It's not about sex for reviews (or higher review scores), rather sex and manipulation for positive coverage, then using her position to try censoring everything (which has been proven in the case of Reddit) once the information was out in the open about it.

I totally understand the difference between actual bias and perceived bias. I understand that the allegations fairly and squarely raise perceived bias. I deal with those issues every day in my industry and there are obvious and acceptable ways of dealing with that.

The allegations that I have seen expressly refer to actual bias. Actually trading sex for positive reviews. I am just trying to find some evidence of that.
OK, any evidence of positive coverage then?

No issue with the censoring thing. There appears to be evidence of that. But without any evidence of sex for positive coverage, the censoring issue would seem to be less important.

Corruption and morally bankrupt industry ethics have absolutely nothing to do with "politically correct social justice warriors" as you call them. One person and their alleged fuck-ups do not represent an entire group (I say "alleged" because everything on the sex for favors front is based on claims by a vindictive ex-boyfriend and screencaps are easy to fake. That doesn't mean he lied. Just that I have no way of knowing whether he did or not and thus I'm not judging).

Zoe Quinn is not the Spokesperson TM, sole representative, ultimate leader and avatar of all feminists and women in the game industry. Same for Nathan Grayson. He does not represent all game journalists or all so called feminist allies. So don't go there.

And by the way, what people think is fun? That's partly defined by their agendas. And the companies pandering to people? They're making fun games for their target demographic.

You think there was legitimate corruption in this case? Fair enough. Slam it all you want, but don't pretent corruption hasn't existed since the first videogame magazine got published and if this is really about the ethical breakdown of gaming journalism, don't exploit it to take pot shots at people for their gender politics or to complain that people other than you are also having their tastes catered to.

It's fucking unethical.

I hope you are not suggesting Nintendo Power gave something other than purely objective unbiased opinions...

Ok I will add my nickel as well....some others may only charge 2 cents...

I view game sites the same way I view movie sites. I look at the pictures, screenshots, clips, and the overview...those that can not be biased. A movie review says the movie is over the top gore...the movie has two scenes that the reviewer objected to. I scan the review, and make up my own opinion. The review says that the movie is an action thriller...that is a classification like RTS or RPG. The Reviewer cannot change those based on their opinion. The Movie is rated R for violence...big deal in my opinion. If the Movie has full on sex scenes and such I may care if the kids were going to watch it. Violence in movies is what we talk to our kids about......Malcolm Reynolds is the hero of the story and he has a lot of good qualities, but we should not start bar fights, and punch people in the face.

In games the related features are the information like: single , multiplayer, or both, RTS with a little RPG thrown in, co-op, etc. I use this to determine if the style suits me. I rarely play MMOs and such. I watch the clips and check out the screenshots. I VIEW the reviewer words as their opinion, not mine. For the longest time my Brother and I would not see a movie if it had good reviews in the movie section, unless it was Star Wars, or the like.

I do the same with the game sites...I use them as a guide to make my own opinion. I really do not think there is anything to this story except WHY would Mods at other sites censor the discussion about this story unless she slept with them too?! If you think that free press is really free you are a little out of the loop anyway.

*snerk* :P

Oh, sweet lord, FINALLY! FINALLY SOME SANITY!

Zoe's ex also released a follow-up post on tumblr that makes for an interesting read.

Nah, there's been a simmering pot of resentment towards games journalists, indie devs with shity products and the hobnobbery/cronyism/nepotism from the internet for awhile. Zoe Quinn was just the straw that broke the camel's back, and will quickly only be a footnote in this whole story, as an example of how you shouldn't abuse people, verbally, emotionally, or via threat of violence, as she did to one transgendered person in a bar.

Aside from that, this isn't even about Zoe anymore.

Hi there, let me qoute step-by-step. I'm not that good with the english language so please excuse me for writing this weird. I may edit this post to iron out bad spelling and to make this post more readable.

Certainly it does bother me, but so does real world corruption where literally billions worth of money can be involved throughout the year. So while it does bother me there still are worse problem out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

The world has bigger problems than some petty twitter issues and implicated corruption of gameing media which indeed is always a thing for over a decade and focus by a lot of gaming communities. Independance is what gaming journalism actually needs. Selfunding organisations that at least have no reason to be corrupted. Of course this Zoe Quinn issue goes deeper than that, since she's using herself and her connection to shut down discussions about her. This however is nowhere near as worse killing people off for their own personal gain. It's true that I'm more worried of misjustice throughout the world, but I also think that this topic needs a bit of elaboration, since these "controversities" merely prove again that there are deeper rooting problems within the industry.

I even go so far and just link to the TotalBiscuit TwitLonger because I share similar opinions as he does and I would just be even more redundant.

While I really implied this I didn't mean do to that at all please allow me to explain myself here. The Video Game industry is merely a minor part of the electronic entertainment industry as a whole which is simply focused on providing us with entertainment via devices. While there are hundreds of billions of USD involved for just the video game industry alone you can still explain the entire industry with my previous sentence. It's actually this simple, the human desire of escapism is very powerful and also linked with human nature itself. Everyone has it and do I. It comes down to escapism to feel the need to accompishment, challenge, social interaction and being "drawn away" by something and enjoyment in life BESIDES it, etc. It all boiles down to how drawn in you are with video games, which totally justifies your explaination.

On to the next:

This is much more of a moral dilemma than you may think. When I was a kid I thought it was cool to use "any form of connection" to use it as a personal gain. But whenever this happens someone else has to suffer, as it already happened in this entire Zoe Quinn controversity. What I ask myself however how many people had to "suffer" directly or indirectly because of Zoe Quinns actions? What people SHOULD actually be taken responsible to their action? I don't do a whole lot of research to this matter as it's really time consuming and even a bit stressful, but is it wrong to assume that Zoe Quinn isn't the sole and only problem here?

This is true, but it is common knowledge that video game journalists aren't exactly very truthful folk and I've already stated that this is terrible, since a few spoiled apples actually CAN foul the entire tree.

I wrote my wall of text since it makes me sad that people can drag down an entire industry just like this and that people began to believe that major distrusts in gameing journalism should be mandantory sinced you can't trust noone anymore and that includes people with actual integrity who also work within "this tree" and not outside of it like youtube personalities.

And yeah, I actually care a bit, mind this wall of text and this response in particular.

Hi bat

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My fundamental disagreements with you are not on ethics.

I see change in gaming being mainly due to resurgent forms (casual, mobile, board games are all on the rise). In comparison, ideological aspects are irrelevant - mainly affecting aesthetic/narrative elements.
I see journalism malpractices in gaming as insignificant when compared with impact of subtler ideological influences in other media.

You explicitly asked for opinions, so do you agree or disagree with the above?
These are not fallacies - you are explicitly arguing something is consequential (of high relative importance) for gaming. I disagree.


Now on the tangent you brought up, which is clearly miscommunication.

The emphasis on my full quote is on physical coercion, as the rest of the quote makes clear (political/legislative criminalization being mentioned). Physical violence being involved removes agency from someone and so should be criminalized.

Hence what I mean is not that social pressure is never effective - self censorship does happen and would be the extreme possible. But social pressure is not sufficient to cause self-censorship: humans have agency and their choice is necessary. Self-censorship is fundamentaly a personal decision. The self-censor is not a victim of oppression.

Do you see the irony in the implications for your position? Anyway, I'm not sure what your point was apart from the obvious that social pressure is sometimes effective.


Back OT and your opinion on the state of gaming: I disagree with your diagnosis on the causes of the change, and the importance of what SJW and media are changing in gaming.

Care to reply to that? I cannot make you reply, but a simple no would be enough instead of trying to play gotcha.

Hi, see the above. I don't see a disagreement, if you consider the full context of my above reply.

Your point was basically similar to that implied by lovebat.

Hey Fenix,

Read? Is there a book? I'm referring to the TV series House of Cards with Kevin Spacey, the US version. I understand it's based on an older UK source.

I'm not sure I recommend it, although it's very good. Don't watch it unless you have a strong stomach basically. The way it depicts a stylized version of reality, where most of the characters are mesmerizing mixtures of nobility and corruption is impressive. If that's your cup of tea, you'll enjoy it.

Thinking about it it's interesting how Game of Thrones, which likewise is laudable for the complex characterization, does not have the same hypnotizing/repulsing effect on me.

Differences I can point are related to fantasy. GoT is a fantastical epic setting, and somehow those stakes help justify the characters' actions, in comparison to HoC banality of evil thematic. Also I'd say HoC characters are slightly more labored, very subtly exaggerated fictions rather than realistic - too neat a juxtaposition of traits you are likely to admire fading into abhorrent acts. Whereas GoT is more gray overll, rather than black and white flashes blurring into grey.

PS: the music and scenography of HoC intro, (coincidentally like GoT) is excellent, and the day night transition superimposed on the musical transitions sets the stage very well.

PPS: imany mages coming to my mind (only from season 1): the intro with the dog, the 4th wall breaking when Frank is hosting the bereaved fathers, Claire's visiting the bodyguard in hospital, Zoe and Claire's dress, Frank and Zoe's highlights. Again this series is good and will likely stay in your mind. Given its subject matter that may not be recommended ;) Stare in the abyss too long and all that jazz...

Women will always have way more opportunities then men to get ahead using sex if they decide to go there. That's life.

I still wouldn't trade my gender.

Also, I do think this was blown way out of proportion because of the sexual element. Americans sure like to make a big fuss about sex and then suddenly turn around and claim it's really not about the sex. Sorry, but it is.

Personally I think a lot of the criticism I have seen leveled at Bioshock Infinite is justified. However, and this is the important bit, it doesn't matter. As long as the production quality is okay (and it is more than okay in this case), in the end it all comes down to taste. And it is possible to see the flaws in something and still like it a lot. I certainly liked Bioshock Infinite enough to actually complete it. Are there things I think it could have done better? Certainly, many of them. But that did not prevent me from enjoying the game. It wasn't the second coming or anything, but it was a good game and provided me with many hours of entertainment. And that's good enough.

"Journalists are corrupt and biased because they receive free games"
"Journalists are corrupt and biased because they bought the games they write about"

Internet weenies are the best.

Sorry to poke holes in your semi-biased logic, but I guarantee you that the people with puritanical views on sex, probably don't even know what a Zoe Quinn is, let alone Steam, and/or believes that all vidya is FROM DA DEBIL!

I also guarantee that their internet footprint ain't large enough to be frequenting places like giant bomb, Destructoid, Kotaku, RPS, IGN, etc.