"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[seasleepy]

This went around Twitter a bit yesterday but Sapkowski (the author of The Witcher books) rejected the idea of "Slavic fantasy" notably back in 1992 (Google translate will get you the gist of it, the main section in question starts around the header 8:33 and goes to the end, but it chokes pretty hard on some of what I assume is Polish wordplay -- here's a Storify of some translation).  His perspective is that while there is Slavic mythology, due to the fact that it was associated with the pagan religion of the area, the bulk of it was lost and the remainder was twisted by the Church over a thousand years ago so no one can really claim to be writing Slavic fantasy because no one even knows what that actually is.  And he considers most Slavic fantasy of the time to be cribbed from other (mostly better, in his opinion) foreign authors with local monsters and local names subbed in for some of the ones that might exist in the originals.

I mean, he would also be the first to tell you that the game's writers and the book's writers are completely different but it's clear that he'd find the idea that he's remaining true to a historical version of Fantasy Poland to be laughable.

[Merus]

There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem when talking about whether a game's theme justifies violence, because the themes we see the most are the ones where purely violent mechanics requires the least explanation. The themes are chosen because they allow for violence. Of course, did the violence come first, or did the themes?

 

1) Looking at pre-NES games, for instance, where having a coherent theme was never much of a priority, you had a wide variety of themes and a wide variety of game styles. As it became increasingly important for games to be intuitive and for their themes to fit the gameplay, we saw a race towards themes that would fit the gameplay, and at the time gameplay was still relatively limited. There's a reason why games with genuinely new mechanics tend to have very unusual themes - Myst, The Sims, Katamari Damacy, hell, even GTA.

 

2) Speaking of GTA, it's interesting that you almost never see pedestrians try and leap out of the way of a car, when that used to be quite common behaviour.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Take WW2 games for example... the setting/theme is such that use of violence is forgone conclusion. Compare that to say, Civilization games. Designers of those games wondered about how to combat the games devolving into war game at highly competitive level, one of reason being this question. There this question makes a lot more sense cause game's theme should be broader (and it is, it just gets overshadowed when game is pushed to max).

One of my favorite ways to play Civilization games is to be a city state and try to succeed by cultural or diplomatic victory. It both adds a lot of nuance to and removes a lot of nuance from the gameplay, but the design choices that were made make that an option.

I haven't played the Witcher, so I don't know the answer to this question. Is there any analog to, say, the Roma being discriminated against? I don't think that the argument that this culture is being preserved and blah blah blah really hold up if Polish racist sentiments are swept under the rug. I mean, black Polish people were in the news... some time in the last few years (2011? 12?) when cops killed a black man in a major city and there was rioting, which the police responded to with mass arrests. If incidents like that and the ongoing discrimination against Roma aren't addressed, I really think preservation of culture has even the little wind it has taken out of its sails.

[Gaizokubanou]

Right, the idea that Witcher lore is slavic is not valid and I think pretty much everyone here agrees?  But some of us were saying the production is Polish.

 

Edit: My reply to Bjorn is based on my misreading so going to remove that as it serves no purpose to the discussion.

 

One of my favorite ways to play Civilization games is to be a city state and try to succeed by cultural or diplomatic victory. It both adds a lot of nuance to and removes a lot of nuance from the gameplay, but the design choices that were made make that an option.

I haven't played the Witcher, so I don't know the answer to this question. Is there any analog to, say, the Roma being discriminated against? I don't think that the argument that this culture is being preserved and blah blah blah really hold up if Polish racist sentiments are swept under the rug. I mean, black Polish people were in the news... some time in the last few years (2011? 12?) when cops killed a black man in a major city and there was rioting, which the police responded to with mass arrests. If incidents like that and the ongoing discrimination against Roma aren't addressed, I really think preservation of culture has even the little wind it has taken out of its sails.

 

Yeah, in single player setting you can do a lot with Civ games and it is a wonderful thing.  Just that in competitive multiplayer it kinda and sadly turns into this weird quasi war game.

 

If Witcher 3's whiteness is reflective of some form of racism that's prevalent in Poland then of course, I agree it would no longer be a morally neutral decision.  Like Gor's previous post on how turning Witcher's map sideway reveals surprisingly close geography of real life, which I think is indeed a strong evidence that there may be perhaps some form of Polish racism going to ignore southern region as a barren wasteland like that.

[BobbyBesar]

I do, and I particularly bring up the 'sex as the ultimate success' point in connection to Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Also seldom discussed, but very gamergate relevant: Why is the fact that almost every video game tells us that every conflict can be solved through deadly weapons not considered highly political in the present debate?

My wife recently noted that Persona 3 and 4 are asshole boyfriend simulators: you spend time with your dates and get to know them really well, then you have sex with them and never speak to them again.

 

There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem when talking about whether a game's theme justifies violence, because the themes we see the most are the ones where purely violent mechanics requires the least explanation. The themes are chosen because they allow for violence. Of course, did the violence come first, or did the themes?

The violence came first.

 

The Atari 2600 was designed explicitly for Combat: 2 sprites + 2 bullets (plus one "ball" sprite) is a hardware limitation. (Read Racing the Beam, it's very cool.)

[Dewar]

The Witcher addresses a lot of heavy social themes, sometimes less successfully than others, and I wonder if having real minorities, as opposed to the fake minorities of the Elves and Dwarves, would cause more difficulties. *shrug* Not saying that as an excuse, but just generally wondering about how that would be perceived by the general populace. It's easy to make Ashley space-racist in Mass Effect, but I don't think it would have flown well were she actually racist, even if it was handled with some modicum of respect (which Bioware isn't so hot at either.) 

[syntheticgerbil]

Hire a medievalist, fantasy writers. Hire one that's fresh out of grad school. For ten bucks an hour, all your fake Latin will be perfect and nothing in your setting will be fresh out of Ivanhoe.

Why pay them so low?

[Bjorn]

I'm sure there are articles out there that insinuates that but I don't think anyone here is?  There is a HUGE difference between "you can't want diversity in Witcher 3 cause it's Polish" (which I have seen online and disagree with) vs "you can excuse Witcher 3 cause it's Polish".

 

Like, is there anyone on this board that is actually against more diverse cast in Witcher 3?  Pretty sure we would all appreciate and want that so keep bringing up "why are you against diversity" feels out of place.

 

I don't know how to reply to you on this.  I mean, I was specifically replying to this quote: "On the other hand, I think it's also true that specific local history is deserving of more representation than always being transformed into the US version of the the representative social issue for the sake of mass appeal."  That literally puts the onus on this being an American thing that people care about this, that it's about appealing to American values/standards, and I was directly counterpointing that by showing an actual, current harm that a culture which constantly posits white people as heroes and beautiful causes.  There was also a comment a few pages back that falls into similar territory, which I'm not going to quote just because I don't want to pick a fight about that comment specifically. 

 

There is some truth that American values/standards do come into play, regularly, in this discussion. People have made comments about making something more mass appeal to cater to a global audience (I might have said something about that myself, I'm not sure).  But it's equally true that there are other factors at work, including things like how some cultures have internalized white = beautiful and good so strongly that they are causing permanent health problems to try and match that.  And the dominance of white American and European cultures worldwide is the reason for that.  We've talked about how a dominant white culture is a problem, but we hadn't really delved into the actual effects that it has had.  I was showing, hey, here's an example of why its a problem that has nothing to do with American diversity or social issues.

 

If someone wants to say "It's Polish, it's excusable," then say that.  But don't at the same time insinuate that a big reason people care about this is because of US social issues when the issue is bigger, more global and more complex than that. 

[Gaizokubanou]

I mean, I was specifically replying to this quote: "On the other hand, I think it's also true that specific local history is deserving of more representation than always being transformed into the US version of the the representative social issue for the sake of mass appeal."  That literally puts the onus on this being an American thing that people care about this, that it's about appealing to American values/standards, and I was directly counterpointing that by showing an actual, current harm that a culture which constantly posits white people as heroes and beautiful causes.  

 

You responded perfectly, I should have read that context better.  My apologies.  You are right in that reasons for wanting diverse representation obviously exceeds the boundaries of USA/Western Europe liberals and I didn't realize that was that strongly hinted at (maybe he didn't mean that, who knows I'm sure he can clarify his wordings) by Deadpan.

 

I got way too carried away and for some reason thought you were disputing Vainamonien's post.  I should have read better.

[Deadpan]

I indeed didn't mean to imply that caring about this or the issues themselves are unique to US so much as to point out that the reframing of these stories in the terms of dominant cultures can write over other kinds of (for instance) racism that that culture might not be aware of (or at least the people making media might think they aren't aware of and couldn't possibly empathize with). Which I didn't communicate very clearly, apparently, so sorry for being unclear.

 

I tried getting at this with the line before the one Bjorn latched onto, how if you deviate from the local folklore anyway (which people are bound to even just to translate from one time to another, if not one space to another) you should at least do it in progressive ways.

 

Edit:

 

When people insinuate that the only reason to want diversity is to appeal to an American audience

 

I actually meant to say that people reduce the amount of diversity (which is hardly a quantifiable thing but forgive that for a second), stating mass appeal as a reason but more like using it as an excuse. So they end up not representing the actual local culture they quote from, but also not representing the diversity of the one into which they transport the work, which is like the worst of both worlds.

[Bjorn]

I indeed didn't mean to imply that caring about this or the issues themselves are unique to US so much as to point out that the reframing of these stories in the terms of dominant cultures can write over other kinds of (for instance) racism that that culture might not be aware of (or at least the people making media might think they aren't aware of and couldn't possibly empathize with). Which I didn't communicate very clearly, apparently, so sorry for being unclear.

 

I tried getting at this with the line before the one Bjorn latched onto, how if you deviate from the local folklore anyway (which people are bound to even just to translate from one time to another, if not one space to another) you should at least do it in progressive ways.

 

And given how thoughtful you generally are, I didn't think you likely intended it exactly as it came off, but it does fit a particular kind of rebuttal that's been used, and I thought it was worth delving into some of the larger global race issues that we hadn't really touched on. 

 

 

 

Oh, hey, everybody!  An honest-to-god Ethics in Journalism thing happened!  Ubisoft has apparently banned Kotaku from their E3 presser, through non-invite.  KiA/gg is of course celebrating this, because a billion dollar corporation shutting out a media outlet is Ethics in Action! (this is all based on a tweet from Kotaku's news editor, but it's been floating around for a day and he hasn't indicated it was just a joke or anything, so I'm taking it as straight up what happened). 

 

I mean, I know that gg doesn't really care about ethics, but the process of

 

1) Ask company uncomfortable questions ->

2) Company refuses to answer in any clear way ->

3) Company refuses access to one of its biggest media events of the year

 

Is exactly the kind of ethics thing that people have worried about with enthusiast presses for decades.  If you don't ask they questions they want you to ask, then you will be punished.  This is one of the foundational ethics issues of all enthusiast presses, and gg is, naturally, celebrating its existence. 

 

This is also funny because KiA has a new manifesto thing currently stickied that's all about how womenz ruined games and they re-wrote their origin point as being back when Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot.  You know, how a big corporation put pressure on a gaming outlet to act a specific way, or they'd be punished?  Gee, where did I just read something about that?

[Deadpan]

And given how thoughtful you generally are

 

<3

 

Oh my, ethics!

 

Usually I like to say that the fewer sites report from E3 the better, but a specific ban is obviously shit.

[thefncrow]

2) Speaking of GTA, it's interesting that you almost never see pedestrians try and leap out of the way of a car, when that used to be quite common behaviour.

Weirdly, I'm kinda glad this has changed. I ran over more people by accident than I did on purpose when this was in play. I would try to avoid the bystander, only for them to dive directly into where I'd just turned to avoid them. That was always just the worst feeling.

[natellite]

<3

 

Oh my, ethics!

 

Usually I like to say that the fewer sites report from E3 the better, but a specific ban is obviously shit.

 

Yeah, that's wild. Stuff like this always highlights the huge power imbalance between the press and the companies. I guess that's a problem in tech generally, too. I can't help but think that overcoming or subverting that is gonna be our Big Issue - or, you know, another Big Issue on the pile along with misogyny, harassment, and the general existence of games press as a branch of games marketing divisions.

[Apple Cider]

I got my turn through the KiA wringer yesterday by people stalking Austin Walker tracking down my twitter and making a huge thread about me because I dared to say that games exhaust me sometimes (with all context removed since none of them actually know who I am.)

[Azniac]

his is also funny because KiA has a new manifesto thing currently stickied that's all about how womenz ruined games and they re-wrote their origin point as being back when Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot.  You know, how a big corporation put pressure on a gaming outlet to act a specific way, or they'd be punished?  Gee, where did I just read something about that?

 

That sticky is ridiculous. Gerstmann's firing and the Mass Effect 3 ending apparently rival each other when it comes to corruption in games journalism. Also:

 

We're mostly a cultural watchdog for all things nerdy, though we tend to focus mainly on gaming.

 

Translation: "We're trying to maintain the cultural status quo".

[Deadpan]

Crap on a butt, sorry to hear that.

[Gaizokubanou]

I got my turn through the KiA wringer yesterday by people stalking Austin Walker tracking down my twitter and making a huge thread about me because I dared to say that games exhaust me sometimes (with all context removed since none of them actually know who I am.)

 

Sorry that those assholes gave you trouble for no good reason D:

[osmosisch]

I haven't played the Witcher, so I don't know the answer to this question. Is there any analog to, say, the Roma being discriminated against? I don't think that the argument that this culture is being preserved and blah blah blah really hold up if Polish racist sentiments are swept under the rug. I mean, black Polish people were in the news... some time in the last few years (2011? 12?) when cops killed a black man in a major city and there was rioting, which the police responded to with mass arrests. If incidents like that and the ongoing discrimination against Roma aren't addressed, I really think preservation of culture has even the little wind it has taken out of its sails.

I've only played the first game to any extent, and read the books. From those, the humans, elves and dwarves are all racist against each other in various ways, with the humans being the ones currently in power and the non-humans confined mostly to ghettoes in the cities. It's kind of Dragon Agey.

[Naldean]

Oh, hey, everybody!  An honest-to-god Ethics in Journalism thing happened!  Ubisoft has apparently banned Kotaku from their E3 presser, through non-invite.  KiA/gg is of course celebrating this, because a billion dollar corporation shutting out a media outlet is Ethics in Action! (this is all based on a tweet from Kotaku's news editor, but it's been floating around for a day and he hasn't indicated it was just a joke or anything, so I'm taking it as straight up what happened). 

 

I mean, I know that gg doesn't really care about ethics, but the process of

 

1) Ask company uncomfortable questions ->

2) Company refuses to answer in any clear way ->

3) Company refuses access to one of its biggest media events of the year

 

Is exactly the kind of ethics thing that people have worried about with enthusiast presses for decades.  If you don't ask they questions they want you to ask, then you will be punished.  This is one of the foundational ethics issues of all enthusiast presses, and gg is, naturally, celebrating its existence. 

 

This is also funny because KiA has a new manifesto thing currently stickied that's all about how womenz ruined games and they re-wrote their origin point as being back when Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot.  You know, how a big corporation put pressure on a gaming outlet to act a specific way, or they'd be punished?  Gee, where did I just read something about that?

 

Aside from the inherent irony of celebrating this as a victory for ethics in journalism, it's also kind of hilarious because attending E3 press conferences in person is, like, no longer actually important.

[Vainamoinen]

For those new here wondering what Gamergate is about:

• Gamergate started to build with events like the firing of a journalist over their review of Kane and Lynch, the Doritopope incident, and the ending of Mass Effect 3 (where places like Kotaku called gamers "entitled" because they were unhappy with the ending, after being promised so much more by the developers).

 

Whoah. Needs correction in the first line:

 

For those new here wondering what Gamergate is about:

• Gamergate started to build when Anita Sarkeesian announced her Tropes vs. Women Kickstarter in 2012 and game culture immediately exhibited an embarrassing inability to deal with this kind of criticism... more than a year before the actual criticism. The harrassment cavalry was absysmal and shameful even by youtube standards. Video game culture had proven its weakness and utter underdevelopment/backwardness. Then, it got much worse.

...

 

Aside from the inherent irony of celebrating this as a victory for ethics in journalism, it's also kind of hilarious because attending E3 press conferences in person is, like, no longer actually important.

 

I have no idea whether it's even relevant at all that Ubisoft hasn't expressly invited kotaku to their press conference. It's not like that room has unlimited space, and it's really not as if kotaku was quality media (though they have made some progress this last year... I think, as a counterreaction to gamergate). It's the gg reaction that is so telling:

 

• Censorship, control of the press, selection of the press to achieve favorable coverage, death of internet journalism portals is all great as long as gamergate's enemies get the shaft.
• Every time something bad happens to a declared enemy of gamergate, gamergate must assume that it was gamergate related, their "victory", and that they "fought".

[Deadpan]

Kotaku has been publishing good criticism (being one of the first major sites to stop scoring games, in the traditional sense) and excellent commentary for a long time, it just so happens that these are buried under the many, many other posts the site also has to throw at the wall to have enough things sticking to it for it to continue to exist. I find it strange that people reserves such unique scorn for this model given how rarely they lambast other games sites for the anemic news posts, trailer summaries, and otherwise regurgitated PR material that constitutes the majority of their stock.

 

Regardless, whether a site is good enough to attend shouldn't be a decision a publisher gets to make, and based on reach alone they certainly desever a first-row seat at that kind of thing, if they want it.

[Ninety-Three]

I find it strange that people reserves such unique scorn for this model given how rarely they lambast other games sites for the anemic news posts, trailer summaries, and otherwise regurgitated PR material that constitutes the majority of their stock.

 

I think it has to do with acceptance. The word-for-word recaps of press releases are lousy, but they're a bog standard lousy that everyone's used to. People are less bothered by it, and they're probably less hopeful that it will ever change.

 

 

Regardless, whether a site is good enough to attend shouldn't be a decision a publisher gets to make, and based on reach alone they certainly desever a first-row seat at that kind of thing, if they want it.

 

I agree that not inviting Kotaku is dumb (surely they've invited much less notable sites), but who should get to make that decision if not the publisher? Who else is there to make that decision?

[Deadpan]

I agree that not inviting Kotaku is dumb (surely they've invited much less notable sites), but who should get to make that decision if not the publisher? Who else is there to make that decision?

 

Woof.

 

That's a complicated issue situated somewhere between the inevitable structural imbalances in access to information and the question of what the purpose of games writing should even be.

 

The short of it is that I don't think anybody in games should be making these qualitative judgements about the validity of platforms, nor does anybody really need to make that kind decision at the moment. Keep in mind that I already believe this kind of information should be made openly available to move away from the bane of preselection by way of granting exclusive coverage.

[Mangela Lansbury]

I agree that not inviting Kotaku is dumb (surely they've invited much less notable sites), but who should get to make that decision if not the publisher? Who else is there to make that decision?

I don't know much about how E3 is organized. Why do you have to be invited to a major press event at an industry conference based around press events? That seems bizarre and like something the host's logistics staff should handle, not the company. I've always heard about the invite thing, but it just seems so unnecessary to have to invite people to your press event at, uh, a press event.

But maybe I just don't know enough! I know basically nothing, so it's very very possible.