Jimquisition: Toxic

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

You are, as allways, right jim, but:
As allways you expect too much from your fellow men.

Have you ever seen a "low" store employee being chewed out by a customer?
It mostly happens because the store policy doesn't coincide with their expectations.

This happens every day, in every store in every country of this planet. And this employees earn maybe one percent of a community director or spokesperson of a videogame company.
What do i want to say with this?

Well,
first: It's their job and they get paid well for it.
Second: It's not a thing unique to gamer culture.
third: It's humans nature, you are fighting windmills here and you are using a toothpick as a lance.

The advertisement playing next to the video was a yoga demonstration. Now put your legs in to the juxta-position.

Moth_Monk:

Zachary Amaranth:

How fortunate, then, that it doesn't have to. The goal isn't getting /v/ to stop acting like fuckwads, but rather the rest of us. And even then, it doesn't have to be all of us. See? It works out after all.

What are you on? How are we going to "get" the rest of us to stop acting like fuckwads. Nevermind the fact that the rest of us aren't acting like fuckwads, you can't force people to do things. And especially not by talking in a video on the Internet. The only people that will take home Jim's morals are the people that weren't the "problem" in first place. Sort of like gun control.

It's actually physically impossible for people to encounter an opinion without it altering them in some way. Basic physics. Add stuff to a physical system (in this case, sound and light signals to a brain), the physical system changes. Period. The idea that discussing ideas is "totally pointless cause the other side's never gonna change, man," is self-fulfilling, fundamentally untrue and generally used to mask laziness and indifference as sincere resignation after trying hard and failing.

Moth_Monk:

Any who.

These videos aren't for the unreasonable. They don't even watch the videos. They go straight to calling Jim names. Time savers that they are.

These are for rational people who watch Jim's show, but may every once in a while let their emotions get the best of them, and go after people they maybe shouldn't.

Also, the reason we care about how online "toxicity" is not because we care about how people not in our "culture" view us, but because we care how it looks, to us.

As for who "us" is? Anyone here who happens to care.

Jimothy Sterling:

This is the kind of guided anger I am talking about.

You learned more than you let on. ;)

One question about this all, Jim. How do we find out who to direct our anger at?

6:54 - Damn, Yahtzee's pissed as hell. Well, I deffinetly woul be if I saw Jim assing arround me... on a stage.
OT: welp, fair enough.

Toxicity is really only half a phrase. It's usually needed to be prefaced by "the other guys'" because really that's what it comes down to. Excessive anger at ME3's ending = bad and will ruin games as art as creators will be too afraid to create. Anger at how women are portrayed = perfectly fine as games will become stronger by being encouraged to make what I want. Death threats at Anita S. = representative of the whole of gamer culture. Death Threats to Mike K. at Penny arcade over some disrespectful tweets about transgendered: just a vocal minority, don't judge us all, or they were even wholly justified. Even the commentary about "gamer culture" seems to involve a lot of insults, shaming, indifference to our opinions, stereotyping, and other things we'd never be allowed to get away with because it's all "toxic"

Out anger is fine and righteous. Anyone else's is just whining. Worse, we even do things we know will piss people off an get surprised at their anger. Most of us probably know those people in real life: they do thing they know annoy us and expect us to "get over it" rather than think about their own behaviour. I just find there to be a sub-textual level of selfishness and narcissism behind complaints of negativity because they're rotting in things like "why aren't you thinking about me, why do you expect me to think about you, why do I have to change, why do you concern yourself with things I don't deem important" instead of being rooting in methods and terminology. Most seem to get upset at the opinions themselves rather than how they're put out there.

Meh i figured from title this was finally the episode where jim sterling does a britney spears dance video so slightly disappointed.

*waits till end credits*

:')

Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it. Making nothing but a meandering, disjointed, contextual jumbled clip show where she points at things and says "Look at that.", no discussion of the effects it has or the possible reason behind it's use. No just a fancy clip show really. Kind of what TVtropes does but in video form.

Now was the toxic bile deserved at first? No, it was mostly knee jerk manchildren crying about their toys being shown in a bad light. Are they deserved now? Completely because it ended up being nothing but a biased clip shows that regularly insults gamers as a whole and men specifically multiple times by insinuating these types of people are nothing more than cavemen mentality idiots that can feel exactly 3 emotions, anger, shame and arousal.

Not to mention the blatant plagiarism where footage is used from other people without even crediting them. If I pulled shit like that I'd be expelled from the university.

So can we stop playing up Sarkeesian as anything but a lazy fraud with a feminist agenda? Are we done with the white knighting Jim?

PS: I have watched what has been released of the series so far and found it severely lacking in substance, discussion and depth.

PPS: Also goodbye Phil Fish!!!

Misguided rage is the nasty side effect of the rage turbines over heating. Sadly it is also something we can get past and we should just do so. You can't put out the rage fire but you can suffocate it by taking away it's oxygen, your attention.

EDIT: Can't believe I actually have to say this specifically but seeing as 6 people already had their heads explode when reading this post I am going to do it anyway. I had thought it to be unnecessary but hey, guess I gave people to much credit for being reasonable, faith in humanity adjusted back to -56 points.

Of course the rape threats, death threats and other assault or whatever else kind of threat you can think of is not warranted. It is never warranted to threaten anyone, however never in this video was the word toxic response used to refer to such absolutely disgusting things.

No the toxic response was one where people go mad with rage at perceived slights or single out a person to blame for all the faults in a production. Not once was the word toxic response used in the manner of actual threats, yet some people saw it as me openly supporting sending death threats to people making pointless videos on the internet. Well let me assure you that it was just your over active imaginations. I suggest not spending so much time online, you might learn that there exist decent people that don't approve of acting like despicable human beings.

The toxic response I was alluding to when I said it was deserved was about people calling Sarkeesian a fraud, incompetent, a swindler, a feminist propagandist, a pointless feminist version of TV tropes and so on. You know the regular hate mail that won't land you in fucking jail and turned out to be nothing but 100% accurate accusations. The kind of toxic response referred to several times during the video itself where developers were called frauds, hacks, conmen, liars and so on to let them know exactly where they screwed up? The kind of toxic response with the Jimquisition seal of approval?

Are we 100% clear on this now? Threats = Bad. Criticism and accusations = Okay. Or am I going to get a few more pointless messages railing at me about how I am a horrible person for supporting rape threats?

1337mokro:
Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it.

No, no no no no no no no no no no no. I couldn't get any further in your post after that. Anita deserved rape threats? She deserved to have games made about her being punched in the face? Why? What the Hell did she do to deserve any of that? How for the love of all that is holy can you say that ANY of that is justified because a woman had the guts to make a kickstarter and three youtube videos?

It's gotten so bad that even if people turned out to be right about the whole fraud thing (Isn't convinced they are) I would still be disgusted at them because frankly even if she was in the wrong, the reaction against her was so over the top and so much overkill that I cannot sympathize with the people heralding it in any way.

Because you want to know the messed up part? I thought that her videos were boring as sin from the moment they came out but I still feel the obligation to pipe up to defend her whenever these arguments of her "Deserving it" pop up because people are taking a woman who committed the awful crime of making mediocre videos and are trying to paint her as the fucking anti-christ!

I will admit that I envy those moves, Jim.

erttheking:

1337mokro:
Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it.

No, no no no no no no no no no no no. I couldn't get any further in your post after that.

And this is the problem with discussion about this topic, you ain't even listening

Anita deserved rape threats?

Nope. No one deserves rape threats, but you know what the difference between her rape threats and everyone elses rape threats are? She used those threats to gain money. While other people ignored them because it's the internet.

She deserved to have games made about her being punched in the face?

Does Obama deserve a game about him getting punched in the face? How about George Bush? Because those games are out there.

1337mokro:
Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it. Making nothing but a meandering, disjointed, contextual jumbled clip show where she points at things and says "Look at that.", no discussion of the effects it has or the possible reason behind it's use. No just a fancy clip show really. Kind of what TVtropes does but in video form.

Now was the toxic bile deserved at first? No, it was mostly knee jerk manchildren crying about their toys being shown in a bad light. Are they deserved now? Completely because it ended up being nothing but a biased clip shows that regularly insults gamers as a whole and men specifically multiple times by insinuating these types of people are nothing more than cavemen mentality idiots that can feel exactly 3 emotions, anger, shame and arousal.

Not to mention the blatant plagiarism where footage is used from other people without even crediting them. If I pulled shit like that I'd be expelled from the university.

So can we stop playing up Sarkeesian as anything but a lazy fraud with a feminist agenda? Are we done with the white knighting Jim?

PS: I have watched what has been released of the series so far and found it severely lacking in substance, discussion and depth.

PPS: Also goodbye Phil Fish!!!

Misguided rage is the nasty side effect of the rage turbines over heating. Sadly it is also something we can get past and we should just do so. You can't put out the rage fire but you can suffocate it by taking away it's oxygen, your attention.

Every single insult you think she said about you, was a 100% true and accurate summation of your character - because the fact of the matter is she wasn't saying jack shit about men or gamers in general, just the lazy tendency to resort to certain cliches which she felt portrayed women in a sub-optimal way.

Everything else is something you brought into the discussion.

I wouldn't say that the auction house is being removed from Diablo 3 because it was bad because it did fulfil it's primary purpose; enabling people to easily buy weapons and armour without having to go to third party websites. The problem was that once people bought some of the best items in the game for a few million gold they started complaining that they couldn't get anything better without spending hundreds of millions gold. They simply didn't realise that once you have some of the best equipment in the game it's very hard to get even better equipment.

Blizzard's decision to remove the auction house won't fix this problem because as soon as people realise that loot 2.0 won't result in them finding better equipment and the only way to get good equipment (especially set items) is through third party websites they'll start complaining even more loudly than before. Blizzard should have tried to make account bound crafting more rewarding, rather than removed the auction house and hope that people won't notice that most drops are useless.

Also if developers don't want a torrent of abuse they shouldn't hype mediocre games (people hate it when games can't meet the expectation created by the company), stop taking credit for bad ideas, try to figure out why their views on gaming might annoy people, and not blame the gamers for finding problems with the game.

When it came to the XBone fiasco I understand that even the CEO or President of a company/division doesn't actually get to call all the shots sometimes... the problem is then who do you direct your anger at? I guess the "shareholders" are the final culprit but doing so is also the same as leveraging your indignation at "society", that nebulous mass that's as good as pissing into space.

So I think we were right on the money for directing our ire at Don Mattrick. If anything we were at least tossing our hate at the fellow who was receiving the highest salary. The person who was elected to his position and quite frankly DOES have the right to tell shareholders to shut the hell up... sure he might lose his job but at least he gets to go out with the industry knowing he did the right thing.

I mean, where is he now? Zynga of all places - and it's looking a lot like a square peg in a square hole.

So the point I bekieve Jim made was be angry for the right reasons with the right people. Shady business practices, false advertising, overcharging money, things like that, yeah blame somebody at the top. I kind of got confused when Jim sounded like he was excusing some of the developers and higher-ups for being under pressure from other parties. I just can't sympathize with those who threaten death to the families of any creative staff of something; that's just not cool.

Deadagent:

erttheking:

1337mokro:
Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it.

No, no no no no no no no no no no no. I couldn't get any further in your post after that.

And this is the problem with discussion about this topic, you ain't even listening

Anita deserved rape threats?

Nope. No one deserves rape threats, but you know what the difference between her rape threats and everyone elses rape threats are? She used those threats to gain money. While other people ignored them because it's the internet.

She deserved to have games made about her being punched in the face?

Does Obama deserve a game about him getting punched in the face? How about George Bush? Because those games are out there.

If he starts his post off basically saying that Anita had the rape threats coming, then really I think I've heard enough of his argument. But even then I went back and read his post. It's the same justifications I've heard a million times by people who try to justify this massive hate towards Anita and I've heard a thousand times by now, and frankly they all just ring hollow to me. People always hated her from the minute she made herself known. Frankly it just feels like they're looking for evidence to support a conclusion they've already reached.

If someone is going to open his post with a generalization like that, he really shouldn't directly contradict what he said later on. If she "totally ended up deserving it" he shouldn't have to say "but no one deserves the rape threats" Like I said before, even if she ended up being in the wrong I still wouldn't be able to sympathize with the people who were against her because their reaction was so uncalled for and so overkill that frankly I don't even care if they ended up being right, their actions were still uncalled for.

Bush and Obama were both presidents of the United States, directed were trillions of dollars in tax payers money went, made choices in wars that led to the death of thousands one way or another, and may have had direct hands in spying on US citizens. I think comparing those two to a woman who makes Youtube videos is a bit of false equivalence.

UberPubert:

What they do respond to is drops in sales, not the bile and hate that comes before it, because the actual comments being made - while directed at developers and publishers - are there for the viewing of the consumer, usually from game reviewers (professional or your youtube channel uploader of choice, for case in point see: The Angry Joe Show).

But I think we can do better than that. I think we can make our points, stand our ground and vote with our wallets without fuming at the ears over DLC or some nonsense and making broad, generalizing statements about pubs and devs.

EDIT: I don't think we need to get angry, and what's more, I think the kind of emotionally charged language we see from people who want us to get angry dilutes the message of what would otherwise be seen as calm and thoughtful criticism.

Point 1: "Vote with your wallets". I'm so sick of hearing that. It's a rigged system. Publishers have projected sales that a game needs to hit for it to be "profitable". Mirror's Edge is an example: EA projected 3 million sales but after 4 months it only sold 1 mil. In the voting analogy that's 1 million cries of "YES!" to 2 million cries of "NO!" and majority wins -or rather whichever majority is most profitable wins. In Mirror's Edge's case the majority was saying making more would be unprofitable and so it was -at the time- indefinitely shelved (since then it became a cult hit and garnered another 1.5 million sales beyond the 1 million sales report, causing EA to re-evaluate it's profitability). In short, companies count the sales numbers (the "yes" votes) and determine whatever best serves them because they have the "yes" votes but not the "no" votes and thus can spin the "yes" as the majority or the minority however they please.

Point 2: Calm, rational debate is all well and good, but it's only one tool and no profession uses only one tool. And that's what anger is - a tool. But right now it's being used as a hammer when it's more of a chisel. It's a precision tool that can be used to carve out the unnecessary material. (and because I like the metaphor, rational debate is a drill - it gets right to the heart of the matter and makes way for the screws to be placed in the right spots, resulting in a solid framework)

OT: I have to agree with Jim again, we do need to rein in the anger and use it more effectively than we are now.

uanime5:

erttheking:

1337mokro:
Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it.

No, no no no no no no no no no no no. I couldn't get any further in your post after that. Anita deserved rape threats? She deserved to have games made about her being punched in the face? Why? What the Hell did she do to deserve any of that? How for the love of all that is holy can you say that ANY of that is justified because a woman had the guts to make a kickstarter and three youtube videos?

It's gotten so bad that even if people turned out to be right about the whole fraud thing (Isn't convinced they are) I would still be disgusted at them because frankly even if she was in the wrong, the reaction against her was so over the top and so much overkill that I cannot sympathize with the people heralding it in any way.

Because you want to know the messed up part? I thought that her videos were boring as sin from the moment they came out but I still feel the obligation to pipe up to defend her whenever these arguments of her "Deserving it" pop up because people are taking a woman who committed the awful crime of making mediocre videos and are trying to paint her as the fucking anti-christ!

Anita deserves all of this because she's nothing but a shill who harps on about feminism and whining about how unfair everything is in order to extract money from gullible feminists. As long white knights like you keep defending her idiocy she'll continue spewing out her bile and making pointless videos.

You didn't provide any arguments to back up your statements. All you did was insult me and everyone who likes Anita.

And if I've said it before I've said it a thousand times, I think her videos are boring as Hell. But that's the thing, they're just boring. They don't warrant rape threats and the entire internet being up and arms over them.

Also I never got the whole White Knight being an insult thing.

uanime5:

erttheking:

1337mokro:
Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it.

No, no no no no no no no no no no no. I couldn't get any further in your post after that. Anita deserved rape threats? She deserved to have games made about her being punched in the face? Why? What the Hell did she do to deserve any of that? How for the love of all that is holy can you say that ANY of that is justified because a woman had the guts to make a kickstarter and three youtube videos?

It's gotten so bad that even if people turned out to be right about the whole fraud thing (Isn't convinced they are) I would still be disgusted at them because frankly even if she was in the wrong, the reaction against her was so over the top and so much overkill that I cannot sympathize with the people heralding it in any way.

Because you want to know the messed up part? I thought that her videos were boring as sin from the moment they came out but I still feel the obligation to pipe up to defend her whenever these arguments of her "Deserving it" pop up because people are taking a woman who committed the awful crime of making mediocre videos and are trying to paint her as the fucking anti-christ!

Anita deserves all of this because she's nothing but a shill who harps on about feminism and whining about how unfair everything is in order to extract money from gullible feminists. As long white knights like you keep defending her idiocy she'll continue spewing out her bile and making pointless videos.

So she deserves threats of physical violence, rape and death because she makes videos for an audience that isn't you? Please get the fuck out. You can disagree with her, you can challenge her arguments, but the day you do ad hominem attacks and threaten to rape her is the day you have gone too far.

*sigh* That song at the end. Makes me wish those puppets of his where really alive and could join in with him.

Thank god for Jim!!

1337mokro:
Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it.

Making nothing but a meandering, disjointed, contextual jumbled clip show where she points at things and says "Look at that.", no discussion of the effects it has or the possible reason behind it's use. No just a fancy clip show really. Kind of what TVtropes does but in video form.

Now was the toxic bile deserved at first? No, it was mostly knee jerk manchildren crying about their toys being shown in a bad light. Are they deserved now? Completely because it ended up being nothing but a biased clip shows that regularly insults gamers as a whole and men specifically multiple times by insinuating these types of people are nothing more than cavemen mentality idiots that can feel exactly 3 emotions, anger, shame and arousal.

Not to mention the blatant plagiarism where footage is used from other people without even crediting them. If I pulled shit like that I'd be expelled from the university.

So can we stop playing up Sarkeesian as anything but a lazy fraud with a feminist agenda? Are we done with the white knighting Jim?

PS: I have watched what has been released of the series so far and found it severely lacking in substance, discussion and depth.

PPS: Also goodbye Phil Fish!!!

Misguided rage is the nasty side effect of the rage turbines over heating. Sadly it is also something we can get past and we should just do so. You can't put out the rage fire but you can suffocate it by taking away it's oxygen, your attention.

I've been hearing about how Anita said all these crazy things about games, how she's been SOOOO extreme with feminism, and how she's insulted all gamers, for a long time now.

I've yet to see anything at all that could be called such with a serious face in any of her videos. Hell, one of the complaints about them that I actually kind of agree with is that Anita's delivery can be very dry.

Also nice job calling Jim names. Totally makes me agree with you more. 0w0 p

Well said Jim, well said.*

For the Xbox One mess, I think it was totally deserved, if Don Matrik didn't show the thing and it was Major Nelson instead, people would've put his face instead. Even after the massive changes they made, I still don't like the overall direction the new consoles are going.

For EA, well, they've made some great stuff over the last few months, so definitely all our anger didn't fall on deaf ears, even if they've made some questionable stuff in the past, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, they're redeemable (gasp!).

For BioWare, well, they made a lot of changes to ME3 thanks to people getting (whiny?) angry and it seems that will definitely affect their future projects.

All of those are great changes, despite the toxicity that ensues or preceded them.

For the Anita thing... meh... I didn't care what she had to say, wich was basically a hi-school exposition reading stuff from wikipedia (I've made better expositions myself), so, even if her work (if we can call it that) is shoddy at best, I don't think the anger aimed towards her was justified.

And for the Fish thing, I've said it once and I'll say it again, good riddance, please do let the door hit you on your way out.

*Eat your heart out Britney, Jim can dance better than you ;D.

erttheking:

Also I never got the whole White Knight being an insult thing.

Well duh.

:D Everyone knows black or red armor looks cooler! ;p

White is a solid third place. =w= b

kael013:

Point 1: "Vote with your wallets". I'm so sick of hearing that. It's a rigged system. Publishers have projected sales that a game needs to hit for it to be "profitable". Mirror's Edge is an example: EA projected 3 million sales but after 4 months it only sold 1 mil. In the voting analogy that's 1 million cries of "YES!" to 2 million cries of "NO!" and majority wins -or rather whichever majority is most profitable wins. In Mirror's Edge's case the majority was saying making more would be unprofitable and so it was -at the time- indefinitely shelved (since then it became a cult hit and garnered another 1.5 million sales beyond the 1 million sales report, causing EA to re-evaluate it's profitability). In short, companies count the sales numbers (the "yes" votes) and determine whatever best serves them because they have the "yes" votes but not the "no" votes and thus can spin the "yes" as the majority or the minority however they please.

Point 2: Calm, rational debate is all well and good, but it's only one tool and no profession uses only one tool. And that's what anger is - a tool. But right now it's being used as a hammer when it's more of a chisel. It's a precision tool that can be used to carve out the unnecessary material. (and because I like the metaphor, rational debate is a drill - it gets right to the heart of the matter and makes way for the screws to be placed in the right spots, resulting in a solid framework)

OT: I have to agree with Jim again, we do need to rein in the anger and use it more effectively than we are now.

The system only seems rigged because regardless of what you as an individual choose, the rest of the market does not bend to your tastes and desires. But just because the side you voted for didn't win doesn't make the other side wrong or make the system pointless, you simply don't have as much control over it as you'd like. A lot of the anger I'm seeing directed at devs and pubs is a direct result of this realization, and it's not fair to them or healthy for the person making the complaint. No matter how pertinent you believe your opinion is, the industry does not exist for the individual consumer, sometimes you have to accept that your preferred game or feature is going to remain niche because that's the only kind of audience that exists for it. And there's nothing wrong with being part of a niche audience, it just means that the products they consume aren't going to have the biggest budgets.

I take issue with the implication that being a complainer is a profession, or even if we're talking about professional critics that anger somehow has a place in their repertoire. Anger is an emotion, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing righteous or just about feeling angry. It can be a good motivator, but it's not a good reason and it's not an effective tactic for persuasion or even a tool for debate, it's just what someone feels, and feelings are not how you make business decisions or build constructive criticism.

erttheking:

You didn't provide any arguments to back up your statements. All you did was insult me and everyone who likes Anita.

And if I've said it before I've said it a thousand times, I think her videos are boring as Hell. But that's the thing, they're just boring. They don't warrant rape threats and the entire internet being up and arms over them.

Also I never got the whole White Knight being an insult thing.

White Knight. Its a stereotype that harms both men and women.

White Knighting is the kind of behavior of males to automatically come to the defense of any women who is being attacked. Its bad for women because the knight assumes that the women being attacked needs his help. Its bad for men because the knights type of behavior is expected from men in general. But it term's correct use is rather difficult, since its not all that common of a behavior on the Internet, most people come to other people's defense out of shared philosophy rather then some kind of chivalrous drive.

At least thats what I understand of it, not sure how correct this all is.

You can always just google it.

Its not just the gamers that are angry. Just go to Yahoo.com and Yahoo UK and look at the rage in the comments section against anyone that's not the commenter. The British clown unmasking story had bits of anger.

The thing is, listening to and taking every comment seriously is like taking a shouting hobo seriously(no offense to any actual homeless people, I am talking about the stereotype).
Some commentators might be too young or unexperienced or sheltered to understand what is being talked about, some might be drunk or under the effects of drugs, some may be actually really angry at something that happened in their own life, some might just be venting not expecting to be taken seriously. And you take them all seriously. Why?
And yes, this is a mistake I make too.

Channel Awesome's Dark Side of the Internet explains this much better than I or even Jim can(because he actually has to put in some comedy, they don't in that video)

It's not just a matter of whom you express your anger toward; it's also a matter of how that anger is expressed. There are constructive and non-constructive means and measures by which one can express anger or displeasure. Just getting mad and launching into a frightening fitful rage of destructive verbal abuse rarely does much more than cause the other party to either respond in kind, totally ignore you, or just shoot you in the face with a bazooka to get you to shut up. Either way, the result is often that either no progress is made or hasty decisions are made in the heat of anger and despondency that are then later regretted as it dawns on people the reasons behind the original decision that precipitated so much anger. Essentially, negativity only begets more negativity.

One of the properties of being an emotionally matured individual is that one is able to override one's own emotions such to not let emotions dominate one's actions and decision-making. Rather than act in the heat of the moment of anger, it is usually better to take time to calm down, think carefully about the other person's perspective and possible reasons for the decision being made. If after such careful consideration, one finds oneself still in severe disagreement, then CONTROLLED anger is warranted, and by controlled anger, I am meaning precisely my prior statement on being an emotionally matured individual. One is angry, yes, but do not allow that anger to goad you into hasty actions and responses that you may regret later. Even further, don't let that anger goad you into non-constructive actions that will only waste time, energy, and resources while still failing to solve the basic problem. At every moment, one should maintain a clear and level mind to be able to clearly perceive the problem and devise an appropriate solution to the problem.

No one forces us to buy particular games. There is no need to have a particular game. If one product does not satisfy your desires, simply find one that does and close your wallet to the companies that abstinently refuse to provide quality service and products in exchange for the money paid to them. Walk away from companies and deals whose only purpose to squeeze you for every penny you have while giving nothing in return. Stay away from companies that seek only to scam you out of your money, creating complex, obtuse schemes that on the surface seem like a deal but are, in reality, a total rip-off. Sure, you can write to the offending companies and let them know PRECISELY and DEFINITIVELY why you are not purchasing their product, and the anger can be clearly conveyed without having to resort to childish taunts, foul-language, or threats of physical harm. When enough people collectively respond to a company by closing the wallet, believe me, the company will change, immediately.

Remember, these companies want your money more than you do, and that gives you leverage over them, more than they actually have over you. The only reason game companies have had so much leverage over gamers is because we have become too "addicted" to the product. We have developed an attitude that has put games almost to a level of being a necessity of life, when the reality is that they are far from it. We simply need to find something else to occupy our time. Find constructive, productive hobbies or personal projects that will negate the need to engage in the "addictive" escapism that is often proffered in these games. Rebalance the mind such that this immature rage is no longer a necessary means to achieve an ends.

Everyone gets anger, even mad. Even the most mellow of individuals has moments of indignation and boiling inner rage. However, in order to use such anger responsibly, we have to not only choose the target of that anger carefully, we always must temper the degree to which that anger is applied and not let it be the factor that controls what action we take, only the motivator that brings us to take action. We must still remain in control of ourselves and our actions and remain self-accountable to exercise wise judgement in what action is taken, when the action is taken, the reasons for the action, and the means by which the action is manifest. In my opinion, short of being attacked by a rampaging bear, there's not much excuse for violent, tantrum-like, lashing-out outrage, especially not over a video game.

It's too bad we weren't toxic enough to get refunds from Gearbox and SEGA over Aliens Colonial Marines. It's too bad we weren't toxic enough to get that lying douchebag Randy Pitchford removed from a job he is blatantly terrible at so somebody better could come in and turn Gearbox around and back into a company I would be willing to give money too again. It's too bad we weren't toxic enough to get whatever nitwit(s) at SEGA let Gearbox jerk them around for years and then decided to release a broken game to screw customers like me out of our money instead of canning the game and taking Gearbox to court removed from jobs they too are downright terrible at. Yep, it's too bad Gearbox and SEGA got away with it.

Yes I am still pissed about wasting money on Aliens Colonial Marines based on Randy's lies and SEGA's utter failure as a publisher. Fuck Gearbox and fuck SEGA.

As for the Phil Fish thing... I still have no sympathy for him. His isn't a case of people being too toxic for no reason. His is a case of him being a massively toxic douchebag and people responding to that in kind, with him taking his ball and going him as is usually the case of a bully: he can dish it out but can't take it. As before, I'm not saying that his being a toxic douchebag who told someone to go kill themselves justifies anyone else threatening to kill him or his children. I'm just saying that Phil Fish isn't worthy of my pity because he was no better a person than the people he complained about when he took his ball and went home.

Okay, all that out of the way, did anyone else find their mind drifting to this classic Mass Effect background conversation?

redknightalex:
I think your overall position got confused halfway through (don't blame EA but do blame EA?) yet overall I think you're right.

I think you need to watch again. The point wasn't "don't blame EA, blame EA", but "don't blame the guy at Maxis who said they wanted the always-online DRM for SimCity, blame EA".

As the video drew to a close, I could feel that there was something missing... surely Jim couldn't let this titled episode pass without using a certain son- ah, there we go. And all is right with the world again.

Meh whatever. I get the "stop being unreasonable dicks to people", I'm not disagreeing with that idea Jim. My problem is no matter how accurate and maturely anger is focused on a company doing bad things, it still means fuck all if people keep on giving them their money. We can vote EA worst company of the year all we want, but what's really going to get their attention, bad publicity that we all know they have dump trucks full of money to spin with their own public relations people, or a big empty space where those huge piles of money coming in used to be? Case in point, the "Cupcake Incident".

As I've said before many of we gamers act like lemmings with credit cards and continually buy into the hype and buy any old shit mainly out of fear of missing out on something cool, or just because we are looking for our next fix to chase away boredom. Usually to our own mass disappointment. Maybe if we tried addressing that vicious cycle we could nip quite a lot of this toxic negativity in the bud.

Also I'm very sick of seeing the double standard when it comes to who can criticize what. You seem to feel it's okay to rage at Cooper Lawrence for "talking made up scare mongering bullshit." But it isn't okay to say the same of Sarkeesian due to some extremist trolling assholes, when she is just as guilty of the same behavior. I say rather than focusing on the extremist death threat assholes, like you and the rest of the gaming press always seem to do, how about for once you try to speak to the sane and rational MAJORITY of game players who would actually listen to what you have to say without trying to gnaw your face off. Because the sooner we stop letting our discussions be motivated by the actions of a minority of idiots, the sooner we can start talking to each other like adults.

Valderis:

erttheking:

You didn't provide any arguments to back up your statements. All you did was insult me and everyone who likes Anita.

And if I've said it before I've said it a thousand times, I think her videos are boring as Hell. But that's the thing, they're just boring. They don't warrant rape threats and the entire internet being up and arms over them.

Also I never got the whole White Knight being an insult thing.

White Knight. Its a stereotype that harms both men and women.

White Knighting is the kind of behavior of males to automatically come to the defense of any women who is being attacked. Its bad for women because the knight assumes that the women being attacked needs his help. Its bad for men because the knights type of behavior is expected from men in general. But it term's correct use is rather difficult, since its not all that common of a behavior on the Internet, most people come to other people's defense out of shared philosophy rather then some kind of chivalrous drive.

At least thats what I understand of it, not sure how correct this all is.

You can always just google it.

The thing that got me with the whole thing? The term was being used for men who disagreed with the treatment of Anita Sarkeesian and her videos on the Damsel in Distress trope.

UberPubert:

The system only seems rigged because regardless of what you as an individual choose, the rest of the market does not bend to your tastes and desires. But just because the side you voted for didn't win doesn't make the other side wrong or make the system pointless, you simply don't have as much control over it as you'd like. A lot of the anger I'm seeing directed at devs and pubs is a direct result of this realization, and it's not fair to them or healthy for the person making the complaint. No matter how pertinent you believe your opinion is, the industry does not exist for the individual consumer, sometimes you have to accept that your preferred game or feature is going to remain niche because that's the only kind of audience that exists for it. And there's nothing wrong with being part of a niche audience, it just means that the products they consume aren't going to have the biggest budgets.

I take issue with the implication that being a complainer is a profession, or even if we're talking about professional critics that anger somehow has a place in their repertoire. Anger is an emotion, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing righteous or just about feeling angry. It can be a good motivator, but it's not a good reason and it's not an effective tactic for persuasion or even a tool for debate, it's just what someone feels, and feelings are not how you make business decisions or build constructive criticism.

I know the system doesn't revolve around me; the American voting system disabused me of the notion that one person can make a difference long before I started studying the games industry's politics. However, that doesn't change the fact that the whole "vote with your wallets" thing is flawed. Think about this: How many times has a publisher PR representative asked you why you didn't buy a certain game? When was the last time they asked the consumer base why they didn't like their latest flop or commercial failure? I can't think of a single time. Instead they abandon the series or the sequel is broadened to "appeal to a wider audience". So my cry was lost in the tumult, that doesn't mean jack if the guys I'm yelling at aren't even listening to the tumult in the first place.

You're right about being in a niche audience though, so long as the niche is filled. Otherwise, it's just some hopeless dream of yours.

Also, I never implied being a complainer is a profession. I was using a carpenter analogy. A carpenter uses many tools. Rational debate has its place, but so does outrage. That outrage got us XCOM: Enemy Unknown (see ZP's The Bureau review -1 min mark- for how that worked), it got us the ME3 Extended Cut DLC, it got us stuff that I doubt we would have gotten through rational discourse because we would have been ignored -in fact I know it, because I've tried to be the rational voice while others raged about an issue. I was ignored and the complainers got attention. That you do not believe outrage is an effective tool (or even a tool at all) is another issue, since some people do see it as a tool and will use it as such. Some people (like you apparently) are always calm, while others (like me) have short fuses and need to learn how to direct our anger. This video was for the second group, telling us we need better aim.

Although toxicity is something that is by no means unique to gamer culture, there is definitely a trend towards negativity and excessive skepticism among gamers. Now I'm not saying to stop being skeptical, it keeps us all from vegetating and allows us to direct our anger as Jim discussed. But I've definitely noticed a trend in many gamer circles where it's "cool" to hate on everything the moment it comes out. Every time a new console, smartphone, game, etc is announced there's always several people all racing each other to hate it first, competing with each other to have the most reasons as to why it sucks even though no-ones had a chance to try it yet. It reminds me of the kind of people this Apple vs Samsung war attracts, with people blindly supporting one or the other and hating the other with the utmost venom. Being in love with a brand / product / service is a beautiful thing, it helps you, it helps the company, etc etc etc. Hating something on the other hand does nothing. It's ok to dislike something and have your reasons, but blind, malicious hate wastes your time and contributes nothing to the greater community.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here