Jimquisition: Toxic

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

UberPubert:
I'm not even making a plea to side with the lesser evil here, I'm just saying not to embrace the philosophy of the side that is CLEARLY evil.

Who cares about what the philosophy of some fictional group in a sci-fi series which painted morality as straight black and white has to say about anger? It has zero bearing on the real world, and ignores the fact that anger is an extremely useful emotion for spurring on change.

kael013:

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.

You know there is a very important point here - why do we assume anger is irrational? There was nothing irrational in the anger against the XCOM FPS announcement, it was people pointing out exactly why it was a bad idea. Ditto ME3's ending - people pointed out why it was so bad.

Anger is often there for a reason, it is why criticising somebody for being angry just makes them angrier. If you don't deal with the reason for somebody's anger, it just goes nowhere and builds. It is one of the reasons why the worst, most destructive phrase in English is "Don't be a dick."

Anger and negatively can be useful, in the same sense group protesting or activism can be useful. But like MovieBob said on one of his early Game Overthinker videos, it can be powerful, but also hard to turn off. It's also hard to think logically and rationally when you're angry, as well as being in a group (you sacrifice your individual voice for the sake of the group). There's a time and place for these things... it's just most of the time, they're being wasted on stuff that really shouldn't be too bothered with... which is hard to say what should and shouldn't be bothered with, because different people find different things to get upset about, and while it's easy to dismiss one's angry and unimportant, that doesn't exactly help matters...

Also, I'm SO glad he played Britney Spears's Toxic at the end, that's immediately what I thought of when I saw the video's title, and I would have been disappointed if it wasn't used in some fashion.

kael013:

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.

I'm not arguing about whether pubs and devs should listen to public opinions, I'm saying angry public opinion isn't going to move people as much as Jim posits it will, or might not move them in the right direction.

I also think you're attributing certain events to the wrong kind of criticism. My argument against the Bureau would not be "I'm sick of people turning things I like into stuff I don't.", but rather "How are you going to market a squad-based tactics game to the FPS market? Why not try the old way instead?" It's not anger, just a legitimate question framed as an argument to get XCOM:EU, which I thoroughly enjoyed as a streamlined reboot to it's predecessors. The same goes for Mass Effect 3, it's not "That ending sucked, I deserve a better one." it was "That didn't seem to explain things very well, what happened to the rest of the universe and characters?"

And I disagree with your "knowing" that you were ignored because of your pursuing a rational argument, I think you were ignored for the same reason I think anger would be ignored: Because someone's not interested in your opinion. That's not always fair. Pubs and devs aren't obligated to listen to feedback, but if there is a dialogue - if we have to say something, and they want to listen - our answers should be reserved and objective, rather than angry.

Psychobabble:
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 mature 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.

:D A fair point.
Jim and others have said so as well. We can't just ask that the Publishers and Developers change.
We have to as well.

Don't know what you mean by bringing up the Cupcakes. Everyone expresses anger differently, but I'm not sure many people give out cupcakes when their mad.
Or do you mean that it was ineffective?

Psychobabble:

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.

Yeah, no.

In Cooper's case, she said things that weren't true about a game she hadn't played.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/01/26/cooper-lawrence-i-misspoke-about-mass-effect#.UlxWaqgo7wo

In Anita's case, she said she was going to talk about sexist tropes in video games.

These things are not comparable.

THE TOXICITYYYY
OF OUR CITYYYYYY

Ahem.
Right good show pip pip cheerio roger dodger chaps!

Vivi22:

Who cares about what the philosophy of some fictional group in a sci-fi series which painted morality as straight black and white has to say about anger? It has zero bearing on the real world, and ignores the fact that anger is an extremely useful emotion for spurring on change.

Well I'm mostly joking and only continued my dialogue with Zachary as some nerdy banter, this isn't my serious argument on the subject. I'd recommend my responses to kael013 as being more helpful.

But while we're at it, yes. I do think anger can be a useful emotion for motivating change, just like emotions such as love, hope, and even pride can. But our responses should not be built on anger, or any of these emotions, nor should the reasons for our response simply be anger. It is not "Venom" we should be cultivating, not anger we should be expressing - even carefully aimed - but arguments of sound reasoning and logic, even if the reason we were spurred to construct them was born of irrational thoughts and feelings. It's a matter of tempering those emotions into something tangible, something we can say that's worth listening to, not just because we're angry, but because it makes sense.

MY ARMOUR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE HIS NAME LET NONE SURVIVE

GLORY TO THE GOLDEN THRONE
GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND

lol not the most flattering picture you used for TB :P

AstaresPanda:
MY ARMOUR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE HIS NAME LET NONE SURVIVE

GLORY TO THE GOLDEN THRONE
GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND

ROT WITH YOUR CORPSE GOD, LOYALIST SCUM!

UberPubert:
This is just awful.

"Venom" is not a substitute for rational discourse, anger is not a proper alternative to logic and no amount of internet nerd rage is going to change the mind of someone who sees it for what it is: Impotent whining from someone who lacks the power to change things in the real world and has to take it to the internet, where they can hide behind an anonymous username and block dissenting opinions and comments, handwaving away legitimate complaints as virtual harassment.

"Embrace your anger"? You sound like a Sith lord.

To be fair, what do you expect from a guy whose online persona is a megalomaniac? It's all in good fun.

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.

Online it takes a more egotistic drive. Coming to the defence of women or other parties just so that they appear to be the good guy, sensitive, empathetic, ect, a knight in shining white armor.

Evil Smurf:
To be fair, what do you expect from a guy whose online persona is a megalomaniac? It's all in good fun.

I know. Mostly.

Personally I find the persona grating, but I can tell more often than not when Jim is taking the piss. When he does tackle more serious issues though, and he gets on his soapbox, it troubles me, because I'm not entirely sure about where the persona ends and personal opinion begins, and I'm not sure the goofy stuff he says for laughs isn't just a slightly hyperbolic version of what he really thinks.

Though I wouldn't really care to argue the point at all if people weren't taking him seriously.

UberPubert:

AstaresPanda:
MY ARMOUR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE HIS NAME LET NONE SURVIVE

GLORY TO THE GOLDEN THRONE
GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND

ROT WITH YOUR CORPSE GOD, LOYALIST SCUM!

HERESY ! YOU WILL DIE WITH THE REST OF YOUR TRAITOR BROTHERS

Moth_Monk:
Nevermind the fact that the rest of us aren't acting like fuckwads,

Take a good look at the most recent Anita article. Hell I would even suggest taking a look at the comments section of Jims Vertigo video.

Some users on the Escapist act just like that asses at /v/ board. Only difference is that they doll it up with words and phrases that won't get them banned from this site in 10 posts.

UberPubert:
This is just awful.

"Venom" is not a substitute for rational discourse, anger is not a proper alternative to logic and no amount of internet nerd rage is going to change the mind of someone who sees it for what it is: Impotent whining from someone who lacks the power to change things in the real world and has to take it to the internet, where they can hide behind an anonymous username and block dissenting opinions and comments, handwaving away legitimate complaints as virtual harassment.

"Embrace your anger"? You sound like a Sith lord.

There is time for logic, but there is also time for passion. You come across as someone who likes to think that they're "higher" than others. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people getting upset about something can do a lot of damage to a person--even if they try to play it off like you do. When people get really loud a lot of people hear, and that can lose a company a lot of money. Capcom is in the ditches because everybody knows how much they suck and they're not shy of telling everyone they know. However, I just wish we'd use some of our power on people who REALLY deserve our full rage: Congress. In summary, I like it when a lot of people come together with a purpose of telling someone they're full of shit.

And, Jim, gamers are angry at Anita because she's lied about her views and motives, manipulated a group of people for money, selectively edited footage of videos to suit her narrative, makes people pay to see her "sources", removed her college thesis to hide her bad research methods, and making up her entire gameplay footage segments of others' "let's play" videos without crediting them, and is promoting herself as a representitive for women and feminists for money at the expense of the entire gaming community who gets labled "anti-woman" at the least for disagreeing with anything.

Not because she's "A woman who dared to talk about video games", as you say, it's because she's WRONG. She's been proven to be misleading for the purpose of self-promotion, but the gaming media and people still treat her as some leader of women's rights.... in video games, and pretend women weren't gamers of some type for 40 years. She has the money to make a game she wants, but doesn't go beyond a short animatic. Everything has to be someone else's job.

Also, those developers chose to be purchased by the mega-publishers at some point, so I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them when they talk about "it came from above".

Bruce:

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.

I'm not sure what to say about that. Its all just Internet drama to me anyway. I think what the people who use the term "white knight" see that people come to her defense about those rape threats while this wouldn't be the case if she was a guy and got the same treatment, whether that is true or not. People have different emotional reactions regarding men and women, or at least different perceptions.

Personally I don't really care who gets called what, its just idiots on the Internet talking shit, people don't need defending against such behavior, all you need is a thick skin and the wisdom to ignore it. Besides, if you put your face out there for all to see and you have a message to go along with it then that's gonna catch some shit no matter what. The nail that stands out gets hammered on is the old saying. If it happens on a moderated forum things would have been dealt with on its own, but its youtube so there is none of that.

It does seem like this whole men vs women thing is getting worse. Or maybe its just getting a spotlight pointed on it. It's only gonna get worse before it gets better, that's my guess.

Desert Punk:

Online it takes a more egotistic drive. Coming to the defence of women or other parties just so that they appear to be the good guy, sensitive, empathetic, ect, a knight in shining white armor.

That's quite an assumption your making. They could actually believe what they are saying. They could just be trolling. There are quite a few angles they could be coming from. To say they are just doing this so they look good feels counter intuitive to me after having experienced the web for as long as I have, there would first have to be something to gain from it wouldn't there?

You know, back during the whole Extra Credit exodus, I remember Jim making a post that was something to the tune of "it's easy to look at corporations as faceless masses of evil, but remember there's individual people working there! Good people! It's not right to lambast 'corporations' whenever 'they' do something you don't like." Just pointing that out.

I shall conclude with a more supportive tone, by quoting a favored passage from Enders Game of mine: "He could see Bonzo's anger growing hot. Hot anger was bad. Ender's anger was cold, and he could use it. Bonzo's was hot, and so it used him."

I could watch Jim's dance moves all damn day... so I will.

tehpiemaker:

There is time for logic, but there is also time for passion. You come across as someone who likes to think that they're "higher" than others. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people getting upset about something can do a lot of damage to a person--even if they try to play it off like you do. When people get really loud a lot of people hear, and that can lose a company a lot of money. Capcom is in the ditches because everybody knows how much they suck and they're not shy of telling everyone they know. However, I just wish we'd use some of our power on people who REALLY deserve our full rage: Congress. In summary, I like it when a lot of people come together with a purpose of telling someone they're full of shit.

A time for passion? Maybe in art or the bedroom, but not in the business world. I can't think of anything less passionate than Economics.

I keep seeing this correlation being drawn between people getting angry and things changing but I don't see a whole lot of reason to believe that anger was the cause, and I think that bears further examination than we give credit for.

If I have to write an example: The decision by Capcom to charge people extra for characters and costumes that were already on their Street Fighter 4 disc (I'm not entirely sure how this worked, I may be wrong) that the customer bought made people angry, but why did it make people angry? Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to charge someone for something they already bought. But do we have to call Capcom thieves or anti-consumerist and rage at them and at each other for it? Is "Venom" really the best response? No, just refer to the law on consumer rights and physical/digital property. If they've broken the law, you have a case, if they haven't, you have an opinion - maybe even an educated opinion that you're free to express, mind you - but Capcom has no obligation to listen, and getting angry at them isn't going to change their opinion if people will continue to buy on-disc DLC.

I think we should spend more time examining the bad decision making, why things didn't work and what could be done better, rather than how we feel on the subject. I think we should, whenever possible, try reaching out to our fellow gamers with reasonable arguments not steeped in personal values or perspective, and as always continue to vote with our wallets in order to inform pubs and devs of what we really want in the only language most of them understand, allowing them to sink or swim as the consumer base sees fit.

EDIT: Oh, and don't presume to know how I feel about myself in relation to others, because I actually feel the opposite way: My personal feelings are of so little value, I will not presume that other people share them, and I will try to appeal to a common logic rather than assert that my perspective is the dominant one.

The final minute of this video is one of the best things ever filmed.

Ok so 2 thinks.

1. People don't hate anita because "she's a woman" or feminist. No, people hate her because she basically scammed over a hundred thousand dollars to do what is basically generic youtube videos and ripping off lets-play videos from other youtube channels without even the slightest credit given.
A) Also the majority of her points are wrong.( I'll just link AA's video, there are several others tho)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25o0EZiogw0
B) Also the majority of her points are very petty.(hating on peache's umbrella because it became the focus at one point)
C) Also the majority of her clips are shot in smaller amounts to not explain the situation.
D) Also any parody is an insult even if it pokes fun at the "damsel in distress".

2. Its hard to pick and choose developers over producers and more so that people just realize that when a certain company is owned by lets say...EA, then yeah, its going to have bullshit in there like online passes or microtransactions. Most people blame EA, not bioware or whoever. But at the same time its just easier to just blame the Dev company because they are the ONLY one with any press.

EA, activision, have no press or feedback. Why bother going "oh stupid EA put in online passes", everyone in the VG industry already hates them and already knows that.

The Dev just gets the heat because they make the stuff in it.

AstaresPanda:

UberPubert:

AstaresPanda:
MY ARMOUR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE HIS NAME LET NONE SURVIVE

GLORY TO THE GOLDEN THRONE
GLORY TO THE IMMORTAL GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND

ROT WITH YOUR CORPSE GOD, LOYALIST SCUM!

HERESY ! YOU WILL DIE WITH THE REST OF YOUR TRAITOR BROTHERS

Love and Kindness, mkay? Mkay. :D You silly Emperium of Man gene-modded soldiers, pshaw.

Jokes aside, I think Jim's right. There's a difference between voicing your displeasure in a way that allows those receiving it to actually put your criticisms to some use and, you know, just braying as loud as you possibly can in the hopes that being offensive enough is going to scare the recipient into changing whatever needs to be changed.

Being angry is tolerable; it's being obnoxious about what makes you angry that's feeding the perceptions of toxicity in the gaming scene.

I mean, consider Jim's apparent role models, the Sith. Oh, they're angry, alright. Are they obnoxious, though? Nope. The Sith do not throw temper tantrums, and there is no galaxy-wide imageboards where you'll find junior Empire soldiers trolling the Rebels. The Sith *hone* their anger. They hone it for nefarious purposes, but they do control it.

In comparison, for every decent argument I heard during the ME3 debacle, there were a few dozen voices going "GRAAAAH, SCREW YOU BIOWARE, YOU'RE A BUNCH OF POOPYHEADS, I HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION BUT I REALLY NEED TO SHOW THAT I CAN BE ANGRIER THAN THE PREVIOUS POSTER!"

That's a shame, and this is, largely, the biggest problem we have to find a way to solve. Everyone needs to be equally empowered if things are going to change or if hot-button issues are going to be discussed adequately.

AstaresPanda:

HERESY ! YOU WILL DIE WITH THE REST OF YOUR TRAITOR BROTHERS

YOUR FALSE EMPEROR CANNOT SAVE YOU HERE LITTLE BROTHER!

Imp Emissary:

Psychobabble:
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 mature 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.

:D A fair point.
Jim and others have said so as well. We can't just ask that the Publishers and Developers change.
We have to as well.

Don't know what you mean by bringing up the Cupcakes. Everyone expresses anger differently, but I'm not sure many people give out cupcakes when their mad.
Or do you mean that it was ineffective?

Psychobabble:

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.

Yeah, no.

In Cooper's case, she said things that weren't true about a game she hadn't played.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/01/26/cooper-lawrence-i-misspoke-about-mass-effect#.UlxWaqgo7wo

In Anita's case, she said she was going to talk about sexist tropes in video games.

These things are not comparable.

The whole cupcake incident was about where angry fans sent Bioware a bunch of cupcakes with A B C on them in protest for not liking the ME3 ending. Bioware turned around and very publicly donated the cupcakes to a charity for disadvantaged children, turning what was a public fan shaming into a PR boon. Now why that annoys me is Bioware, a massively rich company, got praise for giving away something they got entirety for free, and deflected what many felt was truly deserved blame.

And on Anita Sarkeesian, I'm sorry but we will just have to agree to disagree. I feel she is a charlatan who expounds opinion as scientific fact, based on the most tenuous of actual research.

Now I actually agree with the argument that women are under and miss-represented in the gaming culture, but I find her way of going about trying to explain and solve it not only disingenuous but also horribly patronizing towards women.

So while I feel that women do indeed need a voice in the gaming culture, I vehemently disagree Sarkeesian is the one for the job. And thanks to the mental defectives that made threats against her, and the people who happily equate ANYONE who criticizes her methods and viewpoints as one of the aforementioned mental defectives, it is now impossible to have a rational and mature discussion about her, as unless you kiss her sainted ass you are immediately branded hater. Hope that explains my point of view.

UberPubert:

tehpiemaker:

There is time for logic, but there is also time for passion. You come across as someone who likes to think that they're "higher" than others. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people getting upset about something can do a lot of damage to a person--even if they try to play it off like you do. When people get really loud a lot of people hear, and that can lose a company a lot of money. Capcom is in the ditches because everybody knows how much they suck and they're not shy of telling everyone they know. However, I just wish we'd use some of our power on people who REALLY deserve our full rage: Congress. In summary, I like it when a lot of people come together with a purpose of telling someone they're full of shit.

A time for passion? Maybe in art or the bedroom, but not in the business world. I can't think of anything less passionate than Economics.

I keep seeing this correlation being drawn between people getting angry and things changing but I don't see a whole lot of reason to believe that anger was the cause, and I think that bears further examination than we give credit for.

If I have to write an example: The decision by Capcom to charge people extra for characters and costumes that were already on their Street Fighter 4 disc (I'm not entirely sure how this worked, I may be wrong) that the customer bought made people angry, but why did it make people angry? Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to charge someone for something they already bought. But do we have to call Capcom thieves or anti-consumerist and rage at them and at each other for it? Is "Venom" really the best response? No, just refer to the law on consumer rights and physical/digital property. If they've broken the law, you have a case, if they haven't, you have an opinion - maybe even an educated opinion that you're free to express, mind you - but Capcom has no obligation to listen, and getting angry at them isn't going to change their opinion if people will continue to buy on-disc DLC.

I think we should spend more time examining the bad decision making, why things didn't work and what could be done better, rather than how we feel on the subject. I think we should, whenever possible, try reaching out to our fellow gamers with reasonable arguments not steeped in personal values or perspective, and as always continue to vote with our wallets in order to inform pubs and devs of what we really want in the only language most of them understand, allowing them to sink or swim as the consumer base sees fit.

EDIT: Oh, and don't presume to know how I feel about myself in relation to others, because I actually feel the opposite way: My personal feelings are of so little value, I will not presume that other people share them, and I will try to appeal to a common logic rather than assert that my perspective is the dominant one.

Bullshit. That's Ayn Rand philosophy right there: objectivism. You think it'd be better to take feelings out business? People like you believe that they only reason people get upset is because you, just you, get screwed in the end. Well maybe I'm angry on principle. Maybe I hate their guts and the way they only view people as glue to keep a machine going. If it was just you who was unhappy with Capcom's games you wouldn't really raise a fuss over them, but because we know everybody else is unhappy it allows us to justify our anger.

The way you view things is very cut and dry, very boring, very absolute. Logic is the basis of your moral philosophy but because of that you have no reason to do anything besides personal gain. You have no imagination to see innuendo, or how a metaphor can be both true and false. Passion is for life, not just for sex or art. Art is objective and because of that anything can be art, including life. So make living an art. I'd rather die as a human than live as a robot.

The thing about the ME3 ending is depending on opinion of the person the "other guys" got what they wanted, for the problems with the ending can be considered extremely subjective depending on what the player wanted to see. Thats is why I think it wasn't really mentioned unlike the SimCity disaster, Diablo 3, or Aliens: Colonial Marines were, because its very easy to point at the problems of those games for they are on a technical level, while there are people that say they are fine with the ending to Mass Effect 3 (I am including the Extended Cut in that statement), while there are people that probably would never be happy with what BioWare could or would want to program into the game.

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.

You can't win against the White Knights and the Feminists.

None of them listen to what you say or will take your words way out of context.

Right now I am the guy that says rape threats are 100% okay because I referred to the toxic response in general and did not list the specific toxic replies I approved of and disapproved of. It's best to strawman the other's position with extreme hyperbole than to admit to the fact you donated money to fund a glorified clip show which was ripped from the internet for about 50%.

It's hard to admit the fact that you basically donated money to someone so they could mismanage it into random game shopping, barely in depth commentary and gross misrepresentation of the games featured in the show which on top of that consist of stolen footage (because that's what it is when you don't credit people). Now we just wait for the first guy who says I am so sexist because I mentioned she wasted the money on shopping and that is a female stereotype, just wait someone will claim that.

The positive side of this Sarkeesian debacle though it that more intelligent people came out of the woodworks to tear her videos to pieces. It's kind of like the Prequels to me, the reviews and replies are worth the production of the crappy original material.

tehpiemaker:

Bullshit. That's Ayn Rand philosophy right there: objectivism. You think it'd be better to take feelings out business? People like you believe that they only reason people get upset is because you, just you, get screwed in the end. Well maybe I'm angry on principle. Maybe I hate their guts and the way they only view people as glue to keep a machine going. If it was just you who was unhappy with Capcom's games you wouldn't really raise a fuss over them, but because we know everybody else is unhappy it allows us to justify our anger.

The way you view things is very cut and dry, very boring, very absolute. Logic is the basis of your moral philosophy but because of that you have no reason to do anything besides personal gain. You have no imagination to see innuendo, or how a metaphor can be both true and false. Passion is for life, not just for sex or art. Art is objective and because of that anything can be art, including life. So make living an art. I'd rather die as a human than live as a robot.

You're being awfully presumptuous about me, and I'm not sure I like your tone, but I'll try to make corrections where I can.

I don't personally subscribe to objectivism, I don't find Ayn Rand particularly interesting. I also don't see things as absolutes, and that's actually why I prefer logic. There's a lot of moral grey areas, opinions become very divided, feelings get hurt and personal tragedy moves people more than facts do. I realize perspective can warp reality, distort the truth and make people see things that aren't there. That's why I'd rather appeal to reason than emotion, but I understand perfectly why some people rely on those emotions for inspiration.

Argument entirely bereft of feeling is meaningless (even a good scientist who uses only empirical evidence pursues their field of study with a love of discovery or hope for the future), but an argument overly charged with emotion is exactly how we get the misfires Jim talks about in this video. When people are blinded by rage or anger they come up with this venom and begin indiscriminately passing it out without first trying to examine who's really at fault.

if i say your name three times in a row, will you appear in my room?

when people talk about this subject, I still keep thinking back to that time a bunch of people got fired over a bunch of social media shit flinging, and ultimately I wonder if anything useful came out of that situation

Psychobabble:

Imp Emissary:

Psychobabble:

Psychobabble:

The whole cupcake incident was about where angry fans sent Bioware a bunch of cupcakes with A B C on them in protest for not liking the ME3 ending. Bioware turned around and very publicly donated the cupcakes to a charity for disadvantaged children, turning what was a public fan shaming into a PR boon. Now why that annoys me is Bioware, a massively rich company, got praise for giving away something they got entirety for free, and deflected what many felt was truly deserved blame.

Alright. I can see what you're saying. Though, at least a charity got some cupcakes to give to kids.
Plus, you have to admit, if everyone's reaction to being very angry at someone/some people was to seen them cupcakes to show their displeasure. The world would be a nicer place.
Also, most likely a much fatter place. <.<

Plus, it's not like people stopped being mad at them after that. Heck, some people are still very very very Mad. (<-- Three "verys". :D Get it!?)

Psychobabble:

And on Anita Sarkeesian, I'm sorry but we will just have to agree to disagree. I feel she is a charlatan who expounds opinion as scientific fact, based on the most tenuous of actual research.

Now I actually agree with the argument that women are under and miss-represented in the gaming culture, but I find her way of going about trying to explain and solve it not only disingenuous but also horribly patronizing towards women.

So while I feel that women do indeed need a voice in the gaming culture, I vehemently disagree Sarkeesian is the one for the job. And thanks to the mental defectives that made threats against her, and the people who happily equate ANYONE who criticizes her methods and viewpoints as one of the aforementioned mental defectives, it is now impossible to have a rational and mature discussion about her, as unless you kiss her sainted ass you are immediately branded hater. Hope that explains my point of view.

Okay. If that is the way ya see it, then that is indeed the way ya see it.

:/ I'm just not seeing where the outrage is coming from.

But then again, I can't see the thing through your eyes.

;D Have a good day/evening/night/adventure time!

UberPubert:
You're being awfully presumptuous about me, and I'm not sure I like your tone, but I'll try to make corrections where I can.

I don't personally subscribe to objectivism, I don't find Ayn Rand particularly interesting. I also don't see things as absolutes, and that's actually why I prefer logic. There's a lot of moral grey areas, opinions become very divided, feelings get hurt and personal tragedy moves people more than facts do. I realize perspective can warp reality, distort the truth and make people see things that aren't there. That's why I'd rather appeal to reason than emotion, but I understand perfectly why some people rely on those emotions for inspiration.

Argument entirely bereft of feeling is meaningless (even a good scientist who uses only empirical evidence pursues their field of study with a love of discovery or hope for the future), but an argument overly charged with emotion is exactly how we get the misfires Jim talks about in this video. When people are blinded by rage or anger they come up with this venom and begin indiscriminately passing it out without first trying to examine who's really at fault.

See, you're sounding so much more reasonable now, but you didn't make this argument before. You sounded more like, in your previous quote, that you thought that passion/emotion has no place whatsoever when it came to these sort of affairs. I personally think that logic should dictate HOW you perform, but not WHY you perform. However, "logic" and "grey areas" don't go together the way you use it. Using logic to dictate philosophy and is about believing that there is always a correct answer, but you and I both no that there are situations where there are no correct answers.

Also, if I sound presumptuous it's only because I want to sound like I know what I'm saying. It's the same deal when I write a paper for college. You can't use a bunch of "I thinks" or "Maybes" because that makes you and your paper sound unsure about what you're saying.

 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