An open letter to Gamespot about recent events.

TL;DR

Sadly, apart from DigitalDame the Gamespot staff does not appear to visit these forums. Also, this post is too long for most commenters. I often 'win' the discussions I'm part of by constructing ridiculously long replies which people can't be bothered to reply to... ;-)

This argument is often used. It makes no sense to me, because publishers and audiences constantly impose limitations on the creative freedom of game developers. They constantly affect the creative process. They should all apologise then. Some aspects of videogames are simply the result of publisher risk management or audience demand, not of the creative choice of the author. People opposing certain choices made in the production process of a game aren't always trying to affect the artistic freedom of developers. They could also be attempting to free developers from the chains of frightened publishers and stubborn audiences. And even if people deny that possibility, I'm pretty sure that most of the time these attempts to affect the 'creative' process yield no result whatsoever.

While you undoubtedly have a point, your single experience in a completely different field can be considered circumstantial evidence at best, if you ask me. However, as was said in another thread, the word 'sexism' might well have been overused to the point of losing its meaning. However, I believe there are still questionable ideas persisting in society about what it means to be a man or a woman. Let me be clear here: I do not make a distinction. Both men and women uphold these ideas and I think they limit both sides in their expressions and possibilities. These ideas are not inherently wrong or sexist, but they are debatable. And media (including videogames), in my experience, often reinforce these ideas. For example, the focus on and importance attached to sex and physical appearance, the woman as a caring figure in need of protection, the man as aggressive and intimidating, etc.

This is what happens most of the time, really. The possibilities to seriously address social commentary in videogames are rather limited. You generalise as if this happens in every single review that comes out, which is not the case. Also, we've come to a point that videogames are not solely about fun or technology anymore. While the products focusing more on an 'experience' are still few and far between, they incorporate an element of play and as such could be considered 'games' in the broad sense. They should therefore be discussed by the people who discuss videogames. They could perhaps be separated into a subgenre called 'virtual interactive entertainment' or something, if they become more numerous. Regardless, these games point to other game aspects that could contribute to a satisfying experience (or not).

Also, with a broadening audience more people might be interested in those other game aspects that are not directly related to fun or technology, but that do affect the gaming experience. I am one of them. I've met several others. I can agree we are not a majority, but I like that from time to time these other aspects are discussed. I still need my fun and technology focused information, of course, but I do not feel that the current reviews are not providing that.

Yeah,the only board the staff really looks at and even posts on is System Wars.

@loafofgame: oh shit you read it lol

Wait, I thought real gamers had no life and love long comments, because it feels like someone is talking to you for more than a few seconds before running away...

This argument is often used. It makes no sense to me, because publishers and audiences constantly impose limitations on the creative freedom of game developers.

There's a huge difference between someone invested in a series wanting a game to be a certain way to so it appeals to them (making them want to buy it) and one from people have no vested interest in a series morally shaming a developer in a public forum and wanting it to change so it appeals to them (no link to a sale, just to be inline with their values). The two are not even remotely similar.

One is simply about giving the customer what they want. And the developer can always opt out at the loss of potential sales. But it's their choice to lose those sales in pursuing what they want to do. The other is about appeasing people not because of lost sales of the game they didn't make, but lost sales due to defamation.

And if you are human (as developers are) it shuold be obvious to you that the kind of brandishing of moral superiority that some of these developers have to be on the end of is VERY intimidating. Sure they might not change their game in the end, but it makes it a horrid uphill battle through insults and mud-slinging to get there. Is it fair that they should have to endure that for just wanting to make a game their way? Isn't the loss of sales enough?

Try and put YOURSELF in the shoes of a developer having articles written about their game slagging it off left right and centre for values the audience holds rather than the actual content of the game. The endless tweets and twisting of your words. The ceaseless e-mails flooding your inbox and calling you a biggot for simply wanting to make a game your own way. Can you really just brush that aside like it is nothing? I dunno dude, I'd find that incredibly stressful.

If you a game doesn't match your values. Fine. Don't fucking buy it. Don't harass the developers night and day and shame them all over the place because the game didn't turn out the exact way you wanted to be. Jeez. I know there are super-fans who do that shit, but at least we know they are out of order, the same isn't seen as true for people swinging a morality complex around.

This is what happens most of the time, really. The possibilities to seriously address social commentary in videogames are rather limited.

Then shouldn't the number of articles on them be limited in equal measure? But we simply aren't see that.

^sums up the silliness of Gamersgate and why publicastions shouldnt even bother with it

Look, I do not object to this. But people often come up with the argument that others should stop messing with the artistic freedom of developers. These people do not have total artistic freedom, even without feminists or SJW's whining about them. That's all I'm pointing out. If you want to use the argument 'let developers make what they want to make', then I think you should be consistent in who you suggest is limiting them in their freedom. And again, whatever these feminists and SJW's are doing has little effect, as far as I can see.

Exactly, and that isn't artistic freedom, so people shouldn't suggest that freedom is only being limited by feminists or SJW's. I think those people are the least of the developer's concern.

They can't just opt out. They have mouths to feed and bills to pay. They will adapt to the demands of others.

Is there any direct evidence that in this context sales are lost due to defamation? I see the relevant people either ignoring or opposing the feminists and SJW's. Also, there seems to be no indication that the people who agree with them will actually refrain from buying the games that are being criticised. But granted, I have not researched that.

Insults and mud-slinging are happening on all sides. I would feel much more intimidated if actual gamers attacked me for making a crappy game, which happens on a daily basis. And again, it is debatable if without the intimidation from feminists and SJW's developers would actually make what they want to make. But I agree, we should all be civilised and come up with reasonable arguments. We should ALL do that. And how intimidating it might be totally depends on the person. Right now it appears to me that the whiners are loners and developers have a very large amount of gamers on their side. Who's opinion is more important? There's no reason for developers to feel alone in this struggle.

Again, it depends on the person. It's difficult for me to say if I could deal with that. If I think people are unreasonable I feel I can ignore their screaming and insults without it affecting me too much. But I've never been even close to a situation like that, so I can only speculate. And really, if these articles would disappear you'd still have to deal with all the gamers who hate your game and/or you.

I do not object to this. I never said I did. I don't think that was implied in my initial response. I just think that the argument I replied to should have been used in a more nuanced way.

Edit: after rereading my response I can understand how it might seem that I was defending the unreasonable behaviour of feminists and SJW's. That is not the case. I just think that the argument is rather unconvincing if it suggests there's total artistic freedom if gamers or outsiders would refrain from demanding the content of games to be changed, or if it suggests that any criticism directly affects the (future) content of videogames (especially criticism by people who don't buy these games and aren't invested).

The post was talking about reviews. I feel that the amount of reviews extensively discussing these apparently questionable themes is quite negligible.

Is there any direct evidence that in this context sales are lost due to defamation?

There doesn't need to be as it's besides my point. My point is that the developer is no longer choosing between the integrity of their art and sales when character demfamation comes into it. They are choosing between having the integrity of their character taken hostage versus their art - and that's not a fair choice.

They can't just opt out. They have mouths to feed and bills to pay. They will adapt to the demands of others.

Sure they can, after all, it's not like pursusing their art is going to automatically reduce their sales to zero. The choice simply comes down to "do I want to lose potential x no. of sales to do game y?". The developer has full freedom to weigh up whether it is worth it to them.

This isn't the same when confronting feminists because they might not be customers to begin with, meaning the dev isn't weighing up potential sales loss against their art, but their art versus an attack on their character and a generally turbulent existence. In other words the dev would be asking themselves "do I want to do game x like y? Or do I want my life to be a living hell?".

Insults and mud-slinging are happening on all sides.

It's a whole different kettle of fish when the ones slinging the mud a terrifying mob of intellectuals pushing social justice. These movements have intellectual, social and moral cachet, something your plain old fan does not. It's not even in the same ball park as some upset fans. With the upset fans you only have to deal (or chose not to deal) with the fans, with the moral bashing social agenda people you risk getting the shaft even if you ignore them because of the image issue and how it spirals out and paints other peoples image of you.

Exactly, and that isn't artistic freedom, so people shouldn't suggest that freedom is only being limited by feminists or SJW's.

But THEY DO limit it by terrifying and shaming the developer. Even if the game they make comes out intact can you really say the developer had freedom when working under horribly pressurised moral judgement? It's the difference between writing a letter from the comfort of your bedroom versus writing it in a (moral) prison cell where you have to content with prying security wardens. Yeah. The end result might be the same (artistically integral), but you wouldn't say there was an equal degree of freedom in both situations.

Wanting moral/social change is not the same as wanting mechanical change. The two are different. We are social creatures and feel far more threatened by social pressures. Whereas many request for mechanical change might not even make a game better (the dev is the authority on this because they've likely tested and scrapped many "fan ideas" mid-development because they didn't work) and don't pressure the developer in the same way.

As a result sometimes ignoring fans actually make a game better because the developer understand why something that sounds good in theory doesn't work. The result might be better fan reception. This isn't true of appeasing feminists they have a habit complaining but rarely celebrating a success. Even if you actually appease the feminists there is no positive, just a lack of a negative.

If I think people are unreasonable I feel I can ignore their screaming and insults without it affecting me too much.

You can't ignore them because the image problem will slam you either way. In fact ignoring the feminists insults is a sure fire way to get the spotlight put on you. The problem isn't whether you think the feminists are reasonable, but that plenty of people do, not because they've read the content of their criticisms. but because they identify as feminist (and for all the various connotations the term has, I think very few people have a problem with the basic idea of feminism).

Is it really fair that a developer who grew up playing a certain kind of game enters the industry starry-eyed and wants to make characters/games of the kind when he grew up should have to endure the choir of insults? It strikes me as patently ridiculous this innocent artist should have to endure being called a "misogyonist", the same term used to describe wife-beaters, rapists and sexual deviants, because god forbid they wanted their character to be a dude.

If something is besides the point I don't see a reason to mention it. You suggested defamation leads to losses in sales. If it actually would then I would understand why developers might feel threatened to change their content to the demands of some vocal minority. If it doesn't, then there's far less of a threat and there's far less incentive for developers to change their content based on the opinion of unreasonable people. Their characters aren't being taken hostage. There's hardly any consequence when developers don't change anything, apart from the already angry people remaining angry. Angry people who are very unimportant and biased, by the way.

Certain ideas might be blocked by publishers either before or during the production process. If some ideas mean you'll never have access to funding, then there isn't much to choose either.

Having read your argument below, I shall refrain from saying that their lives will be a living hell regardless of these whining feminists. However, as explained below, I still hold that opinion.

I don't see any evidence of the image issue spiralling out and affecting significant people's image of developers. And I also think these movements have far less intellectual, social and moral cachet than you think. And who are these 'other people' who will view game developers as evil misogynists as a result of all the feminist whining? The relevant gamers are mostly supporting the developers and society at large is either oblivious or indifferent. They'll see parallells with movies and television and think 'meh'. I think these critics are far less of a threat than you make them out to be.

Terrifying them how? And shaming them? These feminists are pretty good at shaming themselves. They're all but credible in the eyes of many. If someone says you're an evil misogynist based on misinformation and speculation, what does such an insult even mean...?

Look, I think we're talking from two completely different perspectives here. You seem to think it's hard for developers to deal with this and that it will almost undeniably affect their artistic freedom. I think that they can put all this biased whining into perspective and that they'll probably have bigger problems to worry about: meeting deadlines, satisfying publishers, not disappointing fans (sounds like a living hell to me). But we both can't look inside the heads of these people and I doubt they'll ever collectively come out and say what really intimidates and frightens them. And until that time we'll disagree on this.

All I can say from personal experience is that all these articles and opinions about gamers being dead and being horrible people do not affect me. They're not aimed at me. Whatever is being suggested about gamers doesn't apply to me or to what I enjoy. It says nothing about me. If people want to go ahead and generalise everything until it pretty much becomes meaningless, then in it isn't worthy of my attention. This is what those feminists are doing: they are generalising and they lack nuance. They are not painting a complete picture. And therefore I do not feel addressed and I couldn't care less about what they think of me. Of course that can't be compared to what developers have to deal with, but it's all I have as comparison...

We are definitely social creatures. But again, we're dealing with two different perspectives here. I value the opinions of people I consider important. I would be much more intimidated if a good friend criticises me on formalities, than if some nobody calls me a disgusting and evil person for bad reasons. If you want to use generalisations about humans, we're also not wired to value everyone's feelings and opinions on an equal level. That would make life unbearable. We might be social, but we're also rather selfish, caring mainly about our immediate surroundings and about things that can help us excel.

Wow, is it just me, or did the original post disappear?

This is what I see at the Original Post. Anyone else see that too?

yeah he deleted it. he also doesn't understand how to use tl;dr.

i skimmed over it on friday, it was a very long letter about feminism. yawn

why tho never be ashamed of what you write its the internet who cares gg