MadJackalope

Not only are the judges often members of the industry, that's a requirement. And yeah one reason the IGF crap makes me feel conflicted is on one hand, I don't like the crappy structure things, and on the other hand I pretty much consistently like the stuff that Boyer's crowd endorses. The academic character of games weird. I mentioned in the thread I started on the relevance of Labour Movements in the that one of the unfortunate reasons the industry is the way it is is because a large percentage of people who work in the industry get their training from technical schools and for-profit schools which are often extremely beholden to the industry. More academic academic stuff is pretty small. There's Ian Bogost. There's some cool dudes at NYU. There's the USC program (which is known for it's ties to Santiago, one of the Indie Fund people who got called out). There's not a whole lot of options, and most of them share a pretty huge Venn Diagram people already in the IGF circle. I mean, that's arguably what systemic corruption is. No one thinks (other than a few nutjobs) that the IGF is maliciously doing things. If you check out that dev who complained about the IGF, Brandon Boyer actually makes an appearance in the comments, and people respond to him by basically saying "Yo, we know you're not trying to hurt anyone but it's still a bad system". Systemic corruption is so hard to deal with because in most ways, everyone involved is at least consciously trying to do the right thing most of the time, which makes it invisible and hard to deal with. Campaign finance/First-Past-the-Post Voting/Electoral College etc in America weren't systems created with in the intent of downsizing the impact of the individual citizen in democracy, but that's what it does in effect. Redlining wasn't specifically created to further racial segregation in America, but that's what it did. It was people trying to do the right thing, but doing so, filtered through their own perceptions of reality and society, and the practice wasn't outlawed until the 90s, because it was so invisible and hard to explain to people. And yeah, perhaps that is pointless to fix, because it's perhaps at the core of human nature, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to something better. That's the entire idea behind progressive. It's the idea that we can make things better. Human nature is flawed, but I sure am glad people haven't given up on it.

1. Their motives aren't important. I don't care what their motives are.* I only care if what they're saying is true. 2. I don't even believe that video in the first place. If there were actually something to it, then I'll believe it when I see it in court, and not until then. Everything I brought up was the stuff not in that video. It was stuff that has been brought up in the indie community for years and years. People said in this thread "there's no issues with the indie scene, it's all cool. People are just jerks with bad motives", but that's clearly not true. The indie scene needs a good dose of self reflection. I mean this stuff happens in film etc, too, but I guess I kind of hoped people would do better than this. I agree with pretty much every thing you said, though I do think that the "natural consequences of weird tribal tendencies" is exactly what constitutes systemic corruption. It's not the Illuminati or a conspiracy, it's just a lack of transparency and natural human desire. Also I espeically agree with your point about focusing on how we can be constructive. That's what I would much rather focus on. Rather than sitting around patting ourselves on the back saying how we're so much better than a bunch of socially stunted neckbeards. How can things be made better? I think Auntie Pixelante had some good suggestions. I think for one there's way too much centralization in the power, there needs to be more accountability to people who enter their games. Actually... I'm not really clear on how the IGF started. How did it become the premiere voice of Indie games? Why is it the only one? I mean you have large film festivals like Slamdance, Sundance, SXSW, etc, but there's no single Be All End All, and there's tons of small film festivals all over america. Hmm.... Maybe the issue is there's not enough support for games as an artform from traditional Art Grants. There's not a lot of government funding for people. I know the Texas Film Commission has started reaching out and supporting game stuff here, which is encouraging, but that's still pretty small. Maybe this is just something that the medium has to grow out of, it needs to become more mainstream and understood by the populace.

Far too familiar a feeling.

Ryan North, cool dude, tall dude, wrote it. It's so heavily inspired by Psychonauts it's a little too much, but it's also really really good, and it's enjoyable very much in the same way as Broken Age, though better in it's control scheme if you're playing with a controller. Has a similar flow too.

I'm a little disappointed with the second analog stick. It's still a little nubbin. I was surprised they didn't come out with a full second stick on the original 3DS. Approx 98% of my 3DS use has been Mii Spot Pass. I got it because I managed to get the Ambassador deal while still paying the dropped price. And I enjoyed fire emblem and stuff, but I haven't used it that much. Mostly because they refuse to do sales and I honestly don't see much that really grabs me, other than Shovel Knight. I'm going to get Smash though and I think that will probably justify the purchase in a lot of ways for me, haha. And maybe I'll splurge and get the new Phoenix Wright game finally. Really the only reason I played my original DS either.

I'm not exactly anti-capitalist. I just think that that power ought to be distributed as evenly as possible because it has a tendency to corrupt people (which is a pretty mainstream position I think, though in effect many people are not cool with having their privilege called into question). Also Minecraft is a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE outlier. The games industry IS NOT an industry in which humble hobbysists blow up the Big Guys every five years. That's an empirical fact. Here's a video by Game Theorists on the subject of the myth of "innovation" in the video game industry (excuse the cringey presentation. They really need to do a little more study on fonts. Also this video was posted months ago, and is not gamergate related at all. In fact it is anti gamer in it's position) Minecraft is a rare outlier. And this isn't something that invades other industry as much. Oh sure, there's still big tentpole movies like Guardians of the Galaxy but indie films still do much better on average than indie games. Well, sorta. I mean if you look at Sundance films that get distribution they often lose money (but only for the investors not the filmmakers), but in games it's ONLY the Big Guys that make any real substantial money. Point is, the whole "innovative small games disrupt the market" is much less true than we'd often like. Okay so that video is crazy. I like Brandon Boyer a lot. I go every month to his Juegos Rancheros meet up here in Austin. I wrote a glowing article about it in Loser City. But the IGF is also kind of fucked up, and people have known that for years. The whole racketeering accusation in that video, hard to really substantiate unless you dig up the doxxed files from Polytron's website, so I'm going to wait until we see some actual legal action before I form an opinion on that. But people like Auntie Pixel, Anthony Burch, and Edmund McMillen have been complaining about issues with the IGF, for years, far before this gamergate bullshit got started. Two years ago a dev who entered IGF wrote this blog post talking about his horrible experience with the festival. http://therottingcartridge.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/whats-wrong-with-the-igf/ Basically he entered his game (which costs 95 dollars) and of the 8 judges, 1 played it for a little under an hour, 3 played it for less than 5 minutes 3 installed it, but didn't play it and 1 didn't even bother installing the game. Now look there's plenty of bullshit that goes on in the award shows for movies too. I've been involved in the film fest scene and there's a fair share of cronyism going on*, but at least every single film festival I've ever entered guaranteed that it would watch my film (also they were waaaay cheaper than IGF. Even late submissions for SXSW are 1/3rd less than IGFs on time fee). Half of the judges who were assigned to judge that guy's game didn't even play the game! And yeah they're volunteers, yeah a game should probably grab you quick, blah blah blah blah. The judges didn't even give it a chance, and while this is going on many of the judges flock to play games with bigger name recognition, these games often being ones created by people who are friends with Boyer. (and many of these games are my favorite games, and I love 'em but still it's fucked up for the little guy) *the Oscars is a complete joke. The only people who vote are the anonymous members of the Academy, which is like 98% white males. They gave Driving Miss Daisy the Oscar over Do the Right Thing. Fuck man, how did that happen? And JonCole, you were asking me about specific instances of cronyism in the industry. What's your thoughts on this stuff? I mean IGF isn't press exactly but this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. (like I said, I fucking love Boyer's crowd and what he does, but I also feel kind of gross whenever I see great local devs getting shot down for people who are from out of town and already have great publishing deals in hand)

Maybe? I mean, it's hard to say what's implied when you're talking about a vast number of people. Some people believe in objective standards in art. Some people believe in subjective standards. Some people believe in objective standards but subjective perception. Some people don't even believe that video games are art, or that if they were they should be evaluated in the same way as art. If we're talking in general about the games press though? I don't think that's generally the way they're evaluated. A couple of things. I'm not sure where you get "the rule, rather than the exception" from that definition. I'm guessing maybe you're pointing at the use of the word "routinely" maybe? Anyway I'm not making any statement on the the rate of incidence, and I'm not exactly clear what you're getting at. Also bribing isn't really systemic corruption unless it's actually part of the mechanism of the organization. Just look at the definition that wikipedia gives: Systemic corruption (or endemic corruption) is corruption which is primarily due to the weaknesses of an organization or process. It can be contrasted with individual officials or agents who act corruptly within the system. A single cop regularly taking bribes isn't systemic corruption. A cop writing a higher than necessary number of speeding tickets, in order to meet an unofficial quota, due to pressure from higher up to make more money for the department is systemic corruption. The wiki article also goes on to say "Factors which encourage systemic corruption include conflicting incentives, discretionary powers; monopolistic powers; lack of transparency; low pay; and a culture of impunity." All of which I think applies to games press. (except monopoly I guess) (also the article goes on to talk about the rule rather than exception too, so maybe that's where you're getting that from?) More importantly semantic arguments are the weakest piddling argument to beat around the bush with. I don't even think there's that big of an issue. I took issue with undisclosed Patreon, that has been changed. I still think there's a general paradigm shift in how we talk about games that needs to take place, but that sort of thing takes time. My original point was that I object to the statement "there is/never has been corruption, and anyone who thinks there is has motives for saying so". I don't think Anita is corrupt in the least, and I don't want to seem like that was my position. Anita is cool. If anything she's exactly what I wish we had more of. And yeah, I guess it's not the end of the world if games journalism continues to be advertisement for commercial products but DAGNABIT! I want the medium to do something better. The fact that we're talking about games as a "commercial product" in the first place is depressing. Maybe it's kind of silly to expect that because of the nature of the economics in creating mass-production art. On the other hand fine art kind of has similar but different problems. Maybe I'm being unrealistically idealistic of art for it's own inherent merit, but I sure hope I'm not.

Okay maybe we just disagree. As I said, when I originally brought that up, the issue of the Ikea effect came up, and I think it's a relevant thing. And as I've said, to me the solution here is NOT to make sure journalists don't contribute money to Patreon. The solution, in my opinion is to shift away from the authoritarian model of press, towards one which embraces and is transparent about the subjectivity of humans. This doesn't mean paragraph long disclaimers before each article, it means holistically integrating people's subjective experience in to the way they evaluate art. Look, I'm just using the term the way it is used in certain contexts. Maybe people find the connotations of the word too harsh but I don't semantic games are really going to push the issue forward. I'll call it something else if you'd prefer. I get that, but if I change my opinion merely because some crazy people held it then I would have a hard time picking any opinion at all. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that I agree with Social Darwinist and eugenics, does it? I am a feminist but I disagree with Dworkin. I'm a person who thinks that video games can be a medium of artistic expression, but I don't necessarily like everything that is called a "video game". Changing one's opinions in reaction to perceptions of the opposition is the textbook definition of reactionary. And if I'm wrong, or crazy, then I'm good to discuss that, and taking that down a peg. I know on a personal level that that I am fallible and often wrong.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, and I do not associate myself in anyway with GameGhazi or Gamergate, don't even talk with those crowds, but I don't think it is some kind of "outside force". These are systemic issues, they're internal, they're unintentional, but they still lead to bad stuff.

The Patreon thing was brought up and while it's hard to say "who uncovered it", but I think there's a pretty big Venn Diagram involved. I do agree that a lot of these people have bad motives though, but saying EVERYONE has bad motives is just wrong. Agreed. And I hope I'm not causing too much conflict or sounding like an asshole. This is the only place I'm willing to discuss this online, because I respect you guys, and I hope you guys know that. That's a good point, but I think it's not quite right. So yes, words mean things, when they're instantiated in a specific cultural context. We're both using valid definitions of corruption, though slightly different. You're talking about malicious corruption, people consciously attacking someone they disagree with for bad reasons. I'm talking about systemic corruption, which I think is a more problematic and insidious issue. I would say most relevant corruption is systemic. People aren't silent film villains cackling in delight as they twirl their mustaches and blow the dynamite under The One True Hero. Most often they're normal people, trying to do what they think is right, but going about it in a harmful way, encouraged by things like perverse incentives, lack of accountability, etc. This kind of corruption is so insidious because it's mostly invisible. This is the problem a lot of modern liberal white people have when you try and talk about racism to them. They say "Hey I'm not racist. I'm colorblind! I don't treat other people bad because of their skin color". Well they don't consciously go out and call people slurs or hurt them with their fists, but they are part of a system that, despite their lack of awareness, perpetuates racial and class disparity. Stuff like Redlining isn't sexy, it isn't obvious, there is no clear villain and hero. It doesn't sell movie rights or make headlines but it's a massive issue that has harmed racial equality more than almost any single official policy in American history. Most people aren't trying to do anything bad. They're just part of the system, and the system is messed up. So yeah the chair probably doesn't have three legs because someone is "out to get you" but it may have shoddy design because it was built in a sweat shop where profit seeking behavior determines who gets hired and fired. That's the kind of corruption I think is troublesome.

Do you have amnesia? Because earlier in this thread when we were discussing Patreon, you posted a link to a scientific study which lent credence to the whole "paying money to a project creates emotional investment in it, which creates bias". The Ikea effect? You posted that, remember? And as other people have said there are other issues, some of which you've brought up, clickbait, bias towards AAA, marketing departments, etc. So yeah those are specific issues. This isn't a shotgun argument, I was making a very specific argument about the idea that "there is 0 corruption in the industry, and everyone who disagrees has secrete evil tingly motives". It may seem abstract to talk about how humans compartmentalize and simplify reality through generalizations but I'm making a very specific point about how people ought to make criticisms in a concrete and individual way, and the inherent fallacies in generalized sweeping statements. Additionally I was making a very specific criticism about saying "There is no corruption, except for the corruption there is which is a misdirection" thing Tegan said, which is just blatant double think. You can't say "there is no corruption" and then turn around and say "there is payola". There are/were issues, some of which you've even explicitly agreed to, and many of which I think the majority of this forum can agree on. Instead of being intellectually dishonest and oversimplifying things in our favor I wish people would just stick to concrete points. Honestly I don't know why this fight is rolling on, because it seems that some of the larger issues were already taken care, and although I think there still needs to be some refinements on those changes, and also though I think that there needs to be a shift in the games press paradigm in a larger sense, I think the most relevant issues have already been taken into account by the major outlets. I hop around the internet and it just seems to be a bunch of people sitting around in circles patting each other on the back, congratulating themselves, and talking about how everyone else sucks. And no real substantial discussion going on. And yes, you're right, the twitter hate campaign is just a huge hate fest right now, and I think we all know that they clearly don't give a damn. I think that's a pretty good point. It's a new industry and people are very involved in it on a personal level, which can be part of the problem, but also means that things do self correct decently fast. I totally agree. The gamergate people are not looking for a lack of bias, they're looking for the bias that suits their purposes. Exactly which is why there needs to be a fundamental change in the way we talk about "objective" or "unbiased" journalism. Bingo. You say marinara sauce, I saw tomato sauce. How is shoddy journalism not a form of corruption exactly? These issues of clickbait, underpaid amateur writers, etc is exactly why I keep on bringing up Old/New media issues. These issues are profit driven, and there's problems created by that.

I don't know. I think that's far to broad a statement. The drama has been blown out of proportion, many people are saying things or taking stands not because of an authentic belief, but rather because of a cultural identification, bigotry, or pure emotional immaturity. I think there's also people who sincerely believe that there is an issue in the games industry worth addressing. Rather than making huge sweeping generalizations I think it's better to be specific and individual, case by case. Those people who believe there is an issue may also be mislead but only by addressing them specifically can you have a substantive discussion. This kind of thinking is a problem with how humans think. We can't hold a lot of information in our heads so we simplify it. Dunbar's Number and all that jazz. It's easier to lump everyone into groups and labels, than to deal with individuals because there are too many individuals to deal with. Easy abstractions over concrete individuals I mean you say there's no corruption but then say there's misdirection where that corruption might lie, right? But obviously, we can agree there's some level of corruption. The way journalists basically pass on press releases as articles, the way the games industry is covered almost like an extension of AAA marketing departments? That's corruption that most people can agree on. So saying there's absolutely no corruption is inaccurate. I would think you would believe that too since you refer to there being misdirection to where the corruption is. You can't have both no corruption and misdirection from corruption. I wonder what's going to come of all this. I kind of thought that once Polygon required disclosures it was going to die down, but it seems people are just going to keep going at each other's throats. Personally I'm trying to keep focused on the individuals in my life rather than getting too caught up in easy abstractions. And also keep making things.

Dadgum this thing is insane. Worlds was an experimental MMO chat thingy that was started in 1995. It's like a chat thing? David Bowie was involved? It was meant to have like real time concerts take place in virtual space. and stuff. It was classic Metaverse pipe dream. And it's still running today! This video does a pretty good job of introducing it though it does have a little bit of that "lol random" Let's Player type humor in it. Still it looks really fascinating. Does anyone else miss the days of "multimedia"? Where there were like weird goofy experiments still being done with computers and games? Educational games, and weird interactive encyclopedias and other things that weren't "applications" but also not "games". I would like to see more stuff like that. I'd like to make stuff like that. I kind of hope the Oculus will spur that back into the light. I'm also kind of hopeful that the Facebook buy helps encourage that. Shit would be cool.

Woah that is pretty crazy. In some ways we have that personal voice on the internet again, through social media, but it's also filtered more through PR strategists etc. The freewheeling, de-centralized nature of the internet etc, is sort of gone now.

Actually I saw that reviewed. I grew up in the middle of nowhere so I didn't get a lot of stuff for my computer, but recently I've been watching reviews about old DOS games and stuff, and they covered this specific game actually. I think a large part of it is that when the internet began to take off, it was just simpler to make a website than it was to make a fully executable program. Which is understandable but also disappointing. Now that we're getting more powerful and easy to use 3rd party engines, and more people using program specific interactions because of touch screen apps etc, I hope we'll see more of this kind of stuff come out. I'm actually considering pursuing grad school for this reason, since lately I've talked with a couple of people involved with it on the academic side of things. Ooooh yeah, I remember that. Bowie is an interesting person. He was into a lot of unusual things and didn't just nail himself down to one thing. I wonder if he plays video games today, or if he was just briefly interested in it. Anybody know of any current multimedia projects? I was at a VR thing and this guy was telling me about his companies educational VR and AR project. It sounded a little top heavy though, not sure how good it would actually be, seemed a little bit like it was designed by engineers, and not enough creative director or industrial design guys were involved. That tends to be a problem in game industry type stuff. You get specs decided by MBAs and then implemented by engineers, and then you get wonky ass things like the Epson Moverio glasses (which I tried at a con, and are total shit). The only people who put any effort at all into the aesthetic and industrial design of these kinds of projects are Apple and Google, and sometimes Microsoft. I guess it's just too expensive, or it's not easily quantifiable and therefore hard to pitch.

I was playing Bioshock Infinite earlier this year and had progressed through the story to the point where you're interacting a lot with the Vox Populi and it just started falling apart for me. I think there's a lot of cool historical stuff that Ken Levine was trying to pull from but I think it also tends to fall flat and become very 1 dimensional. Specifically as it applies to the Vox Populi it reminded me of something I once read that basically went "There is no true leftist political force in America, because without a serious critique of capitalism there is no leftist politics, only liberalism". Now this post isn't meant to be overly political or anything but I do find it interesting to discuss. Video games have a lot of issues with sexism, racism, etc but they do tend to fall into a generally more "liberal" category than I think a lot of Americans would self identify with. This is true in the same way that Hollywood is known to lean liberal but is still mired in the kinds of exploitation and discrimination that runs counter to that. Video games tend to lean "liberal" in a lot of ways but very rarely do I see an authentically leftist politic expressed in the medium. There is very rarely an even very realistic portrayal of labor movements and such in games. Ken Levine was certainly familiar with this stuff though, as he worked in Boston, and the Haymarket Massacre was important to the history of the region and was also one of the inciting events for the creation of Labor Day and yet I think the Vox Populi's rhetoric is pretty thin and almost automatically dismissed by the protagonist. Booker is a liberal, not a revolutionary (despite fucking up every single cop he can find. He's not exactly Gandhi you know?). So why is this like this? I think there are a number of reasons. 1) Video games rose to prominence in a period of deregulation and destruction of the Labor Movement. It's actually pretty surprising when you go back and see how broad the mainstream support for the Labor Movement was back in the late 19th century and early 20th. Video games really started hitting in the 80s when the Labor Movement was starting to gasp it's last breath. 2) Video games have largely been made by non-unionized workers. Video games used to take highly specialized skills that required so much background and education that there was no real need for a union. Also while the ideal of "workers owning the means of production" is very difficult in a factory setting, it's relatively easier in video games where many people do already have the tools needed to make a game of their own. 3) Video games are historical tied as an industry to Venture Capitalism and the tech industry, and therefore often trace their organization and cultural roots to software development companies. Now of course there are some anarcho-capitalist types out there in Silicon Valley but it's still a pretty standard moderate American republicanism overall. Once again don't want to sound like I'm getting too political I just thought it was interesting to think about and discuss. A lot of the issues that we are talking about in video game circles focus on gender identity etc, but I don't often see those discussions connected very well to a larger leftist/anarchist/green/socialist/etc rhetoric. I think that certainly skews the conversation in a very particular way and I'd be curious to see if anyone knows any games that deal with these issues in a serious way?

You know I remember reading a story that Monopoly was actually created as a critique of monopolies. Kind of a 1930s satire of them in game form. Ah yes, the wiki article confirms this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)#Early_history The game originally came from a game called "The Landlord Game" which was meant to illustrate the ideas of Henry George, the founder of Georgism which is kind of like the modern day "free market socialists" you see crowding around the Universal Basic Income proposals in Europe and Canada. You know that's another thing I've noticed. There's a huge influence of industry in the education of game makers. In my experience a large chunk of people in the industry are not from normal academic backgrounds, they're usually from technical colleges which have good ties within the industry. A lot of those colleges are not really academic institutions in the traditional sense, they're often for profit, and some of them can be pretty shady like the famous The Art Institutes which are often times not even properly accredited and have been sued recently by the government for misrepresenting their services. Places like Full Sail have slightly better reps and while the programs are more rigorous I've not seen a lot of people happy with their experience at them (especially considering the cost) We're just now getting some serious programs at normal accredited universities, like the NYU Game Lab, or USC's Cinematic Arts program. That for profit education connection is probably a good deal to blame for that lack of knowledge about unions etc, because it's not in the interest of Full Sail to teach their students how to stand up for themselves because their pockets are being lined by the naivety of students who won't stand up for themselves. Also so far a large part of the conversation has focused on how there is a problem with labor in the games industry but I actually think this is a much greater problem with games as narrative expression. I don't want to seem unempathetic, since I do have huge problems with the way the games industry is run but I also think it's falling a bit short. After all, according to the latest Gamasutra poll, the median salary for game devs is 70k, and I've heard in Europe its in the range of 100k. Median salary in America is like 25k. Game devs are, compared to the population at large, very, very, well off. And also those numbers are probably skewed a little bit because the Gamasutra is probably not taking into account all the freelancers and part time people who are exploited by the industry but even so, game devs are generally better off than the average person. The issue to me is not so much that the games industry doesn't have a strong labor movement. In many ways it doesn't really need one, it's high enough skilled jobs that devs generally have decent bargaining power. They aren't getting their full market worth, but arguing that they aren't getting their full market worth is ACTUALLY upholding a system of capitalism, not rebuking it. The problem is that because everyone is generally pretty well off, the voice of working class, or labor movements are often misrepresented or under represented. The games industry is inherently bourgeoisie and consumerist. (after all the core of the "gamer" culture comes from those who could afford super expensive console systems back in the day). Now I said inherently but I don't actually think it's really inherent, I just think it's very strongly tied to the current way the medium is represented, understood, and the way the industry is focused. And I'm not even arguing against capital per se, so much as the lack of recognition of the unbalanced systems which capital creates. What I'd like to see, even more than fairer working conditions for devs, is authentic expressions in the medium that critique capitalism and acknowledge the thorny issues that wealth, property, etc pose. I think more and more devs are starting to realize this too, because as globalization and outsourcing continue to rise, many of their bargaining powers are being eroded and so the problems of the common man are becoming more relevant to their experience. Also I can think of one dev who is involved in the kind of anti-capital thinking we've discussed here. Jason Rohrer really practices what he preaches about indie games. I don't know if I'd ever go as extreme as him but he's an admirable guy.

Actually I think that wall street reporter and finance example is a pretty good example of why there is need for disclosure in mainstream media. As I've said before on this thread, authoritarian "News as Truth Givers" is outmoded, and has always been unrealistic to human nature. People are subjective, and so there should be focus on making sure there is transparency rather than objectivity. I think that progress is being made and people shouldn't give up. Things are changing for the better, people have to keep the struggle in mind in their everyday life and things will continue to change. It's honestly a never ending battle probably but I hope people don't give up. Twitter is a pretty terrible social media platform. It's character limit basically forces it to be so bite sized and digestible as to make substantial discussion or nuance impossible. It's an oven built out of gunpowder. I think this is the conflict we're seeing between new and old media (or perhaps new and newer media at this point). Things are changing. I forget if I already linked it but Press.Pause.Play. is a really great documentary on this subject sorta as it applies to digital media creators I hope that things are going to get better and we can start rebuilding from this mess. Also I think it's natural that game people are close to game people, but it's also not always the most healthy thing. I understand the mechanics of why insularity exists, and it's not special to games, the same thing happens in the film industry and stuff too, but I think it's still a negative thing that stunts the openness and growth of the medium. Strongly agreed Love this.

I think the conditions in the industry have so much to do with the fact that it's a dream for people. But then again the same is true of film, and film does have it's fair share of problems, but the major studios do not. I think some of that has to do with the youth of the industry, and also the single minded focus of many people who get into games.

I had totally forgotten about Beyond Good and Evil but that's a really great example. Also Michel is French and there's a stronger tradition of those kinds of movements in French culture so it's not too surprising. I think some of the issue is that there is an oversupply of labor in the game's market so as a result, creating a union is pretty hard these days. Who would join? Only people who want to get into the industry. I doubt many veterans would join, and that's a bit of a problem. Though it's funny to point out that Reagan was actually the President of SAG (Screen Actors Guild). That's some real irony right there for you. If SAG wasn't already a deeply invested part of Hollywood at this point, I doubt it would be created today. And while I love the freedom of the internet and youtube I also worry that we're seeing an eroding of creative people's ability to negotiate. I've got an article in the hopper I'm working on that subject right now. I think the desire for action and reward is not inherently opposed to the heart of a labor movement. In fact I think labor movements are very much about re-establishing the balance of meritocracy by recognizing the ways that capital creates an uneven playing field. But certainly that "chase the cheese" part of our hind brain is the thing which both inspires gamification and capitalism's popularity. "There are no poor Americans, merely temporarily embarrassed millionaires" har har I do think there probably is an inherent challenge depicting that imbalance because frustration is an enemy to engagement, but I do think it's possible. I wonder if the recent crop of super hard games are perhaps an avenue towards discussing these kinds of issues. So much depends on the luck of birth in Rogue-like games after all. You would think the crime genre would also be a good place to examine power structures, but I think many of those games end up playing towards the power fantasy. Ah yeah board games are a really good place for this. Strategy games like Civ too. I don't know much about Wabash Cannonball, could you talk about that a little more? Excellent points. Yeah, the reason for saying I didn't want to get too political is I didn't want to scare people off by seeming too radical. I do essentially identify as an anarchist, but I'm pretty pragmatic about the whole thing. To me the fundamental thing isn't politics, it's being good to your fellow human beings. Part of that is recognizing the effects of power in society but I also differ from a lot of other people because I'm more in the Tolstoyian vein of things. Change for society comes from within the self rather than from the violent overthrow of the powers that be. And also yes, I was a little worried that I would sound like I was minimizing feminist issues (as I'm also aware of those problems you mentioned). Not my intention in the least. I do get a little frustrated though because a lot of the video game feminist movement centers around upper class white female demographics, and this "gentrification" of the feminist movement is something that has been discussed a lot in feminist circles, especially by women of color in the Third Wave. I think this is one reason intersectionality and Kyriarchy are important concepts to keep in mind. This is especially a problem since "video games feminism" is not only isolated from a larger critique of power structures, but also from mainstream feminist work in general. Anyway the point of this post was not to diminish that, rather it was to enlarge the scope of criticism and discussion. The misogyny stuff is the most glaring and gross example of these unbalanced power structures in video game culture. I think issues of class are also worth discussing too, and I think binding all these things under a common theme of resisting coercion and hierarchy is important.

I think disclosure, ideally, means embracing the subjective nature of journalism and focusing more on the personal experience of that person. Which in effect is a higher level of disclosure, but doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to have to have a paragraph label before every article. To me the entire point of disclosure has nothing to do with avoiding mobbing etc. I mean I want mobbing to stop but the point of disclosure and a more open media isn't to prevent the 4chan idiots, it's because games journalism needs to grow up and stop talking about everything in these pseudo official objectivist frameworks. Give me gonzo. Also saw this article recently and thought it might be kind of relevant to the thread https://www.pw.org/content/the_problem_of_entitlement_a_question_of_respect It's sort of indirect but it's talking about the conflict over "entitlement" between young and old writers and poets. I think some of this stuff might be a bit of a generational thing too. As I've said before some of this might be more Old Media versus New Media than anything else. Old writers and poets complain that new writers and poets are entitled because they don't give respect to published authors and the Gatekeepers of Literature. But for a generation who grew up reading and writing stuff online, all that old media stuff is useless. Who the fuck cares if you got in this years American Anthology of Short Stories? If I think your story is bad, I think it's bad. And a lot of what is called "entitlement" by these older authors is really that unwillingness to accept an appeal to authority and the default level of prestige associated with those kinds of writings. This isn't directly related, but I see a similar conflict between accusations of cronyism, cliqueishness, and a general cynicism from younger people about the meritocracy of the real world.

Uncharitable does not mean "mean". Uncharitable means "without sufficient benefit of doubt given". It's kind of jargony I guess, so maybe I should had defined my use of the term but what I mean by using it is that sufficient benifit of the doubt has not be given and that the focus should be placed more on the substance of the argument than on the tone. At least that's my experience using the term in these kinds of contexts and that's what I meant. Also I def don't think tone is an issue with Sarkeesian. I still cannot understand how this shit gets passed over in mainstream comics. The very best comics have never been the ones that indulge in this kind of nonsense, and yet people keep on making it In general I'd say the whole focus on superheros in comics is silly to begin with. Why can't we just make comics like people do online that are cool and funny, and maybe include heroes but don't always?

I think some of that is inherent in any medium. Film and fine art painting do the same thing. I think it's a larger problem in games though for 2 reasons. 1) The medium is younger and smaller. Film has over a century to draw off of, and painting several thousand. Games really only has 4-3 decades at most. 2) Many video game enthusiasts are incredibly sheltered from other mediums. I think if you took a poll of the average self-identified gamer their favorite movies would be something Star Wars or Marvel related and I'd say a sizeable chunk haven't read a book in years. Actually that's true of the general population in general but schools still force kids to read and so there are common touch stones that people draw off of. I don't want that to sound judgmental, but I do think it's a huge contributing factor. "Video Game Musicians" remind me a lot of "Christian Rock". People will listen to some really piss poor music because the lyrics reference Mario/Jesus. The cultural identity comes before the actual importance of the medium to a lot of people for various historical/cultural reasons. I think a lot of this is hopefully growing pains and will wear off, and one reason I like indie games so much is because they seem to have a wider familiarity with other mediums. Other mediums do the whole "meets meets meets" thing, and actually that's famously how to structure the logline for spec scripts in film, but because film has such a larger breadth to draw on as a medium it's less glaring a problem. And also because film grew up along side many other mediums, while video games has largely kept to itself. Queen or Trent Reznor famously have done lots of film soundtracks but video games almost always turns inwards to self references rather than gathering from outside it's sphere. That's another reason video games feels rather incestuous to me in it's touchstones.

Very much agreed. Also I like hypertext. I grew up with it so I didn't actually understand it was a special thing in academia until about 6 or so years ago, but even the basic added function of hypertext is cool. I wish I could talk in hypertext. I've been to a couple of VR jams here in Austin and it's pretty interesting. I see a lot of old Silicone Valley type guys who made their money in the 80s and 90s kind of get back into the game because they're excited for all this VR and AR applications. There's some pretty goofy projects being funded but still it's exciting to see. I think smart phones and tablets really helped open the door for that kind of stuff. Actually I think there's a good more that could be done on those platforms too. It's just very hard because there's a lot of theory and not a lot of best practices established. But people who grew up with digital media have a better intuitive sense for what works and doesn't I think, which also helps. Oh yeah and I met a girl who does design at IBM and there's some crazy shit they're doing with Watson and interaction design.

I think the word "deserve some slip ups" is kind of weird but maybe that's getting into too abstract philosophy. But yeah, I don't think that personal attacks invalidate people's positions. Ad Hom is a fallacy but there's also the "Fallacy Fallacy" you know? I'm just saying I wish people would focus on getting shit done. Also I think some people (this isn't specific) are saying some pretty scummy things. Like virgin shaming which is the flip side of the coin of slut shaming. That's just gross. Asexual people and all that. Also this comic is awesome and feels pretty relevant.