Juno500

@sylect: I know what your argument is, I just think it's crazy to think that AAA is going to make some major shift to copy indie games. Seeing that, I think this discussion can go no further, so I'm going to respectfully bow out.

Thanks for being even-handed about this at least. Too many of the randos I see on twitter are crazy, at this point I see no reason to engage with anybody there.

@sylect: How often are developers actually forced to bend games because of somebody taking offense? Keep in mind that there is a difference between a developer being pressured to change something to do avoid controversy, and developers looking at criticism and deciding they raise a fair point.

Let's say I made a game, and a critic called out some of the subject matter as problematic. Let's say that I don't feel any financial pressure to change my content, but I decide that the critic is right, so I decide to alter the game in a patch. In response, a fan tells me that I'm caving to outside pressure and that it would be wrong for me to change anything. The fan also says he/she won't buy any of my future games. Who is doing more to try to affect my creative freedom- the fan or the critic? Is changing my own game censorship if that is what I legitimately want?

Furthermore, I find this idea that this is about artistic freedom to be laughable considering that many of the tropes being criticized exist due to publisher mandate. You think so many AAA games have the same tropes over and over again because that is the dream vision for every one of those developers? It's because publishers are too afraid to go away from the lowest common denominator. Any deviation from a proven formula invites risk for a game that has a huge amount of money invested in it. Same idea for Japanese games that are rife with content bordering on hentai- they are pandering to a demographic, not expressing their creativity.

If you think that there is nothing wrong with developers/publishers making games like I described in the above paragraph, then that's totally fine. But don't give me this bullshit that this is about protecting the freedom for developers to make the content they want to make, because in many cases they aren't getting that freedom even without criticism from outside. Again, this is another example of GG not understanding who truly has power- they ignore the AAA pubs, go after the journos instead.

Nothing is being forced on you. Again, paranoia.

There are sites that don't talk about "SJW" stuff. Go there.There are plenty of games that don't obsess over political and social statements. Play those.

GG just doesn't want to share.

@sylect: But the idea that these indie games are going to take over the future of games from the AAA is sort of ridiculous. The power goes to the games that sell the most. Indie games will remain a niche. Not to say these indie games will have zero influence, but I keep getting this idea from GG that every game is going to be Gone Home and I just want to laugh. It's an overly reactionary, paranoid delusion.

The more I see of it, the more I think that GG is an attempt to destroy everything that doesn't appeal to them.

The idea that nobody gives a shit about CoD is ridiculous. I mean seriously, how do I take you seriously after that statement?

One last thought: I see many complaints from GG that journos/developers are unwilling to have a discussion about ethics and such. If they want to know why nobody's talking, I think the answer is likely that most people are simply scared. Look at what has happened to many prominent people related to the movement: Harassment, doxxing, threats- nobody wants to be a part of that.

The response from GG would be that they don't condone those activities, that people who do those things aren't actually a part of GG. Even if we assume that to be true, I don't know if that really changes anything in terms of there being a risk. The simple truth is that many people who at one point were at one point centers of focus for GG - Zoe Quinn, Phil Fish, Anita Sarkeesian, Jenn Frank- have later become subject to those shitty things. Whether or not GG committed those acts doesn't change the potential for danger. Either GG did those acts, or extremists in GG's wake did those acts. Either way, there is a pattern- become a focus of criticism from GG, have shitty things happen to you. So why should people make themselves a target? The atmosphere is too dangerous for prominent people in the industry to speak out.

Also, note that this post should not be taken as a denial that shitty things have happened to GG supporters. Yes, I acknowledge it has happened. Yes, it's just as shitty when it happens to GG.

Another thing: For all of its claims about wanting to remove the collusion in games journalism, it has done little to go against AAA publishers who hold the most power in the industry. They're the ones who decide to withhold review codes if they don't like a journo/critic. They're the ones who throw lavish preview events meant to influence people writing about their games. They are the ones who want journos to be corrupt. Yet there no challenge thrown to them.

The problem with large leaderless movements is that given enough time, the extremists will eventually take over. They care the most, they put the most effort into it, they speak with the loudest voices, and they are most willing to take action on their own. As more moderate people lose passion and interest, the extremists remain, and pretty soon the percentage of extremists in the movement rises. I am firmly anti-GG, but I recognize there are plenty of reasonable people supporting it. I just fear that eventually, those people will become more passive or give up entirely. After that, things will worse.

The thing is, there are so many different things that are connected to the movement. Attacking the Gamers are Over articles, complaining about SJWs, complaining about bias in journalism and demanding objectivity, attacking Cultural Marxism, criticizing feminism, complaining about politics in video games (side note: it's hilarious when I see people with MGS avatars doing this), defending the industry from claims of sexism, and now they want to investigate every feminist article that's a part of DIGRA (that's a fucking witch hunt, zero doubt). LIke, I'll see some GGers claiming that the movement is about x, but then I see others say "no, it's not about x, it's about y". Then others say "no, it's actually about z".

How am I supposed to read that? Who do I believe? Who really represents what GG is really about? At this point it just seems like it's a group of people who agree they are all very upset, but don't agree on what they are upset about.

Leigh Alexander posted links to articles describing the actions she found abhorrent, i.e the people attacking Zoe Quinn, the people threatening Anita Sarkeesian. Again, I felt it was clear that she was targeting those individuals.

If it wasn't directed at me, then fine, but given that you addressed something I had recently made a post on, can't you understand why I would think you were responding to me?

If it was a coincidence, fair enough. But I don't see why you wouldn't think of it as a reasonable mistake.to make.