Pawk's Talk is cheap!

February 28th, 6:00 am

2019-03-01T01:36:00.002-05:00

The day I became an orphan, of a sort.

My father, a racist, former alcoholic, and wife abuser, met his end. It was, as I expected, on his own terms up until he lost control of things. He'd stopped eating and chosen to die instead of seeking medical treatment. Of course, he was expecting, and received, attention from my siblings.

As someone who has battled against depression and suicide, I can tell you, this was not him choosing to die. There's plenty of ways he could have ended it, short, sweet and fast. No, this was a last ploy, a last gasp to get back the children his lifetime of manipulation and vile behavior had so alienated.

For those wondering why I am oversharing this, it's because I feel I need a tiny bit of cathartic venting. When my mother sadly passed, I marked the day and time. I wanted a virtual tombstone for the woman who gave me life, love, and countless lessons.

For this, I want a mark when a devil was dragged back to hell.

I will not miss him. I will not cry over him. He showed me that nothing lay in his heart but self-interest and hatred. He never knew what love was, and so therefore was just barely something one could call a human being.

So now, the only family I have are my siblings. His family are just like him. My mother's family was driven off by his. I now have no one to reach back to in order to learn more of my family's past. From here on, I need to make the story that my children will learn of.

And this is one chapter that will be slammed shut, and buried deep after this post. I will not pass on his hatred. Good riddance to one more racist abuser.

A nobody tells @Totalbiscuit he's wrong - Internet unsurprised

2015-11-01T03:25:00.002-05:00

Recently, gaming critic John Bain, better known as TotalBiscuit, released two videos on seemingly unrelated ideas. The first, about skipping content, focused on a decision by developer Treyarch, while the second focused more on why mobile development will never host premium core gaming experiences. However, I felt there is a common thread that proves John has misunderstood the situation and should not be advocating in the direction he is. I doubt that he will ever see this, but hopefully if this gets to his supporters, it will give them a moment to re-evalute and not agree simply because of a loyalty to who he is.

The primary concept with both videos that I take issue with stems from the viewpoint that the consumer should be the driving force in games development. The idea is something that John frequently stresses. And for the most part that I agree the consumer of any given medium should be treated with respect, that does not mean that it should be the situation of "Having it your way" as the slogan goes.

Since gaming became an industry rather than a medium of artistic passion, we have seen the rise of the bland triple A release. Too often, games seem to lose focus, and include trends that are hot in the medium at that point. Whether that be adding a tower defence game within Assassin's Creed to cramming the idea of crafting in just about every single game regardless of logic, it showcases the major flaw in his arguments on both issues. As the Game Theorist's Matthew Patrick said, "[gamers] don't know what [they] want."

In a video he created some time ago, Mat lays out the hard truth that gamers buy familiar concepts over testing the waters in games that break with the established formulas. This is evidenced by the popularity of not only the modern shooter, but even as far back as Super Mario games for the original Nintendo, and likely even beyond that. While John himself complains about seeing endless 2D pixel-style platformers coming out, he subsequently states that the consumer should get what they want. And what they want, Mat shows in a later video, is to belong. And to belong means to have a shared experience.

That's truly why Let's Play channels have found success. It's not that games can be fully experienced by watching another play them. True, you can witness the story, but more often it's being on the journey with that player whose video you are watching that is more important. You're seeing the view from their perspective and with their insight, as well as sharing those "you had to be there" moments that can happen during gaming.

Taking all this into account, let's tackle the actual arguments from both videos.

From his first video, he talks about the advantage of skipping content in a game to give you a way to experience it in an on-demand way. He then conflates early cheats with being intentionally added for that purpose. Ironically, he states that people should know their gaming history, yet doesn't realize he's not understanding the origin of the cheat code.

Cheats, initially, were not intended to be used by the consumer. When games were made in the early days, they were coded in a language from the ground up, then would need to be run through another program known as a compiler. The compiler took that written code, translated it into instructions a computer would use ( as well as pulling in functions from libraries of functions that were included in those instructions), and generated a file that could be run by whatever operating system it was made for. This creates a fundamental issue when testing a game: How do you test later levels without having to complete every single level you've made up to that point.

Enter the concept of cheat codes. A developer would embed functions that, while accessible, were hidden in a way that most players would be unaware of. The Konami Code, therefore, was not made specifically for gamers. It was made by Konami employees to be shorthand to access a specific boost in the game for testing purposes. Eventually, as gamers discovered these cheats, programmers started to use them not only as a method to test games without rebuilding them, but as Easter eggs for gamers to find and share. However, not all game developers subscribed to this idea. They would either remove these cheats in the final build, or just not have a method for cheats that could be accessed by the consumer at all.

Enter the concept of the Game Genie, and later other cheat devices like the Game Shark. These were created by third party companies who either had access to developer kits, or to those who reversed engineered the systems themselves. They would intercept the data from the game, and then apply changes to values dependent on codes entered by the user. This could do nothing, or could cause the game to become utterly inoperable. However, in the middle ground of those two polar opposites lay the potential to alter any variable, including health, number of lives, and strength of attacks.

With the rise of game development engines such as Unreal, the concept of the cheat code faded away as developers now had a test bed they could use in the early development. And once out of that stage, it was no less difficult to give access to beta testers in a similar fashion, meaning no lengthy compiling either. They could just adjust what slice of the game was live to test and move from there. So while John is right that cheat codes existed, their rise and disappearance has more to do with the industry moving from home-brewed solutions to large-scale mass production tools.

The reason cheats returned in the realm of microtransactions is the same reason why DLC is created: Player demand. The idea of making cheats in today's market is now a cost versus reward equation, a line on a spread sheet. Since most cheat codes no longer have a need to exist, they'd have to be specifically made. Since that takes someone's valuable time to add and test, much like added content would, big business saw it as a way to pass on the cost of that to the consumer. Since most gamers, like John, don't realize the shift development has taken, they immediately react with outrage about paying for what was once free.

And that is what lies at the heart of the false ideas John is defending. At one point, he states that valuable metrics could be gathered by seeing what sections players skip. It's talk like that which hurts the industry, and takes us further from good games. Upper management loves numbers. Quantitative data is easily compared and contrasted. Qualitative, subjective data is so much harder both to grasp and to convey. It's why saying a controls "feel" off is so hard to convey to a non-gamer, but stating that the size of a controller is too large would not be. It's why call centers tend to use metrics-focused concepts like handle times and script adherence rather than listening to how the caller reacts to their treatment. It's easier to hand your boss a spread sheet that showcases a 20% reduction in handle time versus a stack of positive feedback comments that need to be read over to be understood.

So, if the data starts showing that the focus for the game isn't gameplay, but rather cutscenes, you will see budgets reshifted to prioritize that work over the work on the combat. If you doubt this, look no further than the rise of the pre-order scheme. When pre-orders started, they were for games that were not likely to have a large number of copies. I myself pre-ordered almost all the FFXI expansions as the store nearest to us usually only stocked 2 copies at a time. However, when these numbers were shown to publishers, they saw a vector for increasing sales. Using the concept of the the comic book speculator market, and the perceived value addition of cosmetic items, they started selling more copies. This rolled into a larger investment in that aspect, and more elaborate pre-order bonuses. These pre-orders are meant to help back those spread sheets upper management likes look great far before the game comes out in order to greenlight more projects like DLC packs. It's the concept of games as a consumer product rather than game content made for the sake of it existing.

Once a sales vector is found, that will be leapt upon, and you will will see games development shift accordingly within the triple A market. And once that has been done, metrics will be needed in order to evaluate the success of that. So, let us take the level skipping function. John stated that it could end up showcasing where levels are weak. The problem becomes conveying that to those who hold the purse strings. Often, upper management for publishers are brought in from outside the games market, though that is changing. I recall that some even came from the packaged foods realm, something I find humorous as Mat uses the concept of developing spaghetti sauce as a reason for why some games become popular. More on that later, but staying on point, if the feedback received is to the effect that some levels aren't interesting, that could be good. But what if the feedback is that they are too hard?

The reason why games have typically gated content behind proficiency is because of how games ramp up to their climax. Unlike storyline elements, gameplay advances based on challenging the player. Each level, if well designed, should be introducing new ideas and concepts to the player until the entire amount of gameplay options are laid out. Then, as the game reaches its finale, these skills should be tested to their limits, in essence a final exam based on your skills and preparation for all the events leading to this point. This results in the idea of the game as a journey, rather than a destination. John himself states that he carries the badge of honour of completing Godhand. Why would you do that if you did not value it?

The reason you do is because the game was crafted to make you feel accomplished by the end. It's why when you cheat to achieve goals in a game, you take less pride in them. You've gutted the experience that was intended by the designer in favour of hopping to the end. It cheapens the victory and invalidates the work put into crafting the experience itself. Much like ordering a five course meal, then skipping to a dessert that ruins your appetite for the rest, you've wasted the experience you could have had.

The idea to start at the beginning, and travelling the road laid out for you is the same idea in books or movies. But since games demand more of you, it's understandable that some would rather convert the experience into one of lowered effort. Many just want to see the ending, but those who fail to understand the value of the struggle are dooming the medium to mediocrity. There is a reason legendarily hard games like Dark Souls become phenomenons. It's because once you cross the threshold from failure to success in them, your brain rewards you with all those feelings of accomplishment, and now you belong to another tier of gamer. Again, we go back to the concept of tribalism, of elitist ideology. But in reality, who doesn't want that feeling of being one of the few to finish the greatest gaming challenges?

The easy answer to that is the casual gamer. I would even call myself that at this point. My Steam library, along with my physical media one, has a wealth of unfinished, dense content games I will likely never see all of. So you would think that, like John, I'd be a proponent of cheats and skips to get my money's worth from them. But that's where I differ. I want these games remaining in the form the designer made them for the fact that I'm there not to experience my world, but theirs. I play games to lose myself in the mentality of others, to see how they lay out choices and challenges for me to overcome. I see no value in giving consumers the choice to jump to the end and call it a day. Ultimately, you are sending the messages to publishers to stop making content-rich games, and instead focus even more heavily on flashy cutscenes and voice acting to sell to a market of people with no time for games.

We've already reached critical mass in the realm of game budgets. With shareholders and investors combing over the books, every sub 10 million sales market is seen as blasphemy, as a lost investment of time. It's why a game like Bayonetta needed to be saved from extinction by a console manufacturer who was in dire need of exclusives. It's why so many games turn to crowd funding; why even big name publishers now turn there. No one wants to risk games not being only decent on the sales charts.

I've been in the gaming scene since the days of Atari. I was born in time to see the console murdered by the concept of consumer-first pandering. I watched as arcades rose to replace them, only to see their greed be undercut by the home console market. Now that same greed threatens to turn games even more into a manufactured product than they've already become. There's a reason I don't buy most games new now. There's a reason I rarely get on the hype train. And, in part, it's because of people like you, John.

You, and critics like you, have done their best to advice us to be smart consumers of the medium. You call yourself a taste maker. And you're not far off. In Mat's video where he talks about the spaghetti sauce, he reveals the psychological reason people like yourself have influenced the market as a whole. Hell, not long ago I bought Renowned Explorers based on your video. You help to give us perspective on the games we love, and help to show us others we might have missed. But you also have the ability to shape habits of consumers.

And that's why this statement worries me.

Your artistic vision is not the priority of the consumer.

I understand. You are a consumer-focused channel, offering more a buyer's guide to games. But, you are both utterly right on this and horribly wrong for promoting it. The vision of the designers should be paramount among the concerns of a gamer who loves this medium. Games like Thomas Was Alone, The Stanley Parable, and even your most beloved Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons would not exist save for the vision of a designer. It is their passion, their devotion to realize an idea, a concept, and share that with us that makes for the most compelling games we've ever played.

Too often, we consume games like fast food. We don't care how they were made, or even if they were any good. We just care that a need was met. A box was ticked off. And that's what the publisher feels as well. So long as their boxes all go ticked, and they hit their marks, then there's no need to change. No need to abolish toxic pre-order bonuses, nauseating microtransactions in full retail priced games, or season pass gouging for content that likely should not be charged for. It's the same reason the mobile market is awash with casual experiences instead of innovation.

You blame the limitations of the devices that these experiences live on, yet I recall a time when portable games had a D-Pad and two buttons, and could deliver truly amazing gameplay in that context. Innovation, risk, is never cheap. But innovation in a market that rewards, consistently, the mediocre, the mundane, and the recycled is foolhardy beyond the scope of imagination. There could be a future in mobile for better, more rich experiences, but they are likely never to be found as long as the idea that the "customer is always right" is upheld.

The metrics of mobile games scream to never make a full-priced, well realized game that challenges what the platform can do. Instead, it screams to churn out well test, well worn, consumable products. The mobile market, John, is the future you see in games. On demand, ever accessible, and with all the options handed to the customer... for a fee. And that's the reality. That's gaming as a consumer medium. Mobile is where creativity goes to die. Any mildly original idea will have a hundred clones before the month's out, and each will be laden with monetization schemes laid out based on metrics gathered from previous profitable ventures. It's a market glutted with so many titles that you don't just have 10 options for any one extremely specific type of game variation, you have literally hundreds. sometimes thousands.

The poison that lives in mobile has seeped into the console and PC markets, and you decry it. You hate pay-to-win and pay-to-skip ideology, yet listening to your advice would lead every publisher down that path. Publishers want bankable returns, and the best way to do that is to hone in on what players want, and place them over a barrel to get a cash return. Again, look to DLC and pre-order bonuses for examples of that.

Ultimately, defending the concept of consumer choice is a fine idea. A consumer has the right to be respected, and their time and money treated fairly when being offered a product. However, placing that at the highest priority will not result in what you expect. It will not end filler, but instead will simply drive development down the path that will provide the biggest hype while minimizing other expenses. You would think, given your experience with how the industry has corrupted the value in other concepts that could have been helpful to consumers would have made you more aware of this.

A Suicide of a YouTuber

2015-09-20T11:39:00.001-04:00

Recently, a member of the comedy troupe Cyndago, Daniel Kyre, died of complications after an apparent suicide attempt. The news has obviously devastated all those who knew him.

I, unfortunately, was not familiar enough with the group, only really knowing of them via Markiplier working with them. I went to look over more of the videos of the group after this news came about, and felt this deep sadness in my heart. This young man, barely into his life, has gone. And yet, so long as the videos stay up, he is never truly far.

That's the new world we live in. With the advent of the home video recorder, no longer are memories and photographs the only mementos of those we've lost. Now, with social media, there is this ghostly presence that lingers on, potentially long after we're gone. I hope that it lends some comfort to those left behind after this tragedy.

As a sufferer of depression myself, albeit mild, I did wonder what the world would think of me if they connected my online accounts to me after my death. I wondered if anyone would care if I suddenly vanished from their list of contacts. Often, that's one of the few thoughts left when the time comes to bring it to an end. I know when I've reached there, those were mine. To say that he knows peace now isn't right. His suffering is done, but there will forever be a hole where he was. Even if for only his family, that hole may shrink with time, but it will never, ever go away.

Daniel is not the first online personality to take his own life, as there have been others. But with each light that goes out, the world seems a darker place. If there is a lesson here, it is this: treasure the moments these individuals share with you. They did their best to give to you, an audience they likely never met face to face. They were not rock stars or Hollywood actors, surrounded by opulent wealth and hangers on. They were just like you and me. They picked up a camera, and had the bravery to turn it on themselves. They braved the hatred of a heartless environment to try to bring their vision into being.

To the family and friends of Daniel Kyre, my condolences. I wish someone could have reached him in the dark place his heart went. Depression is a cruel, silent killer, whispering gently in the ear of its victim, compelling them to take that fatal step. It can be so tempting to listen, to end everything, but, as I can attest, it's much better to hold on with every ounce of strength. Tomorrow can really bring something better. I'm heartbroken that Daniel could not, and wish somehow it could be different.

If you are in that dark place, please do me one favour: Reach out one last time. Here are some numbers you can call to speak with experts who can do their best to help you through.

National Suicide Prevention Hotline (US & Canada): 1 (800) 273-8255
Kids Help Phone (under twenty, Canada): 1 (800) 668-6868
Samaritans (UK): 08457 90 90 90 *
Samaritans (ROI):116 123
Telefonseelsorge (Germany): 0800 111 0 111

Additional numbers can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines

Even if a group doesn't exist in your area, please reach out to someone, even a stranger. Don't make a permanent choice for a temporary situation.

Content thief, thy name is known

2015-08-15T06:28:00.002-04:00

I have a cat.

He's cute.

Here, look:

So why am I showing you a cat video, especially an old one from 2013. Well because someone decided to use it in a compilation. Without permission. Without giving credit. And also editing the video in such a fashion as to remove the watermark on the video.

The video just also happens to hail from then, so obviously this little weasel happen onto my video, and decided to steal it to make some cash off of my video.

So I dropped a DMCA hit on him. It's my content. It's not a transformative use. It's not for news, and lacks comment on it. It's just theft. As it stands though, the little shit is contesting. But the best part: To contest it, he had to give up his name. See, that's important. That means I can take legal action. Now, with the videos being this old, it's highly doubtful this leads anywhere with major monetary consequence to him. But I could potentially open a big can of worms.

I feel like this is a good can to open.

The Downfall of Journalism

2015-04-18T04:14:00.000-04:00

I could almost subtitle this: When Good Ad Revenue Goes Bad.

To really start this story, we need to go pretty far back. It all began at the advent of cable news. You see, back in the olden days, cable subscriptions were primarily for entertainment purposes. You had channels like HBO and the like, offering an alternative to watching broadcast fare. At that time, there was one major news network on cable, CNN.

The CNN of years ago resembled little of the hyperbolic, personality driven network of today. Back then, it was like an hour news program on a loop for most of the day. There were few commercials, and while there were "shows", most were informational in nature. There were no Glen Becks or Rush Limbauhs. Even their panel-style show, Evans and Novak, was more balanced than anything you'd see on TV today.

But with tragedy came ratings. When major news events happened, CNN was there, with total, absolute coverage. Now this put the fear into the hearts of local and national news programs that aired only once a day. Broadcast news saw its ratings sliding, since most national stories could be seen on CNN, and later its sister station Headline News, long before they were on air. During some tragedies, they would break into daytime shows, but for the most part, it was just for a limited time.

The corporations watched how people became focused on these news channels, and soon you saw actual commercials appearing. Nightly news programs began to slowly creep into use. But there was only so much news, so instead we had investigative news programs. Shows like Dateline became a nightly staple, using highly dramatic language and movie trailer-esque build ups for their next episode.

This same sort of shock value reporting became a standard in newspapers long before it was a thing in TV, and it was a sign of the very same principle: they were sensing their own demise. Newspapers might still be around, true, but they don't hold the focal point of our attention as they once did. When TV came into everyone's homes, and you could get your news for free each night, why bother with your morning paper? And of course papers couldn't print breaking news, they would just report on it the following day.

So newspapers did what TV would do, and now what the fifth estate does today: Sell based on opinion and outrage. Splashier headlines, big name columnists, shocking stories and investigations. Anything to get you to pop your money in the box to buy a paper.

In TV's case though, it was your attention they wanted.

They needed to guarantee advertisers an audience. Originally, that meant crafting good shows, and paying actors and writers a good salary to deliver. Once news became more about entertainment and drama, they found a cheaper avenue. For a while. However, anchors were not stupid, they knew their value was growing. People trusted figures like Tom Brokaw to deliver the news fairly, and so as they were asked to commit more and more time, they asked for more and more money.

Couple that with the additional daytime hosts, morning hosts... Well, needless to say, you needed to be pulling in major amounts of money. So, of course, they kept reaching further and further into shock value articles. That is, until, reality TV came along and stole the show completely. Soon, people were exhausted by the 24 news cycle, and the novel idea of watching so-called reality on TV was what held their interests.

So what does this have to do with modern click-bait, slapdash journalism? It's the very clay foundation this house of bricks was built on.

Part of the backlash that helped lead to TV's demise as the primary news source is that they went too far into the outrage bin, and hired too many personalities. People tired of seeing this new version of news, which at times verged on parodying itself. And so with the rise of the Internet, and the convenience of having news at your fingertips, people were headed there. Plus, there were no more fees for using it than just your connection costs.

The other great concept was that it was fast. Sure, CNN might get a story inside of an hour, but internet news could be there faster. And that's just been the case the more pervasive the Internet has become. Right now, an event can be covered, live, by dozens of people via social media, and all it takes for news outlets to do is aggregate all that info into a story. the biggest danger of that, though, is that you need people to be out there doing it.

Journalism was not a very lucrative trade. Sure, if you got to be an anchor like Brokaw, you got plenty of money. But there was only 3 chairs that mattered in the olden days, ABC, CBS and NBC. Later, there were more, but to get those was still hard. With the rise of the Internet, though, anyone could technically be a journalist. No need for a degree, just cover the story, post it, and try to be first with it. While this led to issues at first, amateur reporters, so-called enthusiast press, honed their skills and started getting taken seriously. This likewise encouraged others, and soon the Internet was awash in bloggers reporting the news, as it happened, raw and unfiltered.

In time, sites started acquiring some of this talent, because, again, you need people to cover these stories. Most freelance and even some staff journalists in the business today don't have journalism degrees. Those that do are likely old guard, people who were taught the standards of journalism, of the ethics of getting the story right. And while still some enter the field, they are not the ones getting most of the eyes.

As I said, when a medium faces its demise, you see desperation. And that's where click-bait and the rush to be first comes in. Readers on the Internet are fickle. They want their information, and they want it now. And each story has a shorter life span than ever before. So if you want to get those clicks, and that ad revenue, you need to be fast. In story creation, you can be fast and good, but it costs a high price. Since these sites were desperate for cash, they dropped the concept of proper fact checking.

This led to journalists, even in the mainstream 24 hour news cycle, getting burned. The most common were celebrity deaths, where a random internet comment would suddenly spiral into evidence of the death of said celebrity. But no one learned from this. Sure, they became slightly more careful, but they'd still report on the possibility of a story long before they could confirm it. The need for being first outweighed the need to be right.

And that's where we are today. Today, the primary focus is to get the story first, and fix it later. It does't matter how their story impacts anything. Remember, no such thing as bad PR, it's just another story you can spin later. With stories like the UVA rape case, you're seeing the natural conclusion of personality driven news coverage combined with the desire to break the story first. People want to be a crusader in the news, to get coverage for issues they personally have a stake in, rather than simply observing the world and reporting on it. And outlets are desperate to retain a user base that has long since outgrown the monoliths that remain.

In a connected world, we are beyond the current position of news. On every street corner in the western world, there are people armed with the power of a computer, complete with camera, microphone and document creation software, all in the palm of your hand. In this new world, everyone is a reporter, able to snap a picture of anything faster than a professional can arrive at the scene. And once it's online, it's shared among the new distribution network. Not newspapers or TV, not even blogs, but social media.

That is the new frontier, that everyone in classical media and the new wave of bloggers are trying to ride. As we, the people, get more options to broadcast our lives from anywhere, everything that came before trembles with fear at its ultimate demise. And in those death throws, mistakes are being made. It won't get better from here unless the world as a whole stops craving information at the rate it does... which I don't see happening any time soon.

Hatred Pulled From Greenlight

2014-12-15T18:43:00.000-05:00

When Hatred dropped its first trailer in October, it became a source of a great deal of controversy. Originally, this controversy helped to bring attention to the game, much as the design team hoped that it would. That attention, however, may have led to unforeseen consequences.

At that time, I had sent an email with questions regarding the game to the development team. In their response, they stated plans for a self-release already in place. However, they did state that they are in talks with some publishers for a retail release. While some have shown interest, major games platform Steam has shown the game is not welcome on its service.

Earlier today, the game appeared on the platform's Greenlight service, a program to allow the public to vote on whether or not a game or game concept should be published to the service. It is typically used for development houses to self-release titles without requiring the intervention of a publisher.

Only hours after its first appearance, the game was taken down. A screen shot posted by one of the developers shows that the game was removed due a breach of the site's terms of service. This move is odd, as Valve's service does feature such titles as Postal and Manhunt, both equally violent games with similar thematic elements.

Valve's statement, given by Doug Lombardi was that "based on what we've seen on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam." Given the information provided by the developer, however, one wonders what was seen. They revealed the game had already received over 13,000 yes votes, placing it number 7 out of the just over 2,000 games currently vying for approval.

In a statement released on their website, the team denies this is a failure, rather that it shows the desire for the game's release:

Moreover we don’t treat this as a failure because yet again this showed us a huge community support we’re totally overwhelmed with. After only a couple of hours Greenlight campaign being live, Hatred gathered 13,148 up votes and ended up on a #7 on top 100 list. This is the best proof for us that there are diehard Hatred fans out there waiting for this game to be released. And that we need to keep going to deliver them a game that offers exciting and challenging gameplay.

This latest controversy comes on the heels of GTA V being pulled from select store chains in Australia, and one chain in New Zealand pulling all R18 content. GTA V, however, will still available on the Steam service. Steam's typical policy for games curation has been to only remove those that blatantly misrepresent themselves. While it is possible prior objectionable titles have been removed, Hatred is the first high-profile game to be pulled.

While other outlets for digital release exist, Steam is the largest and most visible. It will be interesting to see what impact their decision will have on competitors like Good Old Games, Greenman Gaming, and Desura. As it stands, even direct release through a service like PayPal may also be at risk, as PayPal has had a history of denying access to products it deems as objectionable.

For years, games have faced the specter of censorship globally. In some countries, such as Australia and Germany, publishers and developers have had to bend knee and alter their games or face an outright ban. As we close out 2014, gamers can hope that these incidents are isolated, and not another push to drive games away from adult themes.

As #GamerGate has shown, gamers are willing to fight for the rights of developers to produce the content they want, as well as receive fair coverage for it. With teams like Destructive Creations and Running With Scissors pushing the envelope, we can hope that platforms like Steam will realize there is a market to be served even by games some find objectionable.

Let's talk about Zoe's post about ethics! #GamerGate

2014-12-03T13:21:00.000-05:00

First, no, not that famous one that kickstarted this entire #GamerGate fiasco months ago.

Recently, Zoe Quinn posted a lengthy op-ed piece to her blog talking about ethics in games journalism. It's actually a wonderful example of how the writers of today dodge about between fact and agenda. Let's analyze it.

First, she starts off with giving herself a baseline accreditation in games journalism due to the fact that she, an enthusiast writer, wrote things. Now, later on, she will talk about how enthusiasts getting into the industry is the problem. But let's stop here for a moment. Since she called herself an enthusiast, and doesn't list a degree of journalism on her LinkedIn, and is a games developer now, one can assume she doesn't hold a degree in journalism.

Now what does this mean? It means her default status as an "expert" on this subject is refutable. Just because one does a thing doesn't mean one does a thing well or to standard. Now, I have worked for a newspaper in the editing room reformatting articles for our use. I also had to edit articles in that process. But that doesn't make me any more an expert than her. So, as you read through the rest of that analysis, keep that in mind. Neither of us are experts on journalism. Neither of us hold a degree on the subject.

She then moves on to state that diverse styles of writing and views are good for proper coverage. I do not deny having both critics and straight reporters in the industry is a good thing. That's never been debatable in all this. It's more what powers those opinions that becomes an issue.

The next three paragraphs are the standard padding for an article like this. It sets baselines for things that are easy to research, but it makes the writer appear more knowledgeable on the subject than they really are. It includes industry buzzwords, again to make her appear in the know. For example, she talks about gonzo journalism. She then turns to the subject of the "worrying side" of enthusiast press.

It's quite funny, but most of what she talks about in this paragraph is exactly the issue #GamerGate has with the industry. Poorly written, poorly researched articles that have little interest outside the circle of friends it was written for. This pretty much covers all the articles written on Depression Quest. Most gamers have zero interest in the web-based choose your own adventure she created. However, it made headlines because of the fact that she was friends with a number of the journalists covering it.

She then minimizes the damage done by this. The reason for this is to try to say that the status quo is fine. What harm is there for covering games that you are a fan of, and in a biased way. In fact, to this point in the article, she's defended that it's necessary to have an industry where straight reporting is just one facet of games journalism. She's spent more time talking about opinion-based coverage. It's a subtle tactic, meant for you to accept the baseline she's laid out as her argument.

Next, she enters into the polarization phase of her agenda. Her opening salvo: A comparison of GamerGate to "Nerd McCarthism against perceived outsiders." This turns this from a story to an opinion piece. So what's the difference between the two?

A straight news story (example linked) typically will put out balanced information regarding any given news item. They will give facts and figures, numbers and showcase interviews expressing opinion. However, the reporter will do their best to show no preference to either side. They showcase the facts, and it is up to the consumer of that media to formulate an opinion.

An opinion piece is one that expresses the writers own view of a situation. Think of Andy Rooney on 60 minutes. If you take a moment and watch that, you can see what opinion looks like. You take facts, construct a narrative, and then use those facts as talking points. You can see what Mr. Rooney thinks of bottle water right away.

Using such loaded terminology such as McCarthyism paints the movement in an immediate negative light even without her later dismissal. But is she using that word right? Short answer: No, and she agrees with that later on. Take a moment and look at the opening paragraph of that wiki article. It speaks of baseless claims, yet we know that to be untrue.

She then continues her diatribe about #GamerGate, using language to belittle and marginalized the concerns of the movement. This is also straight text book for most of these agenda pieces. Since she has set herself up as an authority via participation, these pronouncements are supposed to be taken as fact rather than opinion. Note she never says "I feel" or "my view of". Typically, verbiage like that denotes an opinion piece from straight journalism. If you review the work critically, you know this entire paragraph is hyperbole and opinion.

And here starts the sourcing of material. This is used to bolster the factual feel of this piece, trying to steer it from her opinion of a situation back to a more factual interpretation of events. She first sources a supposed pro-#GamerGate source, a publicly editable page on Know Your Meme. This will prove rather insightful later once she starts talking about sourcing articles.

Then, she lays out additional agenda, putting words out like toxic, hypocrisy and doublespeak. the she sources Katherine Cross. Now, who is Katherine Cross? She is a student at CUNY. She is completing a doctorate in Feminine Studies. So, she definitely has a bias towards the anti-#GamerGate stance, as their stance is that this is about harassment of women in the industry. Her comments, therefore, are nothing more than agenda, but from another source.

She then goes on to spout more opinion, like that #GamerGate supports Jack Thompson. Correction to that, most of #GamerGate thought it laughable that even he thought Anita was a hypocrite. Her "proof" this time is a Storify link to a known anti-#GamerGate member. In there, there is no endorsement of the man. implicit or otherwise. More or less, most reactions are in agreement that when Jack Thompson calls you out on something he himself is guilty of, maybe you've gone too far.

We then bounce back to an actual pro-#GamerGate site, the wiki created during this. A quick snapshot of who is considered ethical, but it's focus is on TechRaptor. It's also the only visited link on the image. That will be important in a moment.

She then goes on to site the fact that The Escapist has "violated its new policy" immediately by giving the other side of GamerGate. Much like the treatment of David Pakman, this is not surprising. Because they gave a forum to the other side, that is seen as an ethical violation. However, the piece was done as an interview piece, simply soliciting opinions of game developers. It was not sold as anything else. That is not an ethical violation. In an interview, you ask one or more question, and whatever the participant says, you report. That is all that occurred.

And, hilariously enough, if you review the article in question, they removed several opinions which she took objection to due to complaints. So, in essence, this showcases the censorship #GamerGate speaks of. Because of someone's complaints, not all voices are allowed to be heard.

The evidence, largely, is in the opinion of the person and what they constitute as harassment. This is a moving goal post. Harassment used to mean angry, mean-spirited comments directed at someone. Now the term has been changed to mean anything I don't like having done within my vicinity. This includes retweeting, asking questions, commenting on Twitter about anyone one identifies with, using certain hashtags, discussing certain projects... The list has become endless.

But I digress. We now move into the next phase of the agenda push: One equals all. This has been typical of both sides, though I think mostly from #GamerGate it is meant in a mocking fashion. I, for one, have used it as such, stating that "All anti-#GamerGate supports" x or y. I know they are a group of individuals. I know they each have their own opinions and may not agree. The point I try to make is that they do not afford us the same luxury.

She does this by showing a single tweet by a single individual. This is not representative of everyone, nor can it be made as such. Are there problematic people? Of course. As I said above, I do not ascribe the behaviors of some to all of either side. I point that out in any talk I have with the other side prior to the blockbot being a thing.

If we are to quotemine, there have been several instances of anti-GG supporters stating gamers should be gassed, placed in internment camps, doxxed, SWATted, raped, and everything else that she claims her side has had happen to her. I don't doubt the validity in that either, but that is not about #GamerGate. That is the current state of the Internet, where if you ever expose your personal, real self and ever cross anyone's path that doesn't like you, they will go to great lengths to "punish" you.

Given the anonymity of the Internet, this is very easy to do with relative impunity. However, removing said anonymity also means doing so for potential victims. There are no easy answers, here. Sadly, until punishment for crimes committed in this fashion is suitably swift and uniformly harsh, it will not end.

She then uses The Ralph Retort (a site I've had so many issues with, the creator has me blocked on Twitter) as the example of new media we want. I will grant that he does the occasional good, but much like Gawker, it is a tabloid news blog. And just like Gawker and its subsidiaries, not every single article is a biased trash piece. However, I'd rather neither have a space to exist at the end of this, for various reasons. Does that make it the opinion of everyone?

No.

That's the biggest sell in these agenda pieces though. She wants you to believe that any one opinion is the opinion of all. She wants you to turn off your brain, and just believe the statements made by one or even a small minority are the same as the majority. That's why agenda pieces are structured as they are. They have a buy-in at the start, then start selling the agenda, providing just enough "proof" and "facts" as required in order to complete the sales pitch.

She then brings fear into the mix, talking about how developers (IE her) have to worry about someone bringing weapons to an event. However, the image posted is beyond blurry, and it's hard to even tell who the picture is off, or its context with an anon chan board post placed next to it. This is yet another agenda sell tactic. the principle here being to evoke a strong emotional response within the reader. She wants outrage so that you blind yourself to any other details she's leaving out or glossing over.

She then moves to now drawing a line in the sand. She says that any site that produces articles focused on anti-#GamerGate individuals or situations are just propaganda machines. Again, this is a charge #GamerGate has successfully shown to be the case for Gawker, Polygon, and a number of other personalities and sites. There is a clear message. One that will become clearer by the end of this piece.

She tries to reverse this fight, stating that it is we, not her and her friends, fellow writers and developers that are corrupting the ethics of this site. She states that is our intent. Her first proof? A satirical headline and article from ClickHole, a spin-off of the Onion. The reason it is satire seems to elude her, but we will digress.

Next comes the big finale, the reason this piece even exists. Remember how only TechRaptor was clicked on in that first image? It's because recent articles have begun showing the less-than-honest side of anti-#GamerGate supporters. And, more specifically, Zoe Quinn's dealings directly.

You can now understand the shift, the more aggressive undertone of the piece at this point. She's tried to establish that she is credible. She's attempted to dehumanize the opposition. And now, she tries to show that their end goal is her destruction. This is a call to arms. She sees someone speaking against her, and she doesn't like it. This is not ethics, it's a cry to attack and censor a site for reporting a story she doesn't like.

Her language at the start of the piece (saying that "Techraptor started making kissy faces with GamerGate" should be proof enough that we've moved on from any form of discussion. She showcases that their traffic increased, which is not even relevant to the discussion. Their traffic increased because people took their business elsewhere after Gawker et all turned on gamers as a whole.

Her first attack in this is to start off by showing a pair of editorial pieces written by Andrew Otton. The pieces list out many of the issues anyone familiar with #GamerGate know about her. There are several facts listed, many irrefutable, some slightly questionable, and a couple strong opinions drawn from that. But what she likely takes offense to is the idea of professional victimhood.

Now, what this does is try to paint an editorial as an ethical issue. It is not. If you review the guidelines available anywhere online, ethical restraints are for straight news stories. A different standard covers reviews, but in the next few postings on this blog, we'll get to that. But an editorial can be biased as hell. That's why it's labeled, clearly, as editorial content. You are hearing the opinion of the writer. Again, refer to Andy Rooney and the bottle water video from earlier.

She then shows a screenshot of their Ask.fm account, again for the sake of mocking. She also talks about how they are just enthusiast press. Now, again, remember that Zoe herself is enthusiast press. She has no degree in journalism, only dabbled in writing news articles, but here tries to sell this same site as being no better than she actually is. Yet, here she is passing judgement over them.

After this, it's time to attack their ethics page. Her attempt now is to show that they do not state that they will be unbiased. It, in fact, does say that. If a conflict of interest arises, meaning that the content has been biased, a disclosure or outright removal will be done. Source: TechRaptor Ethics Policy, section on Policy on Conflict of Interest. She then posts the Society of Professional Journalists ethics code, a page I do recommend reading, especially for Quinn. As she attempted to assassinate the entire site based on two editorials, this point is relevant:

- Label advocacy and commentary.

In essence, by placing those items she takes offense at as editorials, she in fact has an issue with Andrew Otton, not TechRaptor. The opinions expressed in an opinion piece are that of the author and not necessarily those of the site publishing the piece. As someone who has guest written for many sites, this should be a fact well known to Quinn.

She attacks Georgina Young, an outspoken #GamerGate supporter, next. She pulls up her article on the IGDA, then uses the "one represents all" fallacy again, this time showing three that represent all who were labeled as harassers. This is obviously hyperbole, as many people wound up on that list, and three do not, again, represent all.

We then switch back to fact mode, out of opinion mode, where she rightly calls out an error made by Young. Here is the only valid point when it comes to concerns about new media. In this day and age of the 24/7 news cycle, reporters often rush their story in to work the lead when it's still hot. Every minute they lose is another minute that eyes are going to another page, generating revenue from them. And that means your piece must be far better than someone else's to pull them away, if you can at all.

Young may have rushed the article, but whether she did or not, she got the facts wrong, and it took a few edits to correct all the factual mistakes. Quinn doesn't stop there. She keeps striking at Young, next by assailing her review of Depression Quest. Again, Young gets some facts wrong, and she again points these out. One telling bit is that Quinn does state that this was a review of something close to her heart.

It is then you should realize that all of this boils down to a developer who was very much emotionally attached to her work and to her public persona that she could not abide what she saw as an attack. This is why TechRaptor, and not any other site, is featured here. This is a full-blown assault on Young, Otton and TechRaptor.

The pummeling of Young continues, calling into question more of her articles, and the tone in which they are written. She then makes a very large tactical error, however. She reverts to attacking the site over an editorial piece labeled as satire, and trying to provide the quote out of its context.

Prior to this, she had been linking to articles within the text of her post. The reason she now uses a screenshot is to elicit a reaction from the reader. By removing the post from its context as satire, it seems like a serious breech of ethics, when in reality it now both an opinion piece and satire.

That is a great tactic of those who sell an agenda. Drive the narrative home any way possible, even if that means removing all context from an item. It's not about truth, it's about emotional impact. And that was her knock out punch. These people are a hate machine, that picture implies. Look at how they talk.

After that, the piece loses steam. It shows TechRaptor getting donations, nothing someone who gets them herself should be unfamiliar with. It tosses out a couple more news article trying to blacken individuals, and therefore make them representative of the problem. It tries to use people breaking the blockbot (quickly becoming used by actual gaming organizations as a blacklist) as a reason to hate GamerGate. In essence, it's a mix of agenda and facts, with spin about those facts.

Finally, it shifts back to being a supposed fact-based piece, raising valid concerns over YouTubers taking money from studios, and about how better PR is required. It throws a few last jabs at #GamerGate, and ends with the oh so quotable, bolded "Because this isn't about GamerGate - It's about ethics in games writing."

Now, a few other points of house-keeping. To make mock of the usage of Archive.Today by #GamerGate, every link leads to an Archive.Today of that page. It's a subtle jab, I give her that, but a jab none the less. Of course, the purpose of Archive.Today links is to preserve an item as it was seen. Too often, part of the way these spin doctors work is to say or do something to create a reaction, then either delete or edit it to remove culpability. A great example of this is fellow writer Leigh Alexander who defrauded a company by leaking her own book.

Another is the fact that she used games writing versus games journalism. This is a way to try to use this piece to not be about journalism in the future. It allows her to quotemine herself and state that this was always about writing stories, not articles.

In the end, this propaganda piece will not convince the skeptical and be gospel to the believers. However, it isn't about ethics, it's about agenda.

Next time, let's actually talk ethics.

My Interview with Hatred's Creative Director Jarosław Zieliński

2014-11-30T02:47:00.001-05:00

"My genocide crusade begins... here."

A shocking line, and the final one spoken in the trailer for Hatred, the first game to be released from Destructive Creations, a Polish game studio. When the trailer initially dropped in October, it brought with it the expected political backlash for a game with a controversial topic. But, as I would find out, even the creative director, the outspoken Jarosław Zieliński, was surprised by just how far it all went.

If you aren't aware of the game at this point (likely a result of just waking up from a coma, or just now discovering there is a thing called the Internet), a brief summary: You assume the role of an unnamed man, bent on one thing: Killing as many people as possible before he himself is killed. The trailer itself can be disturbing to watch, especially if you fear the rash of mass shootings that have plague the world of late.

I will admit, my first viewing of the trailer shocked me. But then I watched it back, and found myself intrigued. Much like earlier shock titles such as Postal and Manhunt, the story is what shocked, not the gameplay. The more I watched it back, the more I wanted to know about the creative team behind the game.

I was obviously not alone. Stories were already swirling, including a rumour that the game was being made by Neo Nazi sympathizers. I knew, even at first glance, there wasn't much truth to that. Then came the request from Epic Games to remove logos from the trailer for the Unreal Engine. It should be noted that inclusion of these logos is actually a stipulation of the licensing agreement. If that wasn't enough, there was a petition started online demanding the game never be released, and that the developers needed to issue an apology.

After seeing all of this, I put my comments out on display, but I honestly was burning with curiosity. I was concerned that, given the state of games media, the company might not get a fair voice that tried to understand the why of this game.

So I reached out to the team behind the game, hoping they would answer a few questions for some small-time random gaming blogger. They were kind enough to not only respond, but provide me with some insight behind the game. While there are plenty of interviews out there (most likely better than mine), I still would like to provide mine as just more insight into the irreverent minds behind Hatred.

[Note: Removed from this interview was a question regarding claims of Neo Nazi affiliation. This was proven to be false, and a full statement from the team can be seen on their official website. Due to the delay, this statement was released after the questions were sent. Jaroslaw did answer by referring me to the site.]

The game's trailer starts with a strong topic: Mass shootings. Did you have concerns about how this product would be viewed?

[Jarosław Zieliński, Creative Director] - Well, as the game about mass-shooter? It was obvious that people's reaction will be pretty polarized and it didn't concern us, really. It was part of the plan, but we didn't expect such a scale of all this.

When you were working on the project, what was your desire for the player to take away from the experience?

[J. Z.] Evil grin on his face. :)

Have you ever played Spec Ops: The Line, and if you did, do you feel that's what influenced you to make this game?

[J. Z.] Postal influenced Hatred. Spec Ops bored me after 20 minutes, but I wouldn't say it's a bad game. It's just me.

Like 6 Days in Fallujah, this game might have issues being released. Are you self-releasing this title?

[J. Z.] Digitally - yes. We're talking about retail release with some publishers. Yes, some of them are interested, because controversial or not - it's still business.

I can imagine that victims who survived attacks similar to the one shown will have a strong reaction to this product. Do you have any comments for those who have been impacted by mass shootings?

[J. Z.] I've seen only one so far. Negative, of course. I'm really sorry for those people's experience, but we're not referring to any real-life mass-shooting in our game. All events here are fictional.

One item that crossed my mind while watching the gameplay footage is that numerous acts depicted in your game are very similar to acts found in the Grand Theft Auto, Saint's Row, and Assassin's Creed series. In those you do very similar acts, such as assassinations, random acts of violence, and such. When creating this game, did you consider how similar those elements were, and how the narrative changes their context?

[J. Z.] Yes, it changes the whole thing and we were aware of it. And what is hypocritical about all those complainers is that for them killing people for money in GTA is okay, while killing because of being mentally-ill isn't. It's fun to watch all those pissed off morality-warriors. :)

Thanks for the interview!

I would like to thank Jaroslaw for the interview, and I await the release of Hatred, and the future projects of Destructive Creations with great interest.

Hatred is slated to be released in Q2 of 2015.

From the "Patriarchy" with Love

2014-11-28T13:58:00.000-05:00

I am the oppressor, you say.

I am that which stops your progress, impedes your way.

But in truth that is just a game you play.

You need a villain, a foe to slay.

But there are no more demons, no more dragons today.

Instead we are in a world of concrete and steel,

Where we question what we feel

Instead of accepting it as real.

Every emotion needs a name

And a target for whom to blame

But that is a victim's game

Though I'm sure you won't say the same

You scream that we are evil, vile,

That what we love is puerile.

Yet, stay and listen a while.

For what you think you see,

That is not reality.

That is what you wish it to be.

You need us to be the enemy

Because, without us, there's nothing for you to be.

You are not here for creativity

You want control, that's plain to see.

You want decision by committee

"Don't think of you, think of me.

What you do is offensive, don't you see

It harms my rights, my sensitivity!"

You say that, because I am a man, I am stained with sin

That I want to rape and do women in.

But you know what, that sounds close to religion.

A gospel of hate and forced contrition.

But in this church, there's not a preacher

Instead, a lecturer, a teacher

A pseudo-academic in a magazine feature.

All proclaiming us as some twisted creature.

But gamers don't want to play along

No, we hear the tune to this song

The sound of it just plain wrong

Not to mention linking your Patreon.

That's what it is about, at the end.

Money enough for you to spend

Fame for your name, and to your wills we bend

Except you chose wrong this time, friend.

You see, gamers, we play to win

And we are not covered in sin.

We take your ideology, and toss it in the bin

And that's because we are diverse,

Accepting, welcoming, no matter how you curse

We will not change, we will not disperse

Now here's your coat, and your purse.

Go back to harassing some other industry,

Because, right here, it's coming along nicely.

I see many more signs of diversity

Than I do in all your misandry.

And if I do represent your "Patriachy",

Then I say this with love, to you from me.

You're no longer oppressed, I set you free.

Custer's Last Stand? Let's hope so.

2014-11-27T14:10:00.001-05:00

September, 1982. A game is released for the Atari 2600. A game so racist that it was taken down from store shelves. It's still catalogued as one of the many curiosities of modern culture, much like the very heavily racial overtones of old cartoons and what not.

It exists to remind us that we did something horribly wrong, and shouldn't do it again.

To my shock and surprise, this game has suddenly gotten a new burst of life and press. Why? Because someone on the Internet got offended, and just had to tell the world in a splashy news story. I guess hating on gaming culture is how one makes it these days.

Enter into our tale the game in question, Custer's Revenge.

Yes, this ancient relic of shocking racism was a thing back in the day. And it was rightly called out and decried for it. So why is there a news story in 2014 about it? Because self-professed indie game developer Elizabeth LaPensée stumbled across a new version of the game.

Now, you're wondering what company would dare do a remake of this game? Who would be stupid enough to fund this? Is it some KKK group? Neo-Nazis? What sick company is going to put this out for sale?

Well, none. You see, LaPensée found this game in the dregs of the Internet. It was remade as a flash game by Mysticca Games. Never heard of them? Me either, and that's because they aren't a game company. It's just a hobbyist who remade it in Flash, and posted it to the Internet. In 2008.

No, I'm serious. An unknown "studio" posts a free Flash remake of Custer's Revenge 6 years ago, and here we are in 2014 talking about it.

Now, I am not going to defend this game. And neither would anyone else. The reason it's not a thing is that people didn't ask for nor want it. It's one of the many oddities you will find floating about the Internet, like NEDM, the Pain Olympics, and the like. I highly recommend not searching any of those terms if you have a tender stomach.

That's the wonder of the Internet. People can make a thing they want, put it out there for everyone to see, and then people will react as they will. In this case, the only references left to the game is a broken forum archive where you can download it. It isn't promoted, and while there are a few videos of people playing it more for the "What the Hell Is This" value of it, no one really supports the game.

But LaPensée would like you to think it's a bigger deal than it is.

She is outraged such a thing exists. How dare it exist! I mean, forget that no one was really playing it. The handful of YouTube videos she likely found are like the remaining ones I saw. They are made by small channels trying for a laugh at the expense of the ridiculousness of this game even existing.

Now, you might ask yourself, then, why was this even a story? Because #GamerGate. You see, normally this kind of story, with proper research, would have shown that this was not a major issue. It would have never been written about. Perhaps contacting the hosting site would get the file removed once and for all, and that would have been that.

But due to the massive outcry currently in gaming, this developer managed to land a news story on a national news network. It gave her some exposure, which I hope she is happy for. But in the end, it's ultimately a tempest in a teapot. A 6 year old remake of a 32 year old game has been given more free publicity than the spamming attempts by its creator when it was made. And really, that's the greatest crime here.

RE: Gaming's "Greatest Adversary"

2014-11-27T13:17:00.001-05:00

The following is a repost of my comments on the article from Bloomsberg Businessweek. As I have serious doubts that the post will remain due to it exposing the highly inaccurate nature of the article, I am reposting it here as a refutation of that article. The original article is linked below:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment?hootPostID=e61f286d3f9fe1869809de3bda829add

And now the response:

Wow, I stopped reading at "each episode takes hundreds of hours of gameplay which she does herself or with McIntosh."

It's already been proven that she lifted the bulk of her footage off other people's YouTube channels. She didn't play any of those games, and outright misrepresents many.

http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html

And she says she played first person shooters and could find women's butts to stare at? Really? Do I need to break out my CoD discs and show you how stupid that is? I stared at several hours of men's fronts and back sides. Don't remember even seeing a female butt. What games did she play in those hours of research? Likely not many, if she played at all. Because, by her own admission, she hates violent games. Here, in her own words!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734

This article is terribly researched. Both of those took me exactly 30 seconds each to google. In 60 seconds of research I've torn a hole in your narrative.

And that person who comes back with each new video? We in #GamerGate found him. He's also the likely source of Anita's USU death threat.

http://kotaku.com/the-anita-sarkeesian-hater-that-everyone-hates-1658494441

And that's from a site that is ANTI-GAMERGATE! We know who her harasser is. We wanted her to press charges. She didn't and hasn't. Ask yourself why. Why is it that we, in #GamerGate, are trying to bring this man to justice, and she is not involving herself.

Tack on 30 more seconds of research there. 90 seconds of Google searches.

And where is the fact that #GamerGate has an active anti-harassment group going after those same threats you talk about. You see, instead of laying back and lamenting attacks, we're trying to do something about them. Instead of writing an article online to get ad revenue, we're out there finding, reporting, and removing these elements. Your subject won't even press charges against a known harasser!

Also, do you realize how sexist your article is? Let me grab a couple quotes quickly:

"Petite and fair, with long, shiny hair the color of merlot, chunky boots, and nails painted gold,"

Why are you objectifying her based on her appearance? It shouldn't matter if she showed up with her hair in a pony tail wearing decades old sneakers, no makeup or nail polish. And who cares about her weight? You've reduced her to a label in saying:

"Sarkeesian, 31, telegraphs an earnest grad student."

So are you saying all grad students are petite and fair? With long hair and chunky boots? That's sexist as hell.

And then you say this near your conclusion:

"A blond woman sitting at the next table before an array of New York City street"

What does her hair colour matter? Why is this essential to your story? Is it so you can say blonds like her too? It's an irrelevant detail, again summarizing the appearance of a woman based on one trait.

And finally, by way of bias, how long have you and Anita been in communication? I went by both of your Twitter accounts. Now, what you may not realize is that they are sorted by most recent follower to least recent. You appear fairly far down the list. So how long have you two known each other? Could this be why your article is so biased? Could that be why you never mention any of items I put herein?

Remember, #GamerGate is about ethics. Maybe that subject makes people in journalism far too uncomfortable these days.

What lies at #GamerGate's core?

2014-11-08T16:03:00.002-05:00

This movement has had many labels. Many ideas have also been discussed surrounding it. But what truly lies at the core of this giant fight? What is the reason it rages on?

Is it about misogyny? Are we a movement of hatred, bent on protecting our hobby from being inclusive?

Is it about removing political commentary from our games? Do we want to just ignore games becoming a critical art form and refuse to have them be critiqued as other forms of art?

Is it about ethics in journalism? Is all we want just to have fair, clear reviews about the products we buy?

The truth, or the view of it, depends on who you ask. Even if you speak to those who are on the same side, you might get a different answer. And that is because, what lies at the core of this isn't ideals, or truths. It's people. Other human beings, not unlike yourself, fighting for the ideals and truths they believe in.

Somewhere along the way, the world has forgotten that.

The hatred seen during #GamerGate is the hatred that saturates the Internet. It's the hatred born of the vast disconnection between people that has paradoxically occurred now that messages can circle the globe in seconds. We can communicate faster than ever, yet we listen to each other less and less. We revel in sites like WorldStar, and laugh relentlessly at others without regard with how they would feel. In short, the technology meant to share ideas has shared ignorance instead.

As a supporter of #GamerGate, I have tried to engage people to break through their confirmation bias, that mental trick that eases decision-making but blocks out contradiction. In the end, though, I meet with no success. Time and again, even when I think that I've reached someone, they turn back and resort to old ideals, comforted by them. And it is because they don't see a human being on the other side of the argument. They see a faceless set of ideals.

We question so much, why not the very existence of one another?

You see it all the time, people denying that someone can't possibly support this or that idea. #NotYourShield was founded to put faces to the argument, and even then they are disbelieved. It's the Internet, after all. It's all Photoshop and exaggeration. Nothing is real except what you already know to be real. The entire Internet has become an echo chamber of one's own beliefs. If you hold an ideal, even if it is unpopular, in the wide world of the Internet you will find others who share it. And in sharing it, carving out a spot for yourselves, you create a space where you can retreat to time and again.

These places can wall you off to everything else. They can stop you from considering the possibility, however unlikely, that you might be wrong.

Now, you might say, "Pawk, how do you know that you aren't wrong about #GamerGate?" I could very well be, and in just admitting that, I do more than most of the antiGG individuals I have dealt with. They refuse to question, and actively refuse to speak about it. No matter how reasonable or caustic you are, they will block you. They will refuse to look critically at facts, to consider them from other angles.

I openly agree that there is harassment of women online. There is also harassment of men. There is harassment of private citizens, of public people. It isn't due to #GamerGate. It's not even due to any one idea. Every idea draws fervent hate and love. And when those people on either side collide, the most extreme of both sides begin hurling slurs and threats of violence. The reasonable, moderate people who are in the middle of this fight need to understand this.

I don't want people to be harmed. I don't want people to be afraid on either side just for believing what they do. Because I know what lies at the core, and what will exist even once this fight ends.

People. People deserving of respect. People who deserve to be safe.

#GamerGate is about ethics, not harassment

2014-11-05T23:08:00.001-05:00

Since The Open Standard won't print it...

For the past two months, you've likely heard a lot about #GamerGate. The question is, have you listened.

After reading an article posted to this service, I can see that some still have the misconception that #GamerGate supports hatred. That we were the ones to blame for the threats on Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian. The greatest issue with that statement is that it is provably false.

Let us examine the case of Anita's death threat. This threat was posted in its entirety on the original article, shown here: http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/10/14/Utah-State-University-student-threatens-act-of-terror-if-feminist.html . The threat mentions nothing of #GamerGate. In fact, she has received threats previously, long before this movement ever started. Further, initial repostings of the story even stated there was no link. They did, however, imply one, using phrases like "While not connected to the GamerGate movement, it does keep with its tone." That tone, it must be stated, was labeled by these same sites.

In reality, #GamerGate did more than just denounce the threats made against Anita. In fact, they went so far as to locate the harasser, a Brazillian blogger who wanted to build a career based on garnering hits for negative press directed at her. http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2j3rdi/gamergate_tracks_a_corrupt_journalist_who_made/

You see, #GamerGate is not about harassment. It's about ethical reporting. The transition that took place from the first story to those that now surround it is incredible. These stories are examples of how unethical journalism and willful distortion has taken a known, confirmed fact, and by implication alone, buried it under a mountain of repeated lies. This newly manufactured fact is then used as the backbone to support opinion pieces like this.

What drives most of us is that, after showcasing all of this, we are still shouted down. We are faced with stories and editorials like this. All this done in defense of a feminist known to have taken seminars in media manipulation, and who uses tragedies like the Seattle Shooting to promote feminist books on her Twitter account. https://archive.today/DEpxD

People are so willing to believe what they are told that they've stopped questioning the source of their information, and just outright believe it. I am not asking you to believe what I say. I ask you to use your own eyes, and your own mind, and examine the facts.

Terror in the Capital

2014-10-22T18:40:00.002-04:00

I honestly don't know how to start this.

This morning, the world I knew it was rocked to its core. It isn't the first shock to my system, but not since 9/11 have I felt as I did today.

I watched, when I could slip away from my desk, as the safe haven I've known, the beautiful city I called home for 15 years, was turned upside down by two (possibly three) madmen. The worst was that this was the second incident this week.

I have no words to express my emotions. It feels like a nightmare that isn't ending. To know that someone, anyone, would attack the city I feel is more my home town than were I was born drives a dagger into my heart.

Two brave Canadian soldiers have lost their lives, and on Canadian soil.

All I can say is that my prayers and thoughts go out to all those who call Canada home.

The Interesting Case of Hatred: The Game (thus far)

2014-10-17T12:18:00.002-04:00

Yea. This is a thing. The first time I saw this, I felt a little sick to my stomach. After several shooting tragedies, it seems fucked up to have a game literally about just killing everyone because you want to kill everyone. This is a great departure from games like Manhunt, where the game has violent themes but the story provides some loose reasoning for why.

No, this is out and out a game about a shooting massacre. It's the first game from Destructive Creations studio, and potentially their last if there is major backlash against them. Already there was a tenuous link made to the game being produced by Neo-Nazis. In that same article, it pointed out that the violence depicted is all against minorities and women. But the really odd part is that, if you remove the theme, these are all actions we've done before.

In the trailer, it shows the protagonist executing several people during gameplay. It shows him shooting up a police station. It shows repeated acts of violence, with sprays of blood punctuating each act. Remove race and the risque intro, and the trailer could have been used for promotion of any number of modern shooters or third-person action games.

And that makes me sincerely uncomfortable.

Much like how Spec Ops: The Line deconstructed the first-person shooter, exposing how the games normally dehumanize the targets you attack, this game runs the line of offensive but with a potential for a message behind it.

It's obvious from the name of the studio (Destructive Creations), this deliberately shocking trailer, and the actual ideal of the game that it's designed to raise controversy. However, it's what happens next that will be interesting. I'm actually going to reach out to the developer, see if they'd be willing to answer a few questions about the game.

Oh, and for the record, the Neo-Nazi link was incorrect. The article does correct that.

The biggest issue with #GamersGate: The Silencing of Dissention

2014-10-16T11:27:00.001-04:00

I had my say on this, I truly, truly did. But the more I see how people who are only asking for a reasoned debate are being treated, how the truth is being bent to force a particular narrative, the more angry I've gotten. I would post the "Mad as Hell" clip, but I think one movie reference video is good enough.

So this article came out on Badass Digest. I read it, researched it, and found it was more opinionated crap. So I decided to actually engage the believers of the other side. Ho boy, what fun this morning was. It resulted in Badass themselves banning me.

And for what? I have no idea. I never hurled an insult, never mistreated anyone, and did leave two sarcastic comments. One was for a one liner about "Asshole Custard's last stand," and the other was for a video of a hippopotamus fart. Yea, lovely discussion indeed.

This is the biggest issue in Gamer's Gate: The cessation of discussion. This black-or-white, right-or-wrong, terrorist-or-saint mentality that has polarized the debate this far. If you are pro-GG, expect to be muted and belittled because you are a "manbaby." Insults will be the normal way the you are treated. Or is that even correct?

You see the blog post is obviously from a hard-line supporter, someone whose opinion is beyond reproach, and the vocal minority (yes, minority) are over there still attacking me. I can see the comments via email just fine, and most of them are turning to how I am a horrible person, how they are right and I am wrong even in the face of facts.

So, since anyone on the Internet can have a voice, here's my reply to some of these supporters.

To pretty much anyone attempting to elicit some form of rage-filled reply: You can stop. I can't reply to you there anyway. Besides, you'd never get the response you want because, again, this is about video games at the end of the day. Both fringe sides need to be silenced so that the middle ground can debate and discuss this to improve gaming as a space for all.

In reply to this:

SecretAgentHulkYou've got the facts (the CNN bit sounds fishy but that's neither here nor there), but you refuse to connect the dots. Sarkeesian is known *only* for critiquing video games. A massive hate group masking as an ethical inquiry has repeatedly threatened her in the past two months. She gets another death threat for an event where she will talk about games again.
Connect the f***ing dots.

The threat never states her talk by name. It could very well almost be a form letter to any feminist speaking anywhere. It references the Montreal Massacre, a horrible act of depravity, but yet aside from that, there's no other direct references to her outside of her name. The reality is this could even be a form letter bot spitting these out to any feminist speaking anywhere.

It would also make a lot of sense why the FBI would write it off so quickly, especially if this form letter has been used before and for other people. It never mentions her videos, gaming, or anything. It's so generic that it makes me think that it's nothing but a scripted automailer harassing any and all feminists based on some spider crawling the web.

In reply to this:

gunde http://seriouspony.com/trouble...Seems like this is what we're dealing with here, someone mightily pissed that some people are getting "undeserved" attention.

gundePlease give some evidence for gaming media not following the "well established FTC guidelines for disclosure of bias."

gundeSince you didn't reply to my polite request for evidence of the gaming media not abiding by the FTC regulations, I'm going to call you a poopy poop-face!

First, I would love to have replied, but Badass removed my ability to do so. Second, I actually retweeted that story myself. It's a disgrace and, since I am now on home turf so I can just swear as I normally would, fucking appalling. Those involved should be outed, arrested, and tossed in with real criminals where they can be... re-educated... as how people should behave in polite society. Honestly, I think most of these internet badass trolls would shit themselves in fear if they actually had to spend any real time around real badasses.

Finally, for proof of FTC guideline violation, see anyone who took the Mordor deal without disclaimer. Or Battlefield 4. Or any deal. What about the Dorito Pope? I mean, this is just too easy. The FTC guidelines state that you must advise of any relationship between yourself and any product you review or promote. For example, I am an affiliate of NoScope glasses. If I review them, I must first disclose that I am an affiliate of them, and would receive compensation for any pairs sold via my affiliate links.

I did exactly that in a video I made.

Now, most gaming sites don't always receive direct money. Often, they promote games to continue a good relationship with a company in order to receive future preferential treatment. For example, see this "article" by IGN for FFXIV: GotY. Now, this is just the re-release of a press release, not a news story. So, first, it should feature that statement. Second, it didn't really win any Game of the Year this year, unless you count one small gaming site calling it "Mainstream Game of the Year". Maybe they didn't want the extra M.

In reality, the term Game of the Year has become the catch-all term for a game that includes all the DLC content available... yet it doesn't match THAT distinction either. You see, the base game and this edition are the same as far as the game goes. There has been no paid DLC or expansions released as yet, all the content that has been released is free and included with the base package.

So, this is a bold-face lie, it's promotion because SE knows GotY editions sell better than standard due to the assumption by the consumer that they are getting more value for their dollar. IGN didn't do a bit of research, tossed a few platitudes around the game, a couple old article links and BAM, a promotional item now becomes a "news story".

There's obvious violation of the FTC guidelines here because they need to state that this is an article to promote, not review or even educate, about this product. While they didn't receive a direct dollar amount (one would hope) for doing this, it is intended to curry favour with SE so that they continue to get exclusive content from them.

To this:

luci_ferNo. Not you personally.
No one is saying you personally have insulted or threatened.
But your movement has. Either indirectly (by disseminating rumour, conspiracy theory and misinformation about individuals fuelling further harassment) or directly (by deliberately driving people out and then celebrating - Jenn Frank for example. And yes, #we're wi nning #g amergate #thedominoes are falling).
Additionally, an influential voice in your movement, RogueStar was in the channel originally stirring up abuse against Zoe Quinn personally, wanting to crack her email, has authored various 'operations' that your movement has then carried out.
I really don't see how, then, you could stand by your movement as 'not a hate group' and try and represent it as a few bad apples that spoiling the bunch. The apples were spoilt from the beginning.
Personally, if I really needed apples, I would buy fresh ones at this point.
9:36 a.m., Thursday Oct. 16

Since these are long (and I actually respect this poster's civil tone), let's take these separately.

If you read the replies, you'd be hard pressed that they aren't saying it's me who did this. Hell, I just got accused by the article's author of sending the death threat. No, really. I was discussing this via Twitter, suggested that, since Sarkeesian never received the threat directly, she cannot confirm its source so easily as her tweet states. And then the author tweets this:

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/522758445066240002

I personally have stayed out of it because of how others like you feel. You see black and white, right and wrong. The truth is not that easy. The truth is that there has been a segment of people trying to direct hate at any female journalist and developer they can, and have done so without any sort of banner or rallying cry. This has been an issue long before GG, and sadly likely long after. Until some accountability comes into play, there's little we can do with it.

And since GG is just a hashtag, not a website, professional organization, or anything else where we can control the membership, then yes, sadly some will claim to act in the name of GG. Just like terrorists claim to act in the name of Islam. Just like Crusaders acted in the name of God. The extremists will always be there, and should be rightly feared. They should also be rooted out and removed from society for a time until they can learn their actions have consequences.

And you point to a single person, RogueStar. I have never spoken with, never read anything by, nor even associated with that person. Yet, you group him in with me because he claims to represent GG. See, this is the problem. A very vocal minority are becoming the face of a large group, just like Sarkeesian has become the face of feminism in gaming. They are vocal, they are representative of ideals some in the group hold to, but others denounce. The difference here, and it is important, is that RogueStar should be called to account for any criminal actions he is stating need to happen. Uttering threats is unacceptable.

Sarkeesian has done nothing more than air her beliefs. She has not called for people to be hacked, to run people off of the Internet, or do anything of the sort. No, all she has done is wanted to put her viewpoint out there.

I stand by the concept of ethics needing to return to journalism, all journalism. If we can start with the small corner of the world that is gaming, great. But I'd like to see less Glenn Becks holding sway over public opinion. I'd rather people think for themselves than be told what to think by those with vested interested in them believing in what they are selling.

luci_fer...yes, but most gaming journalism is, actually, reviewing or previewing games.
which is entirely subjective. all reviews are, by nature, opinion pieces. pretending they are objective is where corruption can come in, because you can just pay for high scores.
Which are then aggregated and effect sales.
GG's calls for reviews to be entirely objective and unbiased are absurd, as you'd be left with either a descriptive sentence on content "this is a shooting game where I shoot people" (that can't comment on quality at all, as this is subjective) or a technical feature about frame rates.
Your movement appears, at this moment, to have an issue with polygon for being the only review to grade Bayonetta 2 on sexualization. Because this is not objective. Because this is opinion.
But anything based on your experience of media IS opinion, by default.
You're swimming the wrong way if you're equating subjectivity with corruption.

I have no issues with subjective reviews. What I take issue with is when those subjective reviews abuse the readers' trust by not revealing bias. Look at TotalBiscuit as a great example. He lays all biases, both personal and professional, out there on every video and article. He lets you know where he stands, provides a divide between objective and subjective criticism, and does his best to ensure his audience is aware of this.

The same cannot be said of all media outlets. Polygon is so well known that it was expected to take points off Bayonetta 2. And again, a group claiming to be within GG is wanting this. That's the problem. There is no club house, no way to exclude those who want these other items from just rolling it into the larger discussion. It's much like the 99% movement. At first, there were people there who truly believed in the movement. In the end, so many people just bandwagon hopped that the core message got lost.

It's why, at first, I said #GamersGate needed to die. It's been polluted, stained forever by the people who use it to hide behind, to cowardly attack those online they have some person agenda against. But I see now that, if we relent, and let the other side write the history of this, they will gain greater influence in the industry, and will cause no end of issue. They will (and have) censored debate. They will (and have) use major outlets to pass off rumor and conjecture as fact. They will (and have) become the new harassers. And that won't be good for anyone.

The Utter Idiocy of Moving Countries In a Digital Age

2014-10-13T07:41:00.001-04:00

We live in a global age.

In mere minutes, words I type on my phone can fly around the world, be seen by millions, and shared in any number of languages, even if the grammar and wording might be off. I can create a video and share my unique experience within minutes. I can shop around the globe, buying from anyone with an internet connection and the ability to mail a package.

But dear God, don't ever think of moving anywhere else but your one lonely corner of the digital universe!

When I decided to move, I thought the biggest issue I would have would be how to get my stuff from A to B. I figured that all the rest would be simple. Oh, but friends, let me tell you of the horrors of moving in the digital age.

The first on the chopping block was getting my PayPal switched countries. I frequently use PayPal as it means that I have a single point of contact when it comes to payment changes. It makes live so much easier, I assure you. So, I went into change my address, and the horror began.

I couldn't change the country. It wouldn't allow it. So I contacted PayPal via email, and was told to call in to process this change. I did, and was told they were unable to change country. UNABLE. Their "software" doesn't have the "option" to do this. Why does it not? Has no one ever moved before? I was told to just set up a whole new account. Now, I could have gotten a new email (despite this account being linked to my main email account), made a brand new PayPal, linked it all to my new bank account and such in the US, but why? My payment history is on my old account, the one now rendered useless due to their "software" not having an "option".

The alternative, and this was wonderful to do, was to cancel my old account, and remake it. And of course lose all my payment history. I chose this option simply because I don't need yet another email I don't use and to have two damned accounts to keep track of for fraud, and the whole damn purpose of having a God-damned PayPal account for me was having a single God-damned point of contact for all my God-damned purchases!

So, after that lovely experience, I moved on to my Apple account. They were more than happy to tell me that yes, you can change your account. Joy of joys, I thought! So I did so... and then lost access to ALL of my music, ALL of my apps, EVERYTHING. Now I can, and did, switch it back. And was told that there was no guarantee of me having access to my entire purchase history once I moved countries.

I am so glad I went so digital.

You see, I never used to buy anything online for fear of losing rights to it. Never had I considered that once I moved, that would be exactly what would happen. So, I simply told Apple that they would see no future business from me, and my account is now still, and forever will be, tied to a property I no longer own.

Onto Steam.

Now, I had this deep fear that, once again, I would lose everything. Joke's on me! Steam and Valve do not give to fucks about it. I can still play my games. Literally I just changed my country and state, and all my games are right there. It's so beautiful I want to cry. I didn't have to delete my account. I didn't lose my friend list, none of that. It's just a change of where I am located, who cares digitally where it's stored, right?

Next to PSN.

Now I had hoped that, since I was fine on one gaming platform, I'd be fine on them all. And since I just bought Rocksmith, I was down to get me some song packs to learn to play those songs. So I went to put in my new payment info. And guess what? PSN does not allow you to change! Once you are in a region, that's it. There are petitions all over to change this, because the alternative, if you want to use the same email, is to delete your account.

That's right, you read that correctly. Delete your account. Lose your friends' list, your achievements, any online content you've purchased, All of it. Gone. Forever. Boom.

I was going to buy a PS4. That's it for that, now. If I am going to lose all I got there, they can fucking go piss up a rope for all I care. Until that policy changes, not another Sony-based game will enter my house.

Onward to Google!

I have a small Adsense account, being a partner with YouTube, as well as for ads here on this blog. It has made next to nothing in comparison to other channels, and honestly I have never received a payout. It has a bit of money in it, so I would assume Google would allow me to change countries. Apparently I don't make enough for them to bother.

Their "answer" via an FAQ says that you can, of course. But after reading tons of posts on the Adsense forum, the answer is, "Of course, if you are making enough money for us to give a damn, otherwise remake your account and lose any money in there." It's a wonderful moment when you realize that, if you were bigger, of course they'd be happy to help...

Finally, we come to Microsoft. I was certain this would be the worst. However, no, they allow you to change. Not only that, it's automated. And if you have issues, they walk you through it. And reassure you, as Myra from their support chat did. I keep all my friends, all my content. Everything, as I am not leaving the region my account was created in.

I have other accounts yet to tackle, such as from Square-Enix-Eidos-Idontevenknowanymore, Blizzard, and the like, so there might be an addendum when those come to pass. Overall, this experience has been hell, with so many phone calls and web based chats railing to just have my accounts back the way they were. The digital world needs to be free, open and ready to allow you to move your life, not punish you for your decision to move.

So, if ever you feel the urge to move, just remember your digital life might not move with you.

Can I be a non-profit too?

2014-06-26T18:29:00.002-04:00

I never like mentioning this woman's name. It is what she wants, it is what she craves, and it's the driving force behind her so-called activism. But silence of a single person means little. However, adding to the voices of dissent might do much more.

Feminist Frequency founder Anita Sarkeesian has, through some horrid little loophole, turned her video-making enterprise into a non-profit organization. Rather hilariously, it falls in into class 501(c)3, where you will also find religious and anti-animal cruelty groups. Yup, her little webisode series soapbox for the evils of chauvinism in the media now groups in with PETA and the Roman Catholic Church.

This turns my stomach. Not because of the existence of her ridiculous, pointless drivel that passes as some form of revolutionary, thought-provoking series of insightful videos, but because now she has a legitimate way to pay herself a salary while at the same time hiding in a tax shelter that doubles as a criticism shield.

"Oh, you can't say that I am doing this for money. I am a non-profit, so I am not seeking money for me! It's for the project!"

The reality is that Sarkeesian exists in an echo chamber of her own creation. She repeats what she finds to be popular feminazi dogma (and before you say I am exaggerating, remember, she is in the same camp as those who see disagreement as being worse than rape threats, where men are incapable of any form of understanding of women's rights issues, and where women can get PTSD from Twitter), then makes a passively decent video to try to prove how the media pushes those ideals.

This helps no one. It's the ultimate first world problem. Women in the developed world are forced to see how sex still sells, and how some genres still have lazy tropes tossed in for the sake of justifying a character's motivations. Oh dear god, nothing worse exists in the world for women, right?

I mean, it's not like there isn't a country where there is widespread rape and murder of women, right? I mean, it's not like there is someplace where women are so marginalized by the legal system that their rape and murder isn't even really a huge crime, right? Um, have you looked at this story from India? Or, what about the Sharia, laws still enforced in some countries. I mean, that's not really important, even though it allows for honour killing of women without punishment, right?

You see, it's hard to take any of these feminazis seriously when real feminists like Margaret Atwood exist. In fact, these feminazis have poisoned the well badly enough that even she has backed off on calling herself a feminist. See, that's the problem, this over-privileged, myopic and ultimately pointless people are becoming the face people think of when the word feminist pops up. They are seen as these crazy, irrational women who want to stomp men into the turf and take control, when the reality of feminism is simply the desire that women should be seen as equals as far as human rights, pay and opportunity for advancement.

I will definitely not say that even the US is there yet. We still have a baffling pay inequity. women are still routinely seen as a second-best choice, and there are fields that could use more balance of the sexes, mainly because having another viewpoint, regardless of sex, is better than an old boy's club of people who all agree.

Validating Sarkeesian's pointless video diatribes with the self-righteous stamp of non-profit is a step in the wrong direction. It gives her a pseudo-credibility with anyone who does not think hard enough on the fact that the company, not herself, is non-profit, and that non-profits are fully able to pay staff so long as the net gain for the business is 0. The only advantage I can see is that as a non-profit, she will be required to file her income, and that will be information we, the public, have a legal right to.

Avoid Spacial, get RadioDJ instead

2014-06-14T23:56:00.001-04:00

And now for something completely different...

Almost no one knows about this, but on the weekends I do some hobbyist level radio streaming. Nothing major, and no, no links to it will be posted. It's not that I am not proud of it, it's mainly because the stream I rent is very, very tiny from a listener limit standpoint, and posting a random link online might end in me being overloaded. Maybe someday I will do a large-scale broadcast. You know, when the lotto money comes in...

But more seriously, when I started, I wanted a premiere software to do this with. I tried out Winamp as a solution for free, but it was atrocious, and very difficult to set up. After asking around and a few searches, I found Spacial's SAM Broadcaster. The software looked great, complex for me at the time, but great. I downloaded the trial, found it met my needs, and went to for it.

The software, at the time, cost $300 and change.

Now, to ease the pain, I did it in payments. It was no worse than buying some games or any other hobby at that point. My first misgivings happened at the third payment. For some reason, they didn't attempt to pass it, and at one of my attempted streams, with people waiting on me to stream, my software stopped working due to an expired licence. I had to call it off, and contact Spacial. It's then that I found out $300 doesn't buy you shit these days.

Their support, what little of it there was, utterly sucked. They were unresponsive, took forever to actually fix the issue, and in general it was a pain even finding how to get support in the first place. It should also be noted that, at this time, they announced that their software was getting a new version... which I could get for $50 for a limited time!

Given that I was already having issues, and the only bonus I saw was Windows 8 compatibility, I passed. I was not about to get suckered in for more cash when they had shown a blatantly bad amount of service thus far.

Flash forward to present day.

I just bought myself a fancy new rig... with Windows 8. Now, I had thought that they would at least patch or give a work around for their software to run under Windows 8. I tried contacting their support to see what, if anything, they would do. Shockingly, their support had gotten WORSE. Before, you could chat live with them. Now, it just drops you into creating a service ticket. However, nowhere on their site can you view the ticket. It just goes off into the ether, never to be seen again... until they email you a survey about how you liked the service you didn't receive.

On top of this, that $50 offer was gone like smoke. Instead, now they ask a whopping $179 for the same patch to Windows 8. Not anywhere have I seen it have a single new feature that is not already in the software, this is strictly compatibility.

Fed up, I tweeted at a DJ resource twitter account if they had heard good things about Virtual DJ. VDJ is a far more complex remix software. It is software I'd love to know how to use someday, but it vastly outstrips my basic knowledge today. It, like SAM, costs $300 In way of reply, a follower of the same account, Gary, tweeted that I should check out RadioDJ instead.

It was uncertain of this, some random twitter person linking me to some odd domain, but I went anyway. I am so glad I did. What I found is a software I wish I had found 2 years ago. RadioDJ is, in essence, SAM 2.0. It has more powerful automation features, a much more reliable stream management software that allows for dead air (something SAM most assuredly does not), it's light, fast, powerful... All the things SAM is not. The best news: It's free. That's right, 100% no charge, zip, zero, nada. There is a donate button (which I happily used once I had full knowledge the software worked), but aside from that, no money is required at all.

And the support, my word the support. This is a one-man operation, but he is surrounded by fans (for obvious reasons). He still does support as much as he can, and all his user support one another.

There are downsides, small ones. There's no installer, so you need to be used to dealing with software like that. You need to install the database yourself (SAM does use a database, but installs one for you), and you have to install your own streaming software. However, all these steps, with links and videos and so many supportive users, are provided right there on the website.

Spacial's homepage says you can be up and running in minutes. The same goes for RadioDJ, except you will still have money in your wallet! The learning curve may be more steep with RDJ, but for a free piece of software, it's worth the invested time. I only wish I had that $300 to give to Marius, the developer of RDJ. He deserves it far more than Spacial

Why it is wrong to not have female assassins in Assassin's Creed: Unity

2014-06-14T18:08:00.001-04:00

First, let me start this off by saying that no, I'm not going to cry sexism. It's the low hanging fruit of this discussion, and really it isn't the reason why there are no women in Assassin's Creed: Unity. I know, many blogs and commentary pieces are going to beat that horse until the meat is mashed into the turf.

No, the real issue here is that it showcases UbiSoft's slide back from creative and diverse developer to shovelware distribution house. Assassin's Creed, as a franchise, has been bent over the table and thoroughly used in the most foul of ways to make a buck. And while there have been shining moments, overall each new entry has gone further from the original concept of the game in order to include other elements to be more "popular", or to have "broader appeal."

It's the same road that led them to turn Deux Ex into an app, rather than producing a sequel worthy of the series. It's the concept that the game would do better if we do what everyone else is doing. It's the creative void that has sucked the innovation and fun out of gaming, and leading us to have cloned franchises that run concurrent sequels year after bloody year.

So why would women be excluded? Because, quite literally, they were too busy tweaking the male characters in order to cater to whom they see the game appealing. They wanted to allow customization, which is shorthand for "We need a way to squeeze micro-transactions in here". Rest assured, there will be a customizable appearance system where part will be unlocks, and the rest either incentives for pre-order or purchasable content.

I am willing to bet that you will have every race of man available, with tons of different outfits, paperdoll style, to pick from. And during this process, they either considered the frat boy survey that was used build buzz around the time games like Remember Me and The Last of Us came us, or, more likely, simply decided to invest in a bankable idea.

Everyone likes the Assassin's Creed visual style. Cosplayers the world over do it up. Hoodies are sold by the dozen bearing the look. It's marketable, and gives you a great way to give all your distributors exclusive content without a ton of effort. However, doing double duty for the art department wasn't priority, it would lower the margins some, and not gain much money.

It's games as a business trumping games as a medium. That's the true evil. It's the same reason a gay lead won't do for an UbiSoft games. In an interview, Lucien Soulban, an openly gay writer for UbiSoft Montreal, stated that we won't see gay heroes "... for a while, I suspect, because of fears that it'll impact sales." There it is. Not a bias because gay heroes are icky. Because it could cost them dollars and cents at the cash.

That's what this is. Not sexism, it's that good old bugbear of packaged goods guys running the show, rather than a creative, open mind wanting to experiment and risk in the medium. So the next time a feminist says that gaming is sexist and mentions UbiSoft, correct them. This isn't about women, it's about money.

To our lost gift

2014-01-08T01:12:00.001-05:00

These are words that you will never read, for we will never get the chance to teach you what they mean. Those same eyes will never see the joy that learning you existed did create. You were a dream come true, a wish plucked from the heavens made flesh. Neither of us understand why you could not stay, and we both bear the weight of that sadness.

We cannot be sure when life begins, but we do know when it ends. Just know that a house full of love awaits you if you choose to come back.

8bitMMO Review

2014-01-02T17:04:00.001-05:00

Have you ever wondered what an MMO would look like if it were made in the Nintendo/Sega Master System era? Well, keep wondering. This isn't that game. Crated by Robby Zinchak, 8BitMMO was apparently hailed by a couple indie game cons that I have never heard of as being good.

It decidedly isn't.

First, the graphics of the world look in theme, but the actual characters look utterly cheap. The controls are horrible. You move with either the WASD combo, or via the arrow keys, and attack with the space bar. Here is the thing, your character only ever faces left or right, and only marginally. And your sword attack direction is in the last faced direction. This makes combat problematic. The "animation" for the game looks and feels cheap.

Hailed as a 100% player built world, oh dear god does it ever look like it. Towns are half finished and devoid of any NPCs, there are a few enemy generators which spawn some supposedly humourous enemy types (one styled after Yahtzee Crowshaw's avatar for his videos, for example), but there is virtually no content.

There are about 4 actual quests before you are dropped into the hell that is player generated quests. These quests amount to wandering around looking for a reward block which you click on to complete it, then you run back for another. Depending on the nastiness of the individual, the warp to there can be safe, or just a death trap. And I mean a literal death trap, placed on spikes that insta-kill you, for the lulz I suppose.

Now, with a dedicated, motivated community like the Minecraft one, which is obviously where the creators mind was, this could be a fantastic game. In reality, combine free with player creation, and suddenly your game becomes an utter garbage heap of useless, time wasting crap.

What makes this a special kind of hell though is the massive amount of lag. Supposedly there is a player versus player option, but I didn't bother to try it. The game lags so hard that you frequently warp across the screen, or keep moving long after you stop. You freeze up, you fall off walkways, and in general have a terrible time.

The final straw is the economy of the game. You need gold to build. God comes from questing, which we have established is hell. It also comes, slowly from killing enemies. OR if you purchase the game... Yea, it is one of those brilliant, pay for fun style games. So afraid of the big guys using this, we forgot the little guys can too.

While the horrible lag issues do showcase why MMOs need steady funding to be viable, this is not the game to fund. The player created content idea sounds great on paper, given how player created content has really revolutionized different games, even creating a entirely new genre of games. However, without a guiding hand or structure from a dedicated creator, what results is what resides in this game: an utter goddamned mess.

When Film Critics Attack

2013-12-28T14:59:00.000-05:00

So, recently, I was on Twitter, when Bob Chipman, better known on the Internet as MovieBob, retweeted this article by Devin Faraci. In it, he makes light of the backlash that the Wolf of Wall Street was made. Also, he refers to another blog/letter, saying, and I quote, "I can call you Marty and Leo, right? It's all the rage with dummies penning open letters to you guys."

Now, I love a good laugh, and the article was actually funny. I figured the linked article was someone missing the point that, even if the film may somewhat aggrandize the lifestyle of the scumbags the movie is based on, it will also condemn them. I figured that the author of the piece missed that.

Boy, could I not be more wrong.

The linked article was written by Christina McDowell. The name shouldn't sound familiar, but her former last name, that of her father, Prousalis should. He was a former associate of the Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort. In fact, in his trial, Belfort was supposed to be a key witness, but his testimony was silenced to avoid further revelations of even deeper corruption.

No, this was not a critic of the film, it was a critic of the morally bankrupt Hollywood looking to take a horrible slice of many people's lives, film it in glorious technicolour, and then go about collecting accolades for being "brave" and "risktakers." She was attacking the fact that Fox Pictures paid the Wolf 1 million dollars to obtain the rights to his story, even when he had a judgement outstanding for the $110.4 million he stole from those he conned.

And yet, she is the "dumb" one.

I saw this as a total lack of class. I called him on it via Twitter, and their responses were.... well....

@the_moviebob @pawkeshup it's pretty clear she didn't even see the movie, so she's a dummy for going out w/ a public statement like that
— Devin Faraci (@devincf) December 28, 2013

@Pawkeshup @devincf no, she "deserves" it for her, frankly, DUMB level of cinematic understanding.
— Bob Chipman (@the_moviebob) December 28, 2013

Then one of their friends jumped into the extended conversation with this gem:

@the_moviebob @Pawkeshup @devincf accusing Marty and Leo of trying to "profit" off of her misery is just the lowest, most ridiculous thing.
— Andy Crump (@agracru) December 28, 2013

Oddly, when I reminded all these fine gentleman that the villain of the film, the Wolf himself, had actually profited yet again even in just obtaining the rights (forget any other ways he could parlay his new-found resurgent infamy into something more), they all fell oddly silent.

You see, before you start preaching about how people don't "get" cinema, you should first realize that when you talk about a movie based on real events, featuring people who have living relatives and, in this case, living victims, sometimes you should show some goddamn base level of respect when they object to paying and glorifying a piece of scum like the Wolf of Wall Street.

Edit:

As of this writing, the movie was already nominated for an award and had drawn about $22 million, not yet clearing the $100 million production costs. It would be nice to see it stagnate at around the $50 million mark, making it a loss for the studio overall.

Edit #2:

Well the Twittering continued between myself and Andy Crumb. And while I think we disagree on some points over the film and what it could me, I can say that from my side I do respect his insights and think that, honestly, he can at the very least see mine.

This movie, as even he said, is going to start a civil war of words, and that might be the best thing that can come from it. The one thing that we both do agree on is that anyone who comes out of this film feeling as though they want to be Belfort, they should immediately feel ashamed to lower themselves to the level of scum he truly is.

August 27th, 2013, at 12:50 pm

2013-09-24T12:28:00.000-04:00

That is the day and time that the woman who brought me into this world, left it.

It has taken some time to come to grips with it. Even today, it doesn't feel like it is real. Just this summer, my mother came here to Ottawa to visit with me. She was so alive, so much herself. Yet I could see the years had worn her down. She no longer could walk as long, and had a huge bag of pills to maintain various health conditions.

And I was never under any delusions that she would be around for all of my life. I am the youngest child, one had later in her life, so I knew this day would come. And yet, my mother seemed to be invincible. I guess that’s how most children feel about their mother. But I had good reason.

My home life wasn’t the greatest when my parents were together. My father was a poor drunk, and free with his fists where it concerned my mother. When my mother needed to have dentures put in (rather early in life), my dad had taken her to the dentist to remove her teeth. He only removed half and told her to wait for that to heal. My mom, fearing my dad would not take her back, decided that was a wrong answer.

With a pair of pliers, my mother removed her own teeth. Re-read that. She removed her own teeth. This is the stuff my mother was made of. She was iron, larger than life, and twice as strong as anyone I’ve ever known.

As a child, the tip of her little toe was smashed off, leaving bone exposed. What did mom do? Trimmed it like a toenail. Even at a young age, she had strength enough to do what needed doing, and without sadness or misery.

My mom walked to the gallows that was her life with a sneer and a quip. She laughed often once she was on her own, and had a perverse sense of dark humour I fully inherited. There was little that intimidated or scared my mom. My mom left my dad when I was just 5, but when I was just finishing 4^th grade, I wanted to go to live with her.

I remember our little apartment. It wasn’t much. It was cold in the winters, hot in the summers, and the wind cut straight through it all year round. We did our best to combat it. At first my mom made sure I was warm under a blanket she hand-crocheted herself. Then, later, when we went to a larger apartment in the same drafty house, she got me a sleeping bag to help keep me warm.

She always bought me cupcakes when I asked. She baked cookies when I didn’t, so we always had something nice to nibble on. She did her best to always have good food for my lunches, and make nice meals for our dinner, even if I was a finicky eater back then. She worked a job she hated, and was far from our home just to make ends meet. And she always made sure that I knew I was loved.

She wasn’t perfect. She smoked, which in the end help speed her death. But beyond that, she was just human. She had her flaws, but she always tried to do her best for my siblings and me. She didn’t let life beat her, she kept fighting.

When I left there, Mom actually picked up and moved south, sick of the winters in New York State. She moved down south, and of all things became a security guard. My tiny, just over 5 foot mom, a security guard. I somehow find that thought both frightening and funny. Frightening mainly because my mom could be quite intimidating for a short little thing.

She kept working down there, eventually shifting from guard work to a packing plant. And it was on her way home from that one night that she lost control of her car, and slammed into a guard rail.

She impressed the doctors by surviving the initial crash, one they said that would have killed people a third her age. But then, her smoking came back to haunt her. Her heart was ravaged from years of a bad diet and smoking. It wound up being the true cause of her demise. A bitter irony, a heart that suffered and gave to others didn’t have enough to save herself.

She will never see me remarried. She will not see if I have any children. She never got to physically meet my fiancée, or see how happy she makes me. She will not be there for me ask advice from. And never again will I be able to hug her and tell her I love her.

When I was flying back to Canada, I was sitting by a window looking out where the plane would come. On the floor, I found a bobby pin, like my mom always used to put up her hair. I’d like to think it was there for a reason.

Thank you Mom, I miss you. You will live on in my heart.

The Current Myth of the Patriachy

2013-08-07T18:53:00.003-04:00

So I struck a nerve, have I?

First, a little background. I was over reading a post by MovieBob, one of my favourite movie reviewers. He also does some great nostalgia stuff... and occasionally ventures into political items that, really, he seems to have some obvious blind spots on. One of these blind spots, and one that's bothered me for a while about him, has been the "feminist movement." Please note the quotes, as who he supports in it is not really what I would call the feminist movement. If anything, they are some form of mutant, almost counter feminist movement looking to drive back the gender to a laughable stereotype instead of the valid, valuable voice that inequality still exists when it should not.

Now, I will readily admit that there are some issues still with women in the workplace, and certainly within politics. Hell, I can't even really say why there are issues with women in politics. There are good women there, but they seem to like selecting the most insane and/or stupid to shove out in front of the cameras, as opposed to letting the rational, intelligent ones step up and talk. But then, politics has people like George W. Bush in it too... so let's leave that alone...

No, the comments Mr. Bob took exception to were these:

I would not say it is a false equivalency. Are there still inequalities in pay? Yes, and that should change. But really, look at the female candidates that are coming up through the ranks. Very few are ones anyone would vote for. Most are Michelle Bachman-class insane, or Sarah Palin-stupid. True, there are some truly awesome women in politics, but by and large the big-ticket women are normally the worst choice.

As for female CEO's, the major reason there are very few in positions of power is because they are women... who frequently wind up having a child or children or playing caretaker to their parents or family members. Because of this, they are often seen as weaker candidates for CEO positions because having your CEO ruled by swaying hormones or having random crying jags is not exactly beneficial to one's image, or they lose out of valuable facetime with the board because they are having to deal with family issues. The reality is that there's a reason it's an old boy's club, and it's got very little to do with keeping women out of power, and more that men and women don't have the same priorities.

Risque stuff there, huh folks?

In reality, it's the truth. When a man wants to have a family, he has the overwhelming convenience of the "Set It and Forget It" option. Sleep with the woman, then return to doing his corporate climb. Women don't have such a convenience if they choose to do the same. They need time off to have the child, and normally want to actually mother the child, then return to work.

Also, because guys have been conditioned by both nature and society to be more about themselves and being a provider that they have a harder time dealing with more delicate, emotional conflicts in their life. There are roots to that stereotype, and you can see it in how guys and girls grieve, both as individuals and as a group. We could go on all day about this differential, but at the end of the day, guys suck at dealing with issues in the midst of an emotional crisis.

Women, on the other hand, are beyond capable of coping, since they literally have an emotional crisis every 28 to 30 days. Seriously, for every guy reading this, just imagine that, once a month, your emotions fly wildly out of control, your body is racked with pain, and you bleed uncontrollably from your crotch. Now imagine dealing with this in puberty. Now imagine being in a room of people who are mostly emotional basketcases in the throws of their own hormonal rollercoasters.

Yea, they get coping skills guys will never have.

Girls are far more emotionally cruel than men, mainly because guys are the physical type, while women are more the emotional type. They know that an insult can slice to the bone just as well as a knife can, and while knife wounds heal, emotional scars are forever. So if you live in that kind of condition, you need to learn a lot more self-reliance than you would if you are, say, getting your ass beat and only need to hide long enough for the other guys to give up.

It is ironic that this sort of early conditioning would be totally amazing training for women to be natural born leaders, and allow them to be the bigger picture thinkers that we truly need in the world, yet women are rarely placed in this role. Now why is that? People like Bob and that women whose name shall not be mentioned because she gets plenty of press undeservedly as it stands would have you believe it's the Patriarchy, formerly the Old Boy's Club, the Glass Ceiling, and I'm sure a few dozen other names through history. And just like racial inequality in the workplace, it does have real roots that have since withered and died.

Back when women first entered the workforce, they were seen as a threat to hard-working, go-getter men, taking their jobs so they cannot provide for their house women and brood of children. Mind you, the women entered the workforce primarily in response to men dying at war, so I'm not sure how they were taking jobs from dead men... but hey... paranoia, right? And yes, women entered the work force prior to this, but the largest surges came in wartime, placing women in roles previously filled by men.

Over time, women became more accepted, if not totally accepted, into the workplace, but appeared to be subjected to an artificial limitation (the so-aptly-named Glass Ceiling) where women could not proceed further into higher levels of... well anything. However, women did eventually breach this ceiling, and began proving that they, too, could be ruthless, heartless bastards that could run a company and step on the heads of anyone below them to get further.

The reality these days is pretty much what I said. While there are still some glass ceilings, most of the issue of a woman advancing comes from the women themselves, either opting for a family, opting for caring for a family and therefore losing valuable face time with those in power, and the much more rare occasion where a women is stopped due to having a vagina and not a penis. Why do I say rare? The media is why. If a woman is truly blocked for being a woman, we'd have a social media revolt against the company. Lawsuits are a thing, you know. There are literally laws against it. And while some will say that women back off to not become a pariah, let's face it. If they are truly a ballbuster, they aren't going to let a few hurt feelings stop them from busting balls.

The truth, which apologist like Bob hate to admit, is that there is no grand conspiracy to hold women down, except in the minds of the women who use it to raise their media profile and garner undeserved praise for their bold manner. There are a myriad of reasons why women are not running the world, but the primary ones are that they choose not to. They decide that they cannot be as heartless, as unfeeling as men can be. They decide that their lives are more important than their jobs. They decide that, at some point, it's just not worth the amount of shit one must deal with to ascend into the halls of power.

In reality, I think women are, in general, smarter than men in that respect.