Though I do think Leigh Alexander's "death of Gamers" thing was...poor, I do think she put together a really good list of ethical concerns in games - Here - that should totally be of concern to people who care about the ethics of games as a whole rather than just the ethics of the coverage.
While it's nicely written, I'm very disappointed how you still label GamerGate as a hate movement. It's just like saying all Muslims are jihadists. Just because they are a few shitty people in a group doesn't mean all people are shitty. I think you should definitely take a note of that, especially as a lot of people in this "hate movement" are your primary demographic, whether you like it or not.
Still, it was nice to finally get an official statement.
To add to that, it's really sad that Giant Bomb did nothing, while sites like the Escapist actually reevaluated their ethics standards and now if there's any chance that some personal connection might have influenced something in the review, it's simply mentioned in bold font in the header. It's that easy.
We've been proactively calling out any potential conflicts of interest since the day this site launched, as evidenced at the bottom of this review from more than six years ago:
I promise you it's something we've always attempted to be extremely aware of. The idea that we "did nothing" seems kind of silly in this respect.
What about providing a platform or coverage, not just reviews? The media are the king makers of the smallest out there and the worry about "indies" I think comes from the fact that all games journalists are aware when they're at a press diner, when they get nice hotel rooms, when they get early access they know that's supposed to affect them and they are intentionally distancing those relationships from their jobs when it comes to AAA. However, people do not have their guard up when they are dealing with friends, even when those friends might not be actively pushing a self-interested dilemma those relationships can no-the-less influence how they are covered. Publicity is the equivalent of money as much as reviews are but publications do not have that same kind of vigilance regarding it. This makes having close relationships to the press an possible career booster while others without that privilege work without getting similar exposure.
I have to disagree with Jeff, I'm afraid. Death threats and horrible actions have been flowing both ways, and it's essentially unfair to paint one side with the actions of a few, but ignore the actions of the other. To dismiss ethical concerns as "farcical" is deeply unfair, and those comments on the podcast have forced me to cease my financial support of GB.
I wish y'all the best, and mean no ill will. I just have to put my money where my mouth is, and your statements have been uninformed and biased, no matter what conciliatory language you couch them in.
Gamergate's been terrible but the reactions from people who I hold to a higher standard than an internet mob have been incredibly disappointing as well. I'll never tweet and I don't support the actions of people involved in Gamergate but from the outside looking in I've lost a lot of respect for people who haven't acted like professionals, and have dove straight into tribalist defensiveness without assuming good faith or giving individuals a far shake. It reeks of a mirror image problem.
@beb: Well for that to be a salient point would be to pretend that context doesn't matter, when, in-fact, it does. I do think you're right that that's kind of what they're trying to go for though.
I guess we'll see, but I'd rather not be the one working to make this controversial in the first place. I can't quite take the devs at face value when they say all they're trying to do is make an uncomplicated, fun game harkening back to gaming's roots by making a protagonist motivated only by hatred.
Regardless I can tell this one's not for me.
Edit: Ooooookay after watching the trailer I can definitively say I wish this didn't exist. The motives of the devs become even more suspect.
@deathofrats360: Even if it is more than that, the hashtag still exists how can they address that and other things? They are just consumers, hobbyists, and some opportunistic whiners sure. You're expecting them to devote a significant, significant portion of their lives to arranging and managing this crazy multi-national unorganized movement. That's unrealistic. And how do they go about reigning it in now?
Seriously if you were the one to take on this task how would you do it?
@kingroyce: there are plenty of ways to control who is and isn't part of a movement. By actually organizing. By not being anonymous. By having agreed upon goals. By having members instead of encouraging drive by membership.
Could go into some kind of specific detail on how Gamergate as a Twitter hashtag could actually do those things?
Here is an example of the death threats sent against gamergaters, why will none of the people in this thread attacking gamergate discuss this?
The problem with taking stuff like this seriously is that gamergate proponents have been proven on multiple times to create fake profiles to further their cause. The entire #notyourshield sub-movement, which ostensibly comprised female, queer and/or non-white gamergate supporters, was revealed to be a ruse created by GG supporters.
If they're willing to do that, I have no doubt in my mind that they're willing to create these strawmen. And it's surprising to me that people fall for it. The whole idea that there's some sort of moral equivalency between gamergate and its detractors is ridiculous side-stepping of the real issue.
You are marginalizing people who disagree with you. While I don't associate myself with #Anything, least of all Gamergate, I not exactly a fan of how people, especially people in positions of power, have reacted to it. I've already said that I believe this despite being a gay man, an ostensible target of some of these people. You can look back through my posts if you like and see that I've been open with my sexuality here in the past before this even came up, I'm clearly real. I see no reason to assume all those saying they're not straight/white/male/whatever are largely lying.
GB making some sort of statement against progressive voices being silenced would be an implicit endorsement of those progressive views as conservative views are marginalized in gaming on a daily basis without defense, let them defend themselves.
I don't think it would. It would just be an endorsement of their right to belong without being subjected to harassment on a near-daily basis.
I still think this kind of happens to anyone making an overtly political point in gaming and definitely not just progressive voices so standing up for some but not others could be seen as endorsement, but I can understand how you might be thinking of this as necessary from a purely reactionary point of view to the worst of the worst happening right now. I still just don't see something like that producing very positive results but if you do I understand where you're coming from.
Log in to comment