So, why do people care now? There must be thousands of people complaining about their exes online.
If it was mentioned in relation to William’s suicide, it stands to reason that the writers were familiar enough with it to make the connection. The whole Five Guys dump had grabs of other mentions on websites as well. I’m not saying it was front page news but I wouldn’t take Google News as gospel either.
I did some looking around and apparently Ubisoft still holds the occasional private press event. But they’re no longer promoted to the public like the old Ubidays show and it doesn’t sound like anyone’s way is being paid.
Apparently, it was released on Steam within hours of Williams’ suicide. The writers didn’t have to be familiar with it beforehand, they just had to look on Steam’s new release page (which is a pretty common thing for game writers) after hearing about Williams suicide and putting two and two together.
Most people don’t seem to even know what’s going on. If a game writer on Twitter talks about it at all, most are saying they don’t understand half of it. Honestly, the best I can piece together myself is this…
Zoe Quinn was a terrible girlfriend -> Her ex-boyfriend told the world (and probably embellished a few things) -> THE INTERNET EXPLODED -> Something about game journalism corruption -> THE INTERNET EXPLODED AGAIN
She had been invited to Indiecade earlier in the year. Here’s an article about it predating its Steam Release. It was on two Gamespot Top Ten lists for 2013 (the game’s been on her website since early 2013). I’m not trying to make the argument that there was a torrent of stuff prior so I don’t really want to quibble over how many articles qualify as “got press” but it was more than just one.
But, as I said, I expect it’s more self congratulatory back-patting about how great this “evolved” game and “gamer culture” is. The published reviews for it are nearly all positive and nearly all say “It’s not a fun game but…” Some idiot even compares it to Schindler’s List. Schindler’s List told a compelling story in a visually interesting and dramatic way, investing you in characters and even weaving components such as humor into the story. This… does not do that. The criticism I see for gaming journalism here is less “Will trade sex for press” and more a bunch of people so desperate to show how evolved they are that they’ll praise any piece of shit that comes down the line that they can pass off as socially important – with gaming was the ones who did it.
“Causing him”? This is typical man-hating MRA bullshit. Unless she has secret mind-control powers, she didn’t cause him to do anything. Men are capable of making their own decisions and should be held responsible for them.
So, one by one:
Charges 1-4 are only important if you’re in a relationship with her, or are an asshole, or both. I’m not in a relationship with her, and I try not to be an asshole (with spotty success, I recognize). So I don’t care about these.
Charge 5 is a misrepresentation mixed with a lie. Criticizing something is not the same thing as sabotaging it–in fact, yeah, that part is a lie, too, so let’s call it two lies. She criticized the project. The DDOS charge is an outright lie. If she said that she destroyed someone in a game, you’d presumably accuse her of murder.
Charge 6 has zero evidence.
Charge 7? I’m not clear of any evidence to support it, separate from the evidence about her criticism of FYC’s efforts. Is this referring to a separate incident?
Charge 8 is absurd. Of course friends look out for one another, and in a small industry (I’m most familiar with indie tabletop games) this sort of thing is nearly ubiquitous: people talk about what their friends are doing. The idea that she made them do it is stupid. It might be a genuine problem, but it’s not her problem, it’s a species-wide problem, and there’s zero evidence that she was remarkable in this respect.
Let’s come back to charge 9.
Charge 10 is scurrilous. People asking for donations for their projects isn’t “begging,” it’s the way that kickstarter et al work. The evidence of a faked mugging is zero, unless you’re an MRA idiot, in which case it’s just ducky.
Charge 11 combines two lies. First, she didn’t get on Steam by faking persecution. That’s not actually how Steam works, they don’t have a refugee department. Second, the Wizardchan assholery wasn’t faked, or at least, there’s zero convincing evidence that it’s faked.
Charge 12 is idiotic. You’re right, when people contributed to her funding, she didn’t turn back donations from journalists. That’s not her problem; if it’s anyone’s problem, it’s the problem of the journalists’ employers.
Charge 13 is debatable. What evidence is there that the DMCA was “false”? If you’d used the word “ill-advised,” your position would be much better.
Charge 14, like so many others, has zero evidence. 4chaners were being the assholes they’re so competent at being, and got smacked down for it. What evidence is there that Quinn had anything to do with their getting smacked down for being assholes? But even if she did, THAT WAS A GOOD THING. When people are being terrible on the Internet, they should get smacked down for it.
Charge 15 is you being a terrible person. You know that in your shriveled little nasty heart.
Okay, back to charge 9. Yes, if she harassed someone, that’s bad. And the MRA morons are gleefully trying to do a switchback: “Look at all the feminazis denying harassment! They’d never do that if it were a man harassing a woman!”
Bullshit. Switch it back again. Let’s say that one of the MRA idiots suddenly became the focus of feminist criticism, and in the middle of that, a feminist writer tweeted that he’d harassed her at an event, giving no evidence, witnesses, or details. Do you really think that the MRA herd would give any credence to the charges?
Fucking of course not. So why are they giving any credence at all to the charges when the reverse is happening?
But let’s take it back to the real situation. The problems with Wozniak’s claims are manifold:
-They’re happening at a particularly opportune time. This is just a small problem.
-He’s offered no evidence.
-He’s offered no details.
-He’s offered no witnesses.
-Nobody else has chimed in to corroborate similar instances involving Quinn.
It’s possible, again, that she really did harass him in some way. It’s equally possible that she danced suggestively with him and he didn’t like it, and doesn’t know what harassment means. It’s equally possible that nothing happened and he made it up. With no evidence, details, witnesses, or corroboration, this is the weakest charge of sexual harassment I’ve ever heard from a man or a woman. The fact that you repeat it as if it’s verified shows merely that you’re a scumbag.
Now, you may come back with another attempt at a Gish Gallop, bring another 15 stupid charges against her. I don’t give a shit about any additional charges against her, and I won’t humor any more GGs. If you want anyone to take you seriously, choose one or two charges that you can provide evidence for and that you think are significant, and link to the strongest evidence you have to support your claims. More baseless assertions will be regarded as the brain-damaged troglodytic bullshit your first post comprised.
Because 4chan misogynistic trolls and Tumblr SJWs (who are really the exact same crowd and demographic) go around all over the web telling people they should care. Or that they should look at “the other side” touching poop. And then touch the poop of people touching poop in retaliation for their having touched poop.
The answer to your underlying question is : no, *you *probably shouldn’t bother giving a shit. Forget it, Jake. It’s the interwebz.
Metacritic has exactly one critic review for Depression Quest at the mo’ and it’s a 50. However, it would not surprise me at all if large segments of the industry and hobbyist are eager to show how accepting they are of women in general and feminists in particular, if only to attempt to counterbalance the trolls.
Does it surprise you at all that that’s not happened? As you point out, nobody is reviewing the game except for MRA idiots on Steam. The industry, it turns out, is NOT composed of folks eager to show how accepting they are of women in general and feminists in particular.
Quelle surprise.
The review of the game is interesting. Turns out it’s deliberately not intended to be fun; rather, it’s intended to be an interactive illustration of depression. The reviewer dings the game for insufficient interactivity but praises it for its spot-on depiction of depression. From what I read, it sounds like it should have been an article, not a game. On the other hand, the reviewer only noticed the lack of interactivity on a second play-through; maybe it should have a note that it only supports a single play-through.
I’ve never played it, I never intend to play it, but I’m glad folks are experimenting with different uses of the basic game structure, even if sometimes the experiments don’t turn out so well. And that gladness has nothing to do with the fact that a woman designed it; I’m also delighted about the existence of other weird experimental games that I never intend to play, like that weird roguelike about child abuse and a basement.
You can see a sampling at Wikipedia.
I haven’t played the game. (I live it, so it doesn’t interest me). Your opinion is not universal. Check the wiki page about it for more positive takes. Ars Tech, Giant Bomb and RPS all thought well of it, while not ignoring its issues. Slow and plodding is not necessarily the wrong tone for a game about depression.
I’m not going to link because it’s 4chan but you can go look if you want. (Lame, I know.) Do a twitter search on hashtags #gamergate and #notyourshield to see the sort of arguments that are being made against Quinn. Also, Pastebin has numerous docs available to use at “talking points”.
You should care because it’s an online attempt to terrorize women into silence and away from male-dominated activities like game and programming. Domestic terrorism is everyone’s problem.
Just to be clear - the game had been around for a while but the Steam release happened to coincide with Williams’ death. It was deliberate.
Well said.
As far as witnesses go, Phil Fish was there and he thought Wozniak was a shithead for saying that in the middle of this “Burn the witch!” bullshit.
Yes, I referenced it. The ridiculous reviews were my point. Here’s a hint: If you have to say “It’s not fun or entertaining but…” then it’s not a good game. It might be a good – something – but “game” isn’t it. As a game, it’s a failure but no one is actually brave enough to say “This so-called game about depression is terrible”.
Well, aside from the 1,800 users on Steam, the 198 users on Metacritic (2.1 average) and that 50 I mentioned (about the only way to get below a 50 in a game review is if the game won’t play at all).
Yeah, but I’m to believe that they are all “MRA trolls” so I’m referencing the actual “published” reviews (those on gaming sites, blogs, tech sites, newspapers, etc)
Why? Is it only a good painting if it’s pretty? Is it only a good dessert if it’s sticky-sweet? Is it only good music if it’s mellifluous? Is it only a good book if it’s nonstop action?
Part of the twentieth century’s effect on art is the idea that something can be unpleasant, discordant, and harsh and still be good art. I’m delighted that folks are experimenting with games that subvert genre expectations in the same way that they’ve been subverted in other artistic fields.
I’m not sure he counts as a reliable witness; in any case his testimony was as content-free as Wozniak’s allegation.
Oops–my apologies for suggesting before the game hadn’t been reviewed.
Certainly not all user reviews are trolls, but pretty much anyone who’s reviewed the game without playing it is, and given 4chan’s idiotic propensity to bombing websites, it’s fair to turn a jaundiced eye toward most of the game’s low user reviews.
Well yeah, but how many of the people on Steam or Metacritic leaving steaming poop actually played the game, as opposed to laying a poop in public because SCANDAL ! I’M BEING RELEVANT ON THIS BANDWAGON ! THIS IS MY POOP ! ?
That’s a straw man. I said “entertaining”. A game can entertain in various ways. Via a strong story, via strong characters, via tension, via straight up silly fun, etc. What it needs to do though is compel you to keep playing, to keep seeing where it goes and what comes next. The ending should be rewarding whether it’s “That was lots of fun” or “That touched me” in some way. That’s why I laughed at the Schindler’s List comparison: that was a film that wasn’t “fun” but it wasn’t boring or tedious and didn’t rely on “Well, movies don’t have to be fun” to excuse terrible production or story values.
Depression Quest fails at this. It’s a boring slog of Wall of Text with no reward except that it’s over. It has no interesting mechanical qualities and no interesting storytelling qualities. It’s just bad.
(Replying to Kobal)
Very few, I think. Many on Steam had 0.1 hours on record. More obviously, plenty of the reviews were just 5 guys references.
Then again, it really doesn’t take long to play. I just played it. I might have liked it if I liked interactive fiction and plinky pianos. As it was I started skipping to the options about halfway through.
I think that’s a reasonable belief that you’re to believe.