The day I became an orphan, of a sort.
My father, a racist, former alcoholic, and wife abuser, met his end. It was, as I expected, on his own terms up until he lost control of things. He'd stopped eating and chosen to die instead of seeking medical treatment. Of course, he was expecting, and received, attention from my siblings.
As someone who has battled against depression and suicide, I can tell you, this was not him choosing to die. There's plenty of ways he could have ended it, short, sweet and fast. No, this was a last ploy, a last gasp to get back the children his lifetime of manipulation and vile behavior had so alienated.
For those wondering why I am oversharing this, it's because I feel I need a tiny bit of cathartic venting. When my mother sadly passed, I marked the day and time. I wanted a virtual tombstone for the woman who gave me life, love, and countless lessons.
For this, I want a mark when a devil was dragged back to hell.
I will not miss him. I will not cry over him. He showed me that nothing lay in his heart but self-interest and hatred. He never knew what love was, and so therefore was just barely something one could call a human being.
So now, the only family I have are my siblings. His family are just like him. My mother's family was driven off by his. I now have no one to reach back to in order to learn more of my family's past. From here on, I need to make the story that my children will learn of.
And this is one chapter that will be slammed shut, and buried deep after this post. I will not pass on his hatred. Good riddance to one more racist abuser.
Friday, March 1, 2019
Sunday, November 1, 2015
A nobody tells @Totalbiscuit he's wrong - Internet unsurprised
Recently, gaming critic John Bain, better known as TotalBiscuit, released two videos on seemingly unrelated ideas. The first, about skipping content, focused on a decision by developer Treyarch, while the second focused more on why mobile development will never host premium core gaming experiences. However, I felt there is a common thread that proves John has misunderstood the situation and should not be advocating in the direction he is. I doubt that he will ever see this, but hopefully if this gets to his supporters, it will give them a moment to re-evalute and not agree simply because of a loyalty to who he is.
The primary concept with both videos that I take issue with stems from the viewpoint that the consumer should be the driving force in games development. The idea is something that John frequently stresses. And for the most part that I agree the consumer of any given medium should be treated with respect, that does not mean that it should be the situation of "Having it your way" as the slogan goes.
Since gaming became an industry rather than a medium of artistic passion, we have seen the rise of the bland triple A release. Too often, games seem to lose focus, and include trends that are hot in the medium at that point. Whether that be adding a tower defence game within Assassin's Creed to cramming the idea of crafting in just about every single game regardless of logic, it showcases the major flaw in his arguments on both issues. As the Game Theorist's Matthew Patrick said, "[gamers] don't know what [they] want."
In a video he created some time ago, Mat lays out the hard truth that gamers buy familiar concepts over testing the waters in games that break with the established formulas. This is evidenced by the popularity of not only the modern shooter, but even as far back as Super Mario games for the original Nintendo, and likely even beyond that. While John himself complains about seeing endless 2D pixel-style platformers coming out, he subsequently states that the consumer should get what they want. And what they want, Mat shows in a later video, is to belong. And to belong means to have a shared experience.
That's truly why Let's Play channels have found success. It's not that games can be fully experienced by watching another play them. True, you can witness the story, but more often it's being on the journey with that player whose video you are watching that is more important. You're seeing the view from their perspective and with their insight, as well as sharing those "you had to be there" moments that can happen during gaming.
Taking all this into account, let's tackle the actual arguments from both videos.
From his first video, he talks about the advantage of skipping content in a game to give you a way to experience it in an on-demand way. He then conflates early cheats with being intentionally added for that purpose. Ironically, he states that people should know their gaming history, yet doesn't realize he's not understanding the origin of the cheat code.
Cheats, initially, were not intended to be used by the consumer. When games were made in the early days, they were coded in a language from the ground up, then would need to be run through another program known as a compiler. The compiler took that written code, translated it into instructions a computer would use ( as well as pulling in functions from libraries of functions that were included in those instructions), and generated a file that could be run by whatever operating system it was made for. This creates a fundamental issue when testing a game: How do you test later levels without having to complete every single level you've made up to that point.
Enter the concept of cheat codes. A developer would embed functions that, while accessible, were hidden in a way that most players would be unaware of. The Konami Code, therefore, was not made specifically for gamers. It was made by Konami employees to be shorthand to access a specific boost in the game for testing purposes. Eventually, as gamers discovered these cheats, programmers started to use them not only as a method to test games without rebuilding them, but as Easter eggs for gamers to find and share. However, not all game developers subscribed to this idea. They would either remove these cheats in the final build, or just not have a method for cheats that could be accessed by the consumer at all.
Enter the concept of the Game Genie, and later other cheat devices like the Game Shark. These were created by third party companies who either had access to developer kits, or to those who reversed engineered the systems themselves. They would intercept the data from the game, and then apply changes to values dependent on codes entered by the user. This could do nothing, or could cause the game to become utterly inoperable. However, in the middle ground of those two polar opposites lay the potential to alter any variable, including health, number of lives, and strength of attacks.
With the rise of game development engines such as Unreal, the concept of the cheat code faded away as developers now had a test bed they could use in the early development. And once out of that stage, it was no less difficult to give access to beta testers in a similar fashion, meaning no lengthy compiling either. They could just adjust what slice of the game was live to test and move from there. So while John is right that cheat codes existed, their rise and disappearance has more to do with the industry moving from home-brewed solutions to large-scale mass production tools.
The reason cheats returned in the realm of microtransactions is the same reason why DLC is created: Player demand. The idea of making cheats in today's market is now a cost versus reward equation, a line on a spread sheet. Since most cheat codes no longer have a need to exist, they'd have to be specifically made. Since that takes someone's valuable time to add and test, much like added content would, big business saw it as a way to pass on the cost of that to the consumer. Since most gamers, like John, don't realize the shift development has taken, they immediately react with outrage about paying for what was once free.
And that is what lies at the heart of the false ideas John is defending. At one point, he states that valuable metrics could be gathered by seeing what sections players skip. It's talk like that which hurts the industry, and takes us further from good games. Upper management loves numbers. Quantitative data is easily compared and contrasted. Qualitative, subjective data is so much harder both to grasp and to convey. It's why saying a controls "feel" off is so hard to convey to a non-gamer, but stating that the size of a controller is too large would not be. It's why call centers tend to use metrics-focused concepts like handle times and script adherence rather than listening to how the caller reacts to their treatment. It's easier to hand your boss a spread sheet that showcases a 20% reduction in handle time versus a stack of positive feedback comments that need to be read over to be understood.
So, if the data starts showing that the focus for the game isn't gameplay, but rather cutscenes, you will see budgets reshifted to prioritize that work over the work on the combat. If you doubt this, look no further than the rise of the pre-order scheme. When pre-orders started, they were for games that were not likely to have a large number of copies. I myself pre-ordered almost all the FFXI expansions as the store nearest to us usually only stocked 2 copies at a time. However, when these numbers were shown to publishers, they saw a vector for increasing sales. Using the concept of the the comic book speculator market, and the perceived value addition of cosmetic items, they started selling more copies. This rolled into a larger investment in that aspect, and more elaborate pre-order bonuses. These pre-orders are meant to help back those spread sheets upper management likes look great far before the game comes out in order to greenlight more projects like DLC packs. It's the concept of games as a consumer product rather than game content made for the sake of it existing.
Once a sales vector is found, that will be leapt upon, and you will will see games development shift accordingly within the triple A market. And once that has been done, metrics will be needed in order to evaluate the success of that. So, let us take the level skipping function. John stated that it could end up showcasing where levels are weak. The problem becomes conveying that to those who hold the purse strings. Often, upper management for publishers are brought in from outside the games market, though that is changing. I recall that some even came from the packaged foods realm, something I find humorous as Mat uses the concept of developing spaghetti sauce as a reason for why some games become popular. More on that later, but staying on point, if the feedback received is to the effect that some levels aren't interesting, that could be good. But what if the feedback is that they are too hard?
The reason why games have typically gated content behind proficiency is because of how games ramp up to their climax. Unlike storyline elements, gameplay advances based on challenging the player. Each level, if well designed, should be introducing new ideas and concepts to the player until the entire amount of gameplay options are laid out. Then, as the game reaches its finale, these skills should be tested to their limits, in essence a final exam based on your skills and preparation for all the events leading to this point. This results in the idea of the game as a journey, rather than a destination. John himself states that he carries the badge of honour of completing Godhand. Why would you do that if you did not value it?
The reason you do is because the game was crafted to make you feel accomplished by the end. It's why when you cheat to achieve goals in a game, you take less pride in them. You've gutted the experience that was intended by the designer in favour of hopping to the end. It cheapens the victory and invalidates the work put into crafting the experience itself. Much like ordering a five course meal, then skipping to a dessert that ruins your appetite for the rest, you've wasted the experience you could have had.
The idea to start at the beginning, and travelling the road laid out for you is the same idea in books or movies. But since games demand more of you, it's understandable that some would rather convert the experience into one of lowered effort. Many just want to see the ending, but those who fail to understand the value of the struggle are dooming the medium to mediocrity. There is a reason legendarily hard games like Dark Souls become phenomenons. It's because once you cross the threshold from failure to success in them, your brain rewards you with all those feelings of accomplishment, and now you belong to another tier of gamer. Again, we go back to the concept of tribalism, of elitist ideology. But in reality, who doesn't want that feeling of being one of the few to finish the greatest gaming challenges?
The easy answer to that is the casual gamer. I would even call myself that at this point. My Steam library, along with my physical media one, has a wealth of unfinished, dense content games I will likely never see all of. So you would think that, like John, I'd be a proponent of cheats and skips to get my money's worth from them. But that's where I differ. I want these games remaining in the form the designer made them for the fact that I'm there not to experience my world, but theirs. I play games to lose myself in the mentality of others, to see how they lay out choices and challenges for me to overcome. I see no value in giving consumers the choice to jump to the end and call it a day. Ultimately, you are sending the messages to publishers to stop making content-rich games, and instead focus even more heavily on flashy cutscenes and voice acting to sell to a market of people with no time for games.
We've already reached critical mass in the realm of game budgets. With shareholders and investors combing over the books, every sub 10 million sales market is seen as blasphemy, as a lost investment of time. It's why a game like Bayonetta needed to be saved from extinction by a console manufacturer who was in dire need of exclusives. It's why so many games turn to crowd funding; why even big name publishers now turn there. No one wants to risk games not being only decent on the sales charts.
I've been in the gaming scene since the days of Atari. I was born in time to see the console murdered by the concept of consumer-first pandering. I watched as arcades rose to replace them, only to see their greed be undercut by the home console market. Now that same greed threatens to turn games even more into a manufactured product than they've already become. There's a reason I don't buy most games new now. There's a reason I rarely get on the hype train. And, in part, it's because of people like you, John.
You, and critics like you, have done their best to advice us to be smart consumers of the medium. You call yourself a taste maker. And you're not far off. In Mat's video where he talks about the spaghetti sauce, he reveals the psychological reason people like yourself have influenced the market as a whole. Hell, not long ago I bought Renowned Explorers based on your video. You help to give us perspective on the games we love, and help to show us others we might have missed. But you also have the ability to shape habits of consumers.
And that's why this statement worries me.
I understand. You are a consumer-focused channel, offering more a buyer's guide to games. But, you are both utterly right on this and horribly wrong for promoting it. The vision of the designers should be paramount among the concerns of a gamer who loves this medium. Games like Thomas Was Alone, The Stanley Parable, and even your most beloved Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons would not exist save for the vision of a designer. It is their passion, their devotion to realize an idea, a concept, and share that with us that makes for the most compelling games we've ever played.
Too often, we consume games like fast food. We don't care how they were made, or even if they were any good. We just care that a need was met. A box was ticked off. And that's what the publisher feels as well. So long as their boxes all go ticked, and they hit their marks, then there's no need to change. No need to abolish toxic pre-order bonuses, nauseating microtransactions in full retail priced games, or season pass gouging for content that likely should not be charged for. It's the same reason the mobile market is awash with casual experiences instead of innovation.
You blame the limitations of the devices that these experiences live on, yet I recall a time when portable games had a D-Pad and two buttons, and could deliver truly amazing gameplay in that context. Innovation, risk, is never cheap. But innovation in a market that rewards, consistently, the mediocre, the mundane, and the recycled is foolhardy beyond the scope of imagination. There could be a future in mobile for better, more rich experiences, but they are likely never to be found as long as the idea that the "customer is always right" is upheld.
The metrics of mobile games scream to never make a full-priced, well realized game that challenges what the platform can do. Instead, it screams to churn out well test, well worn, consumable products. The mobile market, John, is the future you see in games. On demand, ever accessible, and with all the options handed to the customer... for a fee. And that's the reality. That's gaming as a consumer medium. Mobile is where creativity goes to die. Any mildly original idea will have a hundred clones before the month's out, and each will be laden with monetization schemes laid out based on metrics gathered from previous profitable ventures. It's a market glutted with so many titles that you don't just have 10 options for any one extremely specific type of game variation, you have literally hundreds. sometimes thousands.
The poison that lives in mobile has seeped into the console and PC markets, and you decry it. You hate pay-to-win and pay-to-skip ideology, yet listening to your advice would lead every publisher down that path. Publishers want bankable returns, and the best way to do that is to hone in on what players want, and place them over a barrel to get a cash return. Again, look to DLC and pre-order bonuses for examples of that.
Ultimately, defending the concept of consumer choice is a fine idea. A consumer has the right to be respected, and their time and money treated fairly when being offered a product. However, placing that at the highest priority will not result in what you expect. It will not end filler, but instead will simply drive development down the path that will provide the biggest hype while minimizing other expenses. You would think, given your experience with how the industry has corrupted the value in other concepts that could have been helpful to consumers would have made you more aware of this.
The primary concept with both videos that I take issue with stems from the viewpoint that the consumer should be the driving force in games development. The idea is something that John frequently stresses. And for the most part that I agree the consumer of any given medium should be treated with respect, that does not mean that it should be the situation of "Having it your way" as the slogan goes.
Since gaming became an industry rather than a medium of artistic passion, we have seen the rise of the bland triple A release. Too often, games seem to lose focus, and include trends that are hot in the medium at that point. Whether that be adding a tower defence game within Assassin's Creed to cramming the idea of crafting in just about every single game regardless of logic, it showcases the major flaw in his arguments on both issues. As the Game Theorist's Matthew Patrick said, "[gamers] don't know what [they] want."
In a video he created some time ago, Mat lays out the hard truth that gamers buy familiar concepts over testing the waters in games that break with the established formulas. This is evidenced by the popularity of not only the modern shooter, but even as far back as Super Mario games for the original Nintendo, and likely even beyond that. While John himself complains about seeing endless 2D pixel-style platformers coming out, he subsequently states that the consumer should get what they want. And what they want, Mat shows in a later video, is to belong. And to belong means to have a shared experience.
That's truly why Let's Play channels have found success. It's not that games can be fully experienced by watching another play them. True, you can witness the story, but more often it's being on the journey with that player whose video you are watching that is more important. You're seeing the view from their perspective and with their insight, as well as sharing those "you had to be there" moments that can happen during gaming.
Taking all this into account, let's tackle the actual arguments from both videos.
From his first video, he talks about the advantage of skipping content in a game to give you a way to experience it in an on-demand way. He then conflates early cheats with being intentionally added for that purpose. Ironically, he states that people should know their gaming history, yet doesn't realize he's not understanding the origin of the cheat code.
Cheats, initially, were not intended to be used by the consumer. When games were made in the early days, they were coded in a language from the ground up, then would need to be run through another program known as a compiler. The compiler took that written code, translated it into instructions a computer would use ( as well as pulling in functions from libraries of functions that were included in those instructions), and generated a file that could be run by whatever operating system it was made for. This creates a fundamental issue when testing a game: How do you test later levels without having to complete every single level you've made up to that point.
Enter the concept of cheat codes. A developer would embed functions that, while accessible, were hidden in a way that most players would be unaware of. The Konami Code, therefore, was not made specifically for gamers. It was made by Konami employees to be shorthand to access a specific boost in the game for testing purposes. Eventually, as gamers discovered these cheats, programmers started to use them not only as a method to test games without rebuilding them, but as Easter eggs for gamers to find and share. However, not all game developers subscribed to this idea. They would either remove these cheats in the final build, or just not have a method for cheats that could be accessed by the consumer at all.
Enter the concept of the Game Genie, and later other cheat devices like the Game Shark. These were created by third party companies who either had access to developer kits, or to those who reversed engineered the systems themselves. They would intercept the data from the game, and then apply changes to values dependent on codes entered by the user. This could do nothing, or could cause the game to become utterly inoperable. However, in the middle ground of those two polar opposites lay the potential to alter any variable, including health, number of lives, and strength of attacks.
With the rise of game development engines such as Unreal, the concept of the cheat code faded away as developers now had a test bed they could use in the early development. And once out of that stage, it was no less difficult to give access to beta testers in a similar fashion, meaning no lengthy compiling either. They could just adjust what slice of the game was live to test and move from there. So while John is right that cheat codes existed, their rise and disappearance has more to do with the industry moving from home-brewed solutions to large-scale mass production tools.
The reason cheats returned in the realm of microtransactions is the same reason why DLC is created: Player demand. The idea of making cheats in today's market is now a cost versus reward equation, a line on a spread sheet. Since most cheat codes no longer have a need to exist, they'd have to be specifically made. Since that takes someone's valuable time to add and test, much like added content would, big business saw it as a way to pass on the cost of that to the consumer. Since most gamers, like John, don't realize the shift development has taken, they immediately react with outrage about paying for what was once free.
And that is what lies at the heart of the false ideas John is defending. At one point, he states that valuable metrics could be gathered by seeing what sections players skip. It's talk like that which hurts the industry, and takes us further from good games. Upper management loves numbers. Quantitative data is easily compared and contrasted. Qualitative, subjective data is so much harder both to grasp and to convey. It's why saying a controls "feel" off is so hard to convey to a non-gamer, but stating that the size of a controller is too large would not be. It's why call centers tend to use metrics-focused concepts like handle times and script adherence rather than listening to how the caller reacts to their treatment. It's easier to hand your boss a spread sheet that showcases a 20% reduction in handle time versus a stack of positive feedback comments that need to be read over to be understood.
So, if the data starts showing that the focus for the game isn't gameplay, but rather cutscenes, you will see budgets reshifted to prioritize that work over the work on the combat. If you doubt this, look no further than the rise of the pre-order scheme. When pre-orders started, they were for games that were not likely to have a large number of copies. I myself pre-ordered almost all the FFXI expansions as the store nearest to us usually only stocked 2 copies at a time. However, when these numbers were shown to publishers, they saw a vector for increasing sales. Using the concept of the the comic book speculator market, and the perceived value addition of cosmetic items, they started selling more copies. This rolled into a larger investment in that aspect, and more elaborate pre-order bonuses. These pre-orders are meant to help back those spread sheets upper management likes look great far before the game comes out in order to greenlight more projects like DLC packs. It's the concept of games as a consumer product rather than game content made for the sake of it existing.
Once a sales vector is found, that will be leapt upon, and you will will see games development shift accordingly within the triple A market. And once that has been done, metrics will be needed in order to evaluate the success of that. So, let us take the level skipping function. John stated that it could end up showcasing where levels are weak. The problem becomes conveying that to those who hold the purse strings. Often, upper management for publishers are brought in from outside the games market, though that is changing. I recall that some even came from the packaged foods realm, something I find humorous as Mat uses the concept of developing spaghetti sauce as a reason for why some games become popular. More on that later, but staying on point, if the feedback received is to the effect that some levels aren't interesting, that could be good. But what if the feedback is that they are too hard?
The reason why games have typically gated content behind proficiency is because of how games ramp up to their climax. Unlike storyline elements, gameplay advances based on challenging the player. Each level, if well designed, should be introducing new ideas and concepts to the player until the entire amount of gameplay options are laid out. Then, as the game reaches its finale, these skills should be tested to their limits, in essence a final exam based on your skills and preparation for all the events leading to this point. This results in the idea of the game as a journey, rather than a destination. John himself states that he carries the badge of honour of completing Godhand. Why would you do that if you did not value it?
The reason you do is because the game was crafted to make you feel accomplished by the end. It's why when you cheat to achieve goals in a game, you take less pride in them. You've gutted the experience that was intended by the designer in favour of hopping to the end. It cheapens the victory and invalidates the work put into crafting the experience itself. Much like ordering a five course meal, then skipping to a dessert that ruins your appetite for the rest, you've wasted the experience you could have had.
The idea to start at the beginning, and travelling the road laid out for you is the same idea in books or movies. But since games demand more of you, it's understandable that some would rather convert the experience into one of lowered effort. Many just want to see the ending, but those who fail to understand the value of the struggle are dooming the medium to mediocrity. There is a reason legendarily hard games like Dark Souls become phenomenons. It's because once you cross the threshold from failure to success in them, your brain rewards you with all those feelings of accomplishment, and now you belong to another tier of gamer. Again, we go back to the concept of tribalism, of elitist ideology. But in reality, who doesn't want that feeling of being one of the few to finish the greatest gaming challenges?
The easy answer to that is the casual gamer. I would even call myself that at this point. My Steam library, along with my physical media one, has a wealth of unfinished, dense content games I will likely never see all of. So you would think that, like John, I'd be a proponent of cheats and skips to get my money's worth from them. But that's where I differ. I want these games remaining in the form the designer made them for the fact that I'm there not to experience my world, but theirs. I play games to lose myself in the mentality of others, to see how they lay out choices and challenges for me to overcome. I see no value in giving consumers the choice to jump to the end and call it a day. Ultimately, you are sending the messages to publishers to stop making content-rich games, and instead focus even more heavily on flashy cutscenes and voice acting to sell to a market of people with no time for games.
We've already reached critical mass in the realm of game budgets. With shareholders and investors combing over the books, every sub 10 million sales market is seen as blasphemy, as a lost investment of time. It's why a game like Bayonetta needed to be saved from extinction by a console manufacturer who was in dire need of exclusives. It's why so many games turn to crowd funding; why even big name publishers now turn there. No one wants to risk games not being only decent on the sales charts.
I've been in the gaming scene since the days of Atari. I was born in time to see the console murdered by the concept of consumer-first pandering. I watched as arcades rose to replace them, only to see their greed be undercut by the home console market. Now that same greed threatens to turn games even more into a manufactured product than they've already become. There's a reason I don't buy most games new now. There's a reason I rarely get on the hype train. And, in part, it's because of people like you, John.
You, and critics like you, have done their best to advice us to be smart consumers of the medium. You call yourself a taste maker. And you're not far off. In Mat's video where he talks about the spaghetti sauce, he reveals the psychological reason people like yourself have influenced the market as a whole. Hell, not long ago I bought Renowned Explorers based on your video. You help to give us perspective on the games we love, and help to show us others we might have missed. But you also have the ability to shape habits of consumers.
And that's why this statement worries me.
Your artistic vision is not the priority of the consumer.
I understand. You are a consumer-focused channel, offering more a buyer's guide to games. But, you are both utterly right on this and horribly wrong for promoting it. The vision of the designers should be paramount among the concerns of a gamer who loves this medium. Games like Thomas Was Alone, The Stanley Parable, and even your most beloved Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons would not exist save for the vision of a designer. It is their passion, their devotion to realize an idea, a concept, and share that with us that makes for the most compelling games we've ever played.
Too often, we consume games like fast food. We don't care how they were made, or even if they were any good. We just care that a need was met. A box was ticked off. And that's what the publisher feels as well. So long as their boxes all go ticked, and they hit their marks, then there's no need to change. No need to abolish toxic pre-order bonuses, nauseating microtransactions in full retail priced games, or season pass gouging for content that likely should not be charged for. It's the same reason the mobile market is awash with casual experiences instead of innovation.
You blame the limitations of the devices that these experiences live on, yet I recall a time when portable games had a D-Pad and two buttons, and could deliver truly amazing gameplay in that context. Innovation, risk, is never cheap. But innovation in a market that rewards, consistently, the mediocre, the mundane, and the recycled is foolhardy beyond the scope of imagination. There could be a future in mobile for better, more rich experiences, but they are likely never to be found as long as the idea that the "customer is always right" is upheld.
The metrics of mobile games scream to never make a full-priced, well realized game that challenges what the platform can do. Instead, it screams to churn out well test, well worn, consumable products. The mobile market, John, is the future you see in games. On demand, ever accessible, and with all the options handed to the customer... for a fee. And that's the reality. That's gaming as a consumer medium. Mobile is where creativity goes to die. Any mildly original idea will have a hundred clones before the month's out, and each will be laden with monetization schemes laid out based on metrics gathered from previous profitable ventures. It's a market glutted with so many titles that you don't just have 10 options for any one extremely specific type of game variation, you have literally hundreds. sometimes thousands.
The poison that lives in mobile has seeped into the console and PC markets, and you decry it. You hate pay-to-win and pay-to-skip ideology, yet listening to your advice would lead every publisher down that path. Publishers want bankable returns, and the best way to do that is to hone in on what players want, and place them over a barrel to get a cash return. Again, look to DLC and pre-order bonuses for examples of that.
Ultimately, defending the concept of consumer choice is a fine idea. A consumer has the right to be respected, and their time and money treated fairly when being offered a product. However, placing that at the highest priority will not result in what you expect. It will not end filler, but instead will simply drive development down the path that will provide the biggest hype while minimizing other expenses. You would think, given your experience with how the industry has corrupted the value in other concepts that could have been helpful to consumers would have made you more aware of this.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
A Suicide of a YouTuber
Recently, a member of the comedy troupe Cyndago, Daniel Kyre, died of complications after an apparent suicide attempt. The news has obviously devastated all those who knew him.
I, unfortunately, was not familiar enough with the group, only really knowing of them via Markiplier working with them. I went to look over more of the videos of the group after this news came about, and felt this deep sadness in my heart. This young man, barely into his life, has gone. And yet, so long as the videos stay up, he is never truly far.
That's the new world we live in. With the advent of the home video recorder, no longer are memories and photographs the only mementos of those we've lost. Now, with social media, there is this ghostly presence that lingers on, potentially long after we're gone. I hope that it lends some comfort to those left behind after this tragedy.
As a sufferer of depression myself, albeit mild, I did wonder what the world would think of me if they connected my online accounts to me after my death. I wondered if anyone would care if I suddenly vanished from their list of contacts. Often, that's one of the few thoughts left when the time comes to bring it to an end. I know when I've reached there, those were mine. To say that he knows peace now isn't right. His suffering is done, but there will forever be a hole where he was. Even if for only his family, that hole may shrink with time, but it will never, ever go away.
Daniel is not the first online personality to take his own life, as there have been others. But with each light that goes out, the world seems a darker place. If there is a lesson here, it is this: treasure the moments these individuals share with you. They did their best to give to you, an audience they likely never met face to face. They were not rock stars or Hollywood actors, surrounded by opulent wealth and hangers on. They were just like you and me. They picked up a camera, and had the bravery to turn it on themselves. They braved the hatred of a heartless environment to try to bring their vision into being.
To the family and friends of Daniel Kyre, my condolences. I wish someone could have reached him in the dark place his heart went. Depression is a cruel, silent killer, whispering gently in the ear of its victim, compelling them to take that fatal step. It can be so tempting to listen, to end everything, but, as I can attest, it's much better to hold on with every ounce of strength. Tomorrow can really bring something better. I'm heartbroken that Daniel could not, and wish somehow it could be different.
If you are in that dark place, please do me one favour: Reach out one last time. Here are some numbers you can call to speak with experts who can do their best to help you through.
National Suicide Prevention Hotline (US & Canada): 1 (800) 273-8255
Kids Help Phone (under twenty, Canada): 1 (800) 668-6868
Samaritans (UK): 08457 90 90 90 *
Samaritans (ROI):116 123
Telefonseelsorge (Germany): 0800 111 0 111
Additional numbers can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines
Even if a group doesn't exist in your area, please reach out to someone, even a stranger. Don't make a permanent choice for a temporary situation.
I, unfortunately, was not familiar enough with the group, only really knowing of them via Markiplier working with them. I went to look over more of the videos of the group after this news came about, and felt this deep sadness in my heart. This young man, barely into his life, has gone. And yet, so long as the videos stay up, he is never truly far.
That's the new world we live in. With the advent of the home video recorder, no longer are memories and photographs the only mementos of those we've lost. Now, with social media, there is this ghostly presence that lingers on, potentially long after we're gone. I hope that it lends some comfort to those left behind after this tragedy.
As a sufferer of depression myself, albeit mild, I did wonder what the world would think of me if they connected my online accounts to me after my death. I wondered if anyone would care if I suddenly vanished from their list of contacts. Often, that's one of the few thoughts left when the time comes to bring it to an end. I know when I've reached there, those were mine. To say that he knows peace now isn't right. His suffering is done, but there will forever be a hole where he was. Even if for only his family, that hole may shrink with time, but it will never, ever go away.
Daniel is not the first online personality to take his own life, as there have been others. But with each light that goes out, the world seems a darker place. If there is a lesson here, it is this: treasure the moments these individuals share with you. They did their best to give to you, an audience they likely never met face to face. They were not rock stars or Hollywood actors, surrounded by opulent wealth and hangers on. They were just like you and me. They picked up a camera, and had the bravery to turn it on themselves. They braved the hatred of a heartless environment to try to bring their vision into being.
To the family and friends of Daniel Kyre, my condolences. I wish someone could have reached him in the dark place his heart went. Depression is a cruel, silent killer, whispering gently in the ear of its victim, compelling them to take that fatal step. It can be so tempting to listen, to end everything, but, as I can attest, it's much better to hold on with every ounce of strength. Tomorrow can really bring something better. I'm heartbroken that Daniel could not, and wish somehow it could be different.
If you are in that dark place, please do me one favour: Reach out one last time. Here are some numbers you can call to speak with experts who can do their best to help you through.
National Suicide Prevention Hotline (US & Canada): 1 (800) 273-8255
Kids Help Phone (under twenty, Canada): 1 (800) 668-6868
Samaritans (UK): 08457 90 90 90 *
Samaritans (ROI):116 123
Telefonseelsorge (Germany): 0800 111 0 111
Additional numbers can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines
Even if a group doesn't exist in your area, please reach out to someone, even a stranger. Don't make a permanent choice for a temporary situation.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Content thief, thy name is known
I have a cat.
He's cute.
Here, look:
So why am I showing you a cat video, especially an old one from 2013. Well because someone decided to use it in a compilation. Without permission. Without giving credit. And also editing the video in such a fashion as to remove the watermark on the video.
The video just also happens to hail from then, so obviously this little weasel happen onto my video, and decided to steal it to make some cash off of my video.
So I dropped a DMCA hit on him. It's my content. It's not a transformative use. It's not for news, and lacks comment on it. It's just theft. As it stands though, the little shit is contesting. But the best part: To contest it, he had to give up his name. See, that's important. That means I can take legal action. Now, with the videos being this old, it's highly doubtful this leads anywhere with major monetary consequence to him. But I could potentially open a big can of worms.
I feel like this is a good can to open.
He's cute.
Here, look:
So why am I showing you a cat video, especially an old one from 2013. Well because someone decided to use it in a compilation. Without permission. Without giving credit. And also editing the video in such a fashion as to remove the watermark on the video.
The video just also happens to hail from then, so obviously this little weasel happen onto my video, and decided to steal it to make some cash off of my video.
So I dropped a DMCA hit on him. It's my content. It's not a transformative use. It's not for news, and lacks comment on it. It's just theft. As it stands though, the little shit is contesting. But the best part: To contest it, he had to give up his name. See, that's important. That means I can take legal action. Now, with the videos being this old, it's highly doubtful this leads anywhere with major monetary consequence to him. But I could potentially open a big can of worms.
I feel like this is a good can to open.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
The Downfall of Journalism
I could almost subtitle this: When Good Ad Revenue Goes Bad.
To really start this story, we need to go pretty far back. It all began at the advent of cable news. You see, back in the olden days, cable subscriptions were primarily for entertainment purposes. You had channels like HBO and the like, offering an alternative to watching broadcast fare. At that time, there was one major news network on cable, CNN.
The CNN of years ago resembled little of the hyperbolic, personality driven network of today. Back then, it was like an hour news program on a loop for most of the day. There were few commercials, and while there were "shows", most were informational in nature. There were no Glen Becks or Rush Limbauhs. Even their panel-style show, Evans and Novak, was more balanced than anything you'd see on TV today.
But with tragedy came ratings. When major news events happened, CNN was there, with total, absolute coverage. Now this put the fear into the hearts of local and national news programs that aired only once a day. Broadcast news saw its ratings sliding, since most national stories could be seen on CNN, and later its sister station Headline News, long before they were on air. During some tragedies, they would break into daytime shows, but for the most part, it was just for a limited time.
The corporations watched how people became focused on these news channels, and soon you saw actual commercials appearing. Nightly news programs began to slowly creep into use. But there was only so much news, so instead we had investigative news programs. Shows like Dateline became a nightly staple, using highly dramatic language and movie trailer-esque build ups for their next episode.
This same sort of shock value reporting became a standard in newspapers long before it was a thing in TV, and it was a sign of the very same principle: they were sensing their own demise. Newspapers might still be around, true, but they don't hold the focal point of our attention as they once did. When TV came into everyone's homes, and you could get your news for free each night, why bother with your morning paper? And of course papers couldn't print breaking news, they would just report on it the following day.
So newspapers did what TV would do, and now what the fifth estate does today: Sell based on opinion and outrage. Splashier headlines, big name columnists, shocking stories and investigations. Anything to get you to pop your money in the box to buy a paper.
In TV's case though, it was your attention they wanted.
They needed to guarantee advertisers an audience. Originally, that meant crafting good shows, and paying actors and writers a good salary to deliver. Once news became more about entertainment and drama, they found a cheaper avenue. For a while. However, anchors were not stupid, they knew their value was growing. People trusted figures like Tom Brokaw to deliver the news fairly, and so as they were asked to commit more and more time, they asked for more and more money.
Couple that with the additional daytime hosts, morning hosts... Well, needless to say, you needed to be pulling in major amounts of money. So, of course, they kept reaching further and further into shock value articles. That is, until, reality TV came along and stole the show completely. Soon, people were exhausted by the 24 news cycle, and the novel idea of watching so-called reality on TV was what held their interests.
So what does this have to do with modern click-bait, slapdash journalism? It's the very clay foundation this house of bricks was built on.
Part of the backlash that helped lead to TV's demise as the primary news source is that they went too far into the outrage bin, and hired too many personalities. People tired of seeing this new version of news, which at times verged on parodying itself. And so with the rise of the Internet, and the convenience of having news at your fingertips, people were headed there. Plus, there were no more fees for using it than just your connection costs.
The other great concept was that it was fast. Sure, CNN might get a story inside of an hour, but internet news could be there faster. And that's just been the case the more pervasive the Internet has become. Right now, an event can be covered, live, by dozens of people via social media, and all it takes for news outlets to do is aggregate all that info into a story. the biggest danger of that, though, is that you need people to be out there doing it.
Journalism was not a very lucrative trade. Sure, if you got to be an anchor like Brokaw, you got plenty of money. But there was only 3 chairs that mattered in the olden days, ABC, CBS and NBC. Later, there were more, but to get those was still hard. With the rise of the Internet, though, anyone could technically be a journalist. No need for a degree, just cover the story, post it, and try to be first with it. While this led to issues at first, amateur reporters, so-called enthusiast press, honed their skills and started getting taken seriously. This likewise encouraged others, and soon the Internet was awash in bloggers reporting the news, as it happened, raw and unfiltered.
In time, sites started acquiring some of this talent, because, again, you need people to cover these stories. Most freelance and even some staff journalists in the business today don't have journalism degrees. Those that do are likely old guard, people who were taught the standards of journalism, of the ethics of getting the story right. And while still some enter the field, they are not the ones getting most of the eyes.
As I said, when a medium faces its demise, you see desperation. And that's where click-bait and the rush to be first comes in. Readers on the Internet are fickle. They want their information, and they want it now. And each story has a shorter life span than ever before. So if you want to get those clicks, and that ad revenue, you need to be fast. In story creation, you can be fast and good, but it costs a high price. Since these sites were desperate for cash, they dropped the concept of proper fact checking.
This led to journalists, even in the mainstream 24 hour news cycle, getting burned. The most common were celebrity deaths, where a random internet comment would suddenly spiral into evidence of the death of said celebrity. But no one learned from this. Sure, they became slightly more careful, but they'd still report on the possibility of a story long before they could confirm it. The need for being first outweighed the need to be right.
And that's where we are today. Today, the primary focus is to get the story first, and fix it later. It does't matter how their story impacts anything. Remember, no such thing as bad PR, it's just another story you can spin later. With stories like the UVA rape case, you're seeing the natural conclusion of personality driven news coverage combined with the desire to break the story first. People want to be a crusader in the news, to get coverage for issues they personally have a stake in, rather than simply observing the world and reporting on it. And outlets are desperate to retain a user base that has long since outgrown the monoliths that remain.
In a connected world, we are beyond the current position of news. On every street corner in the western world, there are people armed with the power of a computer, complete with camera, microphone and document creation software, all in the palm of your hand. In this new world, everyone is a reporter, able to snap a picture of anything faster than a professional can arrive at the scene. And once it's online, it's shared among the new distribution network. Not newspapers or TV, not even blogs, but social media.
That is the new frontier, that everyone in classical media and the new wave of bloggers are trying to ride. As we, the people, get more options to broadcast our lives from anywhere, everything that came before trembles with fear at its ultimate demise. And in those death throws, mistakes are being made. It won't get better from here unless the world as a whole stops craving information at the rate it does... which I don't see happening any time soon.
To really start this story, we need to go pretty far back. It all began at the advent of cable news. You see, back in the olden days, cable subscriptions were primarily for entertainment purposes. You had channels like HBO and the like, offering an alternative to watching broadcast fare. At that time, there was one major news network on cable, CNN.
The CNN of years ago resembled little of the hyperbolic, personality driven network of today. Back then, it was like an hour news program on a loop for most of the day. There were few commercials, and while there were "shows", most were informational in nature. There were no Glen Becks or Rush Limbauhs. Even their panel-style show, Evans and Novak, was more balanced than anything you'd see on TV today.
But with tragedy came ratings. When major news events happened, CNN was there, with total, absolute coverage. Now this put the fear into the hearts of local and national news programs that aired only once a day. Broadcast news saw its ratings sliding, since most national stories could be seen on CNN, and later its sister station Headline News, long before they were on air. During some tragedies, they would break into daytime shows, but for the most part, it was just for a limited time.
The corporations watched how people became focused on these news channels, and soon you saw actual commercials appearing. Nightly news programs began to slowly creep into use. But there was only so much news, so instead we had investigative news programs. Shows like Dateline became a nightly staple, using highly dramatic language and movie trailer-esque build ups for their next episode.
This same sort of shock value reporting became a standard in newspapers long before it was a thing in TV, and it was a sign of the very same principle: they were sensing their own demise. Newspapers might still be around, true, but they don't hold the focal point of our attention as they once did. When TV came into everyone's homes, and you could get your news for free each night, why bother with your morning paper? And of course papers couldn't print breaking news, they would just report on it the following day.
So newspapers did what TV would do, and now what the fifth estate does today: Sell based on opinion and outrage. Splashier headlines, big name columnists, shocking stories and investigations. Anything to get you to pop your money in the box to buy a paper.
In TV's case though, it was your attention they wanted.
They needed to guarantee advertisers an audience. Originally, that meant crafting good shows, and paying actors and writers a good salary to deliver. Once news became more about entertainment and drama, they found a cheaper avenue. For a while. However, anchors were not stupid, they knew their value was growing. People trusted figures like Tom Brokaw to deliver the news fairly, and so as they were asked to commit more and more time, they asked for more and more money.
Couple that with the additional daytime hosts, morning hosts... Well, needless to say, you needed to be pulling in major amounts of money. So, of course, they kept reaching further and further into shock value articles. That is, until, reality TV came along and stole the show completely. Soon, people were exhausted by the 24 news cycle, and the novel idea of watching so-called reality on TV was what held their interests.
So what does this have to do with modern click-bait, slapdash journalism? It's the very clay foundation this house of bricks was built on.
Part of the backlash that helped lead to TV's demise as the primary news source is that they went too far into the outrage bin, and hired too many personalities. People tired of seeing this new version of news, which at times verged on parodying itself. And so with the rise of the Internet, and the convenience of having news at your fingertips, people were headed there. Plus, there were no more fees for using it than just your connection costs.
The other great concept was that it was fast. Sure, CNN might get a story inside of an hour, but internet news could be there faster. And that's just been the case the more pervasive the Internet has become. Right now, an event can be covered, live, by dozens of people via social media, and all it takes for news outlets to do is aggregate all that info into a story. the biggest danger of that, though, is that you need people to be out there doing it.
Journalism was not a very lucrative trade. Sure, if you got to be an anchor like Brokaw, you got plenty of money. But there was only 3 chairs that mattered in the olden days, ABC, CBS and NBC. Later, there were more, but to get those was still hard. With the rise of the Internet, though, anyone could technically be a journalist. No need for a degree, just cover the story, post it, and try to be first with it. While this led to issues at first, amateur reporters, so-called enthusiast press, honed their skills and started getting taken seriously. This likewise encouraged others, and soon the Internet was awash in bloggers reporting the news, as it happened, raw and unfiltered.
In time, sites started acquiring some of this talent, because, again, you need people to cover these stories. Most freelance and even some staff journalists in the business today don't have journalism degrees. Those that do are likely old guard, people who were taught the standards of journalism, of the ethics of getting the story right. And while still some enter the field, they are not the ones getting most of the eyes.
As I said, when a medium faces its demise, you see desperation. And that's where click-bait and the rush to be first comes in. Readers on the Internet are fickle. They want their information, and they want it now. And each story has a shorter life span than ever before. So if you want to get those clicks, and that ad revenue, you need to be fast. In story creation, you can be fast and good, but it costs a high price. Since these sites were desperate for cash, they dropped the concept of proper fact checking.
This led to journalists, even in the mainstream 24 hour news cycle, getting burned. The most common were celebrity deaths, where a random internet comment would suddenly spiral into evidence of the death of said celebrity. But no one learned from this. Sure, they became slightly more careful, but they'd still report on the possibility of a story long before they could confirm it. The need for being first outweighed the need to be right.
And that's where we are today. Today, the primary focus is to get the story first, and fix it later. It does't matter how their story impacts anything. Remember, no such thing as bad PR, it's just another story you can spin later. With stories like the UVA rape case, you're seeing the natural conclusion of personality driven news coverage combined with the desire to break the story first. People want to be a crusader in the news, to get coverage for issues they personally have a stake in, rather than simply observing the world and reporting on it. And outlets are desperate to retain a user base that has long since outgrown the monoliths that remain.
In a connected world, we are beyond the current position of news. On every street corner in the western world, there are people armed with the power of a computer, complete with camera, microphone and document creation software, all in the palm of your hand. In this new world, everyone is a reporter, able to snap a picture of anything faster than a professional can arrive at the scene. And once it's online, it's shared among the new distribution network. Not newspapers or TV, not even blogs, but social media.
That is the new frontier, that everyone in classical media and the new wave of bloggers are trying to ride. As we, the people, get more options to broadcast our lives from anywhere, everything that came before trembles with fear at its ultimate demise. And in those death throws, mistakes are being made. It won't get better from here unless the world as a whole stops craving information at the rate it does... which I don't see happening any time soon.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Hatred Pulled From Greenlight
When Hatred dropped its first trailer in October, it became a source of a great deal of controversy. Originally, this controversy helped to bring attention to the game, much as the design team hoped that it would. That attention, however, may have led to unforeseen consequences.
At that time, I had sent an email with questions regarding the game to the development team. In their response, they stated plans for a self-release already in place. However, they did state that they are in talks with some publishers for a retail release. While some have shown interest, major games platform Steam has shown the game is not welcome on its service.
Earlier today, the game appeared on the platform's Greenlight service, a program to allow the public to vote on whether or not a game or game concept should be published to the service. It is typically used for development houses to self-release titles without requiring the intervention of a publisher.
Only hours after its first appearance, the game was taken down. A screen shot posted by one of the developers shows that the game was removed due a breach of the site's terms of service. This move is odd, as Valve's service does feature such titles as Postal and Manhunt, both equally violent games with similar thematic elements.
Valve's statement, given by Doug Lombardi was that "based on what we've seen on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam." Given the information provided by the developer, however, one wonders what was seen. They revealed the game had already received over 13,000 yes votes, placing it number 7 out of the just over 2,000 games currently vying for approval.
In a statement released on their website, the team denies this is a failure, rather that it shows the desire for the game's release:
This latest controversy comes on the heels of GTA V being pulled from select store chains in Australia, and one chain in New Zealand pulling all R18 content. GTA V, however, will still available on the Steam service. Steam's typical policy for games curation has been to only remove those that blatantly misrepresent themselves. While it is possible prior objectionable titles have been removed, Hatred is the first high-profile game to be pulled.
While other outlets for digital release exist, Steam is the largest and most visible. It will be interesting to see what impact their decision will have on competitors like Good Old Games, Greenman Gaming, and Desura. As it stands, even direct release through a service like PayPal may also be at risk, as PayPal has had a history of denying access to products it deems as objectionable.
For years, games have faced the specter of censorship globally. In some countries, such as Australia and Germany, publishers and developers have had to bend knee and alter their games or face an outright ban. As we close out 2014, gamers can hope that these incidents are isolated, and not another push to drive games away from adult themes.
As #GamerGate has shown, gamers are willing to fight for the rights of developers to produce the content they want, as well as receive fair coverage for it. With teams like Destructive Creations and Running With Scissors pushing the envelope, we can hope that platforms like Steam will realize there is a market to be served even by games some find objectionable.
At that time, I had sent an email with questions regarding the game to the development team. In their response, they stated plans for a self-release already in place. However, they did state that they are in talks with some publishers for a retail release. While some have shown interest, major games platform Steam has shown the game is not welcome on its service.
Earlier today, the game appeared on the platform's Greenlight service, a program to allow the public to vote on whether or not a game or game concept should be published to the service. It is typically used for development houses to self-release titles without requiring the intervention of a publisher.
Only hours after its first appearance, the game was taken down. A screen shot posted by one of the developers shows that the game was removed due a breach of the site's terms of service. This move is odd, as Valve's service does feature such titles as Postal and Manhunt, both equally violent games with similar thematic elements.
Valve's statement, given by Doug Lombardi was that "based on what we've seen on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam." Given the information provided by the developer, however, one wonders what was seen. They revealed the game had already received over 13,000 yes votes, placing it number 7 out of the just over 2,000 games currently vying for approval.
In a statement released on their website, the team denies this is a failure, rather that it shows the desire for the game's release:
Moreover we don’t treat this as a failure because yet again this showed us a huge community support we’re totally overwhelmed with. After only a couple of hours Greenlight campaign being live, Hatred gathered 13,148 up votes and ended up on a #7 on top 100 list. This is the best proof for us that there are diehard Hatred fans out there waiting for this game to be released. And that we need to keep going to deliver them a game that offers exciting and challenging gameplay.
This latest controversy comes on the heels of GTA V being pulled from select store chains in Australia, and one chain in New Zealand pulling all R18 content. GTA V, however, will still available on the Steam service. Steam's typical policy for games curation has been to only remove those that blatantly misrepresent themselves. While it is possible prior objectionable titles have been removed, Hatred is the first high-profile game to be pulled.
While other outlets for digital release exist, Steam is the largest and most visible. It will be interesting to see what impact their decision will have on competitors like Good Old Games, Greenman Gaming, and Desura. As it stands, even direct release through a service like PayPal may also be at risk, as PayPal has had a history of denying access to products it deems as objectionable.
For years, games have faced the specter of censorship globally. In some countries, such as Australia and Germany, publishers and developers have had to bend knee and alter their games or face an outright ban. As we close out 2014, gamers can hope that these incidents are isolated, and not another push to drive games away from adult themes.
As #GamerGate has shown, gamers are willing to fight for the rights of developers to produce the content they want, as well as receive fair coverage for it. With teams like Destructive Creations and Running With Scissors pushing the envelope, we can hope that platforms like Steam will realize there is a market to be served even by games some find objectionable.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Let's talk about Zoe's post about ethics! #GamerGate
First, no, not that famous one that kickstarted this entire #GamerGate fiasco months ago.
Recently, Zoe Quinn posted a lengthy op-ed piece to her blog talking about ethics in games journalism. It's actually a wonderful example of how the writers of today dodge about between fact and agenda. Let's analyze it.
First, she starts off with giving herself a baseline accreditation in games journalism due to the fact that she, an enthusiast writer, wrote things. Now, later on, she will talk about how enthusiasts getting into the industry is the problem. But let's stop here for a moment. Since she called herself an enthusiast, and doesn't list a degree of journalism on her LinkedIn, and is a games developer now, one can assume she doesn't hold a degree in journalism.
Now what does this mean? It means her default status as an "expert" on this subject is refutable. Just because one does a thing doesn't mean one does a thing well or to standard. Now, I have worked for a newspaper in the editing room reformatting articles for our use. I also had to edit articles in that process. But that doesn't make me any more an expert than her. So, as you read through the rest of that analysis, keep that in mind. Neither of us are experts on journalism. Neither of us hold a degree on the subject.
She then moves on to state that diverse styles of writing and views are good for proper coverage. I do not deny having both critics and straight reporters in the industry is a good thing. That's never been debatable in all this. It's more what powers those opinions that becomes an issue.
The next three paragraphs are the standard padding for an article like this. It sets baselines for things that are easy to research, but it makes the writer appear more knowledgeable on the subject than they really are. It includes industry buzzwords, again to make her appear in the know. For example, she talks about gonzo journalism. She then turns to the subject of the "worrying side" of enthusiast press.
It's quite funny, but most of what she talks about in this paragraph is exactly the issue #GamerGate has with the industry. Poorly written, poorly researched articles that have little interest outside the circle of friends it was written for. This pretty much covers all the articles written on Depression Quest. Most gamers have zero interest in the web-based choose your own adventure she created. However, it made headlines because of the fact that she was friends with a number of the journalists covering it.
She then minimizes the damage done by this. The reason for this is to try to say that the status quo is fine. What harm is there for covering games that you are a fan of, and in a biased way. In fact, to this point in the article, she's defended that it's necessary to have an industry where straight reporting is just one facet of games journalism. She's spent more time talking about opinion-based coverage. It's a subtle tactic, meant for you to accept the baseline she's laid out as her argument.
Next, she enters into the polarization phase of her agenda. Her opening salvo: A comparison of GamerGate to "Nerd McCarthism against perceived outsiders." This turns this from a story to an opinion piece. So what's the difference between the two?
A straight news story (example linked) typically will put out balanced information regarding any given news item. They will give facts and figures, numbers and showcase interviews expressing opinion. However, the reporter will do their best to show no preference to either side. They showcase the facts, and it is up to the consumer of that media to formulate an opinion.
An opinion piece is one that expresses the writers own view of a situation. Think of Andy Rooney on 60 minutes. If you take a moment and watch that, you can see what opinion looks like. You take facts, construct a narrative, and then use those facts as talking points. You can see what Mr. Rooney thinks of bottle water right away.
Using such loaded terminology such as McCarthyism paints the movement in an immediate negative light even without her later dismissal. But is she using that word right? Short answer: No, and she agrees with that later on. Take a moment and look at the opening paragraph of that wiki article. It speaks of baseless claims, yet we know that to be untrue.
She then continues her diatribe about #GamerGate, using language to belittle and marginalized the concerns of the movement. This is also straight text book for most of these agenda pieces. Since she has set herself up as an authority via participation, these pronouncements are supposed to be taken as fact rather than opinion. Note she never says "I feel" or "my view of". Typically, verbiage like that denotes an opinion piece from straight journalism. If you review the work critically, you know this entire paragraph is hyperbole and opinion.
And here starts the sourcing of material. This is used to bolster the factual feel of this piece, trying to steer it from her opinion of a situation back to a more factual interpretation of events. She first sources a supposed pro-#GamerGate source, a publicly editable page on Know Your Meme. This will prove rather insightful later once she starts talking about sourcing articles.
Then, she lays out additional agenda, putting words out like toxic, hypocrisy and doublespeak. the she sources Katherine Cross. Now, who is Katherine Cross? She is a student at CUNY. She is completing a doctorate in Feminine Studies. So, she definitely has a bias towards the anti-#GamerGate stance, as their stance is that this is about harassment of women in the industry. Her comments, therefore, are nothing more than agenda, but from another source.
She then goes on to spout more opinion, like that #GamerGate supports Jack Thompson. Correction to that, most of #GamerGate thought it laughable that even he thought Anita was a hypocrite. Her "proof" this time is a Storify link to a known anti-#GamerGate member. In there, there is no endorsement of the man. implicit or otherwise. More or less, most reactions are in agreement that when Jack Thompson calls you out on something he himself is guilty of, maybe you've gone too far.
We then bounce back to an actual pro-#GamerGate site, the wiki created during this. A quick snapshot of who is considered ethical, but it's focus is on TechRaptor. It's also the only visited link on the image. That will be important in a moment.
She then goes on to site the fact that The Escapist has "violated its new policy" immediately by giving the other side of GamerGate. Much like the treatment of David Pakman, this is not surprising. Because they gave a forum to the other side, that is seen as an ethical violation. However, the piece was done as an interview piece, simply soliciting opinions of game developers. It was not sold as anything else. That is not an ethical violation. In an interview, you ask one or more question, and whatever the participant says, you report. That is all that occurred.
And, hilariously enough, if you review the article in question, they removed several opinions which she took objection to due to complaints. So, in essence, this showcases the censorship #GamerGate speaks of. Because of someone's complaints, not all voices are allowed to be heard.
The evidence, largely, is in the opinion of the person and what they constitute as harassment. This is a moving goal post. Harassment used to mean angry, mean-spirited comments directed at someone. Now the term has been changed to mean anything I don't like having done within my vicinity. This includes retweeting, asking questions, commenting on Twitter about anyone one identifies with, using certain hashtags, discussing certain projects... The list has become endless.
But I digress. We now move into the next phase of the agenda push: One equals all. This has been typical of both sides, though I think mostly from #GamerGate it is meant in a mocking fashion. I, for one, have used it as such, stating that "All anti-#GamerGate supports" x or y. I know they are a group of individuals. I know they each have their own opinions and may not agree. The point I try to make is that they do not afford us the same luxury.
She does this by showing a single tweet by a single individual. This is not representative of everyone, nor can it be made as such. Are there problematic people? Of course. As I said above, I do not ascribe the behaviors of some to all of either side. I point that out in any talk I have with the other side prior to the blockbot being a thing.
If we are to quotemine, there have been several instances of anti-GG supporters stating gamers should be gassed, placed in internment camps, doxxed, SWATted, raped, and everything else that she claims her side has had happen to her. I don't doubt the validity in that either, but that is not about #GamerGate. That is the current state of the Internet, where if you ever expose your personal, real self and ever cross anyone's path that doesn't like you, they will go to great lengths to "punish" you.
Given the anonymity of the Internet, this is very easy to do with relative impunity. However, removing said anonymity also means doing so for potential victims. There are no easy answers, here. Sadly, until punishment for crimes committed in this fashion is suitably swift and uniformly harsh, it will not end.
She then uses The Ralph Retort (a site I've had so many issues with, the creator has me blocked on Twitter) as the example of new media we want. I will grant that he does the occasional good, but much like Gawker, it is a tabloid news blog. And just like Gawker and its subsidiaries, not every single article is a biased trash piece. However, I'd rather neither have a space to exist at the end of this, for various reasons. Does that make it the opinion of everyone?
No.
That's the biggest sell in these agenda pieces though. She wants you to believe that any one opinion is the opinion of all. She wants you to turn off your brain, and just believe the statements made by one or even a small minority are the same as the majority. That's why agenda pieces are structured as they are. They have a buy-in at the start, then start selling the agenda, providing just enough "proof" and "facts" as required in order to complete the sales pitch.
She then brings fear into the mix, talking about how developers (IE her) have to worry about someone bringing weapons to an event. However, the image posted is beyond blurry, and it's hard to even tell who the picture is off, or its context with an anon chan board post placed next to it. This is yet another agenda sell tactic. the principle here being to evoke a strong emotional response within the reader. She wants outrage so that you blind yourself to any other details she's leaving out or glossing over.
She then moves to now drawing a line in the sand. She says that any site that produces articles focused on anti-#GamerGate individuals or situations are just propaganda machines. Again, this is a charge #GamerGate has successfully shown to be the case for Gawker, Polygon, and a number of other personalities and sites. There is a clear message. One that will become clearer by the end of this piece.
She tries to reverse this fight, stating that it is we, not her and her friends, fellow writers and developers that are corrupting the ethics of this site. She states that is our intent. Her first proof? A satirical headline and article from ClickHole, a spin-off of the Onion. The reason it is satire seems to elude her, but we will digress.
Next comes the big finale, the reason this piece even exists. Remember how only TechRaptor was clicked on in that first image? It's because recent articles have begun showing the less-than-honest side of anti-#GamerGate supporters. And, more specifically, Zoe Quinn's dealings directly.
You can now understand the shift, the more aggressive undertone of the piece at this point. She's tried to establish that she is credible. She's attempted to dehumanize the opposition. And now, she tries to show that their end goal is her destruction. This is a call to arms. She sees someone speaking against her, and she doesn't like it. This is not ethics, it's a cry to attack and censor a site for reporting a story she doesn't like.
Her language at the start of the piece (saying that "Techraptor started making kissy faces with GamerGate" should be proof enough that we've moved on from any form of discussion. She showcases that their traffic increased, which is not even relevant to the discussion. Their traffic increased because people took their business elsewhere after Gawker et all turned on gamers as a whole.
Her first attack in this is to start off by showing a pair of editorial pieces written by Andrew Otton. The pieces list out many of the issues anyone familiar with #GamerGate know about her. There are several facts listed, many irrefutable, some slightly questionable, and a couple strong opinions drawn from that. But what she likely takes offense to is the idea of professional victimhood.
Now, what this does is try to paint an editorial as an ethical issue. It is not. If you review the guidelines available anywhere online, ethical restraints are for straight news stories. A different standard covers reviews, but in the next few postings on this blog, we'll get to that. But an editorial can be biased as hell. That's why it's labeled, clearly, as editorial content. You are hearing the opinion of the writer. Again, refer to Andy Rooney and the bottle water video from earlier.
She then shows a screenshot of their Ask.fm account, again for the sake of mocking. She also talks about how they are just enthusiast press. Now, again, remember that Zoe herself is enthusiast press. She has no degree in journalism, only dabbled in writing news articles, but here tries to sell this same site as being no better than she actually is. Yet, here she is passing judgement over them.
After this, it's time to attack their ethics page. Her attempt now is to show that they do not state that they will be unbiased. It, in fact, does say that. If a conflict of interest arises, meaning that the content has been biased, a disclosure or outright removal will be done. Source: TechRaptor Ethics Policy, section on Policy on Conflict of Interest. She then posts the Society of Professional Journalists ethics code, a page I do recommend reading, especially for Quinn. As she attempted to assassinate the entire site based on two editorials, this point is relevant:
- Label advocacy and commentary.
In essence, by placing those items she takes offense at as editorials, she in fact has an issue with Andrew Otton, not TechRaptor. The opinions expressed in an opinion piece are that of the author and not necessarily those of the site publishing the piece. As someone who has guest written for many sites, this should be a fact well known to Quinn.
She attacks Georgina Young, an outspoken #GamerGate supporter, next. She pulls up her article on the IGDA, then uses the "one represents all" fallacy again, this time showing three that represent all who were labeled as harassers. This is obviously hyperbole, as many people wound up on that list, and three do not, again, represent all.
We then switch back to fact mode, out of opinion mode, where she rightly calls out an error made by Young. Here is the only valid point when it comes to concerns about new media. In this day and age of the 24/7 news cycle, reporters often rush their story in to work the lead when it's still hot. Every minute they lose is another minute that eyes are going to another page, generating revenue from them. And that means your piece must be far better than someone else's to pull them away, if you can at all.
Young may have rushed the article, but whether she did or not, she got the facts wrong, and it took a few edits to correct all the factual mistakes. Quinn doesn't stop there. She keeps striking at Young, next by assailing her review of Depression Quest. Again, Young gets some facts wrong, and she again points these out. One telling bit is that Quinn does state that this was a review of something close to her heart.
It is then you should realize that all of this boils down to a developer who was very much emotionally attached to her work and to her public persona that she could not abide what she saw as an attack. This is why TechRaptor, and not any other site, is featured here. This is a full-blown assault on Young, Otton and TechRaptor.
The pummeling of Young continues, calling into question more of her articles, and the tone in which they are written. She then makes a very large tactical error, however. She reverts to attacking the site over an editorial piece labeled as satire, and trying to provide the quote out of its context.
Prior to this, she had been linking to articles within the text of her post. The reason she now uses a screenshot is to elicit a reaction from the reader. By removing the post from its context as satire, it seems like a serious breech of ethics, when in reality it now both an opinion piece and satire.
That is a great tactic of those who sell an agenda. Drive the narrative home any way possible, even if that means removing all context from an item. It's not about truth, it's about emotional impact. And that was her knock out punch. These people are a hate machine, that picture implies. Look at how they talk.
After that, the piece loses steam. It shows TechRaptor getting donations, nothing someone who gets them herself should be unfamiliar with. It tosses out a couple more news article trying to blacken individuals, and therefore make them representative of the problem. It tries to use people breaking the blockbot (quickly becoming used by actual gaming organizations as a blacklist) as a reason to hate GamerGate. In essence, it's a mix of agenda and facts, with spin about those facts.
Finally, it shifts back to being a supposed fact-based piece, raising valid concerns over YouTubers taking money from studios, and about how better PR is required. It throws a few last jabs at #GamerGate, and ends with the oh so quotable, bolded "Because this isn't about GamerGate - It's about ethics in games writing."
Now, a few other points of house-keeping. To make mock of the usage of Archive.Today by #GamerGate, every link leads to an Archive.Today of that page. It's a subtle jab, I give her that, but a jab none the less. Of course, the purpose of Archive.Today links is to preserve an item as it was seen. Too often, part of the way these spin doctors work is to say or do something to create a reaction, then either delete or edit it to remove culpability. A great example of this is fellow writer Leigh Alexander who defrauded a company by leaking her own book.
Another is the fact that she used games writing versus games journalism. This is a way to try to use this piece to not be about journalism in the future. It allows her to quotemine herself and state that this was always about writing stories, not articles.
In the end, this propaganda piece will not convince the skeptical and be gospel to the believers. However, it isn't about ethics, it's about agenda.
Next time, let's actually talk ethics.
Recently, Zoe Quinn posted a lengthy op-ed piece to her blog talking about ethics in games journalism. It's actually a wonderful example of how the writers of today dodge about between fact and agenda. Let's analyze it.
First, she starts off with giving herself a baseline accreditation in games journalism due to the fact that she, an enthusiast writer, wrote things. Now, later on, she will talk about how enthusiasts getting into the industry is the problem. But let's stop here for a moment. Since she called herself an enthusiast, and doesn't list a degree of journalism on her LinkedIn, and is a games developer now, one can assume she doesn't hold a degree in journalism.
Now what does this mean? It means her default status as an "expert" on this subject is refutable. Just because one does a thing doesn't mean one does a thing well or to standard. Now, I have worked for a newspaper in the editing room reformatting articles for our use. I also had to edit articles in that process. But that doesn't make me any more an expert than her. So, as you read through the rest of that analysis, keep that in mind. Neither of us are experts on journalism. Neither of us hold a degree on the subject.
She then moves on to state that diverse styles of writing and views are good for proper coverage. I do not deny having both critics and straight reporters in the industry is a good thing. That's never been debatable in all this. It's more what powers those opinions that becomes an issue.
The next three paragraphs are the standard padding for an article like this. It sets baselines for things that are easy to research, but it makes the writer appear more knowledgeable on the subject than they really are. It includes industry buzzwords, again to make her appear in the know. For example, she talks about gonzo journalism. She then turns to the subject of the "worrying side" of enthusiast press.
It's quite funny, but most of what she talks about in this paragraph is exactly the issue #GamerGate has with the industry. Poorly written, poorly researched articles that have little interest outside the circle of friends it was written for. This pretty much covers all the articles written on Depression Quest. Most gamers have zero interest in the web-based choose your own adventure she created. However, it made headlines because of the fact that she was friends with a number of the journalists covering it.
She then minimizes the damage done by this. The reason for this is to try to say that the status quo is fine. What harm is there for covering games that you are a fan of, and in a biased way. In fact, to this point in the article, she's defended that it's necessary to have an industry where straight reporting is just one facet of games journalism. She's spent more time talking about opinion-based coverage. It's a subtle tactic, meant for you to accept the baseline she's laid out as her argument.
Next, she enters into the polarization phase of her agenda. Her opening salvo: A comparison of GamerGate to "Nerd McCarthism against perceived outsiders." This turns this from a story to an opinion piece. So what's the difference between the two?
A straight news story (example linked) typically will put out balanced information regarding any given news item. They will give facts and figures, numbers and showcase interviews expressing opinion. However, the reporter will do their best to show no preference to either side. They showcase the facts, and it is up to the consumer of that media to formulate an opinion.
An opinion piece is one that expresses the writers own view of a situation. Think of Andy Rooney on 60 minutes. If you take a moment and watch that, you can see what opinion looks like. You take facts, construct a narrative, and then use those facts as talking points. You can see what Mr. Rooney thinks of bottle water right away.
Using such loaded terminology such as McCarthyism paints the movement in an immediate negative light even without her later dismissal. But is she using that word right? Short answer: No, and she agrees with that later on. Take a moment and look at the opening paragraph of that wiki article. It speaks of baseless claims, yet we know that to be untrue.
She then continues her diatribe about #GamerGate, using language to belittle and marginalized the concerns of the movement. This is also straight text book for most of these agenda pieces. Since she has set herself up as an authority via participation, these pronouncements are supposed to be taken as fact rather than opinion. Note she never says "I feel" or "my view of". Typically, verbiage like that denotes an opinion piece from straight journalism. If you review the work critically, you know this entire paragraph is hyperbole and opinion.
And here starts the sourcing of material. This is used to bolster the factual feel of this piece, trying to steer it from her opinion of a situation back to a more factual interpretation of events. She first sources a supposed pro-#GamerGate source, a publicly editable page on Know Your Meme. This will prove rather insightful later once she starts talking about sourcing articles.
Then, she lays out additional agenda, putting words out like toxic, hypocrisy and doublespeak. the she sources Katherine Cross. Now, who is Katherine Cross? She is a student at CUNY. She is completing a doctorate in Feminine Studies. So, she definitely has a bias towards the anti-#GamerGate stance, as their stance is that this is about harassment of women in the industry. Her comments, therefore, are nothing more than agenda, but from another source.
She then goes on to spout more opinion, like that #GamerGate supports Jack Thompson. Correction to that, most of #GamerGate thought it laughable that even he thought Anita was a hypocrite. Her "proof" this time is a Storify link to a known anti-#GamerGate member. In there, there is no endorsement of the man. implicit or otherwise. More or less, most reactions are in agreement that when Jack Thompson calls you out on something he himself is guilty of, maybe you've gone too far.
We then bounce back to an actual pro-#GamerGate site, the wiki created during this. A quick snapshot of who is considered ethical, but it's focus is on TechRaptor. It's also the only visited link on the image. That will be important in a moment.
She then goes on to site the fact that The Escapist has "violated its new policy" immediately by giving the other side of GamerGate. Much like the treatment of David Pakman, this is not surprising. Because they gave a forum to the other side, that is seen as an ethical violation. However, the piece was done as an interview piece, simply soliciting opinions of game developers. It was not sold as anything else. That is not an ethical violation. In an interview, you ask one or more question, and whatever the participant says, you report. That is all that occurred.
And, hilariously enough, if you review the article in question, they removed several opinions which she took objection to due to complaints. So, in essence, this showcases the censorship #GamerGate speaks of. Because of someone's complaints, not all voices are allowed to be heard.
The evidence, largely, is in the opinion of the person and what they constitute as harassment. This is a moving goal post. Harassment used to mean angry, mean-spirited comments directed at someone. Now the term has been changed to mean anything I don't like having done within my vicinity. This includes retweeting, asking questions, commenting on Twitter about anyone one identifies with, using certain hashtags, discussing certain projects... The list has become endless.
But I digress. We now move into the next phase of the agenda push: One equals all. This has been typical of both sides, though I think mostly from #GamerGate it is meant in a mocking fashion. I, for one, have used it as such, stating that "All anti-#GamerGate supports" x or y. I know they are a group of individuals. I know they each have their own opinions and may not agree. The point I try to make is that they do not afford us the same luxury.
She does this by showing a single tweet by a single individual. This is not representative of everyone, nor can it be made as such. Are there problematic people? Of course. As I said above, I do not ascribe the behaviors of some to all of either side. I point that out in any talk I have with the other side prior to the blockbot being a thing.
If we are to quotemine, there have been several instances of anti-GG supporters stating gamers should be gassed, placed in internment camps, doxxed, SWATted, raped, and everything else that she claims her side has had happen to her. I don't doubt the validity in that either, but that is not about #GamerGate. That is the current state of the Internet, where if you ever expose your personal, real self and ever cross anyone's path that doesn't like you, they will go to great lengths to "punish" you.
Given the anonymity of the Internet, this is very easy to do with relative impunity. However, removing said anonymity also means doing so for potential victims. There are no easy answers, here. Sadly, until punishment for crimes committed in this fashion is suitably swift and uniformly harsh, it will not end.
She then uses The Ralph Retort (a site I've had so many issues with, the creator has me blocked on Twitter) as the example of new media we want. I will grant that he does the occasional good, but much like Gawker, it is a tabloid news blog. And just like Gawker and its subsidiaries, not every single article is a biased trash piece. However, I'd rather neither have a space to exist at the end of this, for various reasons. Does that make it the opinion of everyone?
No.
That's the biggest sell in these agenda pieces though. She wants you to believe that any one opinion is the opinion of all. She wants you to turn off your brain, and just believe the statements made by one or even a small minority are the same as the majority. That's why agenda pieces are structured as they are. They have a buy-in at the start, then start selling the agenda, providing just enough "proof" and "facts" as required in order to complete the sales pitch.
She then brings fear into the mix, talking about how developers (IE her) have to worry about someone bringing weapons to an event. However, the image posted is beyond blurry, and it's hard to even tell who the picture is off, or its context with an anon chan board post placed next to it. This is yet another agenda sell tactic. the principle here being to evoke a strong emotional response within the reader. She wants outrage so that you blind yourself to any other details she's leaving out or glossing over.
She then moves to now drawing a line in the sand. She says that any site that produces articles focused on anti-#GamerGate individuals or situations are just propaganda machines. Again, this is a charge #GamerGate has successfully shown to be the case for Gawker, Polygon, and a number of other personalities and sites. There is a clear message. One that will become clearer by the end of this piece.
She tries to reverse this fight, stating that it is we, not her and her friends, fellow writers and developers that are corrupting the ethics of this site. She states that is our intent. Her first proof? A satirical headline and article from ClickHole, a spin-off of the Onion. The reason it is satire seems to elude her, but we will digress.
Next comes the big finale, the reason this piece even exists. Remember how only TechRaptor was clicked on in that first image? It's because recent articles have begun showing the less-than-honest side of anti-#GamerGate supporters. And, more specifically, Zoe Quinn's dealings directly.
You can now understand the shift, the more aggressive undertone of the piece at this point. She's tried to establish that she is credible. She's attempted to dehumanize the opposition. And now, she tries to show that their end goal is her destruction. This is a call to arms. She sees someone speaking against her, and she doesn't like it. This is not ethics, it's a cry to attack and censor a site for reporting a story she doesn't like.
Her language at the start of the piece (saying that "Techraptor started making kissy faces with GamerGate" should be proof enough that we've moved on from any form of discussion. She showcases that their traffic increased, which is not even relevant to the discussion. Their traffic increased because people took their business elsewhere after Gawker et all turned on gamers as a whole.
Her first attack in this is to start off by showing a pair of editorial pieces written by Andrew Otton. The pieces list out many of the issues anyone familiar with #GamerGate know about her. There are several facts listed, many irrefutable, some slightly questionable, and a couple strong opinions drawn from that. But what she likely takes offense to is the idea of professional victimhood.
Now, what this does is try to paint an editorial as an ethical issue. It is not. If you review the guidelines available anywhere online, ethical restraints are for straight news stories. A different standard covers reviews, but in the next few postings on this blog, we'll get to that. But an editorial can be biased as hell. That's why it's labeled, clearly, as editorial content. You are hearing the opinion of the writer. Again, refer to Andy Rooney and the bottle water video from earlier.
She then shows a screenshot of their Ask.fm account, again for the sake of mocking. She also talks about how they are just enthusiast press. Now, again, remember that Zoe herself is enthusiast press. She has no degree in journalism, only dabbled in writing news articles, but here tries to sell this same site as being no better than she actually is. Yet, here she is passing judgement over them.
After this, it's time to attack their ethics page. Her attempt now is to show that they do not state that they will be unbiased. It, in fact, does say that. If a conflict of interest arises, meaning that the content has been biased, a disclosure or outright removal will be done. Source: TechRaptor Ethics Policy, section on Policy on Conflict of Interest. She then posts the Society of Professional Journalists ethics code, a page I do recommend reading, especially for Quinn. As she attempted to assassinate the entire site based on two editorials, this point is relevant:
- Label advocacy and commentary.
In essence, by placing those items she takes offense at as editorials, she in fact has an issue with Andrew Otton, not TechRaptor. The opinions expressed in an opinion piece are that of the author and not necessarily those of the site publishing the piece. As someone who has guest written for many sites, this should be a fact well known to Quinn.
She attacks Georgina Young, an outspoken #GamerGate supporter, next. She pulls up her article on the IGDA, then uses the "one represents all" fallacy again, this time showing three that represent all who were labeled as harassers. This is obviously hyperbole, as many people wound up on that list, and three do not, again, represent all.
We then switch back to fact mode, out of opinion mode, where she rightly calls out an error made by Young. Here is the only valid point when it comes to concerns about new media. In this day and age of the 24/7 news cycle, reporters often rush their story in to work the lead when it's still hot. Every minute they lose is another minute that eyes are going to another page, generating revenue from them. And that means your piece must be far better than someone else's to pull them away, if you can at all.
Young may have rushed the article, but whether she did or not, she got the facts wrong, and it took a few edits to correct all the factual mistakes. Quinn doesn't stop there. She keeps striking at Young, next by assailing her review of Depression Quest. Again, Young gets some facts wrong, and she again points these out. One telling bit is that Quinn does state that this was a review of something close to her heart.
It is then you should realize that all of this boils down to a developer who was very much emotionally attached to her work and to her public persona that she could not abide what she saw as an attack. This is why TechRaptor, and not any other site, is featured here. This is a full-blown assault on Young, Otton and TechRaptor.
The pummeling of Young continues, calling into question more of her articles, and the tone in which they are written. She then makes a very large tactical error, however. She reverts to attacking the site over an editorial piece labeled as satire, and trying to provide the quote out of its context.
Prior to this, she had been linking to articles within the text of her post. The reason she now uses a screenshot is to elicit a reaction from the reader. By removing the post from its context as satire, it seems like a serious breech of ethics, when in reality it now both an opinion piece and satire.
That is a great tactic of those who sell an agenda. Drive the narrative home any way possible, even if that means removing all context from an item. It's not about truth, it's about emotional impact. And that was her knock out punch. These people are a hate machine, that picture implies. Look at how they talk.
After that, the piece loses steam. It shows TechRaptor getting donations, nothing someone who gets them herself should be unfamiliar with. It tosses out a couple more news article trying to blacken individuals, and therefore make them representative of the problem. It tries to use people breaking the blockbot (quickly becoming used by actual gaming organizations as a blacklist) as a reason to hate GamerGate. In essence, it's a mix of agenda and facts, with spin about those facts.
Finally, it shifts back to being a supposed fact-based piece, raising valid concerns over YouTubers taking money from studios, and about how better PR is required. It throws a few last jabs at #GamerGate, and ends with the oh so quotable, bolded "Because this isn't about GamerGate - It's about ethics in games writing."
Now, a few other points of house-keeping. To make mock of the usage of Archive.Today by #GamerGate, every link leads to an Archive.Today of that page. It's a subtle jab, I give her that, but a jab none the less. Of course, the purpose of Archive.Today links is to preserve an item as it was seen. Too often, part of the way these spin doctors work is to say or do something to create a reaction, then either delete or edit it to remove culpability. A great example of this is fellow writer Leigh Alexander who defrauded a company by leaking her own book.
Another is the fact that she used games writing versus games journalism. This is a way to try to use this piece to not be about journalism in the future. It allows her to quotemine herself and state that this was always about writing stories, not articles.
In the end, this propaganda piece will not convince the skeptical and be gospel to the believers. However, it isn't about ethics, it's about agenda.
Next time, let's actually talk ethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)