Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
5,003 replies, posted
jamie walton doesn't deserve this pain
she was also involved in parkourdude91's shenanigans (but she wasn't a insider). she's actually a cool person from what i seen from that.
this is before jace/jan was unveiled to be fake:
[url]https://kiwifar.ms/threads/message-from-the-real-jamie-walton.7726/[/url]
Someone who was butthurt over parkourdude91 called her recently and screamed constant insults at her.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/QSZwksA.png[/IMG]
From Kia on post above :
[quote]Kim Crawley posted an article on infosec that stated Baphomet was closed and tons of other mis-info. She didn’t even do the basic research, legitimately didn't even try to back up her claims. She didn't even attempt to visit 8chan what-so-ever. All of her sources were anti gamergate clickbait, very unusual for infosec.
Then, people like me and @br00ke27 brought the attention to infosec (seriously she deserves credit she was the first to e-mail them and engage them), then we made fun of her for posting an article that had literally zero research. ... Not because she’s a woman (which I’m sure she’ll say). Not because she attacked gamergate, or 8chan (which I’m sure she’ll say). Not because I'm a misogynist death threat murder harasser (today ;], at least) but because her work was absolutely atrocious.
Infosec starts getting more complaints regarding the awful article and writes to her about it. They even mention that her articles have been stupidly controversial before (paraphrasing). She then posts their confidential e-mail to Ghazi.
The post claims Infosec fired her DUE to us, (even though the letter says she’s done this shit before) and now she’s contacting kotaku etc. saying we harassed her out of the industry.
TIL you should be allowed to post horribly inaccurate zero research shit, and when people want to pull it down for being entirely wrong, it's "harassment".[/quote]
[QUOTE=Monkah;47220177][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/QSZwksA.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
my name is kim crawley, and i'm a gamergate survivor
Amazing how constant this pattern is becoming
>Be shit at your job
>Get fired "because harrassment" (???)
>Beg for pity money
Fucking parasites, all of them
So do I need to be a professional victim to apply for pity money, or can I start as an amateur victim and work my way up?
Depends on what you mean by amateur
Surely being harassed by GG seems a start
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;47220505]Depends on what you mean by amateur
Surely being harassed by GG seems a start[/QUOTE]
You probably need your "professional friends" to vouch for you.
However, if you are a victim of actual harm, then gtfo with your "damaged empathy".
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47220477]So do I need to be a professional victim to apply for pity money, or can I start as an amateur victim and work my way up?[/QUOTE]
I'll Trololololol your steam profile with bots for $12 / day if you want.
Guaranteed patreon donations.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;47220531]You probably need your "professional friends" to vouch for you.
However, if you are a victim of actual harm, then gtfo with your "damaged empathy".[/QUOTE]
God dammit, even in the victimization industry you can't get anywhere without networking! A degree is fucking [I]useless[/I] these days!
[QUOTE=Glent;47220211]my name is kim crawley, and i'm a gamergate survivor[/QUOTE]
"I was harassed by GamerGate and all I got was this lousy shirt"
tradmark 2015 donut steel
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;47221456]"I was harassed by GamerGate and all I got was this lousy shirt"
tradmark 2015 donut steel[/QUOTE]
I'd buy that, honestly.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47220177][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/QSZwksA.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
When she said "GG victims" I thought she meant GG supporters who were harassed by AGG at first.
[QUOTE=Ithon;47222647]where did that photo come from?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://twitter.com/AmandaThorntree/status/570998376906428416[/url]
So it looks like lootcrate is doing a promotion with iam8bit.
[url]http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sku39u[/url]
[QUOTE=Ithon;47222647]where did that photo come from?[/QUOTE]
Her computer?
Probably some third party trying to troll both sides, to be honest.
[QUOTE=Wii60;47222606][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Ygkteor.png[/IMG]
[video=youtube;IZiV6bmPLfw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZiV6bmPLfw[/video][/QUOTE]
I found the terrorist in one of the replies! [url]https://twitter.com/AmalAlHazred/status/571002758687387648[/url]
[QUOTE=Banned?;47222660][url]https://twitter.com/AmandaThorntree/status/570998376906428416[/url][/QUOTE]
Her own responses make it look to me like she just did this herself, this overly dramatic bollocks:
[quote]Soooo, let that be a warning to all of you #GamerGate infants: There is NOTHING you can do to us that won't backfire on you A HUNDRED FOLD.[/quote]
[quote]Just give up, and get the hell out of our way. You don't scare us, and we are not backing down. EVER[/quote]
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;47223038]Her own responses make it look to me like she just did this herself, this overly dramatic bollocks:[/QUOTE]
It's unlikely, [URL="http://tweetsave.com/matthiasco/status/571040142141607936"]since the flag is apparently citing the SVU episode[/URL].
Which also makes it obvious satire (gone wrong), but I suppose that doesn't [I]quite[/I] matter here since it's technically still a death thread.
Going back to the discussion on the last page about fun, I want to say that I genuinely, unironically believe that 'fun' is a buzzword. Hold on, let me explain.
When someone says a game is fun, they're communicating enjoyment, and that enjoyment can come from any number of sources. We may not describe a brutal, depressing game as 'fun' because it [i]seems[/i] the wrong word, but whether we call it compelling, engaging, or something else, ultimately we're talking about whether it convinced you to continue and finish it. Yet that doesn't tell us anything about the game, only how you responded to it. So when a reviewer, for example, says a game is fun, they're saying they enjoyed it, but not the reason for enjoying it. I may find Bad Rats fun because it's comical in how broken it is, you may find Bad Rats not fun because it's frustrating how broken it is. It should be the job of a reviewer to describe the game and communicate its strengths and failings, not whether it is fun or not, because fun is simply expressing that it meets your preferences.
And then that also applies to developers. You can't sit down and say you're going to make a 'fun' game. You can communicate and put to paper the aspects of the game that people might find enjoyable, and then if you do it right those will translate to fun for the right audience. Fun is an experience, not a description.
In movie reviews, the term 'fun' is rare, and generally used to convey movies that are exciting and entertaining without any deeper meaning. Which is fair, and a decent use of the term I think, but by holding fun up as the pinnacle of videogame design, we're essentially limiting ourselves to treating and designing games like toys, things meant to maximize entertainment and nothing more. For gaming to be art as well as entertainment, fun should not be the be-all and end-all of design, nor should it be used in reviews trying to convey some sense of objectivity to the reader. At the same time, the self-proclaimed artistes who deliberately make games that aren't fun so they can preach a moral have missed the point completely. A game should be entertaining in the sense that you should want to continue it, but that's accomplished through mechanics rather than by explicit design, it doesn't need to sacrifice entertainment value to be meaningful, and having meaning does not justify being boring or otherwise uncompelling.
tl;dr I don't think we should assess games as fun or not. I think it's a misleading metric for assessing games and gets derailed by semantics. Treat games like movies, discuss the attributes that make them compelling, and we'll all be better off.
Getting real tired of this SJW warrior shit
I'm so apathetic about it now it doesn't really matter, but working in the media it affects my everyday job so much.
Everything I/we do has to be so carefully looked into so that we make sure it doesn't promote sexism/racism/ect. But even the tiniest things can get people calling in and complaining, stuff you'd never expect. Like "why is the man driving in that commercial instead of the woman? THIS IS SEXIST!!"
It's really getting exhausting, the media needs to stop catering to the vocal minority. This goes from everything from gamergate to main stream news and entertainment.
sorry, just a small rant.
Hello, this is the fire department. We have multiple confirmed reports of heavy burn:
[url]https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/571296462790791169[/url]
[QUOTE]Let me never become so cynical as to spend my time as Leigh Alexander does, attacking storied developers far more talented than they[/QUOTE]
[url]https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/571296720635588608[/url]
[QUOTE][url]http://i.imgur.com/FQrAHV3.png[/url] [/QUOTE]
[url]https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/571297529762983936[/url]
[QUOTE]imgur.com/Ik0VaB2 Oh I see an outmoded design form, its called traditional games journalism.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/571297744075165696[/url]
[QUOTE]Or perhaps that's just what happens when you find your journalistic inspiration at the bottom of a bottle. Sigh.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/571298748199931904[/url]
[QUOTE]@Viking_Mana listen to the 2 E3 bombcasts she ruined with her silly drunken behavior and I think you'll understand why[/QUOTE]
That Anton Ego quote is fucking spot-on though. It's from a silly cartoon movie but that doesn't make it any less true. :v:
Everytime Totalbiscuit does a chain of tweets like this one I cannot help but picture his face on a Witch's body and the "You've startled the witch!" phrase flashing at the bottom.
[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;47224079]Everytime Totalbiscuit does a chain of tweets like this one I cannot help but picture his face on a Witch's body and the "You've startled the witch!" phrase flashing at the bottom.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure i've seen that somewhere, but "you've startled the biscuit" being written as a phrase instead
Man, those e3 bombcasts truly were awful.
The worst part is that interesting guests with stories to tell were on at the same time and had their stories drowned out by her drunken vuvuzela impression.
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=mUPfDxC_byU[/media]
[QUOTE=catbarf;47223947]Going back to the discussion on the last page about fun, I want to say that I genuinely, unironically believe that 'fun' is a buzzword. Hold on, let me explain.
When someone says a game is fun, they're communicating enjoyment, and that enjoyment can come from any number of sources. We may not describe a brutal, depressing game as 'fun' because it [i]seems[/i] the wrong word, but whether we call it compelling, engaging, or something else, ultimately we're talking about whether it convinced you to continue and finish it. Yet that doesn't tell us anything about the game, only how you responded to it. So when a reviewer, for example, says a game is fun, they're saying they enjoyed it, but not the reason for enjoying it. I may find Bad Rats fun because it's comical in how broken it is, you may find Bad Rats not fun because it's frustrating how broken it is. It should be the job of a reviewer to describe the game and communicate its strengths and failings, not whether it is fun or not, because fun is simply expressing that it meets your preferences.
And then that also applies to developers. You can't sit down and say you're going to make a 'fun' game. You can communicate and put to paper the aspects of the game that people might find enjoyable, and then if you do it right those will translate to fun for the right audience. Fun is an experience, not a description.
In movie reviews, the term 'fun' is rare, and generally used to convey movies that are exciting and entertaining without any deeper meaning. Which is fair, and a decent use of the term I think, but by holding fun up as the pinnacle of videogame design, we're essentially limiting ourselves to treating and designing games like toys, things meant to maximize entertainment and nothing more. For gaming to be art as well as entertainment, fun should not be the be-all and end-all of design, nor should it be used in reviews trying to convey some sense of objectivity to the reader. At the same time, the self-proclaimed artistes who deliberately make games that aren't fun so they can preach a moral have missed the point completely. A game should be entertaining in the sense that you should want to continue it, but that's accomplished through mechanics rather than by explicit design, it doesn't need to sacrifice entertainment value to be meaningful, and having meaning does not justify being boring or otherwise uncompelling.
tl;dr I don't think we should assess games as fun or not. I think it's a misleading metric for assessing games and gets derailed by semantics. Treat games like movies, discuss the attributes that make them compelling, and we'll all be better off.[/QUOTE]
When people use "fun" to describe a game they're usually referring to simple fun that comes from experiencing gameplay but not necessarily from challenge. Super Mario Galaxy would be a game I'd see described as "fun", because there's really no other word to use for that sort of experience. Any other experienced can be described by whatever emotion it makes you feel, or by something like "challenge" or "catharsis".
It sucks to use the word "fun" for something like that because of how broad of a word it is, but sometimes the English language is just limiting. Without that word some experiences become simply impossible to describe.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.