• 82 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Brodehouse (9887 posts) -

@dallas_raines: I've read two books by Christopher Hitchens and followed him as a writer for the last few years of his life. At no point therein did I read or hear him say anything racist or misogynist. What exactly are these things that he said that makes him a 'dyed in the wool misogynist'?

#52 Posted by Dallas_Raines (2161 posts) -

@brodehouse: Suddenly all the pieces connect and everything makes sense.

#53 Posted by Soapy86 (2620 posts) -

I played Depression Quest a while back. Thought it was alright. However, I'm not going to vote for it just because "muh sexism". But I might vote for it because I liked it.

I'm going to go on a tangent here, but I'm getting pretty tired of this bullshit attitude among game devs (and critics/journalists, I'm looking at you Patrick) that just because you made a game you're basically entitled for it to be on Steam and fuck anyone who says otherwise. Sorry, but that's not how it works. I know Greenlight isn't perfect, but when you open things up and let the people decide what games they want, sometimes they're not going to want a game. I know developers put a lot of time and energy into it and they probably think it's great, but if enough people don't want it that it keeps it off Steam, sorry but them's the breaks.

#54 Posted by Brodehouse (9887 posts) -

@milkman: No one is asking her to suffer in silence. They're explaining that the reaction she had was the exact reaction they wanted, and that if she wants less abuse, complaining on twitter _will not result in her or anyone suffering less abuse_.

I suffered bullying from people whose names I knew. They did not stop just because I complained about them. They did not stop because I went to authority figures. They did not stop because everyone disliked them, actually that made their actions reaffirming and communal. They stopped when there was nothing they could do to me short of criminal activity that I would respond to. The only thing that could get me to pay my precious attention to them was if they physically attacked me, which at that point I have easy recourses.

Twitter is not a serious medium, so why anyone would use it to attempt to resolve serious problems is beyond me. 99% of problems will not be solved by calling attention to it on Twitter, I don't know why it keeps getting used for this.

#55 Edited by Brodehouse (9887 posts) -

@dallas_raines: Sounds like you don't mind stereotypes and judging others.

What did Christopher Hitchens say or do that was allegedly misogynistic, I'm legitimately interested.

#56 Posted by Dasacant2 (233 posts) -

I voted for it but I don't think i'll ever play it. I actually have this real feeling of disgust with the entire concept of the game but I am pretty sure it's not based on logic. Maybe I do need to play it to get rid of that feeling but at the same time it might bring up some bad memories for me.

#57 Edited by Milkman (16682 posts) -

@brodehouse: I think the article I linked to does a pretty good job explaining why this attitude does not work at all. She has gotten a ton of support after she went public with the abuse. She did the right thing.

@soapy86 said:

I played Depression Quest a while back. Thought it was alright. However, I'm not going to vote for it just because "muh sexism". But I might vote for it because I liked it.

I'm going to go on a tangent here, but I'm getting pretty tired of this bullshit attitude among game devs (and critics/journalists, I'm looking at you Patrick) that just because you made a game you're basically entitled for it to be on Steam and fuck anyone who says otherwise. Sorry, but that's not how it works. I know Greenlight isn't perfect, but when you open things up and let the people decide what games they want, sometimes they're not going to want a game. I know developers put a lot of time and energy into it and they probably think it's great, but if enough people don't want it that it keeps it off Steam, sorry but them's the breaks.

Literally no one is saying that if you make a game you're entitled to have it on Steam. What are you even talking about?

#58 Posted by Brodehouse (9887 posts) -

@milkman: Wait, what do you mean "doesn't work at all"? That she received support does not somehow reduce the abuse. Removing the incentive to abuse will do more to limit abuse than revealing exactly how to best abuse yourself. This prioritizes receiving sympathy over reducing abuse. If she's fine with that, then that's her trip and none of my business. But I know that if I let people know exactly how aggrieved their actions have made me, all I do is give them leave to enjoy all of the agency they have over me.

#59 Posted by Milkman (16682 posts) -

@brodehouse: This is the second time Depression Quest has been put on Greenlight. The first time, she got the same response, didn't say anything and quietly pulled the game off the service. She put it up again, the same thing happened and this time, she spoke up. People are not going to stop but it's better to empower the person facing the abuse than to do nothing. And again, this really isn't about attention because the people were actively hurting the game through Greenlight so it's kind of hard to just ignore.

#60 Posted by Brodehouse (9887 posts) -

@milkman: I am surprised (or maybe not) that Valve doesn't have a plan for cases where people can establish there's been phony voting or misuse of their platform. Then again, I think it's weird that negative votes can prevent games from getting onto Steam; I would have expected there to be a threshold of positive votes that represents automatic acceptance. It seems weird that a game with (example) 10,000 people willing to buy it would get held back by 10,000 who definitely won't. Billions of people won't buy Depression Quest, but we don't really count them, so I wonder why negative voting is even there.

#61 Posted by spraynardtatum (2832 posts) -

Also, "don't feed the trolls" rarely works. They're like cockroaches. Shine a light on them and they scurry off to hide.

I've seen a lot more success from people actively dealing with harassment online than from people pretending it doesn't exist. Especially in cases like this, where the trolls aren't attention-seeking assholes who desperately want a response, but rather insecure little bigots trying to bully the game dev until she stops trying to make games. It's better to actively make sure their plans backfire horrendously than to just passively hope it goes away.

Yes, yes, and more yes. That is exactly what people need to do. If someone is hateful or dumb online you don't get anywhere by ignoring it.

#62 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Right, so from what I gather you're suggesting that I vote for this game not because it's a good game, but because the creator has been targeted by sexist assholes?

Sorry, no thanks. That seems like an incredibly condescending thing to do to the developer. I'll check out her game and vote for it if I think it deserves a vote, not out of pity.

Please approach the Greenlight campaign from this position. It does no good if it passes Greenlight due to sympathy votes.

#63 Edited by geirr (2536 posts) -

Meh.

#64 Posted by Soapy86 (2620 posts) -

@milkman said:

@brodehouse: I think the article I linked to does a pretty good job explaining why this attitude does not work at all. She has gotten a ton of support after she went public with the abuse. She did the right thing.

@soapy86 said:

I played Depression Quest a while back. Thought it was alright. However, I'm not going to vote for it just because "muh sexism". But I might vote for it because I liked it.

I'm going to go on a tangent here, but I'm getting pretty tired of this bullshit attitude among game devs (and critics/journalists, I'm looking at you Patrick) that just because you made a game you're basically entitled for it to be on Steam and fuck anyone who says otherwise. Sorry, but that's not how it works. I know Greenlight isn't perfect, but when you open things up and let the people decide what games they want, sometimes they're not going to want a game. I know developers put a lot of time and energy into it and they probably think it's great, but if enough people don't want it that it keeps it off Steam, sorry but them's the breaks.

Literally no one is saying that if you make a game you're entitled to have it on Steam. What are you even talking about?

Everytime a game with minor notoriety has trouble passing through Greenlight the developer and people like Patrick make a big stink about it as if it's some great injustice.

#65 Edited by MEATBALL (3198 posts) -

I've played the game, it didn't really do much for me as someone suffering from depression, I wouldn't buy it and personally don't really think it's something that should be sold so I'm not going to vote it up (I imagine it won't need my vote anyway) - that said, if Zoe can find people who want to pay for it, more power to her.

It's completely fucking disgusting what a small pocket of the internet has done to her, though, just completely unacceptable in any situation. It really makes me wonder how these sacks of shit can live with themselves, honestly. It sucks that I feel fucking horrible about myself every goddamn day and there are people like that out there who are capable of this kind of bullshit and they probably fucking love themselves.

#66 Edited by yoshisaur (2708 posts) -

I still think the game is pretentious, but I gave it my vote anyway. Can't be a good person and deny other people a chance at a game just because I don't like it!

#67 Posted by joshwent (2175 posts) -

Suddenly all the pieces connect and everything makes sense.

You do realize you're trying to attack bigotry by being completely bigoted, right?

I am surprised (or maybe not) that Valve doesn't have a plan for cases where people can establish there's been phony voting or misuse of their platform. Then again, I think it's weird that negative votes can prevent games from getting onto Steam; I would have expected there to be a threshold of positive votes that represents automatic acceptance. It seems weird that a game with (example) 10,000 people willing to buy it would get held back by 10,000 who definitely won't. Billions of people won't buy Depression Quest, but we don't really count them, so I wonder why negative voting is even there.

Greenlight has 3 options for voting:

-Yes (in bold letters with a thumbs up)

-No thanks / Not interested

-Ask me again later

There's no tally like on Youtube videos that directly weighs one vote against another, so I'm sure 10,000 "Yes"es are taken more seriously than 10,000 "No Thanks"es. Especially if those "no" votes all come flooding in around the same time because of some asinine internet group of assholes. Obviously, I don't work for Greenlight so I could never say for sure, but Valve has built its empire off of effectively crunching numbers, so I'm sure they're not thick enough to disregard potential sales like that.

#68 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@milkman:

But voting for her game will not help her at all. In fact I could argue that it will get even more hate because people will call her out for just trying to get attention just so her game can be greenlighted. What people should do in these situations is calling for the police and trying to get these people in any way possible. Especially if they call your place.

Also we should consider the fact that the whole thing began on a board or 4chan section of a "Depressing message board" Which were totally upset how you could be depressed with having a job etc. Which is of course really stupid. But people who attacked her were already out of their mind and need help. The best would have been to ignore these people. Hell the first thing you see on their board is a hotline number for a suicide help number.

Bottom line is that if you go public on twitter and co is to know when you should fight and when you should just ignore it.

#69 Edited by Animasta (14675 posts) -

I love that some people in this thread are saying they won't buy it.

Of course you won't buy it, because it's going to be free

reading comprehension

#70 Posted by RadecAU (91 posts) -

Even before the horrible trolling that has come out this game was worth voting for, it's fantastic to see people addressing these issues in games and it'd be a great thing to see this get wider exposure through steam.

VOTE FOR IT

#71 Edited by audioBusting (1511 posts) -

Oh okay, so that's why I haven't voted for this even though I did (the previous one). Pretty messed up how some people can hate a video game sometimes. I liked the game anyway so thanks for the heads up.

Voted, but seeing as I'm about to play Actual Sunlight, playing this too may be too much depression at once.

I played both and I think Depression Quest is a lot more relatable and positive about it. It's a lot more educational than personal, while Actual Sunlight is just a complete downer.

#72 Edited by weegieanawrench (1938 posts) -

@audiobusting: Thanks, good to know. Looks like I have a decision to make then.

#73 Posted by LaszloKovacs (1143 posts) -

Everyone should be voting for this regardless of dumb internet drama because it is a very cool thing that taps into something essential and human. It's also a good tool for educating friends and family who don't really understand what depression is (i.e. most people who have never had to struggle with it).

#74 Posted by pyromagnestir (4300 posts) -

@starvinggamer said:

Right, so from what I gather you're suggesting that I vote for this game not because it's a good game, but because the creator has been targeted by sexist assholes?

Sorry, no thanks. That seems like an incredibly condescending thing to do to the developer. I'll check out her game and vote for it if I think it deserves a vote, not out of pity.

Please approach the Greenlight campaign from this position. It does no good if it passes Greenlight due to sympathy votes.

Why? I think this is a case where the end result is all that matters and the means are sort of irrelevant.

#75 Edited by Akyho (1601 posts) -

I tried "playing" depression quest ages ago. The options were spot on and the results were spot on with my real life doing's, I stopped after a little bit and took the advice they flashed at the start that if you suffer depression it may trigger it.

So yeah I decided I would only hurt myself with it. So it does the job? I suppose.

So maybe I would vote....however I do not take kindly to emotional blackmail. Sure vote for it but dont say "because of sexism!", vote for it because it quit accurately depicts the mind and events of a depressed person.

#76 Posted by StarvingGamer (8156 posts) -

@ravenlight said:

@starvinggamer said:

Right, so from what I gather you're suggesting that I vote for this game not because it's a good game, but because the creator has been targeted by sexist assholes?

Sorry, no thanks. That seems like an incredibly condescending thing to do to the developer. I'll check out her game and vote for it if I think it deserves a vote, not out of pity.

Please approach the Greenlight campaign from this position. It does no good if it passes Greenlight due to sympathy votes.

Why? I think this is a case where the end result is all that matters and the means are sort of irrelevant.

That's my point. A game passing Greenlight regardless of its actual quality is a shitty end result

#77 Posted by Bocam (3724 posts) -

@pyromagnestir said:

@ravenlight said:

@starvinggamer said:

Right, so from what I gather you're suggesting that I vote for this game not because it's a good game, but because the creator has been targeted by sexist assholes?

Sorry, no thanks. That seems like an incredibly condescending thing to do to the developer. I'll check out her game and vote for it if I think it deserves a vote, not out of pity.

Please approach the Greenlight campaign from this position. It does no good if it passes Greenlight due to sympathy votes.

Why? I think this is a case where the end result is all that matters and the means are sort of irrelevant.

That's my point. A game passing Greenlight regardless of its actual quality is a shitty end result

If Value really wanted to win some brownie points they'd just let the game skip Greenlight.

#78 Edited by pyromagnestir (4300 posts) -

@starvinggamer:

EDIT: half of my reply was deleted when I posted it, that seems strange... I will fill in some of what got cut...

I was more referring to @ravenlight and his statement that it does no good if the game only makes it on Steam due to sympathy. I think the game is interesting and deserves a chance to be seen by more people, and having it available on Steam, and for free no less, makes that possible. If it gets there because there are enough people who feel similarly to me or a bunch of people are being sympathetic to a developer who is being targeted by a bunch of dicks or a bunch of people randomly vote yes for no apparent reason what does it matter?

Quality is subjective. Plenty of games could find an audience that would appreciate it. I would like for every game to have the opportunity to find its audience, regardless of the size of that audience, if it's 200 people or 2 billion people it makes no difference to me. So if a game makes it through the greenlight process that doesn't appeal to me, even if I think the quality is poor, I personally wouldn't care. Who am I to keep it away from the people who would like it? Of course the realities of business and costs and all that make my ideal scenario impossible, and this greenlight system allows other bullshit to also have an affect, which is part of what we're talking about in this thread.

#79 Posted by Coafi (1484 posts) -

I've got a serious question; why does this game have to be on Steam? Is it to get more recognition or what? I read the game is going to be free anyways, so why Steam?

#80 Posted by f1reflygr7 (20 posts) -

Maybe the reason people don't like it has less to do with it being by a woman and more to do with it being a website coded in html.

#81 Posted by Kraznor (1578 posts) -

@coafi: Probably to give it more visibility, yeah. Not a great reason, but a lot of people discover things through Steam so its liable to find a bigger audience there. Does it deserve one? Whose to say, but its free so it was hard to think of a reason not to vote.

#82 Posted by TheHT (11155 posts) -

I don't know about any of that raid shit, but I'll vote for this because it's a hell of a thing.

The notion that simply voting for this game on Greenlight is combating real sexism is ridiculous.

#83 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

I down voted

#84 Posted by Bilbycoder (5 posts) -

@coafi the reason to put this game on steam is the same reason to put any game on steam. Exposure. They made this game to be experienced by other people, that's usually why creators make art / games / music. Steam is the correct place to get exposure to the largest audience.

To the general topic, I agree that sexism is the wrong reason to upvote this game. The harassment is douchbaggery at its finest. Particularly those who ring her with sexually harassing phone calls. I will defend anyone's right to post a game on Steam, no one is guaranteed my vote, but they're not wrong to ask for a view. Those who decided harassment was the proper response, rather than a down vote if they didn't like it and possibly constructive criticism about why can please leave the internet.

I've been meaning to play the game for a while, and I'll cast my vote once I've given it a go.

#85 Posted by tourgen (4476 posts) -

I'm not interested in it or what it offers, so no thanks. No vote.