You need Premium to view this

Subscribe to Giant Bomb Premium to get access to this and more premium shows, live streams, and podcasts.

Get Premium Learn More

Coffee 'n Cameras 'n Q&As: 09/04/2014

Fresh from PAX Prime, I'm ready for whatever you've got, Tumblr.

Sep. 4 2014

Cast: Patrick

Posted by: Patrick

173 Comments

Avatar image for vucubcaquix
vucubcaquix

96

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By vucubcaquix

Patrick, you're the best. I live in Lincoln Square so if I ever run into you at a bar, I'll buy you a drink.

(And for the record, misogyny IS more important than the perception of nepotism in entertainment journalism. One is ACTUALLY dangerous, the other is just jealous nerds.)

Avatar image for luck702
Luck702

960

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yo Scoops, I watched Twin Peaks all the way through a few months ago. Holy shit, it's so worth the watch.

Avatar image for thebigaristotle
TheBigAristotle

30

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Fun fact: Your opinion on It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is just awful

Avatar image for divergence
divergence

513

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

A few things to keep in mind before watching this video.

  • In testing a new audio setup, it goofed the first few minutes and I couldn't fix it. I know what went wrong, though, and it shouldn't be an issue in the future. It fixes itself in time.

  • Yes, I'm aware of the big ass pimple on my head. Such is life.

  • I talk about some of the recent week's events. Be cool in the comments. Message me in private if you're not sure if you should post it. Moderation ain't gonna mess around.

Hey Patricia, just try a little makeup. Lol, kidding ofcourse. The Russian skit from Pax was pretty good. Long live GiantBomb. Those Russian knock-off wannabes can just cry in their vodka.

Avatar image for draxyle
Draxyle

2021

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Draxyle

These harassers are the worst thing to happen to the industry in a long time. They're the direct reason why we're not getting Fez 2 and countless other games/articles from unique voices, and that's terrible for everyone. Gaming has gone down a dark road countless times before, but this is the first time where I'm legitimately fearful of where it goes next.

And I agree that this is the worst time to even bring up any discussion on the ethics issue. This "movement" was sprung up by people looking for any reason to justify tearing Zoe Quinn to pieces (and continuing to do so) based on information that's almost entirely fabricated by those same people. That is not a basis for a legitimate argument for more ethics, regardless of what side you stand on.

It's not that ethics shouldn't be brought up at all, but I can only imagine that these people complaining the most are the ones that only visit Metacritic and the other giant aggregate sites with no idea of who's behind the reviews. I generally only visit Giantbomb for videogame related stuff, and I have no concerns about ethics because I know and trust everyone involved here.

Avatar image for shirogamer
ShiroGamer

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Louie is incredible, some of the best uniquely-written comedy. Well worth a watch.

Avatar image for doombongo
doombongo

24

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@patrickklepek I touched on this though in a comment on your last worth playing, but I assume you were busy getting ready for Pax so you didn't have time to comment back. Or maybe you want to read and not respond to the suggestions? Let me know, and feel free to respond to it there but this will be more about probing your thoughts about you and what giant bomb will continue to produce.

I cease to be joyfully surprised with the content Giant Bomb in particular have been creating in the past two months. I'm not certain you had a rad huddle in a broom closet and made some death pact; the pact worked. Giant Bomb's relationships to game developers and hilarious personality is fantastic. And exactly why I'm driven to comment and send in questions. I want to interact with Giant Bomb because it has information, employees, and content that no entity competes with.

Question:

What is the critique you would give Giant Bomb's content?

What is the feedback coming from stakeholders of Giant Bomb?

Do view and subscriber counts effect both of your answers?

If they did not, what would be your answer?

Avatar image for jwkang
jwkang

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Great video Patrick. I really liked hearing your thoughts on all that's going on right now. I'm glad we have people like you in the industry. Please keep doing what you're doing (as long as it's rewarding) and don't get discouraged!

Avatar image for deactivated-6050ef4074a17
deactivated-6050ef4074a17

3686

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@patrickklepek said:

The problem with this one-track-minded approach to these controversies is that it just frustrates everyone, even those who hate the harassment just as much. This attitude effectively turns every debate, every news item, into "you're either with us or against us." Any harassment that goes on, no matter how small the group doing it is, becomes the only thing we can talk about, and since those people never seem to go away, any separate debate by those of us who just want to discuss the original subject on its merits are told they can't be listened to in perpetuity. Any reasonable criticism can now be dismissed because of separate harassment. This is incredibly shortsighted.

I don't want good people like Jenn Frank being driven out of the industry because of trolls who won't leave her alone. I despise the chilling effect that harassment has on discourse, the discouragement that puts on diversity of opinion. But I fear the laser focus on the harassment has a similarly chilling effect.

I'm not asking you to respond to harassment by saying "put that aside, and these people have a pretty good point." When did this become so black and white? How are we, as grown-ass men, incapable of separating the people who are doing the harassment and the people who aren't? "We can't consider these otherwise understandable concerns while these other people are being so rowdy" wouldn't be acceptable logic in any other situation.

When Kotaku decided to revise their ethics policies several days back, a few people went ballistic because that gave the appearance of condoning the actions of the unreasonable. The fact that this has now become some sort of posturing war is part of the problem. Trying to be self-critical and trying to do the right thing should happen irrespective of how people perceive what you're doing. "We can't let them think they're winning" is a very immature reaction. It's like trying to have the last word in an argument because if the other person does, they beat you. By doing that, you're giving the trolls power over the conversation. You're letting them dictate how you respond.

It should be incumbent on the people who view themselves as more professional and more rational to lift up the conversation. Right now, all we've done is deadlocked ourselves into making everyone feel so shitty that hopefully the other "side" will break from feeling shittier before they do, and it's not helping. Someone has to stop the arms race, and it seems like the only people trying to have a dialogue are on YouTube.

Avatar image for freedo
freedo

134

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 8

@adoggz:

@adoggz said:

@patrickklepek said:

@dokaka said:

I'm just annoyed that there's a group of people attacking individuals when there's obviously a big nepotistic problem in the indie-development and press scene.

While you may not think it's the "biggest issue" Patrick, it's still what's being highlighted right now by everyone, and while there are assholes doing nefarious shit (which doesn't interest me and I'm sorry and annoyed that they do that), some of the things that have been brought up regarding the IGF NEEDS to be addressed as the evidence - at least from someone observing all this BS from the outside, like myself - is piling up.

I think a lot of the amped up hatred would settle down a bit if someone, ANYONE with some amount of respect and integrity in the industry actually investigated those claims instead of defaulting to the "misogyny!" part.

There's a huge crowd of us left behind with a ton of questions, but those with the answers are only responding to the hatred, not the valid points.

Annoyed? We're talking about people whose home addresses have been publicly plastered on Twitter, with death threats lovingly attached. It's not possible to be "sorry" about that. That angle of this discussion has taken over, and it's impossible to have a discussion about the other. That was my point. If you seriously think any concerns about nepotism or issues with the indie scene's clique-y nature are worth talking about as people are being driven from both the industry and their homes, I don't know what to tell you.

the only reason that the threats have "taken over" the discussion is that that is all the "Journalists" talk about. They give them a platform and shine a spotlight on .1% of the videogame community and use them as a scapegoat rather than address the issues being raised by everyone else.

The problem here is the 99.9% of self-appointed "good gamers" are just as bad as the misogynistic assholes that, while small, have taken over the conversation. If these "good gamers" actually thought about the real issues that may or may not have arisen out of this mess, they would've brought them up years ago. Actually, if you pay even a modicum of attention, game journalist like Patrick and Jeff have been talking about these issues for the better part of the last decade. The idea that GamerGate is the first time ANY of these issues have been raised for discussion is hilarious. These are fair weather do-gooders who are trying hide their true intentions of misogyny by painting as some altruistic ethics mission and are doing a bad job of it (mainly because none of them know how journalism or indie game development works, which sort of a whole other issue).

There are genuine concerns when it comes to whether journalists and developers are too close (which, again, Jeff and Patrick and many other games writers have bought up before [IN THIS VERY VIDEO, AS A MATTER OF FACT]) and the clicky-ness of the indie dev scene, but that discussion can afford to be tabled until this current torrent has subsided. Anyone with a touch of tact can realize that the climate is far to hostile right now to get a decent debate out of it and if those 99.9% #notallgamers actually were who they all say they were, they would realize that and wait a week or two. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who raises a fuss about those issues right now is not nearly as decent as they think they are and in fact, may be as bad as the .1%.

Avatar image for shingro
Shingro

324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Shingro

@marokai said:

@patrickklepek said:

The problem with this one-track-minded approach to these controversies is that it just frustrates everyone, even those who hate the harassment just as much. This attitude effectively turns every debate, every news item, into "you're either with us or against us." Any harassment that goes on, no matter how small the group doing it is, becomes the only thing we can talk about, and since those people never seem to go away, any separate debate by those of us who just want to discuss the original subject on its merits are told they can't be listened to in perpetuity. Any reasonable criticism can now be dismissed because of separate harassment. This is incredibly shortsighted.

I don't want good people like Jenn Frank being driven out of the industry because of trolls who won't leave her alone. I despise the chilling effect that harassment has on discourse, the discouragement that puts on diversity of opinion. But I fear the laser focus on the harassment has a similarly chilling effect.

I'm not asking you to respond to harassment by saying "put that aside, and these people have a pretty good point." When did this become so black and white? How are we, as grown-ass men, incapable of separating the people who are doing the harassment and the people who aren't? "We can't consider these otherwise understandable concerns while these other people are being so rowdy" wouldn't be acceptable logic in any other situation.

When Kotaku decided to revise their ethics policies several days back, a few people went ballistic because that gave the appearance of condoning the actions of the unreasonable. The fact that this has now become some sort of posturing war is part of the problem. Trying to be self-critical and trying to do the right thing should happen irrespective of how people perceive what you're doing. "We can't let them think they're winning" is a very immature reaction. It's like trying to have the last word in an argument because if the other person does, they beat you. By doing that, you're giving the trolls power over the conversation. You're letting them dictate how you respond.

It should be incumbent on the people who view themselves as more professional and more rational to lift up the conversation. Right now, all we've done is deadlocked ourselves into making everyone feel so shitty that hopefully the other "side" will break from feeling shittier before they do, and it's not helping. Someone has to stop the arms race, and it seems like the only people trying to have a dialogue are on YouTube.

And as an adendum to this. The trolls THRIVE on negative attention. Obviously it's too late to ignore the bullies, but neither are you going to win because fundamentally, as long as there is a way to be anonymous on the internet (which will be for a long time) there's no actual repercussions. There's nothing you can do to the trolls except say "Stop doing that" variations.

If they feed off negative response, (and they do) and they don't pay attention to positive response what's the only thing you can do?

I cannot stress this enough, so I'm going to go Geocities 1990s here for a minute, please forgive me.

turn the conversation away from them. Reduce their IMPORTANCE in the culture/conversation.

Right now !!!*** TROLLS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN GAMING CULTURE ***!!!

and the !!!***GAMES PRESS IS HELPING MAKE THEM THAT WAY***!!!

For the love of god please stop doing that :< Or at least make some noises that imply that someone else's actions in the game space matters more then theirs. Right now they're the reason for every season in every article and every feed. They're dancing on the rooftops and it's our houses that burn. Put down the torch because you'll never hit them. it isn't possible on the internet because of anonymity. The street? Absolutely. Real names? Real personalities? Sure. But what are you really hoping to do that will stop someone who thought, and acted on sending a rape threat? We're shutting down more and more public roads because of bomb threats. Think about why they sent that bomb threat in the first place.

It was to get us to act exactly how we're acting.

Our primary effort and focus needs to be on generating more support for the people receiving not puffing the egos of the people dishing out.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

@draxyle said:

These harassers are the worst thing to happen to the industry in a long time. They're the direct reason why we're not getting Fez 2 and countless other games/articles from unique voices, and that's terrible for everyone. Gaming has gone down a dark road countless times before, but this is the first time where I'm legitimately fearful of where it goes next.

And I agree that this is the worst time to even bring up any discussion on the ethics issue. This "movement" was sprung up by people looking for any reason to justify tearing Zoe Quinn to pieces (and continuing to do so) based on information that's almost entirely fabricated by those same people. That is not a basis for a legitimate argument for more ethics, regardless of what side you stand on.

It's not that ethics shouldn't be brought up at all, but I can only imagine that these people complaining the most are the ones that only visit Metacritic and the other giant aggregate sites with no idea of who's behind the reviews. I generally only visit Giantbomb for videogame related stuff, and I have no concerns about ethics because I know and trust everyone involved here.

Did you read what Jim Sterling wrote about all this bullshit a while back? They could have someone like that on. Or Total biscuit. There are plenty of people out there they can have a conversation with who aren't frothing at the mouth imbeciles like that internetaristocrat guy or an idiot on twitter. And twitter has it's fair share of idiots on both side of the argument.

There are plenty of ways to talk about the whole situation without ever mentioning someone's private life, or invading anyone's privacy. The stance that "if we talk about this at all, the terrorists win" is a terrible fucking stance to take for a supposedly grown ass man calling himself a journalist.

Avatar image for cagliostro88
Cagliostro88

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@marokai: Just want to say thank you, during these days it's been a pleasure reading your level-headed posts

Avatar image for theht
TheHT

15998

Forum Posts

1562

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

Edited By TheHT

@patrickklepek said:

@marokai said:

If the conversation has been taken over by a vocal minority who only seek to tear people down, why aren't you trying to take the focus of the conversation away from them? You're a member of the media, you have a louder megaphone, you have the ability more than the rest of us to help steer the larger narrative; why haven't you tried doing so, then?

I saw a tweet from Alex pop through my feed earlier that complained about how the dialogue has been stolen by loudmouths and how much of a bummer that is; why has that been allowed to be the case? The only thing I've seen people try to do about it has just been to bitch back at them, which is counter-productive and in Patrick's Tedx talk was a big no-no. So what do we do about it?

We apparently can't change the topic, either, because some people are being too vile right now before the rest of us can have an adult conversation about something separate since... that totally makes sense and wouldn't be an invalid rationale against any other burning issue in history ever. "Police brutality? Sorry, we can't have that conversation right now with all these riots going on." I'm sure that's how we all think about that, right? In practice, the refusal to engage with any of the criticisms associated with the "GamerGate" silliness while any harassment continues, means that we never will, because there's always going to be some level of harassment going on somewhere.

Harden vs. Harden. Whoever wins, we lose.
Harden vs. Harden. Whoever wins, we lose.

So, we can't moderate these people out of existence, because it's real life and we're not Gods. We obviously shouldn't try fighting with them on our own because that only incites a mob. But we can't talk about anything tangentially related to it while any harassment goes on, either, so the topic can't ever change. I'm beginning to see why this isn't getting any better.

What's going on right now is basically the scene from Pokemon where Metapod fights Metapod.

If I had to provide an honest criticism of my own talks, it's that solutions are hard to come by. I try provide is a set of recommendations and general purpose tactics that are applied on a case-by-case basis. To say there are specifics that apply to every situation is unwise, as context is everything in these situations.

I'm not saying we can't change the topic, but when the topic changes are happening in the middle of people being pushed out of the industry, folks being chased out of their homes, I'm supposed to say "you know, put that aside, and these people have a pretty good point"? I just can't do that, and it's not reasonable. Even if there are some ethical concerns hidden in the forest, they're happening in the middle of a big ol' forest fire. In a forest fire, you're worried about putting out the fire.

I don't see why it's an either/or situation. Put up two articles instead of one. Done.

Rami Ismail tweeted earlier about the primary focus needing to be stopping harassment. I'd love to know how we can, as a species, stop assholes from being assholes. The forest fire analogy falls flat when you consider that dealing with these assholes isn't nearly as direct as dumping water on it.

Then there's the whole "culture" angle. Let's create a culture where harassment isn't acceptable. If you could show me how this so-called culture accepts harassment, then sentiments like that wouldn't ring so utterly hollow. That it happens doesn't prove that it's a culturally acceptable thing to do. No one in their right mind accepts harassment.

The thing that makes it culturally unacceptable is when it does happen and people speak out against it, and when there are consequences for it. You can't dig in your heels and ignore everything else while speaking out against harassment though. It's not something you neatly put the lid on before moving on to some other topic.

It's a constant struggle, and a peripheral one. While decrying harassment, have that honest conversation about sexism in video games, have that honest conversation about skewed representation, have that honest conversation about institutionalized sexism, have that honest conversation about conflicts of interest.

Harassment is never okay. It's never justified, never a force for good.

Say so as you should, and then point out that it makes no fucking sense to go after Jenn Frank for that op-ed. Point out that full disclosure is something to be used within reason. Point out that potentials for conflicts of interests vary depending on the circumstances of the individual and the relationship. Point out that if you don't trust an individual to be honest, then by all fucking means, do not trust them.

If you feel uncomfortable about a connection, point it out. Discuss it, don't immediately jump to the worst possible conclusion. A few months ago Alex posted an article about the Amplitude kickstarter by Harmonix. People expressed discomfort that a former Harmonix employee posted an article promoting a kickstarter by them. If you knew anything about the site and the folks here, you probably wouldn't think it to be a shady situation, but all the same people were uncomfortable, and all the same Jeff and Alex decided to remove the article. Simple.

It probably would've been fine if they left it, but that's coming from someone who presumes to have gleamed some insight over the years into the principles of these individuals. Doesn't change the fact that from the outside looking in it's a red flag, and that's fair.

The attempted reduction of similar concerns raised recently, like insisting that getting food, drinks, or hotels paid for by video game companies must also be indicative of corruption, is disingenuous and inflammatory.

The insistence of widespread corruption and collusion is mindfuckingly paranoid. Some of the connections highlighted between certain individuals is absolutely disconcerting, I will grant. But those alone in no way validates the condemnation of all of video game press, let alone individuals who, after applying some shifty logic, are deemed "corrupt".

Everyone needs to fuck the fuck down (or just calm down) and think responsibly before they keep on with what's become a mere witch hunt, or before they comment on the whole shituation with their intentional or unintentional megaphone.

Stop for a moment and look at what the fuck is going on. Look at how slimeballs and lawyers (potentially redundant, but hey, the world needs lawyers) are trying to take advantage of this hubbub. Look at how afraid people are to comment on any of this. Seriously look at how utterly flimsy some of these arguments are, on either side. Consider how this madness has given cover to those who would mentally abuse other human beings, other goddamn people.

I wouldn't want things to go back to how they were. How they were is at least partially why this thing was pounced upon and blew up, feeding off of tangential frustrations simmering for years. A situation like this can get people to really dig in their heels; each "side" only getting more and more incredulous as time wears down on their soles.

So for fuck's sake, talk it all out (and with sincerity).

Avatar image for koriar
koriar

21

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Honestly from some of your previous statements I wasn't expecting such an even-handed approach. I'm glad my faith in you isn't misplaced.

Personally I just don't like the hypocrisy I see from the groups supporting people like Zoe and Anita. The doxxing and hacking has gone both ways but I've only seen games journalists covering the side that they want to see.

Last time I posted about specific events I got my comment deleted, so I'll just say that people suck on both sides.

Avatar image for d_w
D_W

1973

Forum Posts

2440

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 21

@emuprime said:

I kind of hate that this is a premium video, because I want to share this with all of my friends that aren't members of this site. A lot of what you're saying is so important. Keep up the great work.

I concur. As a premium member I would be fine with this being available for everyone to watch. There are some important answers that a lot of people need to hear.

Avatar image for colonel_pockets
Colonel_Pockets

1458

Forum Posts

37

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 46

Thanks Patrick

Avatar image for d_w
D_W

1973

Forum Posts

2440

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 21

@shoddyrobot said:

@cudgel said:

@patrickklepek said:

@dokaka said:

I'm just annoyed that there's a group of people attacking individuals when there's obviously a big nepotistic problem in the indie-development and press scene.

While you may not think it's the "biggest issue" Patrick, it's still what's being highlighted right now by everyone, and while there are assholes doing nefarious shit (which doesn't interest me and I'm sorry and annoyed that they do that), some of the things that have been brought up regarding the IGF NEEDS to be addressed as the evidence - at least from someone observing all this BS from the outside, like myself - is piling up.

I think a lot of the amped up hatred would settle down a bit if someone, ANYONE with some amount of respect and integrity in the industry actually investigated those claims instead of defaulting to the "misogyny!" part.

There's a huge crowd of us left behind with a ton of questions, but those with the answers are only responding to the hatred, not the valid points.

Annoyed? We're talking about people whose home addresses have been publicly plastered on Twitter, with death threats lovingly attached. It's not possible to be "sorry" about that. That angle of this discussion has taken over, and it's impossible to have a discussion about the other. That was my point. If you seriously think any concerns about nepotism or issues with the indie scene's clique-y nature are worth talking about as people are being driven from both the industry and their homes, I don't know what to tell you.

This is somewhat akin (not entirely, but some) to the "this isn't the right climate to be discussing gun control" argument that happens every time there's a major shooting in the news. The existence of nutcases coming out of the woodwork shouldn't be used as an excuse to write off discussion of a topic. I understand the concern about validating their behavior, but isn't it just as validating to say "If you do this, we'll shut down and you get the mic by default"?

My take on this whole thing... IF gamergate people ARE having an intelligent and thoughtful conversation, its not working because I don't know what they are trying to say exactly. Any of the "evidence piling up" must be hiding under the hate from "loud" people... I guess? And personally for me anything that manages to come to the surface that is not charged with hate comes off as very weak points or arguments... To me personally I find it very hard to wade through the chaos and negativity to see any real valid argument, and if there is one, it's a mystery to me... honestly. So at the end of the day I have to ask if its really worth it. And ultimately I go "Nah".

If you haven't already you should all read this article. It discusses the points of the non-harassing users of gamergate and why their arguments are muffled and disorganized. https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

Avatar image for homelessbird
Homelessbird

1681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@theht: I'd just like to say that I thought you make a number of excellent points.

Avatar image for oceaniax
Oceaniax

22

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Oceaniax

@amafi: "There are plenty of ways to talk about the whole situation without ever mentioning someone's private life, or invading anyone's privacy. The stance that "if we talk about this at all, the terrorists win" is a terrible fucking stance to take for a supposedly grown ass man calling himself a journalist."

While I do appreciate that Patrick at least broached the topic in the video, I do agree with this sentiment.

I do truly feel for the people receiving threats and I hope those who are doing it are brought to justice but........I am not one of them. It would be nice to be able to have a discussion about facets of this whole thing ranging from the ethics debate all the way to the inflammatory articles from the games press denouncing "gamers" without being told those are off-topic due to a few disturbed individuals.

Avatar image for shinjin977
shinjin977

911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@theht: That was a damn fine write up on this whole thing and you made some of the best point I have seen on this situation.

IMO both sides are being quite ridiculous here, what with all the hacking/death threats being thrown around. One side is seeing the other as some joker-like sociopath and the other is seeing their opposition as some bizarre race of primordial animals. Twitter/internet/people at its worst. Its like giving a microphone to two drunk guys at a political debate. Nothing is gain and everyone comes out extremely annoyed.

Avatar image for kid_gloves
kid_gloves

509

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By kid_gloves

Nepotism. It is a fact of life, and basic human nature. Younger people rail against it because its scary and damages their future prospects, established people participate (willingly or unwillingly) and generally try to not think about how they do it. Eventually the younger crowd gets entrenched and they then participate as well. Because why wouldn't everybody? Why wouldn't a person look out for the security and prospects of friends and family? A friend asks you for a recommendation? A friend asks you for information about job openings? 99% help those friends because its what we do. The funny thing to me about the nepotism ethics debate has always been that the people on the against side always end up on the ignore/defense side over time, because everyone helps out the people they know and love.

The issue isn't so much that nepotism exists in gaming (it will always be there), the issue is that it should be larger and more diverse. It isn't so much that nepotism shouldn't exist, its that there should be more groups represented to have their cliques and support bases (including the more thoughtful members of the current call to arms). This obviously runs foul of economics, but its a noteworthy goal and what they should actually be working towards instead of pointing fingers at current media. That many of the attacks have focused a lot on people who would be supporters of this, themselves from smaller less represented groups, is the biggest tragedy of this ordeal. It makes no sense to squeeze out critical voices (even if you disagree with them) if what you want is more and greater critical voices across the board.

Avatar image for forkboy
forkboy

1663

Forum Posts

73

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By forkboy

@oceaniax said:

@amafi: "There are plenty of ways to talk about the whole situation without ever mentioning someone's private life, or invading anyone's privacy. The stance that "if we talk about this at all, the terrorists win" is a terrible fucking stance to take for a supposedly grown ass man calling himself a journalist."

While I do appreciate that Patrick at least broached the topic in the video, I do agree with this sentiment.

I do truly feel for the people receiving threats and I hope those who are doing it are brought to justice but........I am not one of them. It would be nice to be able to have a discussion about facets of this whole thing ranging from the ethics debate all the way to the inflammatory articles from the games press denouncing "gamers" without being told those are off-topic due to a few disturbed individuals.

I find it really hard to cogently explain my views on this, and it always either ends long-winded & rambling or else very short & to the point but also more abrasive than I intend. I think there is a discussion to be had about video game media & ethics. But I also think it is a lot less important than the misogynistic & reactionary nature of a vocal minority of people who play games. The problem isn't "we can't talk about this or the terrorists win" exactly, but at the same time, you share a platform with these people then hey, you're going to be splattered with some of the copious quantities of shit they vomit forth. That's reality.

Create some movement or something to talk about game media ethics that doesn't come out of the "I hate Zoe Quinn because she is a vocal woman with opinions which makes me uncomfortable" crowd & people will be a lot more willing to have that debate. But right now, gamergate is clearly about more than just ethics, even if that is the only part that you personally (& many others) care about. You & your legitimate concerns have been co-opted by vile misogynists. That means that people are going to be unwilling to discuss with you until you move away from those people. Sorry about that, but just how it is.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By amafi

@forkboy said:

@oceaniax said:

@amafi: "There are plenty of ways to talk about the whole situation without ever mentioning someone's private life, or invading anyone's privacy. The stance that "if we talk about this at all, the terrorists win" is a terrible fucking stance to take for a supposedly grown ass man calling himself a journalist."

While I do appreciate that Patrick at least broached the topic in the video, I do agree with this sentiment.

I do truly feel for the people receiving threats and I hope those who are doing it are brought to justice but........I am not one of them. It would be nice to be able to have a discussion about facets of this whole thing ranging from the ethics debate all the way to the inflammatory articles from the games press denouncing "gamers" without being told those are off-topic due to a few disturbed individuals.

I find it really hard to cogently explain my views on this, and it always either ends long-winded & rambling or else very short & to the point but also more abrasive than I intend. I think there is a discussion to be had about video game media & ethics. But I also think it is a lot less important than the misogynistic & reactionary nature of a vocal minority of people who play games. The problem isn't "we can't talk about this or the terrorists win" exactly, but at the same time, you share a platform with these people then hey, you're going to be splattered with some of the copious quantities of shit they vomit forth. That's reality.

Create some movement or something to talk about game media ethics that doesn't come out of the "I hate Zoe Quinn because she is a vocal woman with opinions which makes me uncomfortable" crowd & people will be a lot more willing to have that debate. But right now, gamergate is clearly about more than just ethics, even if that is the only part that you personally (& many others) care about. You & your legitimate concerns have been co-opted by vile misogynists. That means that people are going to be unwilling to discuss with you until you move away from those people. Sorry about that, but just how it is.

I don't do movements. I've never used a hash tag. I'm not part of some internet thing to bring Honesty and Truth back to garme jurnalizm or whatever the fuck else. Those people freak me out as much as the Patricks of the world.

I'm just saying, there should be room for discussing something that clearly has a lot of fucking interest with people who follow games and games writing, and not just the creepy, evil ones at 4chan and reddit, but reasonably intelligent and reasonable people who think it's kinda weird that a journalist would think it's ok to directly fund an artist and then review said artist's products without mentioning the fact that they funded that person.

I don't think wanting to talk about that stuff makes you one with the kind of people who hound people on twitter, who threaten and abuse, and I think it's a real shame Patrick seems to think it does.

Or at least that the fact that some people are abusive, disgusting shitbags is a good reason to not discuss these things ever.

Avatar image for kid_gloves
kid_gloves

509

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@amafi said:

@forkboy said:

@oceaniax said:

@amafi: "There are plenty of ways to talk about the whole situation without ever mentioning someone's private life, or invading anyone's privacy. The stance that "if we talk about this at all, the terrorists win" is a terrible fucking stance to take for a supposedly grown ass man calling himself a journalist."

While I do appreciate that Patrick at least broached the topic in the video, I do agree with this sentiment.

I do truly feel for the people receiving threats and I hope those who are doing it are brought to justice but........I am not one of them. It would be nice to be able to have a discussion about facets of this whole thing ranging from the ethics debate all the way to the inflammatory articles from the games press denouncing "gamers" without being told those are off-topic due to a few disturbed individuals.

I find it really hard to cogently explain my views on this, and it always either ends long-winded & rambling or else very short & to the point but also more abrasive than I intend. I think there is a discussion to be had about video game media & ethics. But I also think it is a lot less important than the misogynistic & reactionary nature of a vocal minority of people who play games. The problem isn't "we can't talk about this or the terrorists win" exactly, but at the same time, you share a platform with these people then hey, you're going to be splattered with some of the copious quantities of shit they vomit forth. That's reality.

Create some movement or something to talk about game media ethics that doesn't come out of the "I hate Zoe Quinn because she is a vocal woman with opinions which makes me uncomfortable" crowd & people will be a lot more willing to have that debate. But right now, gamergate is clearly about more than just ethics, even if that is the only part that you personally (& many others) care about. You & your legitimate concerns have been co-opted by vile misogynists. That means that people are going to be unwilling to discuss with you until you move away from those people. Sorry about that, but just how it is.

I don't do movements. I've never used a hash tag. I'm not part of some internet thing to bring Honesty and Truth back to garme jurnalizm or whatever the fuck else. Those people freak me out as much as the Patricks of the world.

I'm just saying, there should be room for discussing something that clearly has a lot of fucking interest with people who follow games and games writing, and not just the creepy, evil ones at 4chan and reddit, but reasonably intelligent and reasonable people who think it's kinda weird that a journalist would think it's ok to directly fund an artist and then review said artist's products without mentioning the fact that they funded that person.

I don't think wanting to talk about that stuff makes you one with the kind of people who hound people on twitter, who threaten and abuse, and I think it's a real shame Patrick seems to think it does.

Or at least that the fact that some people are abusive, disgusting shitbags is a good reason to not discuss these things ever.

If you aren't one of the people throwing harassment around and being horrible you shouldn't pick a time when that is the major topic to bring up ethical debates about journalistic integrity. If you wish to criticize the criticism and or ethics of the gaming press that is perfectly fine, but if you choose to do that after tons of personal harassment in the name of a similar cause and also don't want that associated? Don't choose that moment. There is no time limit and taking advantage of this moment will seem to everyone to be taking advantage of a really gross awful harassment to bring your point across. Do not boost off the back of hateful people.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

@kid_gloves: Don't use disgusting, hateful people as an excuse to dismiss entirely reasonable discussion?

Avatar image for kid_gloves
kid_gloves

509

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By kid_gloves

@amafi said:

@kid_gloves: Don't use disgusting, hateful people as an excuse to dismiss entirely reasonable discussion?

I didn't at any point do that. I offered advice to people. No one has to take it, I just think people who have alternative opinions on games etc. should work more on joining the discussion than attacking the discussion.

Avatar image for deadpanjazman
DeadPanJazMan

383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@patrickklepek: I wouldn't worry too much about the pimple. Try getting a bigger, redder one, on the end of your nose... around Christmas time, and you were 15 at the time... yeaaaah, good times.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By amafi

@kid_gloves: There's no discussion now. There are people upset about how some people are being treated on twitter, and there's the unwashed hordes rolling in talking about people's sex lives like a bunch of creeps. There's a lot of building of forts and shouting from them, but calling anything going on right now a discussion is fucking comical.

And if someone tries to start a reasonable discussion, leaving out the rabid redditors and unwashed 4chan masses they get told they're part of the problem and shouted down by the enlightened warriors of justice. The whole thing's a joke.

Funny thing is, I don't think any of the goings on is really a problem, I just think it's a good idea to be open about stuff. If youtubers have to tell you when they take money to make a video telling dick jokes over a game, maybe a "journalist" should be honest and let his or her readers know that they actively funded a game they reviewed. Seems more honest, is all. Of course, saying that makes me part of the problem, no better than all the anime avatar death threat guys, I guess.

Avatar image for ronot6000
Ronot6000

8

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Ronot6000

I hope I'm not "moderated" as I'm not speaking about any specific person (besides Patrick) or personal information.

To me Patrick's argument about why the cliquey-ness of game developers and games journalists is OK doesn't hold water. My paraphrasing of the argument: "What I'm doing is OK because ... Hey, look at what's going on over there! Isn't that so much more messed up than what's going on over here?" It resembles the argument I would have used as a kid in school if I was caught wearing an inappropriate shirt: "Hey, why are you mad at me? Look at what that guy over there is wearing, it's so much worse!"

Besides, the traditional answer to arguments about priority, such as "Why are we spending so much money/effort/attention on women in gaming when there are starving children in Africa/Millions of lives could benefit from an increase of funding in cancer research" has been that we can be worried about more than one issue at once. I don't see why the same doesn't apply here, I think we can be concerned about both the objectivity of games journalists AND the sources of funding for games journalism.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By amafi

@deadpanjazman said:

@patrickklepek: I wouldn't worry too much about the pimple. Try getting a bigger, redder one, on the end of your nose... around Christmas time, and you were 15 at the time... yeaaaah, good times.

In the 8th grade I woke up the morning we were taking school photos with something like that. Like a goddamn after school special or something. Except I didn't learn some big lesson at the end. Instead I faked like I was ill and stayed home and played Quake.

Avatar image for turboskerv
turboskerv

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@emuprime: Just tell them to become members ;)

Avatar image for patrickklepek
patrickklepek

6835

Forum Posts

1300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By patrickklepek

I hope I'm not "moderated" as I'm not speaking about any specific person (besides Patrick) or personal information.

To me Patrick's argument about why the cliquey-ness of game developers and games journalists is OK doesn't hold water. My paraphrasing of the argument: "What I'm doing is OK because ... Hey, look at what's going on over there! Isn't that so much more messed up than what's going on over here?" It resembles the argument I would have used as a kid in school if I was caught wearing an inappropriate shirt: "Hey, why are you mad at me? Look at what that guy over there is wearing, it's so much worse!"

Besides, the traditional answer to arguments about priority, such as "Why are we spending so much money/effort/attention on women in gaming when there are starving children in Africa/Millions of lives could benefit from an increase of funding in cancer research" has been that we can be worried about more than one issue at once. I don't see why the same doesn't apply here, I think we can be concerned about both the objectivity of games journalists AND the sources of funding for games journalism.

Thats a horrible analogy. It's problematic to talk about both of these topics at the same time because they're intertwined. One does not exist without the other. This isn't one problem happening on one side of the Internet, and another problem happening on the other side of the Internet. They co-exist.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By amafi

@patrickklepek: But it's only ok to talk about it from one perspective and only coming to one conclusion, or you're a monster?

Avatar image for patrickklepek
patrickklepek

6835

Forum Posts

1300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By patrickklepek

@amafi said:

@patrickklepek: But it's only ok to talk about it from one perspective and only coming to one conclusion, or you're a monster?

Of course not! I even said, in the video above, people have some points--I even addressed a few. But in the broader context, we need to take a breath and figure out priorities. That priority should be the people being harassed. We need to show some empathy for lives that are being impacted over this.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d000a93730da
deactivated-5d000a93730da

916

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

I completely agree with you Patrick

Avatar image for mudman
MudMan

1423

Forum Posts

300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Hey @patrickklepek?

I'm a subscriber. Can you make this video publicly available?

I wouldn't mind, and I think it's important. If anybody else thinks this is worth keeping as premium content, by all means, don't do it, but if you want my permission, you got it. Go frickin' post it on 4chan if you have to. Just... get it out there.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

@patrickklepek: Of course. I guess I just don't see how talking about what is proper in regards to dev/publisher/press relations is something that should be taken as some kind of personal attack on anyone. It's not like I'm even interested in any specific examples of impropriety, just some kind of discussion about how close is too close, and what people feel should be announced openly.

I don't see any problem with, say, you wanting to support someone who makes games you're a fan of on patreon, but if you were to do so I'd like to think you'd have enough integrity to at least mention the fact if you reviewed a product from the person you directly support financially.

Can't find it again, but someone tweeted at Totilo a few days back basically saying "good job, now the terrorists win" because Totilo announced something to do with his writers and what they can or can't do with Patreon. That kind of thing is straight up idiotic, and completely counter to any kind of reasonable discussion of anything. Of course, it's twitter, so I shouldn't expect much, but still.

Avatar image for dan2
Dan2

13

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dan2

Any chance of providing the audio from these Q&A videos as a premium podcast? Presenting them as video doesn't really add anything to the content (for me at least) and having them available in podcast form would add some welcome flexibility in consuming them.

I would also like the sound as a podcast.

Avatar image for forkboy
forkboy

1663

Forum Posts

73

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

@amafi said:

@kid_gloves: Don't use disgusting, hateful people as an excuse to dismiss entirely reasonable discussion?

If you can't see why right now is a terrible time to have that discussion then you come across as a bit tone-deaf to be honest. Because the discussion was hijacked from the off by people with less than good intentions. Which yeah, that does suck for someone who has a sincere interest in the discussion (& it's to some extent an important topic, though frankly it's a dozen times less important than death & rape threats) but that doesn't mean that a reasonable human being shouldn't be able to understand why someone wouldn't think now is the time to talk about vidya game writer ethics. Because as much as you care about it, lots of people just want to use it as the latest stick to beat certain individuals with.

I'd have that discussion today with my friends or whatever, because I know & trust my friends & know they aren't going to use that topic disingenuously. People on the internet, less so. Too many people poisoned the well to give strangers the benefit of the doubt I'm afraid. If that is the equivalent of "giving into terrorists" in your eyes then eh. I don't really agree.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

@forkboy: I don't think it is at all. That's the kind of language being used to suppress that discussion. It's not the kind of language I'd ever resort to, I try to be a different kind of asshole than that. Think Harley Davidson and the Marlboro man.

I just think it's at best silly and at worst completely disingenuous. It's letting the worst people on the internet control what you feel comfortable talking about. I'm not comfortable giving them that much influence over how and what I think.

Avatar image for flakmunkey
flakmunkey

243

Forum Posts

11

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

When you started talking about Ryan some asshole ninjas started chopping onions by my desk, it was the worst. :/

Avatar image for mooseymcman
MooseyMcMan

12781

Forum Posts

5577

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

Patrick, if you do end up watching Twin Peaks, don't feel obligated to watch every episode. It gets pretty bad a short way into Season 2.

Avatar image for ronald
Ronald

1578

Forum Posts

28

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

For some of the complaints of "games journalists should look into this and we would shut up" I can't help but think of a similar situation: "Yes, President Obama, all we need is the long form birth certificate to prove that you are an American citizen. Just prove it or else we will continue to call you Kenyan." Sometimes the issue isn't important enough to handle right now, because there is a bigger issue at hand. The White House eventually did release the long form birth certificate.

If the clickiness of the games industry really bothers you it tells me that you're not well rounded when it comes to media in general.

Jay Glazer of Fox Sports is one of the best known reporters in the NFL for breaking news. It's no secret that he gets a lot of his information from being on good terms with the players. In fact he's even done business with some of them.

Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson has gotten exclusive access to cars based on long standing relationships he's had with people within the car industry. He's apparently good friends with an engineer or two at Volkswagen for example and can usually add more to the story about certain cars. Hasn't really helped with the reviews he's given. He been pretty harsh on some of the cars regardless.

There are a lot of examples of that in media and it's not too hard to figure who has preferential relations with whom. It's also not hard to realize why this happens. The reporter and the person on the inside clearly have something in common since they're interested in the same thing. That can lead to friendships. Should these be disclosed so the reporters audience can feel comfortable? 9/10 times no. I don't care nor should any of us really care unless you honestly believe it's affecting their coverage.

And it's not just these. Political reporters strike friendships with the press secretaries and press aides of politicians, because they talk all of the time and share similar interests, they're opposite sides of the same job. And what happens, those reporters tend to get warning ahead of time when something is going to happen.

People who write about movies will strike up friendships with people who make them, whether it be actors, directors, or whoever else. That's how a lot of them build sources. People eat up all of the new scoops on the next Star Wars but ignore the fact that most of those scoops are coming from friends working on the film calling up a friend to give them that information. And the movie studios court favor, offering trips overseas to watch the filming of what is usually a critical scene that will get these journalists excited. And when your friend gets to direct Fantastic Four, maybe you talk about him being a friend, maybe not. And how many film journalists get into that industry because they want to write screenplays, or direct? Just as many if not more than games journalists.

Wrestling operates the same way of building friendships. You build friendships with people and when they get to WWE they call you up to complain about something Vince McMahon is doing and tell you to post it. PWInsider's Mike Johnson and Paul London have even admitted that London was one of Johnson's sources in WWE because the two had become friends from when London was on the indie scene. Similarly, Mike Bucci who went to WWE as Simon Dean was friends with Johnson and Dave Scherer from his days in ECW and he has said he would call them to gossip about things the company was doing. Johnson has said that one of the reasons he tries to go to indie shows every weekends is to cultivate new sources.

If anyone wants to see how the music press handles itself just watch Almost Famous. They live with the bands and get to be very close friends with them. And maybe you share all of their dark secrets, or maybe you share some juicy secrets but leave a few out. I remember reading a Rolling Stone from about 15 years ago where a writer did a piece on Jewel and is talking about sticking to her like glue, even sleeping in the same bed in her hotel room.

What do all of these have in common with each other and with video games? The people on both sides of the journalism line from creator to journalist share the same passions. And when you have those passions it's easier to make friends with that person than with someone from a different passion. Because you have something in common and talk to them. The first time I met some online friends from a comic book site we stayed up all night talking X-Men. And late into the night I came to the realization that it was easy being friends because they had similar experiences to myself and we had something to talk about. And from that shared interest we are still friends over a decade later.

And when it comes to Giant Bomb part of what I love about the website is the friendship the guys have developed with developers. Having great guests who create games is part of the fun of Scoops and the Wolf. Having Brad Muir play the Whatever Dollar Amount Pyramid on a Quick Look was great. And the special E3 and GDC podcasts wouldn't be as special without the friendships. You would not have the openness of communication. Dave Lang wouldn't be Dave Lang if he wasn't comfortable around these guys.

So what makes games journalism different from every other form of journalism? And why is it that females seem to be getting the brunt of the target thrust on them? And most importantly, where were the crusaders demanding for fair and balanced reviews back in 2007 when a successful member of the gaming press was fired for giving a game a fair rating in a review?

Avatar image for amyggen
AMyggen

7738

Forum Posts

7669

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By AMyggen

@ronald: All very true, and people attacking those kind of relationships among devs and game journalists just do not know how journalism works, and aren't educated on the subject. It's that simple. People even attacked Patrick on Twitter because of an the quote of his about every story he has broken has been because of a relationship or friendship with a source. BUT THAT'S HOW JOURNALISM WORKS FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Jesus Christ this stuff has been depressing because people are just making shit up and finding problems and "corruption" where there aren't any. The spotlight has been on gaming journalism since Doritosgate and people have found jack shit, nothing. The "corruption in game journalism" had no leg to stand on from the Zoe Quinn stuff hit, and they have absolutely nothing now.

Avatar image for palaceathene
PalaceAthene

29

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By PalaceAthene

Hey Patrick, you mentioned Dynasty Warriors and why people like it, and well...I've played it for 10 years starting from 4. It's definitely simple in terms of combat, but there is a depth to it. Each sequel borrows from the last like, say, a Call of Duty sequel would. However, unlike Call of Duty, each sequel keeps a majority from the past game in terms of movesets, characters, costumes.

As for what Genre, I would say beat 'em up. Like the old Double Dragon and Final Fight games. Literally that, the best possible way a genre can transition. So on to the systems-In the newest one, you have Weapon switching(Switches movesets), the basic Square/Triangle string of combos(Usually 6 for each), a huge variance in movesets(Some use cannons, some jump high with drills to land in an explosion, whips, fans, claws...), so there is a huuuge variety. Not only that, but each moveset has...about 6 unique weapons to pick up?(In the latest one), and they can have various properties that affect what they do, like freezing enemies, leaving thunderbolts in your wake, or engulfing your weapon in fire. Aside from that, being a beat 'em up doesn't mean you just spam skills-There are various goals to accomplish in any given mission.

So, we'll get to those goals, but let's talk about the game modes. There's the story modes, for 4 of the Kingdoms, one for Lu Bu, and one for other minor characters. Each of them is fully fleshed out, and there's even a hypothetical route for each story detailing a sort of 'what if'. So, I mentioned goals-In each story mission, you get from 2-5 characters to pick from. Each character tends to have their own goals-IE in one mission, depending on the character you pick, you either have to defend a bridge, run into enemy lines to save a baby, or follow your leader and make sure he doesn't die. So it's not as simple as mashing buttons to win-You have to keep an eye on the field and make sure your side is doing ok. The hypothetical missions that I mentioned before, will test you on your knowledge of what will happen-If you save an important figure, then they show up in the succeeding missions, and change those missions accordingly. So replayability? A massive amount. That's not even getting into the leveling system, weapon collecting, pet collecting, what have you. There's ambition mode, a sort of 'Gotta catch all the generals', build facilities, get the emperor. There's a challenge mode, there's a free mode, and then there's XL missions for the PS4 version.

And then there's a the characters. There's easily over...80 playable characters? Many of them have intersecting paths, and while the voice acting can be cheesy at times, it's much, much better than before. Not only that, there is a huge variance of characters. I would say Dynasty Warriors is one of the few games that has a wide variety of different personalities-You have your "I wanna beat them all" characters, conniving characters, benevolent characters, and it has a plethora of female characters with very different personalities. There is some eye candy(For both males and females), however attention is never drawn to that unless the character boasts about it-From the beautiful male Zhang He, who must fight with beauty, to Sun Shangxiang who knows she can match her brothers in combat.

You asked why do people ask these games. Alot of reasons. I like a few of the characters massively because they're well written, and it's just a good time spent. Sure, I can turn off my brain, put it on an easy difficulty, and just hack and slash my way to victory. But that's only after I've done the stories and the hypotheticals. That's another thing I like about it, it's never light on content. The only DLC tends to be either cosmetic things, or levels from previous games, or weapon skins. But yeah, I hope you look into it. It's not for everyone, but if it clicks with you, then that's great!

Avatar image for drabnon
drabnon

90

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By drabnon

The whole issue depresses me. Just everything about it. I hate that females get so much more hate than men on the internet. When was the last time a male game dev's sex life was publicly shown to everyone? The last time a male journalist was harassed to the point of leaving the fucking industry? They haven't, because that's shitty to do to someone. I don't get why that doesn't apply to women. Regardless of what mistakes any of these females in the industry have made, it is nothing compared to the amount of retribution they've received. I understand wanting accountability in journalism. I get wanting disclosure. But the whole #gamergate has just made things worse. It's eliminating female journalists from the industry, an already endangered breed. And who the fuck is going to replace them? As Patrick said, it's increasingly hard to support yourself. "Game journalist" is not a desirable job. What happens when we chase away all of these people because of any perceived corruption? The reason these people became game journalists wasn't because of the pay. They did it because they're fucking passionate about games. They love (or hate) them enough to write about them. If they get attacked enough to mentally break them down, games will be worse for it. We need more female voices in games, not less. The amount of harassment they've received is just another reason on an already huge list of why not to be a games journalist. But fuck them, because they're friends with someone who cheated with some guys. What a horrible fucking crime. Sorry for coming off as ranting, I just had to get this off my chest.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

@ronald said:

If anyone wants to see how the music press handles itself just watch Almost Famous. They live with the bands and get to be very close friends with them. And maybe you share all of their dark secrets, or maybe you share some juicy secrets but leave a few out. I remember reading a Rolling Stone from about 15 years ago where a writer did a piece on Jewel and is talking about sticking to her like glue, even sleeping in the same bed in her hotel room.

And did the writer then proceed to review Jewel's latest album without ever mentioning the tour escapades? I somehow doubt it.

Good reporting in games writing would be great. What we get are people making stories out of single tweets (hi, kotaku), opinion pieces and product reviews/marketing.

More actual journalism would be FANTASTIC. Only thing is, if you're one of the people that goes between doing product reviews and other stuff, which is most people writing about games, if you during the course of your job get close to a developer, maybe don't review that person's game.