Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Maybe they'll do something out of Twitch HQ?

 

Edit: Also, if Drew is going solo, I certainly hope he'll be doing it as a personality and not a mercenary producer. I was really bummed when Austin left, but that's turning into something great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to really enjoy the conference stuff. Sometimes people get hammered and it gets awkward but I don't think it's ever been "bad". I sort of wish they had more opportunities to do stuff like that where the schedule and surrounding circumstances aren't so hectic. It's a neat sort of late night TV vibe that you don't normally get in games. Usually when developers are sitting down on a couch with "games press" there's a TV right there and they're doing what basically amounts to a product demo. I like the extremely informal setting of it all even when it's gone off the rails.

 

I hope they get a lady on the GBWest team. At this point I don't think you can really cover games well without a female perspective. However I think Giant Bomb's rather grey, hands off, stance on social issues makes it hard to attract that talent. In the era we appear to have entered into I think that continues to be both their biggest strength and challenge. A large reason that GB produces the only gaming podcasts I'm still listening to is because it's one of the outlets that I feel offers quality analysis of games and the industry without a lot of "political opinion". In a time when everyone is basically waterboarded with everyone else's social opinions on a constant basis it's nice to know that at least my video game podcast is still going to be about video games (and peoples house projects and stupid reader mail). However I think that same stance makes it hard for them to attract good younger talent and instead lands them folks like Dan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason I decided to read the comments on the latest Beastcast... yikes. Nothing unites certain gamerz (to the point they'll defend pewdiepie of all people) like the threat of ~sjw censorship~.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked because I hate myself, and someone's apparently done a really nice job scrubbing that thread up because all the comments are about Skittles and Vinny's giant hands and nary a shithead moment is to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badfinger said:

I checked because I hate myself, and someone's apparently done a really nice job scrubbing that thread up because all the comments are about Skittles and Vinny's giant hands and nary a shithead moment is to be seen.

 

Wooow... just checked back and they indeed have deleted about 3 pages worth of comments. Considering Vinny even chimed in at some point to clarify himself in the comments, it definitely was for the best to just delete it all honestly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, darthbator said:

A large reason that GB produces the only gaming podcasts I'm still listening to is because it's one of the outlets that I feel offers quality analysis of games and the industry without a lot of "political opinion". In a time when everyone is basically waterboarded with everyone else's social opinions on a constant basis it's nice to know that at least my video game podcast is still going to be about video games (and peoples house projects and stupid reader mail). However I think that same stance makes it hard for them to attract good younger talent and instead lands them folks like Dan.

 

I get what you're saying, but I would just like to point out that the content of the show(s) may be apolitical, but the choice to not talk about political topics is not apolitical. Seeing something as apolitical is usually because it is holding up and reinforcing a status quo.  I can understand why that constant angle of media being intentionally analyzed for political content can be exhausting, and I understand the impulse to escape under the weight of that by listening to shows that don't have explicit political content. GB's opinions, just like anyone's, are never going to be apolitical because they are coming from people and those people approach and talk by being informed their experiences (mostly as white straight dudes) and lenses of varying academic/intellectual attributes. Not talking about white protagonists of games (for example) is a passive choice, but a choice none the less. Leaving that political topic unanalyzed may be apolitical content, but apolitical content does not make it an apolitical choice. (I'm using political here to mean social politics rather than actual governmental policy.)

 

I would never begrudge someone the escapism of non-politically interested media. I consume lots of media that doesn't explicitly have political conversations, but I think it's worthwhile to remember that that's a choice we're making - a choice to consume media that isn't having explicit political content, and instead that the audeince is passively accepting a hosts/creators defined status quo. As an audience and as hosts, I think it's helpful to just talk about what assumptions we're making about a topic and at least acknowledge them, even if there isn't any interest or attempt at analyzing why that is.

 

I hope this makes sense. I'm glad you enjoy GB darthbator. I'm glad there are some shows still that serve your needs - namely a video game show that doesn't have explicit political conversations. I just think it's worthwhile to think about the politics of those choices, even if you behave the same way after going through the mental work of thinking about it. I think that work is the actual important part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The choice to not talk about politically motivated subjects is certainly monetary. They directly depend on their audience for revenue via premium memberships. They're not shy in talking about how this is their major income source. Dividing the audience in any way is a sure fire way to lose subscribers and income.

 

I think it's insulting to insinuate that people "escape" into media that isn't fixated on the current fashion of excessive social and political opinion. So the only thing of concrete worth in human experience is contemporary diversionary politics? That's a sad, sad world.

 

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious what you mean by "the current fashion of excessive social and political opinion" and "contemporary diversionary politics".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that ideas and topics that promote extreme "otherising" of people on all sides seem to have seeped into absolutely everything. There doesn't seem to be any content created for the internet these days that doesn't have some kind of "Trump angle" or isn't clearly attempting to state where it exists on an increasingly divided spectrum of social opinion by which people now overtly judge one another. 

 

I actually love political and social discourse but it's become completely inescapable. It doesn't matter who you are, or what the forum or topic is it has become what I would consider extremely fashionable to overtly broadcast your social opinion and I've just hit a point where in non politically focused media I find it totally exhausting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, darthbator said:

I think it's insulting to insinuate that people "escape" into media that isn't fixated on the current fashion of social and political opinion. So the only thing of concrete worth in human experience is contemporary diversionary politics? That's a sad, sad world.   

I do.

 

I appreciate that Waypoint is taking the intersection of games and politics head on. It's helpful to me as a person. I also want to use video games to get away from the shitty, shitty world from time to time. Even when the games are full of political commentary and reality, I sometimes consciously choose to not engage with that portion of it if I don't want to at the time. 

 

I'll be blunt, that's a really poor way to interpret that statement. It's not insulting, and it's not an insinuation, it's just truthful. Games have been an avenue of escapism since there were games. There's nothing in the statement that says political thought is the only worthwhile pursuit. The exercise of examining the politics of a work has merit even if you ultimately choose not to be guided by it, or you don't do it all the time. A neutral political stance is still taking a stance.

 

I am appreciative that Austin's direct influence, or the climate of change concurrent with his time at Giant Bomb, has allowed a little more color to work its way into the GB persona. Vinny and Alex directly call out shit behavior for the shit it is. The decision to go with Palmer Luckey's whole bullshit as Hottest Mess because Jeff could be convinced that it was a garbage thing that spilled outside of games and that category didn't have to be limited to some weird refractive Games Only lens was a big marker to me that GB, especially GB East, is willing to be political from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, darthbator said:

The idea that ideas and topics that promote extreme "otherising" of people on all sides seem to have seeped into absolutely everything. There doesn't seem to be any content created for the internet these days that doesn't have some kind of "Trump angle" or isn't clearly attempting to state where it exists on an increasingly divided spectrum of social opinion by which people now overtly judge one another. 

 

I'm not completely sure that I understand. You want content to be created that pretends that there's a complete consensus of social opinion in society today, even though that's not the case by your own admission? What perspective is that content's invented consensus supposed to be written from and who is supposed to benefit from it? "Everything is fine, let's play video games" is an extremely aggressive political position, especially given the state of our society and the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not commenting on the politics of the content in question then I don't see why it has to be written from a certain political perspective. I get why you think not commenting is inherently political, but that's a different issue.

 

Personally I feel like I'm already exposed to the politics of the US more than I need to, considering I don't live there, so I'm fine with them not talking about politics. The media outlets that do don't tend to focus on the issues I care the most about anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side note, politics is greatly affecting video games right now.  Companies that hire immigrants or outsource any work are directly impacted by emerging policies.  Lots of people in the games industry, particularly games writers and indie game makers are very worried about what the healthcare marketplace will look like soon.  Anything that affects trans people affects video games.  We're likely to see the anti-press rhetoric jump to actual First Amendment issues at some point.  Any new laws targeting leakers could, intentionally or unintentionally, end up targeting private industry leakers as well as government leakers. 

 

idk, I think it's weird for any video game media outlet to not be talking about at least some of the things above once in awhile.  Like, yeah, it doesn't have to be every show/piece/day.  But there are really important things that are actively affecting the industry and hobby that these media outlets cover. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, eot said:

If it's not commenting on the politics of the content in question then I don't see why it has to be written from a certain political perspective. I get why you think not commenting is inherently political, but that's a different issue.

 

Approaching something from the vantage point of being a white man in America with a steady income and a formal education (like the GB guys) is a political vantage point that will be inherently colored by the experiences of the creator. Everyone brings the baggage of their life to the table. Coming from the dominant/majority group is still a political stance, and that will permeate anything created by that person. It just so happens that because this person's experiences fall in line with the dominant narrative, it is seen as apolitical, when really it is in fact political - it is just doing nothing to challenge the status quo. (I don't think that everything necessarily needs to challenge that status quo, but I want to acknowledge that its political nature is largely invisible due to the fact that it doesn't challenge it.)

 

I think it's too easy to conflate 'political' with 'dealing with political bodies or policy.' I primarily mean things like race & gender & sexuality & able-bodiedness etc aka identity politics or social politics. I agree, not everything needs to tie back to Trump, and those connections become tiring. However, those aren't the political conversations I'm interested in talking about here. Talking about why the 'bad guys' are PoC when no one else a game is - that's still a political conversation.

 

Not every piece of writing or every podcast needs to grapple with heavier subjects, but there is politics baked into virtually everything we create because it's baked into the assumptions we make about the world, and about the people around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I say apolitical I mean not commenting on the politics of things regardless of whether or not the game in question falls into the dominant narrative or not. For example, you could be part of a minority and not bring up the lack of representation of your minority in games; I would call that apolitical. But sure, many people would consider that act to be very political in and of itself, and as middle class white men they of course don't very often find themselves in situations where they'd be the aggrieved party and feel a need to speak out. I don't feel like GB shy away from having those conversations though, I just think they don't look for them.

 

In any case, I think there's a place for the kind of content they do. If they were to choose to be more political they'd certainly lose part of their audience who doesn't want to hear that stuff, and someone else would fill the void. At least they speak up when it's really needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people think of as "apolitical" is not apolitical, it is just not mentioning things that strike them as political. But it's ridiculous to describe that sort of thing as "apolitical" unless you are so blind to politics that so long as nobody mentions stuff that strikes you as political, you think nothing political has been mentioned. But of course political stuff is mentioned all the time no matter what, because it's impossible to be apolitical.

 

 

My favorite example of this is how people get angry at queer people for mentioning that we are queer. They say stuff like "I don't have a problem if you're gay/lesbian/bisexual/whatever, you just don't need to throw it in my face." But of course straight people throw that in my face all the time without realizing it. They just off-handedly reveal they are straight without thinking of it as political. And to them, it's not political. They have the luxury of their sexuality not being political because theirs is the default, and people think "default" means "apolitical." But it doesn't. It just means "political in a way that the majority can be blind to." If everyone were queer except you, you bet your ass you'd realize that being straight is political.

 

@eot's example of minority representation in games is another good example. If the default for games is a bunch of muscled cis straight white dudes, gamers don't notice it. As soon as games start putting a bunch of diverse characters in there in anything other than token places, gamers start saying things like "stop being political and pandering to the SJWs" and so on. If a minority person just says something benign like "it's so nice to have a game that isn't just a bunch of straight white cis dudes" suddenly that's political. One thing you might say in response is "well, a straight white cis guy would never say 'I'm so glad this game just has straight white cis dudes.' That's all I want in my podcast. Why can't the minority be like the straight white cis guy and just shut up for once?" And of course you're right: the straight white cis guy would never say that. He doesn't need to! Some people don't need to say a goddamn thing - the default just works for them, unless people fight back. You bet your ass if games weren't the way he wanted them, the straight white cis guy would be speaking up. It would be unreasonable not to expect him to do so. It's impossible not to do so.

 

If you don't fight back, you're not "neutral" or "apolitical." You're just fighting for the other side. It's a very easy fight, because all you have to do is sit around and let the forces of the "default" enjoy legitimacy by virtue of being the default, but it's a fight nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there's a distinction worth making between a podcast (or anything) being "apolitical" and it not directly addressing politics. I agree with the thrust of this thread that the latter is a trap and largely nonexistent. But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with wanting some entertainment that at least generally aims for the latter.

 

I say that as a straight cis white man who co-hosts multiple podcasts that basically fall into that category. It's not because I have any illusions about what opting out of politics actually means; and it's not because I'm frustrated by left-wing politics. Anyone who pays attention to my general internet presence would observe that quickly, especially recently. But in part because I've spent seemingly every moment of my waking post-November life consuming news and analysis of everything going on in my country and the world, I desperately feel the need to be able to at least roughly control what media channels in my life explicitly concern themselves with political churn. Also, to be honest, if there's anything I don't feel any deficit of, it's political analysis; as smart as plenty of people in gaming media are, and as much as there have been times when their political observations are trenchant and insightful, there are definitely plenty of other informed and intelligent sources when that's what I need (which is often).

 

To that end, when we were developing the concept of Important If True, we very consciously and intentionally made the choice not to directly address politics in it. I (and I'm sure my co-hosts) have no intention to self-censor, but we also have no illusions about the fact that, of all the voices contributing to the political discourse right now, we are not going to be the most essential on that list. It's entirely understandable for someone to find that stance objectionable. But I do think there's value in basically being straightforward about what your show is about. That doesn't mean you can't push those boundaries when you think it's called for, of course.

 

I've had some incredibly difficult things happen in my life recently that are entirely coincidental and unrelated to recent political events. Those things happening on top of the canvas of our stupid world have made them all the more emotionally draining than they already would have been (which is a lot). I've had to compartmentalize my exposure to stressful external events over which I have no immediate direct control. Having specific pieces of media in which I basically know what emotional space I'm going to be living in is incredibly important. I would like to think that people who subscribe to our shows get essentially that same benefit. Nobody would turn on a scripted TV show to unwind at the end of the day with the expectation that the format will be interrupted with the showrunner's ad hoc political punditry.

 

Instead, just as the political outlook and worldview of a scripted fictional show is ultimately reflected in the end result, so is the political outlook and worldview of podcast hosts likely to be evinced over time in their total output. Direct opining about serious matters is entirely valid, but should be undertaken with whatever degree of intention is commensurate to the actual format of the show. It makes more sense for some shows than others, and I don't personally believe a show about a specific topic (whether games, or literature, or architecture, or literally anything else) bears a responsibility to directly address politics on a frequent basis simply because it exists in the world. Part of the point of a free society is to get to pursue passions and interests of great variety. And although many of those passions and interests are not as important as the overall welfare of that free society, I also think the ability to maintain sanity and focus long-term to pursue the work of protecting that society does require release valves in the form of entertainment and culture, including fairly stupid kinds like ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chris said:

I do think there's a distinction worth making between a podcast (or anything) being "apolitical" and it not directly addressing politics. I agree with the thrust of this thread that the latter is a trap and largely nonexistent. But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with wanting some entertainment that at least generally aims for the latter.

 

I agree with the general thrust of what you're saying, but I also think there's a distinction worth making between a piece of media acknowledging that politics exist and it being "oops all politics," as well as a distinction between one's personal presentation of political issues, even in a piece of media with a public audience, and one's presentation as the face of an institution or community. I have no problem whatsoever with Idle Thumbs being "apolitical" in the sense that you guys don't seek out political topics, because it's just a group of friends talking about whatever interests them, but Giant Bomb is a media website with employees that concern themselves with the medium of gaming as a whole, from news to previews to reviews to criticism, and arguing for an "apolitical" presentation of that, even after the fashion of Idle Thumbs, seems faintly ludicrous—especially in a world post GamerGate, which many outfits tried to handle by not addressing it, to the massive detriment of their industry and readership. Expecting that a source of gaming news should be able to be free of political content feels like expecting that your local news channel should have politics-free daily news: not impossible (as the existence of human interest stories and puff pieces attests) but also not something that's particularly commendable.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, I need my break from Trumpland as much as anyone, but it feels very peculiar to act as though a given form of media should be able to be free of political content no matter its purview (consider, for example, how "political" most scripted TV is) and shouldn't attract criticism of its shortcomings, especially when acknowledging the existence of queer people and people of color seems to count as "political" content for so many. Not that that's what I'm saying that you're saying, far from it, but if someone doesn't want to hear about politics in an industry where sexual harassment is still rampant and an online megastar just lost his sponsorship for making Holocaust jokes, I'm not sure that it's reasonable for them to be able to listen to a podcast from a website for video games journalism. Maybe they should read a book? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is a weird thing to lay at the feet of a podcast that got it start reviewing energy drinks and talking about games they are playing.

 

I would also argue they have also made their positions pretty obvious with posts on the site and also their personal tumblrs, maybe not bashing casual listeners over the head with it but I can think of several examples in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They took forever to comment on gamergate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Twig said:

They took forever to comment on gamergate.

 

Yeah, that was dumb, but your ascribing a scope to the Giant Bombcast that it was never meant to adhere to; you are putting it on a pedal to justify tearing it down.

 

It's like saying "Idle Thumbs never really addressed the lack of representation for People of Color in gaming" which would be absurd because the politics and leanings of the hosts are pretty apparent and the show was mainly following a fairly simple scope: what they were playing and what off-beat popculture they found interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×