Bombin' the A.M. With Scoops and the Wolf: 09/05/2014

That's called having a differing opinion and a discussion can be had about that. That doesn't invalidate enjoyment of the whole while recognizing problematic parts.

But the character is the whole, that's my point. The argument is that the character is nothing but problematic parts. If you enjoy the character, you're being told that you're enjoying something that is offensive. And yes, that is called having a differing opinion, but it isn't helped in the slightest by the idea that "it's entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable."

Again, that means everything to a woman who enjoys Bayonetta the game, but finds her offensive as character. But that means nothing to a woman who enjoys Bayonetta as a character, including the woman who designed her.

That's not quite what I'm getting at. I'm not criticizing the way of experiencing something, I'm saying the justification of saying "it's okay if I don't like everything about the game you like" kind of logically falls apart if the the main character that you really like is said to be offensive, especially if you enjoy that character outside of the game itself.

And hello to you too, Jason. :)

Yep. Not everyone has the same experience with a game, movie, book, etc. There isn't a 'right' way to go about experiencing something so saying a way of experiencing is 'worthless' is pretty silly.

That's simply not true. If I enjoy a game with violent elements, or the violent elements themself, you would be at fault by suggesting i'm actually violent or encouraging culture of violence.

The problem is when someone refuse to acknowledge that such element exists. But enjoying violent or sexist elements in my games don't make me sexist or violent, because I am aware of the difference between reality and fiction. If I objectify a female character in a game i know i'm not gonna hurt her because she doesn't actually exist; and I try not to objectify real women because i know that it is hurtful and plainly wrong. By suggesting that my experience in games would affect my habits in real life is to actually accept the premise that videogames can also make you violent

Please check your quote trees...try to keep it to the most relevant thing you're replying to, these pages are getting awfully long.

I try not to use the word "objectify" unless I'm literally talking about someone who treats another person as an object. If you care about someone's feelings and well-being--even in the context of a video game character--the most you're doing is sexualizing them, not objectifying them.

Indeed. That's a big reason why arguments and accusations that follow that rationale are so troublesome. To see them recieve widespread praise is even more troublesome.

@spaceinsomniac: Ok I understand the difference. I do think both cases happens in games tho: take the witcher 1 and 2, you can have the random girl in the first whose role in game is to get you a topless figurine or the sex workers in the second game that only provide a short cut-scene of sexual nature. In that case i would talk about objectifying because these characters are only there as sexual objects. But you also have characters like Triss who have a sexual nature in the game (and a character design that reflects that), but she's obviously more than just that in the narrative. In that case i would use the word sexualize as you suggested (and i have endless examples i could bring up for that case). But i know i'm going waaaay off-topic now so i apologize :)

@evermoore: Just like to say thanks for sharing. Especially at this really disheartening time it's great to see a wonderful reason to have Patrick and people like him continue to talk about this stuff.

SO many people on both sides are so far up their own ass on this stuff. Holy shit, these comments are painful to read.

Stop and think about the nonsense you are spewing before you do it, please... imagine someone else actually has to parse it and try to discern your logic.

can someone explain all that stupid stuff to me, because they didn't bother to talk about anything directly at the beginning? Would anyone care to explain it?

Seriously it sounds like someone died or something.

bayonetta is a character who gets more naked the more you attack. its not that hard to criticize that. I dont care personally its just as crazy as the rest of the game but hey: thats what opinions are for and I don't agree with the other side but understand where they are coming from. thats how a discussion works normally.

I think you're better off not knowing, but here you go.

Internet folks "uncovered" personal relationship details about a game journalist on another website and game dev and then made death threats and provided personal information to the public about various women and Phil Fish and now there is supposed to be some healthy debate about game journalist ethics somehow. You know, because a wretched shitstorm brought about by deaththreats is a good time for everyone to weigh in.

I, for one, would trade my ignorance of this situation for not having several people's lives severely impacted, but whatev's I guess.

I wish I was as even tempered as you Alex, I have some anger issues, but I get help. Its great that you are concerned about other people, but if it is piling up big time, make sure to look at some self care. As fortunate as you said you are, this can really eat away at you and we wouldn't want it to drag you down.

As for the issue itself, I agree, even if there was some ethics in journalism concern, the response being the harassment we've seen is some two wrongs make a right type shit.

Just google it. Its everywhere. If you cant find it, then maybe thats for the better.

So begins the Dark Age of Games Journalism.....

(See: Phoenix Wright - Dual Destinies)

I lol'd ;)

You could believe this, or you could read what actually happened in the closest thing to an objective look at the situation that I've seen yet:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

@spaceinsomniac: You yourself said there was a positive about the character that was brought up. That's not saying the entire character is garbage.

For anyone just now wading into this thread, this Vox piece sums up the situation well.

Thanks for the link, I missed that article before. I must say that in these days in which i lost respect for so many people, I gained some for Erik Kain. I wasn't aware of him before this whole mess, so at least i can find some small silver lining

Probably the best article I've seen written about this whole mess so far.

That article specifically goes out of its way not to mention anything negative about one side of the debate.

"At the time, the Fine Young Capitalists were in a feud with Quinn."

Why were the Fine Young Capitalists in a feud with Quinn? Did they start it? Why would they be angry with her?

Did anything bad happen to the Fine Young Capitalists as a result of that feud?

Why did 4chan support the Fine Young Capitalists? How did they support them? If they hate women, why would they donate to a feminist cause?

Why did someone want to attack Phil Fish? Just because he spoke out against harassment on twitter?

This is why people are not satisfied with games journalism today. Someone calling what they wrote an "op-ed" article doesn't justify being misleading and avoiding important details to demonize and conflate one side of the debate, while making the other side look perfectly innocent.

Does anyone know if there has been even one other article besides the Forbes article that examines this situation from a somewhat objective viewpoint, and actually tries to explain what happened and why?

@spaceinsomniac: there's no such thing as an "objective" view. Everryone is biased. I'm sure there are people acting less than honerable on both "sides" but if one is born out of abuse from the other, not saying it's justified but it is certainly understandable. All I keep hearing is that all games journalisim is corrupt but have never seen proof beyond the very public Gertsmann situation. I think there are legitimate disscussions to be had but to me #GamerGate has been tainted to much for it to be any use, if it had any to begin with.

Maybe ask Todd Vanderwerff about his decsion not to go in more depth on certain areas, since he did write it.

Sorry if this comes off as harsh just done another round of reading on this and all I seem to find is twitter/comments shouting corruption and providing nothing but speculation as evidence.

I found that Greg Tito's article on the subject was very informative. Been keeping out of this mess since Tales of Xillia 2 came out around the time this hit and have just been focusing on TOX2.

I don't completely agree with this when it comes to providing information. Game reviews are subjective, as they should be. Op-eds are subjective, but should also provide facts, even if they interpret those facts a certain way, but they shouldn't make up things whole cloth. News reporting should hold some objectivity. One of the problems that I've brought up, and Patrick has also commented on, is that game press is an enthusiast press that don't adhere to the tenets of other journalists.

Vox is not game press and should be one of those press outlets that should have rules similar to Reuters' Handbook of Journalism. In this case, @spaceinsomniac is correct about the Vox piece not giving a complete telling of this whole fiasco if they are claiming that this is an explanation of GG. They didn't even get the description of "Social Justice Warrior" correct in how some people use it as a pejorative, and provided only one side's definition. The Forbes piece gives both definitions.

I don't think games journalism is corrupt, I just think it's highly insular. When you're protecting what you believe in so much that it prevents you from even telling the complete truth about a situation--giving all the facts and then weighing in with your opinion--that's a problem.

It's a problem when the liberal-minded Vox does it, and it's a problem when some conservative blogger who doesn't normally give a shit about video games does it.

The whole FYC thing was started on the 4chan board /v. Zoe Quinn has previously screenshotted 2 anonymous posts from Wizardchan, where she was called c*** and wh***. She also claims Wizardchan made harassing phone calls to her, but she hasn't provided evidence of this. Then of course there was a doxx'ing debaucle of her info, although a specific part of that about her phone numbers were allegedly numbers to Hawaiian adresses:
https://i.imgur.com/pY1vpV2.jpg

The FYC was then shut down by Indiegogo referring to 4chan's treatment of Zoe Quinn. Quinn herself hasn't really had totally clean hands in this, as you can read here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/2ez9cb/a_charity_event_to_promote_women_in_gaming_is_the/
For instance, couple her tweet here:
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/439558962908643328
with her later tweet here:
http://i.imgur.com/wIoS8Wf.png

But her beef with TFYC began much earlier when she thought they were asking women to work for free, while they were actually offering them 8% of the profits in payment.
However, all this is just one tiny part of the whole Zoe vs. TFYC thing.

TFYC got shut down, but they are now up again.


"Why did someone want to attack Phil Fish? Just because he spoke out against harassment on twitter?"
Well, he "just" spoke out like Fish always just speaks out. Tons of slurs, insults, degrading comments - basically like 4chan in 1 person:
http://geekparty.com/phil-fish-goes-on-epic-twitter-crusade-to-defend-zoe-quinn/
Examples are: "witless manchildren" "bigoted garbage" "friendless wonders" "absolutely pathetic, ball-less manboobs"

Some probably went after him for defending Zoe Quinn, but you can't rule out his choice of words as another reason. Not saying it was justified, but that's my guess as to the reason anyway.

Let me present you with the latest example of why so many people want more transparency, but this time regarding game awards:
It has emerged that in 2009, Kellie Santiago invested $5.000 dollars in Polytron in return for a 3.57% share in profits and voting rights. This includes the profits from the sale of Fez.

In 2011, Kellie then became the Chair of the Awardsjury at IndieCade.
That same year, Fez won 2 IndieCade awards: "Disciplinary excellence in story and world design" and "General excellence by grand jury". By IndieCade's own rules, the Chair works with each juror to review all the games up for an IndieCade award.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM_Z5YTop7g
There are also all sorts of suspicious timings with Fez, IndieFund, and the IGF.

Now, this doesn't prove corruption, but it looks shady as hell, especially when IndieCade doesn't disclose anywhere that their jury Chairperson had a direct financial connection to one of the more well-known games up for an IndieCade award that year. She stood to gain financially if Fez sales got boosted from winning a prestigious indie game award.

Now, the sad thing is, as you say, that soo many outlets produce articles and opinion pieces trying to force the entire issue into the box of misogyny while ignoring all the stuff that has nothing to do with misogyny, like the connections and ties between writers, devs, PR people, awards committees etc (that are not Zoe Quinn).
Also, and this is a critical point for both sides:
Gamersgate being your typical internet movement with no rules, no defined leadership, no requirements for who can join makes it impossible for opponents to claim what the aims, goals and methods of the entire movement is, and it makes it impossible for supporters to do the same. Almost everywhere, you hear how all of gamersgate is just about misogyny, just about sexism, while the other side claims that nobody of their side supports harassment, sexism etc.
But since everybody who wants to join, can join, noone can claim anything about the entire thing. All you can say for certain is that you are always wrong when you try and generalize the issue and force everyone under the same banner.

God if I see the word "gamer" one more fucking time I swear I'll.... I'll stamp my feet impetuously and go sulk in the corner, you'll see.

Oh, and since Patrick and Alex only talked about harassment towards people writing about games, it's only fair to also mention all the harassment that people supporting gamersgate have been subjected to:

Moderator edit - don't even bother posting pages filled with sexism, racism, and the like. Gross.

And yes, game writers have done the harassment themselves as well. I won't name names here, but you can see who they are in this link,

And this is not personal attacks. These people posted this stuff themselves. They were just caught doing it.

Fair enough, that is actually a well written article, thank you.

I still stand by my "ignorance is bliss" point. Its pretty much why I come to Giant Bomb, a refuge from all of the other shitty games ecosystems out there.

The Fine Young Capitalists are trying to promote women in the gaming industry. They've planned an event where a women gives them an idea of a video game, and then they make that video game.

If you look at the TFYC website now, you'll see pitches for 5 different games that you can vote on. Back in february, none of that stuff was there. They just had some text, basically, explaining what they wanted to do.

Now, keep in mind that TFYC is Canadian. Like, REALLY Canadian, to the point where english isn't even the first language for some of the organizers.

So, on February 28th, Zoe Quinn and Maya Kramer found this poorly worded website talking about having women make video games, and spent half an hour making fun of it. During that time, the twitter followers of Zoe and Maya tore TFYC to pieces. Their website was crashed, TFYC was banned from twitter, and screencaps from facebook pages were being posted.

Zoe and Maya didn't mean to lead an attack. Their followers thought they were attacking a group that exploited women.

After this, a sponsor backed out of the TFYC event, and they had to pay $10,000 out of pocket to keep going.

All of this was unknown until recently, when this huge controversy blew up around Zoe Quinn. But, with all this controversy around Zoe, websites aren't willing to run this story because of reasons.

Meanwhile, 4chan has given $15,000+ in donations to TFYC. 4chan is now funding a feminist group.

Yes, this is all insane.

That Forbes article is the only one to actually address the events in question. Every other website refuses to do so. If they run an article about TFYC, they breeze past the part of the story where TFYC was attacked.

Gaming websites (such as this one) won't run any content about TFYC at all.

Does anyone know if there's an easy way to "podcast" this on my Android phone? I use beyondpod? A few of the GB videos don't really need the video portion, this one included.

@abrasion: I had the same thought a couple of weeks ago and found to my great surprise that gb had me covered http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/bombin-the-a-m-with-scoops-and-the-wolf/

I think that actually isn't a counterargument to what you're replying to, because the disclaimer Anita has isn't that your are or aren't sexist for enjoying the material that she deems problematic. The disclaimer is that you can enjoy a game and still be able to critique it. She's correct on that point.

She has, as have others, pointed out that consuming material that is problematic makes you more likely to have sexist attitudes. They point to some pretty weak studies as proof of this. It's basically Jack Thompson again, but instead of violent games making you more likely to be violent, it's games with these tropes that might make you more likely to hold sexist attitudes, condone rape culture, etc. Even he had studies that supported his cause.

@sergio: No. Just stop. This isn't an attack to take away your games.

@defaultprophet: which is also completely and utterly impossible. A point I have been trying to make. At most, there will be a greater variety in games. There will still be games that portray sexy things (which is not wrong at all). There will still be games that portray some of the tropes Anita talks about. But there will also be games that have strong female characters. This is what people want.

No one, anywhere, is trying to take your games. No one is trying to homogenise them. It is literally impossible. This is a massive multibillion dollar industry that spans the globe. If anyone even remotely thinks that someone is going to prevent the next DOA volleyball game coming out, you are crazy. If it fails because no one buys it, that is a different matter.

You guys talked for 15 minutes (at least) without stating what you were talking about (presumably the Zoe Quinn / Anita Sarkeesian matter). Not very professional, and not good audio. I am not a premium member and I am not encouraged by this vagueness to become one.

@defaultprophet said:

I find this response peculiar, because, well, why isn't it? I've seen many of Anita's videos and it's not all minor documentation of tropes that involve women; many times there are flat condemnations of things that she (and many people who agree with her) finds outright repulsive. If you're arguing that something is deplorable, how is it logically consistent to then follow that up with "but no one's trying to take these things away." If I thought something was genuinely harming society, the logical conclusion of that belief is that I would want them, ideally, to no longer exist.

Many posts here and elsewhere on this topic actively argue that many video games reinforce allegedly sexist and misogynistic tropes and that, in turn, reinforces and normalizes negative behavior (as simple as encouraging slurs to as serious as enabling rape) toward women in society at large. If a person genuinely believed that, how could you not want those sources of harm gone? It makes no sense to believe all of that, yet not want to get rid of those games because you don't want to step on what others enjoy. Those are contradicting beliefs. Where is the resolution to these alleged problems if they are never gotten rid of?

The entire argument seems rather disingenuous. Where some people aren't saying they should be gotten rid of. They're not saying we should censor these things. But in practical terms, that's the only possible resolution to the alleged problems and alleged harm. Either you forcibly remove them (Jack Thompson style censorship) or you push the issue over and over and over, louder and louder and louder, until artists self-censor so that what is allegedly encouraging sexism no longer exists. "Of course Rockstar has the right to make male main characters, and of course it's not inherently bad that they do so!" They'll say. But a stink is raised regardless, causing controversy and impugning Rockstar's motives without saying so explicitly.

One is a direct approach, the other is an indirect approach, but both have the same goal in mind; getting rid of what is "problematic." Either way, a consumer somewhere is having something "taken away." There's no other intellectually honest conclusion if the problems in video games have as severe repercussions on society as they are being accused of having. So why are we pretending we can have the cake and eat it too?

Sorry guys but you mentioned there is premium content on the site about "the thing you don't want to talk about" (even though you do talk about it for 20 minutes) but don't say where?

Do you mean this?

Not everyone uses twitter you know!

Two things about TFYC:

1. They aren't a feminist group. Feminism is, at its simplest, a movement for equality and capitalism is antithetical to equality.

2. If they were in fact a feminist organization, or at least an organization that cared about women and their representation then they would reject any money from 4chan. But as their title suggests, the source of their money is of no concern, only that they receive money.

If people on 4chan actually cared about women making games, then there are a multitude of Patreon's out there where the money goes directly to the women who make the games, and it's not some 8% pittance. 4chan will only support games made by women who are not visible or vocal, and who make games that fit within their definition of games.

TFYC support is a shield, along with the manufactured hashtag #notyourshield to indicate that they aren't motivated by sexism.

Because critiquing something isn't the same as asking for that thing to go away, or even to be changed. I speak only for myself, but when I write about something that I find problematic, I don't expect anything to happen to the piece I am writing about. My main goal is simply to make people understand my point of view as a female that plays games. I think that it's important, in these discussions, to make sure to speak up and articulate ones position, whether I agree or disagree. It doesn't matter. I think my post history would show that I tend to fall relatively in the middle on a lot of these discussions.

My main issue has always been that these types of discussions concerning racism, sexism, homophobia, and treatment of religious groups, just to name a few off the top of my head, happen in ALL forms of media. Video games are a relatively new form of art and entertainment and therefore we are right in the middle of their growing pains. We are witnessing all these new discussions from the sidelines and becoming active participants at a much higher rate than in the past, mainly because we have the internet to get us information quickly and, in turn, we can speak about it almost immediately. I think that makes it look like this is way bigger and way more toxic than it actually is.

Critique is normal for media and art. People see a movie or read a book and they comment on it. They may find something problematic in it. They may say that online or with friends or in a class. That doesn't mean they want it eradicated or that that will happen if they voice their opinion. For every written piece I saw that said that Django Unchained was racist, and there were a few, there were also probably twice as many glowing reviews. And Quentin Tarantino is no where close to losing his job or having his movies removed from circulation. I've seen critique of Brett Easton Ellis' works for sexism and glorifying violence, and yet his books are still sold and appreciated by readers the world over. This is much how I view what is going on with games at the moment. People are taking a deeper look at them, realizing that they may have elements that should be talked about, positive or negative, and going online and writing about them or creating videos about them. I honestly enjoy reading these pieces and watching videos, and I view them in the same way I view games. I critique those written works or created videos as well as the games they seek to critique.

Acting as though criticism is somehow the first step to some sort of tyranny of thought is ludicrous to me. Look at all the crazy, socially unacceptable, messed up movies, books, music and art we have and tell me that criticism has somehow watered down or hurt those art forms. I would respectfully disagree. I think, if we want games to be looked at as equal to these other forms of media, we also need to be willing to look at them in different, sometimes difficult, ways. It's a tough balance, I admit, but I think we're all smart enough and empathic enough to manage it.

@marokai: Look at the Washington Redskins. If they got rid of the name, literally nothing else would change. The game would be the same. Washington would still have a team. Etc. The only thing lost is a shitty racist name

If you honestly think that's the first step to taking away football? Well I'm at a loss

1- As you said, it's only at its simplest. You're pitting against to very different things, while they can actually coexist. Their goal is to promote women, if this is not a feminist concept i don't know what it is.

If you think you can't promote women in a capitalist enviroment then we're done here, because games as they stand now are a product of a capitalist market

2- That's only your personal view on it. It's your own moral compass that says you can't accept this money, or that the money should be spent on patreon. The only true fact is that a woman would get an in in the game industry. To say that it is wrong because you don't like the source of part of the money goes against this simple fact.

By the way, the 8% is only for the woman that pitches the concept, in a role akin to a producer (and the rest goes to charity). The actual developement would be made in house by other women

@jadegl: One thing is to critique, another is to claim that elements have a lasting impact on individuals. You can, and are welcomed, to say that a book of fictional narrative is violent or sexist. But would you say that the violent or sexists elements of that book have made people violent or sexist?

I personally have no problem with Anita, she can say whatever she wants and it is ok to discuss her points. I hate to see that people attack her person, the only thing that should matter is what she says.

@n1nj4d00m: I would invite you to read my response to one of her last two videos here. I critique what I find problematic about her own use of examples while also pointing out a worse one that she missed (at least up to that point in the series) and also saying what I think works for the video. I agree with what she is doing in that I find critique to be a healthy progression of games as art, but we can also disagree with some of the conclusions and ways examples are used. I would also say that one of her most used phrases, across all of her videos, is that we can enjoy playing these games and still discuss the more problematic elements of them.

Also, @cagliostro88: I also don't subscribe to the notion that playing games where you can be violent to women somehow makes you act that way in real life. That is always a leap in logic that I can't agree with. But she can come to whatever conclusion she wants to. I think most people would take any conclusions she comes to with a grain of salt. I would hope most people who read and view opinion pieces do their due diligence and come to their own conclusions, not just accept what is fed them as gospel.

But looking at problematic elements and voicing concerns does not equate to full agreement with any other critic tackling these issues. I myself wish that games would find more interesting ways to be more "adult" than just introducing nudity, swearing and the like, but at the same time, sometimes a raunchy game is just the thing I want to play. Again, most of these discussions are entirely situational and each different game and story requires a refreshed viewpoint to adequately engage. I always try to start from square one on this. Read the story, play the game or watch the materials in an unedited and unbiased way if it is available, review my own feelings upon that impartial review, then come to my own conclusion. Most of the time I don't fall in line with what was written or said, maybe I'll be close, maybe I'll be the complete opposite. Most of the time I just find that I can understand the viewpoint, and I think that that's more important than agreement. Just saying to someone that I get where they're coming from and why they feel the way they feel.

I think the most important thing I can impress upon people is that I understand the desire to voice these concerns. I have them periodically when playing games. At the same time, that doesn't mean I need them to change or want them to.

For whatever reason, my link doesn't jump right to my post. I've tried editing a few times but no dice. This is the text link for ease of finding the post - http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/new-tropes-vs-women-the-importance-of-basic-respec-1487135/?page=3#js-message-7412130

We have a podcast version on iTunes and on the site.