+1! The easiest way to spot true evil is to watch for the phrase "the greater good". Or "for their own good".

The usual translation is: "I want to do something obviously immoral/shitty to advance what I think is right because I can't convince others to do things my way voluntarily."

And sometimes: "The mob wants to take/do something but doesn't want to admit that it'd be immoral/shitty."

I never get tired of those. :)

They have won the support of Christina Sommers...

WE HAVE NOTHING BUT UGLY HIPSTERS WITH LIBERAL ARTS DEGREES!

Now they're being backed by an internal misogynist with a PhD.

Priceless!!! :P

Yeah it's DLC

Ok, I'll check some let's play of this DLC (don't have a ps3), I'm curious how it's introduced in terms of storytelling.

_______________________________________________________________________________

After the cinema teasers and the video games teasers, here come the articles teasers at The Escapist:
https://twitter.com/archon/status/515629073692114944/photo/1
(time to use the zoom in function of your browser)

Last of Us SPOILERS:



In the main game Ellie mentions her friend Riley but doesn't go into more detail. Then in the DLC it ret-conns a segment of the game with Ellie as if she's thinking back about her past and then you play as her exploring an abandoned mall with Riley where they play at the arcade, chase each other with water pistols, etc. Towards the end, Ellie kisses her, there's a moment of awkwardness, and then it turns out Riley likes her back. They're both teenagers so it's portrayed in an innocent way (not meant to be sexy or erotic at all).

Chris Mancil, Director of Digital Communications from EA issued a comment on Gamergate a couple of days ago:

We have all had to deal with trolls, a-holes, hacker kids, and gamers/fans/haters of all stripes for years. The one redeeming quality of all them (to me) was that they were always gamers – and that was an enthusiasm and love that we all shared. That passion made people do crazy things. As easy as it could have been, I never lost respect for the audience. The people we make games for – even some of the bad ones. That’s our business, and I HOPE its why we all still do this. Love for the art AND for the fans. Two sides of the same coin.

This group of gamers for #GamerGate are angry. PISSED. I don’t think this incident with Ms. Quinn and the media are the direct cause of this exclusively, but rather a spark that blew up some smoldering issues that have been building for years. This level of anger and commitment by these gamers is intense, and its growing. Something is wrong here, this is abnormal.

My opinion:

Its not about Social Justice warriors, that has always been a strong influence in gaming. Sometimes its annoying, sure, but it can also be a positive force as well, a much-needed conscience, and a reminder to us all to consider what we create says and means to people of all ages and backgrounds.

Its not really about ethics. Games Media and Games Development have always been intertwined like Siamese twins. We depend on each other greatly, and this relationship (when properly balanced) benefits games and gamers as a whole.

I think the real problem here is alienation. Not of values. That’s misguided. Its not liberal/conservative values, politics, or world-view. Its fear of being meaningless. Its about our loss of connection between ordinary gamers and the games industry. We are losing our connection with people. I think our industry has been drifting further and further away from our fans, as our business get larger, and our global reach gets broader. This lack of a relationship, of mutual feedback, of a personal connection between ourselves and the audience (I believe) is really the true culprit of most deep seated anger here. There is no connection with us, no trust, not even understanding. Yet gamers depend more and more on us for their primary entertainment (important!) and we absolutely depend on them as customers. Yet, our relationship – is increasingly one-sided. They being the unit sale, the % converted on the acquisition funnel, or the revenue target – not the person, the player, the gamer who is (or was) exactly like all of us. We NEED them, and they KNOW we need them. They NEED us too – but have we forgotten that? Do we sometimes feel, we don’t really need them?

This alienation and dependency brings about epic rage – think banks, cellular providers, airlines, cable companies and the hate those relationships generate with customers who NEED that service but get treated like beasts… that’s our future (some would say our present). And in this environment, a back-handed slap to a mass group of gamers who are mass-labeled “misogynists” “rapists” “gamers are dead” “Games ashamed” are just *fighting words* yelled by a distant, contemptuous, un-connected gaming entity that is part of the establishment elite – and this same recipe (the exact same spark) of every single race/political/protest riot the world over from the beginning of time. And like every protest, there are those who support the activists and those who support law & order, and the establishment. But the root cause of the event is usually NOT what they are yelling and fighting about, but something much deeper, and harder to explain.

Usually being oppressed, insulted, or just generally being abused and invisible.

And in this outburst of anger, some of the media turned and fired into the gamer protesters, which then became a riot.

Both sides now dehumanize the other, making it easier to escalate. I wish I knew how to diffuse it.

Your friend,
Chris

I have a love/hate relationship with EA and even though I disagree with his SJW and ethics points here, I do agree with his thoughts about the alienation... And I applaud Chris as a spokesperson for EA for taking the high road in this debate.

Here's a quickie Maddox posted last year:

Quick Rant - The solution to sexism In video games!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJGkG1g-Lk

and a more recent vid from early this month (about comics rather than video games):

Spider-Woman's Big Ass is a Big Deal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6TiRJNI-Q

"Uh-oh, that sound means you're running dangerously low on your moral authority."

LMAO

I love the "cake" of the argument - multiple justifications need to be made to argue against it.
At the very core there the implicit "and that's awful". The thing doesn't take off without it, yet it's usually avoided, because it immediately begs the question:
"- This depiction is awful.
- Why?
- Because some people can find it sexy.
- And if they find it sexy...?
- ...then this depiction is awful!"
That's the "sexy is sexist" idiocy...
The only things worse is the "12-year-old boys" argument, which is heteronormative, implies that exclusively and overwhelmingly such a group would be interested in seeing something. No research goes into this, neither into determining what 12-year-olds like on average, nor into what the demographics in favor of something are like, nor into what the audience of a given medium thinks. It's just a simple "That's not MY fetish, so let's insult everyone who finds this attractive". The kicker? It's implicitly assumed that being a 12-year-old boy is A BAD THING, something to be ashamed of. This goes hand in hand with "immaturity" arguments - people usually don't seem to have a clear-cut distinction of what is "mature" and what isn't, but it's a last-resort sort of insult. If everything else fails - just call someone immature. There is no possible defense against that one, since it's vague to begin with.
Of course - there's the amazing conundrum of depicting a female character. You have a superhero what can scale buildings? Oh shit, you'd better not depict a female version crawling, 'cause some people might find that inappropriate.
Better still - this is the Kerrigan conundrum all over again. She gets shown from behind, as a faceless menace that rules the Koprulu sector with an iron fist? Lololol - DAT ASS :D! You show her from the front? Ermergherd - breasts 8O! You try to somehow avoid both? Well - now you're just showing off BOTH! You just can't win.

Oh - to anyone scratching their heads - Rock Paper Social Justice once ran a screenshot series that focused on Kerrigan's ass. You know - from cutscenes of a Real Time Strategy game. The depicted one of the strongest characters in the Starcraft universe. Mostly transformed, trans-human, "more than man". Nah - the screenshots were supposed to speak for themselves. That they did - they told me something about RPS and the crew that ran it...

Still better then Kotaku's "Should killing female gamers in online games be considered rape?" article...

No wonder gamers resent that hate spewing click-bait shit site!

UPDATE 1: I just learned that the article was fake. Don't I feel stupid...

UPDATE 2: Kotaku is still shit!

The point where I finally got fed up with RPS was their Blood Dragon review. I read it when I was deciding whether or not to get the game, and they mentioned how "vile" the sex scene was, interpreting it as having undercurrents of rape (since the female involved keeps switching from saying "yes" to "no"). After actually seeing the scene for myself, I don't know how anyone could possibly interpret it as anything other than goofiness, unless they were actively looking for things to be "rapey."

I've felt a little conflicted though, since they DID give my game a little publicity, and I'm grateful for that :P

Ummm... That was photoshoped. It was an exercise for people to spot the articles so outrageously stupid, that they couldn't be real. Frankly - it was easy enough for me, since the fake ones were too overt and too clear in their reasoning. The real articles mostly rely on you filling the gaps with anti-men or anti-sex bigotry and the like. Explicitly presenting some of the premises would expose them long enough for people to snap out of nodding in agreement and shed some doubt on the entire line of reasoning. Not saying the bullshit out loud also gives some barely plausible deniability - "I never said that" is an excuse that can be used. It also works with the motte and bailey trick, where you can write an article to have two interpretations - if anyone questions you, you can always fall back and claim to have meant no harm and no insult. The fact that your article mostly loses any notability and importance in the process can be hand-waved.

Remember a time when "rapier" was a noun instead of a comparative adjective? Those were the good old days...

Thanks for the correction. :-)

I have seen my fair share of outlandish headlines over the years, so I was pretty sure that thing was real...

P.S. Socks the sockpuppet have also been targeted now it seems. :S

Well, many game devs and pubs are responsible for the mess : remember Fallout 3 reviews, there was a lot of incentive for bias. Many of those guys have been unable to handle poor critics professionally for a long time.