Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Snake7;47252371]A historically accurate medieval Europe would be playing a peasant farmer and dying of some disease. But I guess that would be too much, it would be historically correct as long as you don't see any non-white person.
If your character going on impossible missions and killing hundreds/thousands of people single highhandedly does't break your immersion, why would seeing a black person do it?
People of different races want to be represented in games, how does that limit your enjoyment of them? It's not like people don't do the reverse with white people all the time.
[url]http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Poster-Bale.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
In storytelling setting and narrative are two different things. Just because setting has historical accuracy doesn't mean narrative has to.
How much accuracy? That's up to the writer.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47252371]A historically accurate medieval Europe would be playing a peasant farmer and dying of some disease. But I guess that would be too much, it would be historically correct as long as you don't see any non-white person.
If your character going on impossible missions and killing hundreds/thousands of people single highhandedly does't break your immersion, why would seeing a black person do it?
People of different races want to be represented in games, how does that limit your enjoyment of them? It's not like people don't do the reverse with white people all the time.
[url]http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Poster-Bale.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone here is against the fact that hollywood sometime completely white-washes ancient history aka make an american play someone from egypt.
But when it comes to the point that a games cast should be half black because one time in a northern european country there was a black merchant visiting from africa or the middle-east.
Look at how people attack kingdom come, I legit saw people claiming italians were in bohemia (non-argument since italians are also white), and other stuff, based on extremely loose historical fact. Were there people from africa/middle-east in europe in historical times? Sure, but they were more often than not merchants and occasionally married into a family. Americans act like only France/Germany/Britain of Europe has white people, whereas pretty much anyone north of egypt can be described as white.
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;47252545]I don't think anyone here is against the fact that hollywood sometime completely white-washes ancient history aka make an american play someone from egypt.
But when it comes to the point that a games cast should be half black because one time in a northern european country there was a black merchant visiting from africa or the middle-east.
Look at how people attack kingdom come, I legit saw people claiming italians were in bohemia (non-argument since italians are also white), and other stuff, based on extremely loose historical fact. Were there people from africa/middle-east in europe in historical times? Sure, but they were more often than not merchants and occasionally married into a family. Americans act like only France/Germany/Britain of Europe has white people, whereas pretty much anyone north of egypt can be described as white.[/QUOTE]
Frankly, the American definition of 'whiteness', which most of the time seems to arbitrarily include and exclude certain nationalities or regions based on inaccurate, racist historical prejudices, is just toxic nonsense.
So basically by skimming this discussion it's basically this :
It's a design choice if you want white/black people in any period. You don't scrutinize for either choice because [I]it doesn't really matter.[/I]​
[QUOTE=Snake7;47252371]A historically accurate medieval Europe would be playing a peasant farmer and dying of some disease. But I guess that would be too much, it would be historically correct as long as you don't see any non-white person.
If your character going on impossible missions and killing hundreds/thousands of people single highhandedly does't break your immersion, why would seeing a black person do it?
People of different races want to be represented in games, how does that limit your enjoyment of them? It's not like people don't do the reverse with white people all the time.
[url]http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Poster-Bale.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
There's going over-the-top for the entertainment value, and then there's retarded political correctness that doesn't fit in any way possible.
I'm cool with the former, but the latter can fuck right off.
And having a person of African descent in a middle age game set in Europe is so many kinds of retarded that the inevitable fairy tale dragon is gonna be whining about being victimized by the titular player controlled hero attacking it, yet the dragon still burned down the village & killed innocents without remorse before the hero sprung to action.
Here's the thing: It's historical fiction.
Let's have something that could happen in a world where it didn't happen.
Let's pick and choose parts of the world to throw out (how capable your character is) for the sake of mechanics, throw out some graphical fidelity (no gpu can render every pore) but otherwise stick as close to the world as possible outside of the story.
If that world is feudal europe and the story isn't tied to women's rights or minorities surviving in a hostile environment then women will likely not have many rights and there won't be many minorities if at all.
Likewise, there will be racism in that time period will be between scots and englishmen, white people will hate each other for being from different countries etc.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47252371]A historically accurate medieval Europe would be playing a peasant farmer and dying of some disease. But I guess that would be too much, it would be historically correct as long as you don't see any non-white person.
If your character going on impossible missions and killing hundreds/thousands of people single highhandedly does't break your immersion, why would seeing a black person do it?
People of different races want to be represented in games, how does that limit your enjoyment of them? It's not like people don't do the reverse with white people all the time.
[url]http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Poster-Bale.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah and I'm sure depicting black slavery in a game about the Civil War would upset some people, so I assume you would suggest leaving it out as well?
It's your decision whether you want them or not.. if people get mad at you for that then they don't care about your game, they are just looking for excuses to complain and should rightfully be ignored. It's your stuff, you do what you want.
It's sort of a stupid discussion.
[editline]3rd March 2015[/editline]
P.S that "big boobs" thing got censored on /r/games, deleting 600+ comments, shadowbanning and etc.
Wikipedia Ted Talk about astroturfing and terrible moderators :
[video=youtube;-bYAQ-ZZtEU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU[/video]
Basically it's very easy to take over a Wikipedia article as long as you have established editors - it's basically a mini-community that nobody can stop unless they group together, which is impossible on Wikipedia without outside help - and even then it only takes 1 established editor to stop your entire group.
Some links for you folks;
-Goon squads and intimidation;
[URL="https://archive.today/cxGC9"]https://archive.today/cxGC9[/URL]
Some speculation going on, that Ms. H. is Randy Harper, but thats just speculation.
-Christina sommers' talk at UCLA being boycotted by activist group, by way of missileading letter[citation needed]
[URL="https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/572841732158693376"]https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/572841732158693376[/URL]
[URL="https://twitter.com/pebonilla/status/572855504390639618"]https://twitter.com/pebonilla/status/572855504390639618[/URL]
Only piece of the letter I could find was a screenshot from the replies to the original tweet.
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_MmQzVW4AEzmLr.png[/IMG]
And now for the main event;
[video=youtube;kUInLgdR_60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUInLgdR_60[/video]
[QUOTE=Snake7;47252371]A historically accurate medieval Europe would be playing a peasant farmer and dying of some disease. But I guess that would be too much, it would be historically correct as long as you don't see any non-white person.
If your character going on impossible missions and killing hundreds/thousands of people single highhandedly does't break your immersion, why would seeing a black person do it?
People of different races want to be represented in games, how does that limit your enjoyment of them? It's not like people don't do the reverse with white people all the time.
[url]http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Poster-Bale.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that the devs of Kingdom Come Deliverance contacted actual historians who for a fact, stated that there weren't any ''POCs'' in 15th century Bohemia.
And don't be like AMIB and claim that said historians are pushing a white agenda, while AMIB is a middle school dropout and thus the last person you should act for facts. Jesus Christ, his way of arguing against Vavra about the history of Vavra's own country really shows that the guy hasn't done jackshit in education:
[url]https://twitter.com/DanielVavra/status/569686445344079872[/url]
[url]https://twitter.com/DanielVavra/status/569697707633352704[/url]
[QUOTE=Rockeiro123;47252895]
Some speculation going on, that Ms. H. is Randy Harper, but thats just speculation. [/QUOTE]
End the speculation now because this is correct, and not a secret really
Historical revisionism is okay as long as it's for the greater good :downs:
I think it would be pretty neat to see some games built around historical cultures outside middle Europe, who needs diversity in middle Europe when you have all of Asia and the Americas and Africa and Australia to play with
[QUOTE=Sitkero;47253235]I think it would be pretty neat to see some games built around historical cultures outside middle Europe, who needs diversity in middle Europe when you have all of Asia and the Americas and Africa and Australia to play with[/QUOTE]
Well there are already several games like that, TW:Shogun II, a large part of the Assassin's Creed series, AoE3, most historical RTSes...
But yeah, it's not really a widespread trend, it would be interesting to see more of those games.
[QUOTE=EmperorVagak;47252475]So apparently the prominent Anti-GGers are turning on Brianna Wu now, from what I hear.
[URL]https://archive.today/oMjCm[/URL]
[URL]http://thespectacularspider-girl.tumblr.com/post/112636841484/wu-has-coffee-with-wardell[/URL]
Holy crap. Are they even real?[/QUOTE]
I really hope this has an actual effect on how people see the anti's. I see so many familiar usernames there who apparently have no problem turning their backs on her the moment she steps out of line. It's surprising that people here would rather talk about historical accuracy in games than this.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;47253069]End the speculation now because this is correct, and not a secret really[/QUOTE]
Is their any evidence/line of thought to support this?
[QUOTE=DuCT;47253506]Is their any evidence/line of thought to support this?[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/hidden-face-hypocrisy-randi-harper/[/URL]
Scroll to the bottom
He tweeted about it back then before he went on a hiatus from twitter and wiped all of his past tweets because harper was constantly harrassing him, sending her followers after him, he got death threats, all the usual stuff. He'll talk about it in the interview for sure.
All of this for providing data about the gamergate tag on twitter, which as it happens didn't quite fit into the "gamergate is 300 people" narrative.
Looks like Wu's getting trampled by the SJW horde now.
What, she too mainstream now?
Radicals realized she was hurting their image by going too far. They were looking for a reason to jump her for any reason, which happened to be thinking stardock's CEO (GG'er as a result of being attacked by games journalism in the past) was an okay guy after hanging out with him. Either that or they really are dumb as hell and will attack anybody who even talks to people they disagree with. I am starting to believe the latter.
I wonder if there'll be any future ramifications to this. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end?
Once the opposition becomes too confused to still unite under AGG, companies like Kotaku and Polygon will have [I]far[/I] less support in their wrongdoings. Gamergate has been able to survive for so long due to our unity, and if AGG is splitting up over something that small...
It won't be the end of Brianna's ramblings or people listening to her, even if it was, they would just adopt a new public figure or bring up past instances. However it's my belief they need a public figure to function, because without any remarkable instances they can't claim anything that hasn't already been reported; therefore their opposition could freely do what they want without the KiA need of defending themselves.
The only thing I am noticing is more radicals getting louder and moderates moving towards neutrality or non-activism. Which is better, because the more radicals the less they will be paid attention too beyond their social scope or common internet hangouts.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47253650]Radicals realized she was hurting their image by going too far. They were looking for a reason to jump her for any reason, which happened to be thinking stardock's CEO (GG'er as a result of being attacked by games journalism in the past) was an okay guy after hanging out with him. Either that or they really are dumb as hell and will attack anybody who even talks to people they disagree with. I am starting to believe the latter.[/QUOTE]
What's going to bite them in the ass is what this is a clear example of: They think that people who disagree with them should not even be acknowledged, much less have their opinions heard. That's why Brianna is getting shit right now. By acknowledging somebody from the other side, they see it as giving legitimacy to the opposition.
They are still playing like the opposing opinion doesn't exist. In that aspect, they are way behind.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47253708]What's going to bite them in the ass is what this is a clear example of: They think that people who disagree with them should not even be acknowledged, much less have their opinions heard. That's why Brianna is getting shit right now. By acknowledging somebody from the other side, they see it as giving legitimacy to the opposition.
They are still playing like the opposing opinion doesn't exist. In that aspect, they are way behind.[/QUOTE]
Radicals are being radicals - it won't change opinions of people who follow her. A minority of people getting mad at her won't change much, realistically.
What she is calling "politics" - perhaps she will realize that radicals don't care about that and that is the only group she is pandering too. Even moderates mostly ignore her, which we are running out of unfortunately. The less moderates the more room for radicals to change opinions easily. It only takes one person.
[editline]a[/editline]
Somebody wanted me to explain my reasoning behind labeling different aspects : I label people as radical, moderate, semi-radical because it's not a singular label - you can consider yourself any one of these things. Furthermore, the line between the three isn't a blurry line, it's quite clear. Those who want discussion and are willing to do so are moderates, those who will discuss but have viewpoints that contradict what they are doing are semi-radicals, and radicals are those with viewpoints which include fallacies, ideals of self-censoring, and dog-piling.
For example : All radicals will explain that Gamergaters are the same and therefore not to be spoken too, or it is pointless to attempt it.
A semi-radical will be like the above, will be speak in softer tones and want to convert people over ignoring them.
A moderate is somebody who wants to discuss and will not limit themselves to a single place to find their sources of information - even though their opinions and factual checking might be wrong.
[editline]a[/editline]
Yes, I do consider Roguestar to be a radical on pro-gg side, it's my personal belief that people should stop posting him as hes a bad influence under the likes of Internet Aristocrat and whoever that other guy was. It's unfortunate KiA only uses him because hes the only "news" articles they have.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47253714]Radicals are being radicals - it won't change opinions of people who follow her. A minority of people getting mad at her won't change much, realistically.
What she is calling "politics" - perhaps she will realize that radicals don't care about that and that is the only group she is pandering too. Even moderates mostly ignore her, which we are running out of unfortunately. The less moderates the more room for radicals to change opinions easily. It only takes one person.[/QUOTE]
I know that, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that she has been largely AGG for a WHILE now. AGG radicals believe that GG should never be acknowledged, should never be allowed to voice our opinions, etc. Their whole strategy this entire time has largely rotated around invalidating GG as a movement. When she tried to "build that bridge" and reach out to a GG supporter, in their eyes, she validated GG which means she has undone the work they have been trying to do.
So she does something any rational person would do and gets shit on for it from her own side. It doesn't bring people over to GG, but it does push people farther away from the radicals.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47253818]I know that, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that she has been largely AGG for a WHILE now. AGG radicals believe that GG should never be acknowledged, should never be allowed to voice our opinions, etc. Their whole strategy this entire time has largely rotated around invalidating GG as a movement. When she tried to "build that bridge" and reach out to a GG supporter, in their eyes, she validated GG which means she has undone the work they have been trying to do.
So she does something any rational person would do and gets shit on for it from her own side. It doesn't bring people over to GG, but it does push people farther away from the radicals.[/QUOTE]
As I said, radicals are a relative minority and are just really loud. It's a shame some people think they are a necessary evil on anti-gg even though they are "moderates." Basically, they ignore what they don't want to hear - even if it means ignoring something that would otherwise change their opinions, for example this particular situation.
So Wu is getting "trampled" by AGG right?
What happened exactly? Was it really about just her and a guy having coffee that started this?
Anyway, glad Karma is getting to her.
[QUOTE=Xonax;47253961]So Wu is getting "trampled" by AGG right?
What happened exactly? Was it really about just her and a guy having coffee that started this?
Anyway, glad Karma is getting to her.[/QUOTE]
She basically reached out to female Stardock employees and had coffee with Brad.
[QUOTE=Fangz;47253982]She basically reached out to female Stardock employees and had coffee with Brad.[/QUOTE]
And that's it?
I did read the page, just to clear that up but it just sounds ridiculous so I had to make sure.
I am torn, should I feel bad for Wu or be happy?
Probably happy, I never really liked her. Using Gamergate to push her Agenda, spouting stuff about bombs and shit like that. I don't have to go over it, everyone knows Wu.
I think this might actually be a sign of the possibility of Wu de-radicalizing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.