Nachimir

This puts a bunch of stuff better than I can: The Truth About Zoe Quinn It annoys the shit out of me when, in response to someone pointing out harassment, someone like Security_Tubbs says "Hey hey wait up a minute let's look at the FACTS here". The facts are that people are being subjected to monstrous, dehumanising harassment, and pawing over accusations relating to their personal lives is very much a part of that harassment.

There is way too much for a brief summary, but this headline is a pretty representative sample of what's been happening continuously for the past week or two: Trolls drive Anita Sarkeesian out of her house to prove misogyny doesn't exist They also harassed and doxed Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish, among others, not only in an attempt to prove that misogyny doesn't exist, but also that games journalism is corrupt and games are being ruined by women and Social Justice Warriors. Or something. Their stated motives have been quite vague and ephemeral, mostly bolstered by insane annotated photo-collages posted to imgur and facebook, but the one certainty is that their objectives are apparently best achieved by abusing women and feminists, driving them away from any sort of public life. Little of it is new, but the intensity, venom and duration of it this time around has been remarkable and disturbing.

I'd read the whole post, but I'm too busy doing cool things with my cool friends. If you really want to get into clique stuff, then I promise: No matter how successful, well known, or well regarded you become in games or game journalism, that shit will still follow you around, and the reason for that is not because it's all-pervasive, but because you care about it and think it's real. It is more a state of mind than an actual reflection of social relationships. No matter what part of the industry or its surroundings you eventually crack into, you'll find that people make friends and hang out, some people actually hate each other in ways you didn't expect, no one is as united as they may look from afar, and a whole load of others are looking for the slightest confirmation of a ᴄʟɪǫᴜᴇ in order to tell themselves whatever narrative they want to about it, usually to confirm a set of conclusions they already came to. People make friends. People talk about people and groups of people. People have profiles in media, and in turn those images become assumptions in the heads of others. That process is not under anyone person or group's control. The idea of cliques builds on these things along with all kinds of bullshit stories we tell ourselves based around antagonist-protagonist, giving those we feel excluded by the role of antagonists when they almost certainly mean no malice whatsoever. Sometimes, people just don't fit in with each other. I know a lot of indie developers, and deal with hundreds every year. Some of them are close friends, but there are a whole heap that I don't really fit with and who don't fit with me when it comes to social settings. I still do business with them, but we don't hang out. It's just humans, it's not a conspiracy, and the only way to deal with it is move the fuck on and find your people. It's not that group behaviour is never problematic, but these things are human problems, not games industry problems.

Holy buttcheeks juv3nal, that app is setting of my Irresponsible Machismo Alarm.

That Brendan Keogh post is pretty good. I've not been able to articulate my discomfort at forbidding Patreon backing either, though it centres on it being only a few bucks a month in many cases, and that emotional investment can operate independently of money spent (i.e. there are a bunch of Kickstarters I supported, but am not especially emotionally invested in. I'd like to see cool stuff come from them, but accept it might not). A hard and fast rule relating to a specific service doesn't encourage journalists to contemplate ethics or when to recuse themselves, it possibly just contributes to a system of rules that can potentially be exploited or gamed. Simultaneously, journalists are being criticised for paying for things and getting them for free. It's so dumb. Edit: https://twitter.com/Smingleigh/status/504614946622439424

I too would like to see that list expand. They get bonus points for referring to the ᴛʜᴇ ɪɴᴅɪᴇ ᴄʟɪǫᴜᴇ. I know someone who also thinks it's real, is desperate to be in it, and is convinced that I am. Fun fact: When Mike Bithell was on stage at a BAFTA event, and someone asked him about ᴛʜᴇ ɪɴᴅɪᴇ ᴄʟɪǫᴜᴇ, a tweet from an audience member scrolled up the cinema screen behind him: "[person] has raised the indie clique issue. Meeting on the sky fortress in an hour, everyone"

I've never understood peoples scepticism toward bisexuality, but have heard it voiced occasionally, and even though I'm not bi it's always made sense to me that people would be attracted to others of any gender. I'm not sure if that making post was a big deal for you or not, but I think it was a courageous post to make. From an ex who was cis but described herself as "technically female" due to her almost stereotypically masculine mind, to plenty of bi friends, to getting to know plenty of trans people through work, to conversations with friends who readily identify parts of their minds or personalities as not matching up to their culturally assigned gender, I've come to continuously see gender and sexuality as very fluid things. It always seems like, for all of those people, that it feels risky to stick their head above the parapet and say something non-heteronormative though.

When this started, I assumed TFYC were some well meaning but naive guys. Since then, I've found out they're actually a bunch of libertarian shites who froth about Ayn Rand being "basic research!1!" Sounds like a solid set of criteria! As the past few weeks have amply demonstrated, absolutely no one will have any sort of agenda to pick on it.

Yeah. I did loads of prep for a final arc in Pripyat, then found it was over after a handful of missions.

A journalist getting a free ticket to E3 then, during a review process, thinking "Maybe bump that up a few points, after all [developer] *is* a member of the ESA, and I wouldn't want low review scores to threaten those sweet press passes I've been getting!", or an ESA member having enough sway to nix a press pass becau- Jesus. Fuck. I'm not a particularly big fan of games journalism, or even much journalism of any kind, but all of the increasingly byzantine arguments I've heard over increasingly trivial stakes during the past few weeks are just such a goddamn fucking stretch. It's like equating an E3 press pass or an action figure in a jiffy bag to pharmaceutical companies flying doctors to Hawaii (which they actually fucking do). Gawker sites are so hungry for content, they're not really keeping anyone or anything out. There's a load of really bad games journalism out there, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the result of conspiracies, kickbacks, or freebies. Yes, there are shits in journalism and in other bits of the video games industry (like the executive who tried to get Steve Hogarty fired over this review, and recently a load of people on Twitter sharing that yes, Kevin Dent tried to get them fired too), but when they try manipulation/gossip it's typically limited, and beyond that they generally resort to lawyers, not a fucking gentleman's club. Watching all of this unfold, I have more confidence in the video games press than I did before. The thing I want to drill into every fucker's skull over this is that "the" games press, "the" industry, and "the" indie scene are all a lot less united than people assume and not organised in any of the ways people like to infer. Leigh Alexander should have had the final word on it: Edit: Bang on time: https://twitter.com/misterbrilliant/status/504604481703915520 I think what I'm arguing for is that yes, press should be accountable and often scrutinised, but at the moment, there are a load of really stupid people trying to hold the press accountable for trivial things that influence little to nothing.

Compared to SoC, I found it disappointing when I got there. I suspect a part of that was that I found a way to make money, then a route between Zaton and Pripyat that let me buy loads of batteries for the railgun. Even burers get taken down with a few shots. After that, none of it ever felt as spooky or dangerous as the zone should.

At the beginning of that argument, before I went out and it ballooned up by several pages, I thought use of "status quo" was a particularly troubling one on several grounds. One: Poor awareness and definition of what that is. Two, as Hermie highlights: a seeming lack of awareness that the status quo is largely about treating games and game-related works only as products. Quickly, to the Video Games Monastery, where no one does things with penises or free lunches and the result is fair and balanced product reviews to enhance my consumer lifestyle without making ripples.

That's something people were also saying when GDC lost its shit over facebook or maybe casual games in 2009. It might the new "Games are bigger than Hollywood". Not that dudebro tears aren't delicious though.

I tend to be disappointed with licensed board games. Game of Thrones is alright, but like a much less graceful version of Cyclades. BSG is fine, but there are loads of simpler hidden role games that have some of the same thrills without having to set up and track a million bits of cardboard. They're all fun enough once, but never make it onto the list of things I really want to play again or own. I think it might be because the designs feel like they're trying to cram in everything and the kitchen sink to reference as much as possible. It says in the comments the companion app will run on PC. Apparently others from FFG so far have been iOS only, which means they'll be the Atmosfears of 2030.

Moved from the feminism thread. Still, whoops, I failed to spot how many pages of discussion took place after this post. Sorry. Indeed. I spent some of this weekend with a youtuber who previously did games press work, and he was surprised at the fury about nepotism, because, like, professional publications *do* have processes and policies in place to work against it. He said he's finding the adjustment to youtube really weird, because now there's nobody actually monitoring and holding him to similar ethical standards and he has to just take responsibility for that himself (To clarify, he's not someone who's been involved in any of the ZQ stuff or Youtube payola things over the past few months, and he didn't talk about that lack of accountability as if it was a good thing). It doesn't matter to the complainers in this case though: As soon as (for instance) Stephen Totlio says he's confident there's no wrongdoing on the part of his columnist, they can just expand their conspiracy to include him too. I think some of them really do believe they're attacking a conspiracy, and some others are just using it as a cover to harass and attack people.

(Edit: Argh, sorry, I failed to spot how many pages were after that post, and JonCole's thread. Moved post).

Technically, they have our faces in. Yay bike pics.

I want to think this too, but they definitely have some of the same problems. Just not amplified by distance/anonymity. In my experience of such organisations, I've had to fight to get safe space policies in, occasionally against people directly opposing them as "polit*cally c*rrect nonsense", and counter the "But we're not sexists!/racists!homophobes!" etc. talking points whenever an issue comes up. Because they involve games and tech, the people who start and inhabit them tend to be overwhelmingly white, male and middle class, and while few of them have malign motives, many of them are definitely ignorant to systemic prejudice, how ingrained it is in all our behaviour, and how intimidating that makes hackerspaces to any other type of person. Also, building the political will to deal with harassers can be a monumental effort. Not because people are in favour of the harassment, but they feel like they're violating a part of the organisation by taking power and responsibility to make those kind of decisions. (Edit: Haha, the swear filter changes "politically correct" to "opinionated in a way that is different from me" )

It's like something from ! I hope it tinnily plays the same session metal from every wearer's crotch, like the blackest greetings card. It totally cracks me up that they sell a product named Super Male Vitality. Having to do customer support for them is definitely the kicker, possibly also the risk that in selling bullshit, if you do it effectively you might start to believe the bullshit too. I think of money as a purely imaginary thing that gives us all permission to do stuff. It's arguable that getting potentially harmful people to give up some of their money is a moral good, but it ignores the conceptual reinforcement you'd be giving them and is far too close to "stupid people deserve what they get" and tabloids saying "we're just giving people what they want" for me to be comfortable arguing it at all. I'm pretty sure that in aggregate, I'd feel bad about it. Every time someone asked me what I did and I told them, I'd look like a dog getting told off because it just farted.

That Hitman piece by Ben Parfitt was the single worst piece of games journalism I've ever read. The chain of surly updates taking pops at their rivals as the day went on was unintentionally hilarious though.

It's annoyingly trapped in an online reader rather than downloadable, but A MAZE put together a small newspaper for GamesCom called Independence Amazing: http://issuu.com/independenceamazing/docs/independence_amazing_nr0_2014 I wrote an article for it titled The Real Mainstream, about finding new audiences.

The industry as a whole won't, because large, effective, wealthy parts of it don't give a shit about any of these issues (for instance, see Develop and MCV's coverage of ZQs harassment and Phil Fish today. Also, edit related edit. The first version they posted was more than twice as long, named ZQ, had a load of Phil Fish quotes and gossip, and seemed to be written to mock him). A healthier games culture could foster that generation though, and a part of being more diverse and inclusive is not framing games as exclusively commercial ("Industry", or at least the games industry I know, cannot do that). I fear building that culture will suffer if women are driven out of the public eye. To that end, I want to show as much public support as I can without it becoming monotonous or obsequious.

A physical manifestation of Objective Game Reviews!

This week has made me really despondent at points. There are things I work on where I feel like I'm fighting the entire audience because of sexist, harassing bullshit. Overall, it's left me angry, less inclined to mince words, and determined to call it out when I see it. I think Liz might be right about their level of vitriol being a dying struggle rather than an escalating warplan. It's mature of her to pity them, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm angry, it's open season on misogynerds and mockery is the best weapon.

I think that might depend on whether you do a cubes or cubes and anticubes playthrough, but my memory is fuzzy. Pretty sure there's far more than one though. And