| No surprises here. Internet ideological warriors value whining more than action and pragmatic solutions. And of course value ideology over logic or reason. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Supercolin said: Causation said: TL;DR version: Some woman developer slept with gaming journalists. Internet went ape shit because her game got "good ratings" despite being objectively bad. She responded to people saying stupid shit on like a 4chan knockoff site and made it her crusade to spread SJW bullshit. Which was dumb because that would be like making a crusade about a youtube comment that said shit about your video. It's everywhere. But in the end, no one cares anymore. It's stupid to talk about it now since it's over. Wow! does anyone even take gaming journalist reviews seriously though? XD Thank you. I had no idea what this rubbish was about until now. I wonder if I have played that game.... |
Life isn't worth living if one isn't dreaming. Life isn't worth dreaming if one isn't doing. |
Causation said: Uh, it has absolutely nothing to do about feminism or masculism lol. All the corrupt game bloggers and SJWtards just bring up feminism and muh soggy knee because they refuse to accept what GG is actually about. And I've no idea where you pull the masculism from.Yeah and that's why it's retarded now. It's just a circlejerk of feminism vs masculism at this point. Anything rational has been long since done. |
Baman said: This is true.Causation said: Uh, it has nothing to do about feminism or masculism lol. All the corrupt game bloggers and SJWtards just bring up feminism and muh soggy knee because they refuse to accept what GG is actually about.Yeah and that's why it's retarded now. It's just a circlejerk of feminism vs masculism at this point. Anything rational has been long since done. Although GG will surely not do any big changes, minimal at best, to be honest... And I don't like them either. They're also exaggerating with their "ethics in gaming and gaming journalism.", to be honest, I hope NOTHING at all changes. OT though: It's irrelevant who donates if the cause is not "harmful" but "beneficial". SJWs are retarded. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: What, you want game "journalism" to stay as shitty pay-to-score soapboxes for cultural marxism and SJW echo-chamber circlejerking? Although GG will surely not do any big changes, minimal at best, to be honest... And I don't like them either. They're also exaggerating with their "ethics in gaming and gaming journalism.", to be honest, I hope NOTHING at all changes. It funny though, I saw this chart depicting the scores in major game review publications from the 80s to today. In the 80s-90s, they actually used a 10 point scale like it's intended to be used, whereas from the 00s and onwards it largely settled into this mongoloid pattern where 7 is somehow the worst score. So all these bribes and backroom deals definitely sap the quality of the reviews as well. |
| Sure, I'd love reviews to be "better". "Better" though, is subjective. The only review I'd love to see is a review that tells me the game mechanics involved, I don't want scores and/or personal opinions. Because it might be that "grinding" is really "bad" for the reviewer while I'd love to grind all day. It's the same with Anime in certain things. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Not sure I would really call that subjective. A review, by its very nature, needs to be reasonably nuanced and objective, and when something is heavily coloured by the reviewers personal taste, that should be specifically expressed. So whether a review is good or not depends on whether or not the reviewer is able to stay off from going into a biased rant. If it's all just personal opinions like you say, then it's simply a objectively bad review. |
Baman said: Not sure I would really call that subjective. A review, by its very nature, needs to be reasonably nuanced and objective, and when something is heavily coloured by the reviewers personal taste, that should be specifically expressed. So whether a review is good or not depends on whether or not the reviewer is able to stay off from going into a biased rant. If it's all just personal opinions like you say, then it's simply a objectively bad review. Give me an example of a review that you find objective then. I want to see if we're talking about the same thing here. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| No, I meant whether a review being "better" or not isn't subjective, since there are objective criteria for what constitutes a proper review. But yea, obviously it's impossible to have a wholly objective review, unless it's purely listing performance stats like framerates and gamepolay technicalities. Still, obviously being objective should be a goal for reviewers. To take an example, this review does a pretty solid attempt at separating the gameplay from the subjective "moral" score. Figures that a religious review site would be better at being transparent about it's views than mainstream sites like Craptaku... |
| Surely, a review that is a blank page might be worse than a review that has words written on it, that wasn't really my point. Mechanics, in the end, is the thing that matters the most. You won't like a side scrolling fighting game if you're not into that no matter how well made it is. That's where that review was "objective", otherwise it's just striving and not getting to the point of "objectivity". That's also the reason why I don't look at reviews anymore when we're talking about something like art... I'd rather see for myself and judge for myself on something like that. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
dity said: At least try to read my post man.if you want an objective 'review' go read a wikipedia article about a game up until the 'reception' section. have fun otherwise if you actually want to hear about what someone thinks about those objective aspects, go read an actual review. I'm saying any review worth shit should try to stay unbiased and make an effort to distinguish between personal feelings and objectivity, not that all reviews must reach some unattainable level of objectivity. |
 |
| lol, it never had anything to do with helping this or that, or making things equal, its always about switching the shoe from slave to master, and the SJW's show it all too openly without even realizing it. |
| This stuff's funny |
Baman said: Mass media saturation has destroyed any semblance of quality journalism in any field. They're all either bought out hacks or opinion piece producing columnists across the board.Immahnoob said: What, you want game "journalism" to stay as shitty pay-to-score soapboxes for cultural marxism and SJW echo-chamber circlejerking? Although GG will surely not do any big changes, minimal at best, to be honest... And I don't like them either. They're also exaggerating with their "ethics in gaming and gaming journalism.", to be honest, I hope NOTHING at all changes. It funny though, I saw this chart depicting the scores in major game review publications from the 80s to today. In the 80s-90s, they actually used a 10 point scale like it's intended to be used, whereas from the 00s and onwards it largely settled into this mongoloid pattern where 7 is somehow the worst score. So all these bribes and backroom deals definitely sap the quality of the reviews as well. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
dity said: But to be a critic you need a certain dose of objectivity.anyway, reviews are opinion pieces anyway. i'd laugh if someone suggested otherwise. i'm not even sure if it falls under advocacy journalism. i think it's bloody hilarious that anyone considers the reviewers journos and not just columnists (this includes the reviewers themselves). i mean, they're critics. You need to be able to look at the basic parts of the game and compare them to it's competition, prequels, the tropes and expectations of the genre, and so on. That's what I mean when I talk about objectivity here. Any real review needs to provide a proper contextual assessment of the game in question, not just "I dun like dis becus ids bad", then it's just worthless drivel. The very purpose of a review is after all to aid a potential costumer in making a informed decision about whether or not to buy something, not to be a soapbox for opinions or a mere opinion rant. That's what blogs are for. |
Baman said: Causation said: Uh, it has absolutely nothing to do about feminism or masculism lol. All the corrupt game bloggers and SJWtards just bring up feminism and muh soggy knee because they refuse to accept what GG is actually about. And I've no idea where you pull the masculism from.Yeah and that's why it's retarded now. It's just a circlejerk of feminism vs masculism at this point. Anything rational has been long since done. No. At this point is just two sides bickering among themselves. One being feminism, and one masculism. One saying "women are being exploited in all games and by men who play games" while the other is saying "shut up you bitches go back to the kitchen". Anyone who actually had a rational opinion and thoughts have already moved on from the discussions because it's over. There's no use beating a dead horse. It's dead. When it first came out yes, there were very many tendencies from people who just didn't want to accept GamerGate because of SJW idiocy. But look at it now. It's just shit throwing. One bashing men, one bashing women. Nobody who matters cares about it anymore. |
Causation said: Lol, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you actually take a look at what the GG movement is doing currently. Muh soggy knee is, and has always been, a complete fabrication spewed by the SJWs and their manic ilk, Gamergate has never been about bullying women. At all. Ever heard of #notyourshield? Did you know there's a bunch of GGers dedicated to persecuting bullies and Doxxers from both sides of the conflict? And when some trolls do something silly and drop a #Gamergate" tag then that does not change what the actual cause is about.No. At this point is just two sides bickering among themselves. One being feminism, and one masculism. One saying "women are being exploited in all games and by men who play games" while the other is saying "shut up you bitches go back to the kitchen". Anyone who actually had a rational opinion and thoughts have already moved on from the discussions because it's over. There's no use beating a dead horse. It's dead. GG is still all about exposing corrupt game "journalism" and campaigning to remove ad backers from the offending sites. dity said: So in other words, you think that a review is nothing but a opinionated rant that does not need to take any amount of facts into consideration? There's the problem then, you have clearly no idea what the definition of "review" or "critique" is. yup, that's my honest opinion here. funnily enough it's barely relevant to what gamergate is now. By your definition the following would be a valid review: "10/10 EBIN WINS BEST GOTYAY EVER :DDD" Reviews have always been intended to critique and inform the reader about the given work. Just because standards have become appalling with time doesn't mean the meaning behind the terms have changed. A shitty review is still a shitty review, and a meaningless rant that does not even attempt to form a proper critique based on subjective impressions and objective facts is not a review. |
Baman said: Lol, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you actually take a look at what the GG movement is doing currently. Muh soggy knee is, and has always been, a complete fabrication spewed by the SJWs and their manic ilk, Gamergate has never been about bullying women. At all. Ever heard of #notyourshield? Did you know there's a bunch of GGers dedicated to persecuting bullies and Doxxers from both sides of the conflict? And when some trolls do something silly and drop a #Gamergate" tag then that does not change what the actual cause is about. GG is still all about exposing corrupt game "journalism" and campaigning to remove ad backers from the offending sites. You're still completely missing my point. Now it's just a shit show. All that conspiracy and exposure happened already. We know it happened. We can read about it. We don't need to keep discussing about it because there is nothing more to discuss. Not Your Shield and the entire GamerGate content was months ago. You're making it sound like it's still relevant now. It's not. That's like saying Watergate, the happenings that the name is derived from, is still a prevalent topic to discuss today. It's not. We came, we saw, we learned from it. The people still trying to force opinions and bash each other are all that are left discussing the topic. A bunch of people just throwing shit at each other, regardless who stands for what. You seem to think I meant that GamerGate was a masculism movement. No. That is not what I am saying whatsoever. However "GamerGate" is over. It's done. There is no more cause to it. We have always put the burden of proof on reviewers. You're acting like GamerGate brought forth something everyone didn't know about. C'mon man. We all know reviewers opinions are subjective. That's why they are opinions. You compare opinions. You never just take one person's voice. GamerGate was just the handle to title the happenings around the Zoe Quinn crap, the same as Watergate was used as the title for the Nixon Administration crap. It's not some profound movement that is still and will always be relevant. GamerGate is an example. Not a movement. |
daveOct 27, 2014 12:10 PM
| Thread moved Thread moved to the Current Events board. |
Causation said: Well I would not consider it a shit show, and it's certainly not over as long as people are still trying to smack at the corruption.You're still completely missing my point. Now it's just a shit show. dity said: Well, no points for that one I'm afraid. anyway you sound like those people who get mad that no one sends letters And I'm not talking about what I find to constitute a review, I'm, talking about what reviews actually are. Still, if you choose to completely disregard the actual meaning of the terms we're discussing then there really isn't much point is there? We might as well go all autist and coin our own subjective terms for everything. Have fun with your "reviews" then, I'll stick to bluching my nargs, that's a plegg more æild if you yulp me. |
| SJWs and Feminists literally poison EVERYTHING. These people have no fucking shame and don't even know it. |
| I still don't think you get it, Baman... If you're not objective, that means you're subjective. As I said, reviews are completely subjective unless they also take into consideration technical characteristics. But then again, that depends on what you're reviewing, in Animuh it might be fucking useless to know that muh Animuh was animated with X CGI software (or whatever), but it might be useful to know that X game lets me crouch. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
YouAreNotSugoi said: So people want poverty ridden children to be kept down ]just because they don't agree with the people helping them. An Indiegogo campaign was launched by some people in the Gamergate community to raise money for Unicef and i found this in response to it. Honestly, what the fuck. It doesn't matter if the charity drive is for publicity, the fact of the matter is, they're still donating money for a good cause In other words, UNICEF should forget its principles when it is offered large sums of money? Accepting a donation from an anti-feminist group is problematic, not least because it would seem to contradict UNICEF's own mission statement: Wikipedia said: The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF; /ˈjuːnɨsɛf/ ew-ni-sef) is a United Nations Program headquartered in New York City that provides long-term humanitarian and developmental assistance to children and mothers in developing countries. It is one of the members of the United Nations Development Group and its Executive Committee. Considering its feminist ideals, would it make much sense for them to accept donations from a group which is anti-feminist? No, it wouldn't. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| They're not being "bought" with donations, Anno. It's not like the moment they accept those donations that means they AGREE with "anti-feminists" and that they'll support them. And maybe you should have called them "anti-humanitarians". |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
 |
 |
| For anyone who wants more insight on SJWs and how they have managed or tried to ruin just about every fucking thing! |
| ^Goddamn, this bitch is beyond fringe. And of course, any and all criticism, no matter how valid, just gives Sarkeesian more fuel. "You see, they DO hate all women, why else would they attack me when I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the gaming industry". |
| Anita Sarkeesian is basically just another Jack Thompson; someone who is not a gamer but is trying to regulate the morality of video games. Though I don't think people were shouting about misandry back when Thompson was being criticized for his unfounded statements about the effects of gaming on violence. |
 |
| Anita Sarkeesian is a puppet, do all these SJWs who flock to her side even know she has a writer (who is a man) and a producer (the same man) of all her shitty shit. How anyone who isn't a corrupt game journalist looking out for their own neck can be against Gamer Gate is baffling. |
  |
| This is disgusting. Perhaps these SJWs would like to explain to Little Timmy about why he did not need the donation money as he lays on his death bed. |
| If these people actually played games they wouldn't care for any of this. |
AnnoKano said: Maybe it would, but hey, GG isn't antifeminist so there's no problem either way.Considering its feminist ideals, would it make much sense for them to accept donations from a group which is anti-feminist? Immahnoob said: I think you're missing my point. I've never said reviews should be all objective, just that they must have a certain amount of objectivity, that is, relate to actual facts and make a critical assessment of the medium in question.I still don't think you get it, Baman... If you're not objective, that means you're subjective. As I said, reviews are completely subjective unless they also take into consideration technical characteristics. But then again, that depends on what you're reviewing, in Animuh it might be fucking useless to know that muh Animuh was animated with X CGI software (or whatever), but it might be useful to know that X game lets me crouch. hybreezy said: Brain problems I guess.How anyone who isn't a corrupt game journalist looking out for their own neck can be against Gamer Gate is baffling. |
| That "critical assessment" is still subjective. And as I said, what is a "fact" about the product are things like mechanics. So I'm repeating myself once more, maybe you'll understand what I'm saying. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Someone explain this to me. Not the OP but the whole gamergate nonsense. No matter how much I read or dig up it all seems like a complete cluster fuck. Is gamergate bad? Is it good? I have no fucking idea other then it's a goddamn confusing shit slinging match. |
Immahnoob said: But you have some objectivity in it, that's what I'm saying, it's got to be grounded in facts, if you will. Obviously the assessment will be subjective, but if you build it up logically and base it on objective facts , then it's on a completely different level from a purely subjective rant.That "critical assessment" is still subjective. And as I said, what is a "fact" about the product are things like mechanics. So I'm repeating myself once more, maybe you'll understand what I'm saying. LordLagann said: Someone explain this to me. Not the OP but the whole gamergate nonsense. No matter how much I read or dig up it all seems like a complete cluster fuck. Is gamergate bad? Is it good? I have no fucking idea other then it's a goddamn confusing shit slinging match. It started with the Quinnspiracy/Fiveguysburgersandfries that was investigating claims that Quinn's "game" got ahead because she's been fucking some journalists, then someone uncovered a secret ring of journalists working together to control the flow of news and the whole scramble to uncover corruption kicked off for real. At som point after this the Gamergate tag was coined and voila. Those journalists then started a shit-throwing campaign against "gamers", and all kinds of news sources started spewing bullshit "news" about how Gamergate was somehow a misogynistic hate mob. In between there was a lot of trolls and doxxings, probably from both sides, but the key difference here is that Gamergate as a movement is staunchly opposed to corruption and online bullying, while the "journalists" and SJW lynchmob that support them use lies, threats, doxxing et cetera as their standard M.O. It has escalated out of context because these "journalists" and their ilk refuse to admit the legitimacy of GG's cause and keep trying to misdirect the debate by faking attacks on women and playing the misogyny card all the time. For some more in-depth articles, check out breitbart, they've got some good ones there. |
Baman said: It started with the Quinnspiracy/Fiveguysburgersandfries that was investigating claims that Quinn's "game" got ahead because she's been fucking some journalists, then someone uncovered a secret ring of journalists working together to control the flow of news and the whole scramble to uncover corruption kicked off for real. At som point after this the Gamergate tag was coined and voila. Those journalists then started a shit-throwing campaign against "gamers", and all kinds of news sources started spewing bullshit "news" about how Gamergate was somehow a misogynistic hate mob. In between there was a lot of trolls and doxxings, probably from both sides, but the key difference here is that Gamergate as a movement is staunchly opposed to corruption and online bullying, while the "journalists" and SJW lynchmob that support them use lies, threats, doxxing et cetera as their standard M.O. It has escalated out of context because these "journalists" and their ilk refuse to admit the legitimacy of GG's cause and keep trying to misdirect the debate by faking attacks on women and playing the misogyny card all the time. For some more in-depth articles, check out breitbart, they've got some good ones there. Thanks, that's more or less what I've found just without all the bullshit misdirections you mentioned. For clarification is there actually a secret ring of journalist funneling information and GamerGate is basically in it's own category while all the SJW's and absented minded "journalist" are in a category of their own causing shitstorms right? |
| On mechanics and technical stuff. And that's all. The rest is pure subjective. I think we've been agreeing on the same thing until now. Unless you think otherwise. Which is basically ignoring definitions now. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
LordLagann said: Yea, it was called GameJournoPros, some mailing list made up of several journalists that would work together and discuss news and policy far beyond what would constitute ethical journalism. Some members leaked a load of information from them which is how the whole thing got uncovered.Thanks, that's more or less what I've found just without all the bullshit misdirections you mentioned. For clarification is there actually a secret ring of journalist funneling information and GamerGate is basically in it's own category while all the SJW's and absented minded "journalist" are in a category of their own causing shitstorms right? I doubt the majority of the SJWs have much of any structure to them, but with all the labelling of GG as a misogynistic hate group, which "feminist" leeches like Sarkeesian has contributed to, the rabid SJWs jump at any chance to unload abuse and hate at their "enemy". Of course, you have the #notyourshield tag that was aiming to show the diversity of race and gender of Gamergate's supporters, but that's usually conveniently ignored by the anti-crowd. Can't have something that doesn't suit their narrative. Immahnoob said: Well, at least we added to our post counts right?I think we've been agreeing on the same thing until now. |
I guess. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| So I was just hearing some stuff about #gamergate and all that shit. Although I don't really like them, as I said before. I heard someone saying: "This is now a cultural war.", obviously said by the awesome media. And I was thinking, "anti-gamurs gun git rekt". Why? Because #gamergate has nothing against them but they have nothing against #gamergate. That's how I see it at least. It's like, one side there are a bunch of retards saying crap that does not matter and is devoid of logic and reason and on another side there are barely any members trying to defend against that bullshit like it matters, while before #gamergate, the retards were still there but they got ignored because they were irrelevant and no one was trying to defend themselves because they either didn't feel attacked or they thought "lol, retards are trying to be funny.". The only thing I would really dislike seeing out of all of this is a change in gaming. I want my games to be as ridiculous, as sexist and offensive as possible. We're not objectifying anyone, we're just objectifying objects, so it should be fine with you people too. Anyway Heredity, I like your blog, continue your shit. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| What is this GamerGate I keep hearing about and why should I care? I've been sleeping under a rock for 10 years, sorry. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |