itsamoose

This might not be the type of reason you are looking for, but I make games because I genuinely love the work. Sure I like the other aesthetic or thematic elements, but to be honest ever since I got into game development I've almost stopped playing games, and would rather whip up a prototype or learn some new piece of middleware instead.

If anyone is like me and finds watching others play games fascinating, but would rather not have to deal with some of the childishness often found, two youtubers I watch are tokshen and the3nd3ffect. They aren't nearly as big as Totalbiscuit and the others mentioned here but they tend not to use inflammatory language from what I've seen.

This game sounds great! Is there any gameplay footage available for it yet?

I'm not a writer myself, but I've heard a number of them talk about Dramatica for just about any creative work. For something more game specific you could check out Articy: Draft which is available on steam.

Forgot to add this to my post: Personally my strategy for this is the same with other things. I basically load up my library, start with the letter A and play that game until I don't care to anymore. I suppose I'm missing some games that are initially frustrating in this manner, but I've actually managed to expose myself all kinds of stuff that would have otherwise been clutter.

This article is worth reading related to the stolen pictures of celebrities, as it tries to examines our complicated relationship with taboo. It seems as though the supporters of this action from what I've seen (I'd rather not link that kind of garbage here) seem to only think violence against women is only relevant when acted out in kind, where all non physical expressions of that ideology are simply free speech. This is something that really bothers me. It seems as though most people from these groups are so inept at articulating themselves (or perhaps so fascinated with themselves) that anything that upsets them or any attempt to criticize their behavior is instantly seen as some violation of their rights.

The following quote from a book by Nicholas Kristoff. If nothing else this should convince him of the need for feminism.

This is a bit of a tangent, but given the second half of the topic it is something I have been wondering about in the last few days. I've never been a big reader of kotaku or gaming blogs, I mean I'm aware of the content but for the most part skim what I do read. Since this topic took off I began actually reading many of the press release and interview type articles and each one seems to almost be taken from a template. Most of it is pretty basic stuff, technical details, who is making the game, where it can be played, etc. Then the majority of these articles seem to be obsessed with the creator's inspirations. Each of these articles puts such an incredible emphasis on conformity and comparison to other games. I understand why this is, mainly because the act of play isn't easily relatable to anything but the act of play, but it seems to be emphasized to a fault. Certainly this is nothing new, as evidenced by the meets-meets-meets running gag on the podcast, but should we start holding games writers accountable for inspiring this kind of insularity in the community? I feel like many crying foul, while legitimate concerns do exist, are simply unable to articulate themselves because they are taught to talk about their hobby in rigid but somehow nebulous terms that often play on nostalgia. Aesthetics are described in terms of the aesthetics of other games, mechanics are described by comparing them to other mechanics, etc. Personally I don't think they are causing the problem, but most likely exacerbating it. The situation I imagine is someone who is still young and is learning to talk about their hobby based on the way other people are talking about it. Then suddenly a game like depression quest comes along, which can't easily be talked about in the same way, and this person feels left out. Then an otherwise reasonable individual becomes enraged for no other reason than not being able to discuss this new thing in the same way that previous things had been discussed. Suddenly it seems as though this part of their lives they've invested so much into is leaving them behind, and that makes them angry.

This is actually quite an interesting phenomenon and one you certainly aren't alone in. This TED talk breaks down the issue a bit.

This is a really unfortunate circumstance. Kotaku is basically saying they don't want to deal with the issue by banning patreon contributions entirely, which you correctly point out can seem like a validation of one's worldview. Back in college I remember reading a book about a theory for treating depression that believed a mindfulness based approach was the only true solution. The authors contend that depression is essentially self-perpetuating, where people ascribe their bad luck to some character flaw, which then makes it worse. The first half of the book was an in-depth breakdown of why oddities occur in conversation. Mostly the authors focused on what we commonly know as "nothing fights" which are the result of a person responding to their perception of another's action rather than the act itself. This then goes back and forth where each actor responds to the other based on the perception of the other's previous action, which to me perfectly describes some of the behavior we've seen. What worries me most about some of the reaction to the MRA side of things is that some of these people, as horrible as their opinions and actions are, might be suffering from depression or some kind of social anxiety in an environment where there is no one that is able to really force them to take a step back and see the issue from another perspective, as a therapist would. Not to mention the plethora of others reinforcing their beliefs, and possibly inflaming any potential underlying issues. I would hope someone respected by both sides could take an impartial stance (meaning only ask clarification-type questions), but this doesn't really seem to be possible in the maelstrom of twitter. Edit: Ultimately that is what I think the intent of the slate article was, misguided as some of the language may have been.

The Kane one is absolutely killing me, I can't stop laughing.

Normally I loathe Buzzfeed, but this video is pretty good.

Could you elaborate on this? It seemed like a pretty measured approach from what I got but I may have missed something. Edit: After reading it again I see there is a slightly patriarchal tone in some sections.

SpennyDubz's suggestion is probably the best for platform dependent code, but you can also use the RuntimePlatform enumeration to accomplish this if you prefer. This is particularly useful if you need to do some OS specific editor code.

Slate recently put up an article trying to present the view from someone looking on from the sidelines. I think he really nails how the sheer scale of the issue is proof of people transferring or focusing their frustration with whatever in the games industry bothers them onto Quinn and others.

Is this something that is happening? I assumed the images in the thread were sarcastic.

That's also assuming patronage and purchase are viewed as fundamentally the same. I don't think it can be taken that far since patronage is paying for something to be made, ostensibly to some patron-defined specification, while a purchase is a transfer of ownership.

Granted it hasn't aged all too well, but this game looks awesome! I saw something about this game on Giant Bomb a while back but could never remember the name.

I just watched an episode of south park that deals with photo shopped images and it felt like a retelling of Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn and other prominent females' stories. Wendy, The protagonist of the episode, is first ignored when bringing up the issue, then harassed and accused of being jealous, and finally blamed for the problem. If the south park style of humor doesn't appeal to you then it probably isn't worth watching. It's one of their episodes where the heart of the show really shows.

Looks like DA:I is getting a Mass Effect 3 style multiplayer mode. Given how much fun I had with ME3's multiplayer I can't wait to play it.

To be fair, any academic discussion of ethics goes in this direction. At some point those guiding principles must become pragmatic. While I admit these deep dives into particular actions or situations can be frustrating, they are necessary for the discussion to be anything but theoretical.

I think you're overstating the argument a bit. Based on what you say here the most you could really accuse her of is having a conflict of interest. That same allegation could be leveled at any competitor who is vocal about their competition. For example this guy who runs his own conference and is quite critical of E3. Those aren't his posts, but he made the story thing and expressed similar opinions at the time.

I almost can't believe this Sarkeesian Effect thing is real. The Q & A section on their page reads like an Onion article, replete with "why do I agree with you" type questions.

Perhaps we could benefit from a practical example, if only to dissect the issue further. As we know each year the PAX and E3 expo, which provide the public the ability to purchase tickets, are attended by journalists. While press tickets can be obtained for free, general admission tickets are sold at $110 (4 day PAX pass) and $795 respectively. The question then becomes what is the dollar value of a press pass for these events given the general admission cost? Then if a journalist acquires a free pass, is this considered a gift and what value, if any, should be associated with it?

Allow me to apologize in advance if this post offends anyone. I have Asperger's disease (aka high-functioning autism) so I tend to come off combative when that isn't my intention, which is only exacerbated by text-only communication. That being said, here is my problem with ethics as we understand it in journalism. Most of the posts in this thread have been people discussing whether or not a particular action is an ethics violation or not, which is entirely the fault of the ethics policy of the sites as they are written. They describe particular actions in some cases, but often provide no definition of terms or clear definitions of the actions they do describe. If the sites in question had such ethics statements, whether or not some action constituted an ethics violation would be known by simply reading the statement of ethics. Joystiq's ethics policy (credit to JonCole for the link) is an example of a well written and concise policy that covers, for example, the ownership of stock in a publicly traded video game company. There is still room for improvement but It provides a clear practice of determining whether or not some undefined action would be considered a violation of that policy, as well as what will happen in the event that policy is violated. Polygon's statement on the other hand reads like cliff notes and is worded in such a way that an equally valid argument can be made in either direction as to whether edge-case actions (such as cumulative value gifts) are considered ethics violations. In other words, it is a license to determine ethics violations on a whim and provides no guarantee that this policy will be applied consistently over time. Now it is entirely possible that Polygon has a more comprehensive ethics policy which only their staff is privy to, but if that was the case why not publish it? Some of the arguments seem to be that because this kind of thing has happened in the past or is common, it is acceptable or somehow a necessary evil. Due to the loose wording of many ethics policies this is a perfectly valid argument, as is the opposing viewpoint. After looking around at many sites' policies (not just in games journalism) it seems as though we have the appearance of ethical guidelines, but little more. Ultimately I don't care what a particular site's ethics policy is, it is just something to be taken into consideration when reading their material, I just want them to be consistent and comprehensive. I'm not saying these policies have to be legally binding, just clear enough as to be understood without inference.