed just as they were planning the sequel brought up memories of another great horror game with a similar fate: Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. Did you ever get around to playing it?

I was trying to figure out why I didn't have a problem with that article, and this comment best describes it.

In the land of video games, emotions run high. I hear that being said again and again and again, especially as an explanation for a culture that uses gendered/other gross insults in "the heat of the moment." Anger is commonplace in editorials when decisions are made about - as you said - things such as DLC, microtransactions, and even unsatisfying conclusions to a game series (i.e. Mass Effect). I think the reason these emotions exist, whatever they may be about, is because gamers are passionate about what they play.

People are also passionate about their identities. When someone feels theirs being threatened in a situation they are already passionate about (essentially, if they are someone who cares about their identity AND their games), that anger is understandable. So, I get why Samantha Allen wrote her article to come off so strong, and I don't really get why some folks are running around like a chicken with their head cut off shouting "INSANITY" at her when intensity like that is not so uncommon in gaming.

To be honest, I doubt I would have written with the same tone she used. Nintendo's statement did hurt my feelings, but I guess it has something I have gotten used to at this point. Maybe there needs to be people who are not scared to speak up about their feelings. I just hate hearing the attacks on her character, rather than critique on her work, that have emerged. Especially when the majority of them are about how "crazy" she is. Ugh.

@rusalkagirl: I think I have less of a problem with the tone of her article and more that she seemed completely baffled that people would be upset with the aggressive attitude of the whole thing.

Obviously anyone is free to write in whatever style they're most comfortable with, but, like, how are you surprised? If you're writing something you know is accusatory, you know is using particular words that will push buttons, the response to a push-back shouldn't be to run to twitter and complain about how hard your life is and how all those mean people are making you want to get into a different line of work. Reinforce why you feel you're right, explain why you felt that tone was necessary, etc.

I agree with you that people should attack the work and not the person, but I feel a little lost in these "we need to come together to solve society's issues" phases we seem to find ourselves in whenever there's a slow news week, because I don't see many people trying to "come together." Just a lot of people attempting to strip me of my ability to have a valid opinion on something because of my race or sex or what-have-you. The Miiquality campaign was something I was 100% on board with, and then a bunch of talking heads leapt on the controversy to make hay of it instead of leaving it to the more mild-mannered people that initiated it.

I understand why some people feel angry, and I understand why people feel upset. And I don't mean to imply those feelings don't matter, because they do. But it doesn't always mean those feelings are completely justified. I just feel like running into these complicated issues on emotion doesn't always gets us to the best outcome.

@hailinel: I agree. Honestly, it's a really tricky situation whenever this stuff happens, because I feel like if everyone somehow got on the same wavelength, we wouldn't generate hundreds of comments worth of sparring over issues that we'd ultimately agree on in a different context? It's hard to find that balance where you can say what you need to say about feminism and gay rights without turning the outsiders away. And I can't begrudge the groups I'm part of or the groups I'm separate from when they use terse words; it all affects us in different ways. I have friends from every walk of life, and when they get angry, I'm well aware that their anger comes from a place where they've been really hurt. But others get caught in the crossfire, and you're put in the unfortunate place where you're left scrambling, trying to get everyone back on good terms and on the same page.

While these issues have existed for time immemorial, the rise of the Internet has made humans realize just who they're living next to, and they're exposed to all sorts of issues that they've never had to think about in their lives. A large number of people are taught from only one perspective for most of their childhood and early years, so they don't know how to react when a woman talks about her harassers, or a person in a male body struggles with an inexplicably painful need to be in a female body. I try to be understanding and explain things to the people who aren't aware (though there's only so much I can do before I have to move on), but there's always the risk that I'll mistakenly open up wounds in their perception that I, likewise, didn't know existed, and it just snowballs from there. We even have people who get unbelievably angry when their favorite game gets criticized, and it's a real battle to help them understand that we're not insulting them when we critique Star Wars or Marvel.

Hopefully, as we continue to hash out these issues for a long time, we'll find a way to express pain, desire and anger without devolving into a shouting match, or punching low blows. Until then, the best we can do is continue to try and explain things even when blood enters the water.

Not really sure why that piece on the pedigree of the Call of Duty franchise needed to be written. Granted, the series today is barely a shadow of its former self, but it's not as though Activision would change the name of a multi-billion dollar series to match the ethos of the games solely for the sake of accuracy. I'm all for deriding the Call of Duty series, but this seems especially nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky.

@marokai: I understand what you're saying, too. My post is mostly about how her anger is justified, not that she went about expressing it the right way. I think much of what she said was inflammatory, and could likely exist just to rake in more viewers. What I don't understand is why it is such a big deal when this sort of thing is not uncommon in gaming, where passions are often ignited and opinions are stated very, very loudly.

I do have a huge issue with the accusations of her being crazy, insane, delusional, whatever. Personally, I hate those words, especially in casual use. That's just personal preference, though.

I think one of the things that baffles me most is that many of the people who are calling Samantha out for being too emotion-fueled are the ones who are not critiquing her work. There is this whole back-and-forth of people claiming that she is crazy, while doing the same thing they're attacking her for - getting too personal when the conversation needs to be about the quality of their work as professionals. Samantha could have benefited from interpreting Nintendo's message, not by targeting their company in a rant. Those who are calling Samantha crazy should extend the same courtesy to her by example. I think the conversation would best be about people's actions and words, rather than who they are as people.

And if the gender roles were reversed, you would have no problem with it either I suppose? If this were a man who "clearly felt like he and his peers have been fucked over by women in life and was using the internet so show his anger," would you then support him for making a misogynist joke?

Would you be defending a man who said "If I had a nickel for every time someone said to me, 'can you start putting the word "some" in front of the word "women." We're not all bitches."?

Their view is that you can mock the "privileged" and not the other way around. Which is true to some extent, but at some point you just come across as angry and hateful, not wise, which unfortunately is a trap Ms. Allen frequently falls into. Ben Kuchera as well, among others.

If you want to see properly done criticism on this issue check out this opinion piece on Gamasutra, a very professional gaming site: http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristianNutt/20140508/217351/Understanding_Nintendos_Tomodachi_Life_problem.php

He covers WHY people were upset, the feelings involved, and why it's important. And he does it all without sounding like an angry, hateful maniac. It's a much better way to get people to empathize with you. Yelling at people and calling them names doesn't tend to sway opinion, it just causes conflict.

@stingingvelvet:

And he does it all without sounding like an angry, hateful maniac.

The irony of criticising someone as hateful and then calling them a manic in the same breath.

"Sounding like."

Write in a hateful voice, get hate back. Write in an empathetic, wise voice, get empathy back. Simple.

Good stuff, some really good article choices!

@spaceinsomniac said:

I'll take exception to jokes involving misandristic manticores when men are systemically marginalised and discriminated against. Until that day, I will continue to have no problem with women venting their frustrations humorously.

I'll get to the manticore thing but I feel like I should be upfront and say: I do feel weird when Men make these sorts of comments and don't at all feel weird when Women do it. I never hear Women make derogatory comments towards Men with the same sort of venom and inherent seriousness that I perceive when Men do it. That's the way my life has gone so far and that's how it's shaped my worldview. It's clear you disagree and we aren't going to come to any agreement anytime soon on that.

Now about that Manticore thing.

If a guy drew a picture of a male version of a typically female mythological creature that was saying "Kill All Women" I would be slightly unnerved again because of the reasons I gave earlier. But I wouldn't be that unnerved by it because it's a manticore with extreme views.

I'm aware of this, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just another form of bigotry. For example, if I went to Japan I would be a minority. But even if a lot of people treated me like shit, that wouldn't allow me to start making generalizations, prejudging people, and mocking my "oppressors" as a race without being a bigot.

@evajolli said:

Considering I was the person who first pointed it out and don't see how its at all a joke- hence, you're lmao'ing at me- please show me where i have made a joke at the expense of any other group, let alone everyone else.

It's not about dumbing down or politics, it's about talking to people like you're trying to convince them, trying to make them understand, rather than like they're dumb children you have to scold. Even if those people ARE acting like dumb children you can't talk to them that way, unless all you want to do is fight and yell and say hateful things to each other. If you want to change minds you talk in a wise, empathetic tone. Did you even read the article I linked to?

@evajolli: remember Giant Bomb's golden rule...don't be a jerk.

Thanks.

Will never take seriously anything Samantha Allen has to say in the future.

So I guess it won't be too much of a stretch to have more of those characters be PoC/women/gay/transexual.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say because your writing is a little haphazard here. Of course my empathy works and of course I understand the issues, that's all beside the point. The point we're actually making is all about tone and style. When you write aggressively, and "hate the hate" for lack of a better term, you invite anger back at you. When you write with the goal of making people understand your feelings, how it feels to be treated this way, then you invite empathy from your audience.

One is convincing one is not. Go back in time and compare Martin Luther King Jr. with the Black Panthers. Which do you think did more to bring about racial tolerance in America?

Well you're not really saying anything or addressing my points at all, so I'm going to stop attempting to debate with you. Thanks.

I wish you'd stop editing your above comment. As for this one: it's very telling you saw my comments in this way. Have a nice day.

I'm interested in what your definition of "tone policing" is, in the context of starting a discussion to try and create positive change. When you're trying to convince a group of your opinion that they might disagree with, your tone is incredibly important. Even when asking for something fundimentally inconsequential and nowhere near as important as minority representation, tone matters. The difference between, "can you please pass me the salt?", and "pass me the fucking salt, asshole.", should be pretty clear. And it's only amplified when you're discussing these crucial issues that some folks have ignorant problems with already.

I feel like the implications of an idea like "tone policing" to you, is that you view criticism of a tone as the same thing as invalidating everything that was said, whereas to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's folks (like me) who long for those vital points to be made, but realize that the tone can make it impossible to actually hear what's being said. And worse, can stifle others who are speaking more reasonably.

To awkwardly quote myself from earlier in this thread:

This is precisely why I get so saddened at seeing the kinds of articles like this one from Samantha Allen lauded by people like Patrick. The Miiquality movement was a beautiful (and unfortunately rare) example of making a push for inclusivity in an inclusive way, yet the media reaction to it largely steals all of the focus from the positive point and just breeds more anger and division.

When the people in the right relentlessly use the tactics of those in the wrong, everything just gets worse for everybody.

@joshwent: Very well said!

Just felt the need to hop in here and say that the popularized image of MLK as a totally peaceful, non-aggressive person does a disservice to his actual writing, speeches and message. He certainly advocated nonviolent protests, but works like Letter from a Birmingham Jail were fiery and charged; most of us just don't see it that way at first glance today, because we live in a very different, more socially progressive society compared to the past. He never minced words, and he wasn't afraid to call it like he saw it. Of course, that doesn't sit well with a society who prefers activism to be rosy, calmly spoken, and easily pushed to the side, so his image has been molded by history books and schoolteachers to fit their own needs. Our society tends to neuter the work that our more radical figures accomplished right after they pass away and lose the ability to contest their representation.

I do think there's a fine line to walk between being passionate and essentially insulting your audience, but sometimes there's just no way to sugarcoat things without being safely put aside and ignored by the white, patriarchal majority. Sometimes you have to get raw in order to do the subject justice.

I'm not saying Samantha Allen's critique is perfect, but please understand that arguments should not be dismissed simply because they weren't presented with a bow and a soothing voice. King was never that.

Who is Samantha Allen and why is she article-worthy?

I'm a sociology teacher, so I have a read a lot of his stuff too. I guess at a certain point it's subjective, but I always took him as fiery and angry at times, but never hateful. And he always balanced his anger with words of peace and nonviolence. My main point was the comparison with the Black Panthers, who in contrast saw it as a war they were willing to fight to win.

Neither really applies exactly to a much different modern debate, of course. However gay marriage and LGBT acceptance is unarguably winning the debate, and it's doing that by making people empathize with those who just want to love their significant other and not be demonized for it. When we turn it into a war and start throwing around the bigot label we do ourselves a disservice, in my opinion. We put those who might be creeped out by homosexuality or who were raised to dislike it into a defensive position of insisting they're not bigots, rather than trying to get them to empathize with a dude who just wants to marry his boyfriend and live his life in peace.

Obviously there are still times to get angry, but I think some go overboard, and that was my only point. When Ben Kuchera starts calling Nintendo executives bigots who should be fired I think he does the movement a disservice.

A fair point. I feel like some of the greatest acceptance has come from points of empathy when lawmakers and citizens alike have discovered that their family member, co-worker or neighbor are part of the spectrum. Hopefully that trend continues; I've been lucky enough to live in a fairly spacious bubble by figuring things out during college and having supportive parents, but things desperately need to improve for people in worse situations.

What does that even mean? That anyone that disagrees with Samantha is inherently wrong and a terrible person? Do you even understand the concept of what reasonable debate entails? Because you certainly haven't demonstrated that in this thread.

The one being unreasonable here is you. You're aggressively confrontational and refuse to see the viewpoints of others, insisting that anyone that disagrees with Samantha in any way is wrong and terrible. You don't seem to understand, or wish to understand, that it is possible to agree with principles of Samantha's argument while criticizing the tone and context of the message. If I say that LGBT people are deserving of equality, that's reasonable. If I say that LGBT people are deserving of equality and anyone that disagrees is a shitfucking bucket of pisswater that should be shot in the street, the point regarding LGBT being deserving of equality may still be valid, but no one is going to pay attention to that because I am also advocating murder at the same time. In stating such, I have crossed a line from being reasonable to being a lunatic and no one should take me seriously regardless of the basis of my moral standing. And while Samantha isn't advocating murder, the tone she takes is far from one promoting reasonable discourse.

Also, I don't own a fedora.