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.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
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.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
My Interview with Hatred's Creative Director Jarosław Zieliński
"My genocide crusade begins... here."
A shocking line, and the final one spoken in the trailer for Hatred, the first game to be released from Destructive Creations, a Polish game studio. When the trailer initially dropped in October, it brought with it the expected political backlash for a game with a controversial topic. But, as I would find out, even the creative director, the outspoken Jarosław Zieliński, was surprised by just how far it all went.
If you aren't aware of the game at this point (likely a result of just waking up from a coma, or just now discovering there is a thing called the Internet), a brief summary: You assume the role of an unnamed man, bent on one thing: Killing as many people as possible before he himself is killed. The trailer itself can be disturbing to watch, especially if you fear the rash of mass shootings that have plague the world of late.
I will admit, my first viewing of the trailer shocked me. But then I watched it back, and found myself intrigued. Much like earlier shock titles such as Postal and Manhunt, the story is what shocked, not the gameplay. The more I watched it back, the more I wanted to know about the creative team behind the game.
I was obviously not alone. Stories were already swirling, including a rumour that the game was being made by Neo Nazi sympathizers. I knew, even at first glance, there wasn't much truth to that. Then came the request from Epic Games to remove logos from the trailer for the Unreal Engine. It should be noted that inclusion of these logos is actually a stipulation of the licensing agreement. If that wasn't enough, there was a petition started online demanding the game never be released, and that the developers needed to issue an apology.
After seeing all of this, I put my comments out on display, but I honestly was burning with curiosity. I was concerned that, given the state of games media, the company might not get a fair voice that tried to understand the why of this game.
So I reached out to the team behind the game, hoping they would answer a few questions for some small-time random gaming blogger. They were kind enough to not only respond, but provide me with some insight behind the game. While there are plenty of interviews out there (most likely better than mine), I still would like to provide mine as just more insight into the irreverent minds behind Hatred.
[Note: Removed from this interview was a question regarding claims of Neo Nazi affiliation. This was proven to be false, and a full statement from the team can be seen on their official website. Due to the delay, this statement was released after the questions were sent. Jaroslaw did answer by referring me to the site.]
The game's trailer starts with a strong topic: Mass shootings. Did you have concerns about how this product would be viewed?
[Jarosław Zieliński, Creative Director] - Well, as the game about mass-shooter? It was obvious that people's reaction will be pretty polarized and it didn't concern us, really. It was part of the plan, but we didn't expect such a scale of all this.
When you were working on the project, what was your desire for the player to take away from the experience?
[J. Z.] Evil grin on his face. :)
Have you ever played Spec Ops: The Line, and if you did, do you feel that's what influenced you to make this game?
[J. Z.] Postal influenced Hatred. Spec Ops bored me after 20 minutes, but I wouldn't say it's a bad game. It's just me.
Like 6 Days in Fallujah, this game might have issues being released. Are you self-releasing this title?
[J. Z.] Digitally - yes. We're talking about retail release with some publishers. Yes, some of them are interested, because controversial or not - it's still business.
I can imagine that victims who survived attacks similar to the one shown will have a strong reaction to this product. Do you have any comments for those who have been impacted by mass shootings?
[J. Z.] I've seen only one so far. Negative, of course. I'm really sorry for those people's experience, but we're not referring to any real-life mass-shooting in our game. All events here are fictional.
One item that crossed my mind while watching the gameplay footage is that numerous acts depicted in your game are very similar to acts found in the Grand Theft Auto, Saint's Row, and Assassin's Creed series. In those you do very similar acts, such as assassinations, random acts of violence, and such. When creating this game, did you consider how similar those elements were, and how the narrative changes their context?
[J. Z.] Yes, it changes the whole thing and we were aware of it. And what is hypocritical about all those complainers is that for them killing people for money in GTA is okay, while killing because of being mentally-ill isn't. It's fun to watch all those pissed off morality-warriors. :)
Thanks for the interview!
I would like to thank Jaroslaw for the interview, and I await the release of Hatred, and the future projects of Destructive Creations with great interest.
Hatred is slated to be released in Q2 of 2015.
A shocking line, and the final one spoken in the trailer for Hatred, the first game to be released from Destructive Creations, a Polish game studio. When the trailer initially dropped in October, it brought with it the expected political backlash for a game with a controversial topic. But, as I would find out, even the creative director, the outspoken Jarosław Zieliński, was surprised by just how far it all went.
If you aren't aware of the game at this point (likely a result of just waking up from a coma, or just now discovering there is a thing called the Internet), a brief summary: You assume the role of an unnamed man, bent on one thing: Killing as many people as possible before he himself is killed. The trailer itself can be disturbing to watch, especially if you fear the rash of mass shootings that have plague the world of late.
I will admit, my first viewing of the trailer shocked me. But then I watched it back, and found myself intrigued. Much like earlier shock titles such as Postal and Manhunt, the story is what shocked, not the gameplay. The more I watched it back, the more I wanted to know about the creative team behind the game.
I was obviously not alone. Stories were already swirling, including a rumour that the game was being made by Neo Nazi sympathizers. I knew, even at first glance, there wasn't much truth to that. Then came the request from Epic Games to remove logos from the trailer for the Unreal Engine. It should be noted that inclusion of these logos is actually a stipulation of the licensing agreement. If that wasn't enough, there was a petition started online demanding the game never be released, and that the developers needed to issue an apology.
After seeing all of this, I put my comments out on display, but I honestly was burning with curiosity. I was concerned that, given the state of games media, the company might not get a fair voice that tried to understand the why of this game.
So I reached out to the team behind the game, hoping they would answer a few questions for some small-time random gaming blogger. They were kind enough to not only respond, but provide me with some insight behind the game. While there are plenty of interviews out there (most likely better than mine), I still would like to provide mine as just more insight into the irreverent minds behind Hatred.
[Note: Removed from this interview was a question regarding claims of Neo Nazi affiliation. This was proven to be false, and a full statement from the team can be seen on their official website. Due to the delay, this statement was released after the questions were sent. Jaroslaw did answer by referring me to the site.]
The game's trailer starts with a strong topic: Mass shootings. Did you have concerns about how this product would be viewed?
[Jarosław Zieliński, Creative Director] - Well, as the game about mass-shooter? It was obvious that people's reaction will be pretty polarized and it didn't concern us, really. It was part of the plan, but we didn't expect such a scale of all this.
When you were working on the project, what was your desire for the player to take away from the experience?
[J. Z.] Evil grin on his face. :)
Have you ever played Spec Ops: The Line, and if you did, do you feel that's what influenced you to make this game?
[J. Z.] Postal influenced Hatred. Spec Ops bored me after 20 minutes, but I wouldn't say it's a bad game. It's just me.
Like 6 Days in Fallujah, this game might have issues being released. Are you self-releasing this title?
[J. Z.] Digitally - yes. We're talking about retail release with some publishers. Yes, some of them are interested, because controversial or not - it's still business.
I can imagine that victims who survived attacks similar to the one shown will have a strong reaction to this product. Do you have any comments for those who have been impacted by mass shootings?
[J. Z.] I've seen only one so far. Negative, of course. I'm really sorry for those people's experience, but we're not referring to any real-life mass-shooting in our game. All events here are fictional.
One item that crossed my mind while watching the gameplay footage is that numerous acts depicted in your game are very similar to acts found in the Grand Theft Auto, Saint's Row, and Assassin's Creed series. In those you do very similar acts, such as assassinations, random acts of violence, and such. When creating this game, did you consider how similar those elements were, and how the narrative changes their context?
[J. Z.] Yes, it changes the whole thing and we were aware of it. And what is hypocritical about all those complainers is that for them killing people for money in GTA is okay, while killing because of being mentally-ill isn't. It's fun to watch all those pissed off morality-warriors. :)
Thanks for the interview!
I would like to thank Jaroslaw for the interview, and I await the release of Hatred, and the future projects of Destructive Creations with great interest.
Hatred is slated to be released in Q2 of 2015.
Friday, November 28, 2014
From the "Patriarchy" with Love
I am the oppressor, you say.
I am that which stops your progress, impedes your way.
But in truth that is just a game you play.
You need a villain, a foe to slay.
But there are no more demons, no more dragons today.
Instead we are in a world of concrete and steel,
Where we question what we feel
Instead of accepting it as real.
Every emotion needs a name
And a target for whom to blame
But that is a victim's game
Though I'm sure you won't say the same
You scream that we are evil, vile,
That what we love is puerile.
Yet, stay and listen a while.
For what you think you see,
That is not reality.
That is what you wish it to be.
You need us to be the enemy
Because, without us, there's nothing for you to be.
You are not here for creativity
You want control, that's plain to see.
You want decision by committee
"Don't think of you, think of me.
What you do is offensive, don't you see
It harms my rights, my sensitivity!"
You say that, because I am a man, I am stained with sin
That I want to rape and do women in.
But you know what, that sounds close to religion.
A gospel of hate and forced contrition.
But in this church, there's not a preacher
Instead, a lecturer, a teacher
A pseudo-academic in a magazine feature.
All proclaiming us as some twisted creature.
But gamers don't want to play along
No, we hear the tune to this song
The sound of it just plain wrong
Not to mention linking your Patreon.
That's what it is about, at the end.
Money enough for you to spend
Fame for your name, and to your wills we bend
Except you chose wrong this time, friend.
You see, gamers, we play to win
And we are not covered in sin.
We take your ideology, and toss it in the bin
And that's because we are diverse,
Accepting, welcoming, no matter how you curse
We will not change, we will not disperse
Now here's your coat, and your purse.
Go back to harassing some other industry,
Because, right here, it's coming along nicely.
I see many more signs of diversity
Than I do in all your misandry.
And if I do represent your "Patriachy",
Then I say this with love, to you from me.
You're no longer oppressed, I set you free.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Custer's Last Stand? Let's hope so.
September, 1982. A game is released for the Atari 2600. A game so racist that it was taken down from store shelves. It's still catalogued as one of the many curiosities of modern culture, much like the very heavily racial overtones of old cartoons and what not.
It exists to remind us that we did something horribly wrong, and shouldn't do it again.
To my shock and surprise, this game has suddenly gotten a new burst of life and press. Why? Because someone on the Internet got offended, and just had to tell the world in a splashy news story. I guess hating on gaming culture is how one makes it these days.
Enter into our tale the game in question, Custer's Revenge.
Yes, this ancient relic of shocking racism was a thing back in the day. And it was rightly called out and decried for it. So why is there a news story in 2014 about it? Because self-professed indie game developer Elizabeth LaPensée stumbled across a new version of the game.
Now, you're wondering what company would dare do a remake of this game? Who would be stupid enough to fund this? Is it some KKK group? Neo-Nazis? What sick company is going to put this out for sale?
Well, none. You see, LaPensée found this game in the dregs of the Internet. It was remade as a flash game by Mysticca Games. Never heard of them? Me either, and that's because they aren't a game company. It's just a hobbyist who remade it in Flash, and posted it to the Internet. In 2008.
No, I'm serious. An unknown "studio" posts a free Flash remake of Custer's Revenge 6 years ago, and here we are in 2014 talking about it.
Now, I am not going to defend this game. And neither would anyone else. The reason it's not a thing is that people didn't ask for nor want it. It's one of the many oddities you will find floating about the Internet, like NEDM, the Pain Olympics, and the like. I highly recommend not searching any of those terms if you have a tender stomach.
That's the wonder of the Internet. People can make a thing they want, put it out there for everyone to see, and then people will react as they will. In this case, the only references left to the game is a broken forum archive where you can download it. It isn't promoted, and while there are a few videos of people playing it more for the "What the Hell Is This" value of it, no one really supports the game.
But LaPensée would like you to think it's a bigger deal than it is.
She is outraged such a thing exists. How dare it exist! I mean, forget that no one was really playing it. The handful of YouTube videos she likely found are like the remaining ones I saw. They are made by small channels trying for a laugh at the expense of the ridiculousness of this game even existing.
Now, you might ask yourself, then, why was this even a story? Because #GamerGate. You see, normally this kind of story, with proper research, would have shown that this was not a major issue. It would have never been written about. Perhaps contacting the hosting site would get the file removed once and for all, and that would have been that.
But due to the massive outcry currently in gaming, this developer managed to land a news story on a national news network. It gave her some exposure, which I hope she is happy for. But in the end, it's ultimately a tempest in a teapot. A 6 year old remake of a 32 year old game has been given more free publicity than the spamming attempts by its creator when it was made. And really, that's the greatest crime here.
It exists to remind us that we did something horribly wrong, and shouldn't do it again.
To my shock and surprise, this game has suddenly gotten a new burst of life and press. Why? Because someone on the Internet got offended, and just had to tell the world in a splashy news story. I guess hating on gaming culture is how one makes it these days.
Enter into our tale the game in question, Custer's Revenge.
Yes, this ancient relic of shocking racism was a thing back in the day. And it was rightly called out and decried for it. So why is there a news story in 2014 about it? Because self-professed indie game developer Elizabeth LaPensée stumbled across a new version of the game.
Now, you're wondering what company would dare do a remake of this game? Who would be stupid enough to fund this? Is it some KKK group? Neo-Nazis? What sick company is going to put this out for sale?
Well, none. You see, LaPensée found this game in the dregs of the Internet. It was remade as a flash game by Mysticca Games. Never heard of them? Me either, and that's because they aren't a game company. It's just a hobbyist who remade it in Flash, and posted it to the Internet. In 2008.
No, I'm serious. An unknown "studio" posts a free Flash remake of Custer's Revenge 6 years ago, and here we are in 2014 talking about it.
Now, I am not going to defend this game. And neither would anyone else. The reason it's not a thing is that people didn't ask for nor want it. It's one of the many oddities you will find floating about the Internet, like NEDM, the Pain Olympics, and the like. I highly recommend not searching any of those terms if you have a tender stomach.
That's the wonder of the Internet. People can make a thing they want, put it out there for everyone to see, and then people will react as they will. In this case, the only references left to the game is a broken forum archive where you can download it. It isn't promoted, and while there are a few videos of people playing it more for the "What the Hell Is This" value of it, no one really supports the game.
But LaPensée would like you to think it's a bigger deal than it is.
She is outraged such a thing exists. How dare it exist! I mean, forget that no one was really playing it. The handful of YouTube videos she likely found are like the remaining ones I saw. They are made by small channels trying for a laugh at the expense of the ridiculousness of this game even existing.
Now, you might ask yourself, then, why was this even a story? Because #GamerGate. You see, normally this kind of story, with proper research, would have shown that this was not a major issue. It would have never been written about. Perhaps contacting the hosting site would get the file removed once and for all, and that would have been that.
But due to the massive outcry currently in gaming, this developer managed to land a news story on a national news network. It gave her some exposure, which I hope she is happy for. But in the end, it's ultimately a tempest in a teapot. A 6 year old remake of a 32 year old game has been given more free publicity than the spamming attempts by its creator when it was made. And really, that's the greatest crime here.
RE: Gaming's "Greatest Adversary"
The following is a repost of my comments on the article from Bloomsberg Businessweek. As I have serious doubts that the post will remain due to it exposing the highly inaccurate nature of the article, I am reposting it here as a refutation of that article. The original article is linked below:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment?hootPostID=e61f286d3f9fe1869809de3bda829add
And now the response:
Wow, I stopped reading at "each episode takes hundreds of hours of gameplay which she does herself or with McIntosh."
It's already been proven that she lifted the bulk of her footage off other people's YouTube channels. She didn't play any of those games, and outright misrepresents many.
http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
And she says she played first person shooters and could find women's butts to stare at? Really? Do I need to break out my CoD discs and show you how stupid that is? I stared at several hours of men's fronts and back sides. Don't remember even seeing a female butt. What games did she play in those hours of research? Likely not many, if she played at all. Because, by her own admission, she hates violent games. Here, in her own words!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734
This article is terribly researched. Both of those took me exactly 30 seconds each to google. In 60 seconds of research I've torn a hole in your narrative.
And that person who comes back with each new video? We in #GamerGate found him. He's also the likely source of Anita's USU death threat.
http://kotaku.com/the-anita-sarkeesian-hater-that-everyone-hates-1658494441
And that's from a site that is ANTI-GAMERGATE! We know who her harasser is. We wanted her to press charges. She didn't and hasn't. Ask yourself why. Why is it that we, in #GamerGate, are trying to bring this man to justice, and she is not involving herself.
Tack on 30 more seconds of research there. 90 seconds of Google searches.
And where is the fact that #GamerGate has an active anti-harassment group going after those same threats you talk about. You see, instead of laying back and lamenting attacks, we're trying to do something about them. Instead of writing an article online to get ad revenue, we're out there finding, reporting, and removing these elements. Your subject won't even press charges against a known harasser!
Also, do you realize how sexist your article is? Let me grab a couple quotes quickly:
"Petite and fair, with long, shiny hair the color of merlot, chunky boots, and nails painted gold,"
Why are you objectifying her based on her appearance? It shouldn't matter if she showed up with her hair in a pony tail wearing decades old sneakers, no makeup or nail polish. And who cares about her weight? You've reduced her to a label in saying:
"Sarkeesian, 31, telegraphs an earnest grad student."
So are you saying all grad students are petite and fair? With long hair and chunky boots? That's sexist as hell.
And then you say this near your conclusion:
"A blond woman sitting at the next table before an array of New York City street"
What does her hair colour matter? Why is this essential to your story? Is it so you can say blonds like her too? It's an irrelevant detail, again summarizing the appearance of a woman based on one trait.
And finally, by way of bias, how long have you and Anita been in communication? I went by both of your Twitter accounts. Now, what you may not realize is that they are sorted by most recent follower to least recent. You appear fairly far down the list. So how long have you two known each other? Could this be why your article is so biased? Could that be why you never mention any of items I put herein?
Remember, #GamerGate is about ethics. Maybe that subject makes people in journalism far too uncomfortable these days.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment?hootPostID=e61f286d3f9fe1869809de3bda829add
And now the response:
Wow, I stopped reading at "each episode takes hundreds of hours of gameplay which she does herself or with McIntosh."
It's already been proven that she lifted the bulk of her footage off other people's YouTube channels. She didn't play any of those games, and outright misrepresents many.
http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
And she says she played first person shooters and could find women's butts to stare at? Really? Do I need to break out my CoD discs and show you how stupid that is? I stared at several hours of men's fronts and back sides. Don't remember even seeing a female butt. What games did she play in those hours of research? Likely not many, if she played at all. Because, by her own admission, she hates violent games. Here, in her own words!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734
This article is terribly researched. Both of those took me exactly 30 seconds each to google. In 60 seconds of research I've torn a hole in your narrative.
And that person who comes back with each new video? We in #GamerGate found him. He's also the likely source of Anita's USU death threat.
http://kotaku.com/the-anita-sarkeesian-hater-that-everyone-hates-1658494441
And that's from a site that is ANTI-GAMERGATE! We know who her harasser is. We wanted her to press charges. She didn't and hasn't. Ask yourself why. Why is it that we, in #GamerGate, are trying to bring this man to justice, and she is not involving herself.
Tack on 30 more seconds of research there. 90 seconds of Google searches.
And where is the fact that #GamerGate has an active anti-harassment group going after those same threats you talk about. You see, instead of laying back and lamenting attacks, we're trying to do something about them. Instead of writing an article online to get ad revenue, we're out there finding, reporting, and removing these elements. Your subject won't even press charges against a known harasser!
Also, do you realize how sexist your article is? Let me grab a couple quotes quickly:
"Petite and fair, with long, shiny hair the color of merlot, chunky boots, and nails painted gold,"
Why are you objectifying her based on her appearance? It shouldn't matter if she showed up with her hair in a pony tail wearing decades old sneakers, no makeup or nail polish. And who cares about her weight? You've reduced her to a label in saying:
"Sarkeesian, 31, telegraphs an earnest grad student."
So are you saying all grad students are petite and fair? With long hair and chunky boots? That's sexist as hell.
And then you say this near your conclusion:
"A blond woman sitting at the next table before an array of New York City street"
What does her hair colour matter? Why is this essential to your story? Is it so you can say blonds like her too? It's an irrelevant detail, again summarizing the appearance of a woman based on one trait.
And finally, by way of bias, how long have you and Anita been in communication? I went by both of your Twitter accounts. Now, what you may not realize is that they are sorted by most recent follower to least recent. You appear fairly far down the list. So how long have you two known each other? Could this be why your article is so biased? Could that be why you never mention any of items I put herein?
Remember, #GamerGate is about ethics. Maybe that subject makes people in journalism far too uncomfortable these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)