TotalBiscuit, in his own words. Part One.
(Okay, I am having to split this into two posts because, for the first time ever, I just got a "Client error: Post too large." message from LiveJournal when I tired to post this. Holy shit. o_O)
So. I said the previous post was going to be the only post I made about TotalBiscuit. After I had a night to sleep on it, this is a new day, so I've decided that it wasn't fair to judge TotalBiscuit by only that GOG thread and the shit that came up in that. And so, as I did with PewDiePie, I have decided to go straight to the source and see exactly what TotalBiscuit actually has to say and has indeed said about the whole thing. And I'm going to be pausing it as I listen to make my own comments/editorials in response as I go along with it. Maybe that's not necessarily the best way to do it, and maybe I should listen to the whole thing first, but no. This is how I've chosen to do it. Fair warning, too, since I'm going into this with an already negative opinion of TotalBiscuit, I might get a little bit snarky. But, to be fair to TotalBiscuit, the video that I am responding to was posted in September 2014, so it's possible that his stance may have altered at least somewhat since then, except that it's pretty clear based on what he said in the GOG thread I posted a link to in the previous post that he still to this day supports GamerGate, and that is my main point of contention with him. Anyway, let's get on with it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my name is TotalBiscuit. The last few weeks has been turbulent, there's no doubt about that, and many, many people have got hurt in, unfortunately, what appears to be a necessary discussion on the role of games media and, more to the point, the ethics of games media in 2014. The harassment is deplorable. The death threats, some of which I've received myself, flying left and right. The actions of psychopathic individuals, it's disgusting, there's no question about that."
*nods* Okay, so far so good.
"However, it's also a giant distraction. These few psychopaths are not the real issue at play."
Few? Seem like a lot more than a "few" to me. But okay, let's leave that alone for now.
"This whole topic has brought up, in my opinion, an interesting discussion that we could have, and that's on the role and the relevance of games media in 2014. And more to the point, what do you as a consumer actually want from games media."
I agree with this. And I and others like owsf2000 have, in fact, said as much, many times. And for a whole lot longer than just since the advent of this relatively recent GamerGate bullshit brought it to the fore again.
"Well the answer is certainly not going to be easy, nor is it going to be the same, regardless of who I ask. The reality is that many people have varying opinions, wildly varying opinions, on what exactly they want from games media. Some people want lengthy op-eds on specific topics. Some people merely want to read press releases. Strangely enough, most of the information that I find from games media that is useful is essentially posting a press release."
Over the years, I've found myself agreeing more and more with this sort of sentiment as well, i.e. I'd almost prefer to just see the bland press releases. On the one hand, I don't necessarily want the games media industry to just become a mere mouthpiece for the games creation industry, but on the other hand, I've found that it is indeed when the opinions start to come into play in games media is when the problems start. (Unless they are opinions that I mostly agree with, of course, then it's not really a problem, is it? *nods sagely* But I'm sure we'll be getting to that sort of thing later on.)
"I want to know the release date of a certain game. I want to know when a game is announced, or when there's an interview with a developer about a specific feature. That's the kind of thing that I want to know, but I'm also in a reasonably unique position. I'm not really a consumer, I'm a critic. So, to me, what's important is having accurate information and being able to keep up-to-date on the happenings of the games industry itself. And I also understand that, frankly, a lot of people don't want to write this stuff, and why would they? They're basically reposting a press release. There's no talent involved in that. It would be similar to me just reading out announcements on my channel. There's no creative input involved in that. I want to editorialize. I want my opinion to be heard."
So, essentially, it's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." I am speaking both about TotalBiscuit and myself here, obviously.
"But that's the weird thing, isn't it? Because when you think of a journalist, you don't initially think of someone that is giving you their opinion. A journalist investigates. They report. They observe. They attempt to, at least hopefully, maintain a reasonable degree of neutrality on an issue. They exist to inform."
I would agree that this is a good working definition of what a journalist is, yes.
"Which makes me wonder how many journalists do we actually have in games media?"
Not very fucking many, that's for damn sure. At this point in time, I certainly can't think of any. What we do have are "critics" and "pundits" and "commentators" and "D-List Youtube personalities" like TotalBiscuit and "rinky dink bloggers" like myself. But I may be jumping ahead of TB here, because I think he's about to say basically the same thing.
"Do we have any? I assume that we do, but they are certainly not all that well known. According to the American Press Institute, 'Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities. Journalism can be distinguished from other activities and products by certain identifiable characteristics and practices. These elements not only separate journalism from other forms of communication, they are what make it indispensable to democratic societies.'"
Hell, by that definition (and I think it's a good one), I'm not sure we still have very many journalists in general, much less in games media. There certainly aren't any journalists on shit like Fox News and the like, and those on the other side of the political spectrum from me would clearly claim the same thing about stuff like CNN or NPR or whatever (and I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with them either, to be honest, at least by the above)... but that's a whole other kettle of fish that I'm not going to even touch beyond that at the moment. Let's stick to games media.
"Now the dissemination of information is certainly the role of these major websites. That's how the news gets out. Here is the process by which most of these announcements actually work, yeah? They get sent out by a PR agency that is hired by a publisher. They send out a press release to all of their contacts. This press release is then posted on the website, sometimes alongside some commentary, maybe a bit of it's rewritten. Usually the original press release is posted at the bottom verbatim to make sure that there's no misinterpretation. There we go. You are now the news. But what did you do? You reposted a press release from a company. A company, of course, who wants to receive maximum publicity, or wants their product to be viewed in a positive light."
Yes, that's pretty much how it goes on the big websites. Rote regurgitation, for the most part. It is what it is, for good or ill. Or, at least, to be fair, that's what it used to be before I stopped paying attention at all to the big websites, anyway.
"So how exactly could a games journalist look at that more objectively? Or, indeed, is posting the press release the most objective thing they could do? Is any commentary after the fact merely subjective? Does it cross into the realms of punditry or op-ed?"
Unless said commentary is just in the form of correcting blatant mistakes (e.g. "Company X said in its press release that Game Y is coming out on console Z, but we have confirmed with Company X that this was actually a mistake and that Game Y will not be on console Z" or something along those lines), then yes, it is indeed crossing over into the realms of punditry and op-ed, in my opinion.
"It's a strange notion, particularly when many of these same people also engage in critique. They are reviewers, but they also write these articles. There's a very large crossover in games media. There is very little distinction between an industry commentator, a pundit, a reviewer, a critic, a journalist. Most of those involved in games media cross over most of those lines."
And that's part of the problem.
"'And why?' you might ask. Why is there no distinction between the two? It mostly, in my opinion, comes down to money. It's as simple as that."
And there, of course, is the true crux of the issue, at least as far as "actually, it's about ethics in game journalism" is concerned. I agree that money, or the love of it, is indeed the root of all evil, as they say. I could probably just stop listening right there, only 4 minutes in, but I'm going to keep going, hoping that he might actually get back to what I feel to be the crux of GamerGate itself (i.e. the thing that TB champions so fiercely), which is the rape/death threats and doxxing and such, and not actually any of the above concerns that he's going on about. We'll see. Back to the video.
"You cannot make a living without wearing multiple hats in this industry, unless you are very successful on Youtube. And even then, those of us that are successful on Youtube cast a fairly wide net. I make industry commentary, but I also sometimes play Hearthstone. I critique video games, and sometimes I'll be involved in promotional tournaments and Let's Play stuff."
In other words, TotalBiscuit is indeed no different from the rabble he's talking about in this very video.
"There's a lot of crossover there. And that is potentially dangerous. Something that I've recognized a great deal when I've been debating publicly my own ethical stance on whether or not certain things are okay. I like to keep that stuff transparent and out in the open. I feel that if I wear my particular biases and opinions on my sleeve, then it's difficult for someone to misrepresent what my opinion is."
Such as, let's say, calling somebody a "faggot," trying to justify said calling of somebody a "faggot," and then later on ostensibly "apologizing," in a lame "I'm sorry you got offended" sort of fashion. Those things are okay with TotalBiscuit, apparently. It is, indeed, difficult to misrepresent that sort of thing. Okay, okay, I'm shooting fish in a barrel there. I'll stop. I'll leave that kind of shit in the other post as best as I can.
"Although, needless to say, many have tried to do that regardless."
Right, of course they have. I wasn't even being entirely facetious when I typed the previous sentence, because I don't doubt that it's actually true, at least for some of TB's critics. But like I said, moving on.
"Now you could argue that as a result of sites wearing many hats, they're able to establish themselves as independent and interesting entities. I think Giant Bomb is one of the most notable examples of that. When I hear Giant Bomb's opinion, I trust it because they haven't given me a reason not to."
Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about Giant Bomb, except that it was started as a direct result of the whole thing with Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot. I don't follow either GameSpot or Giant Bomb, though, so for all I know, TB may actually be on the level with his opinion of Giant Bomb being a good thing.
"And yet, they are able to present content in a very unique way. Their 'Quick Looks' straddle the line between entertainment, Let's Play, and critique, and I modeled 'WTF is' after that, although with a more serious focus, because I had a great respect for that particular format. As it turns out, that format has been highly successful, both for Giant Bomb and for myself, and we see even more traditional outlets going down the route of creating this more off-the-cuff content which provides a more unedited and uncensored look at a particular title, and I think that's actually quite valuable."
So, what he's basically saying here is that the video game journalism industry has the same problem that the video game industry itself has, i.e. someone does something that's vaguely cool and interesting, and then everyone else jumps on the bandwagon and tries to copycat it, often poorly. Right. Gotcha.
"And yet, in many situations, we have either game site writers or personalities on Youtube creating hype pieces and then following them up with reviews, or in the worst possible case scenario, creating a promotional video which is straddling the line between promotion and review, or worse still, creating a promotional video and then creating review or critique content after the fact. Something that I've very carefully tried to avoid."
Yeah. That happens. It's one of the reasons I dislike Jim Sterling so much, at least based on his stint at Destructoid. Except that with Sterling, he would create negative content about a game, bashing it and such, both before and after writing a "professional" (and also highly negative) review of the game in question. See Heavy Rain and Final Fantasy XIII, among others, as examples of this. But I digress. This is about TotalBiscuit and his views, not Jim Sterling.
"Why does this happen? Well on Youtube it happens because, usually, these big personalities are that guy plus a couple of staff and that's it. They're usually not large companies. Why does it happen on gaming websites? Well, it's usually because, again, those gaming websites are small companies. They don't have the staff to do the proper separation, so they have people that wear many hats. Indeed, only IGN, I would say, is large enough to be able to hire enough people to ensure that there really isn't a lot of crossover between news writers and critics and those that actually do the reviews. In the past, though, they have run into those problems. And that is a sprawling media company at this point and they're covering so many different things."
And yet, in my not at all humble opinion, IGN is pure, unadulterated, weapons-grade shit... so what does that say about those little guys? Honestly, I don't know. I almost never listen to random ass people on Youtube (outside of guys like James Rolfe and Mike Matei and that new guy Ryan, Noah Antwiler, Matt, Pat, Woolie, and Liam, and Doug Walker [though Doug rarely talks specifically about video games], and I only started listening to/watching those guys because I personally found them to be funny, first, and then, as it turned out, actually informative, at a far distant second, and even then I don't always agree with them on every issue, either [for example, I found Spoony's opinion of Metroid: Other M to be incredibly terrible and wrongheaded]) any more than I listen to the bigger sites like IGN or whatever, so... yeah. I'll just leave it at that.
"This, I think, is the reality of the industry that we are currently in, and it's something that Jeff Gerstmann predicted back in the day, when he talked about the byline, and the fact that the person writing the review was just as, if not more, important than the actual text of the review itself, or of course the video of it. And I would agree with that."
Yes, and that too is why video game journalism is so incredibly shit nowadays. The small names, big egos in game media are, they seem to believe, more important than the actual work they do. It's why I dislike guys like Jim Sterling and Robert Summa (both formerly of Destructoid) so much.
"It's come down to trusting individual personalities, names that you know, over trusting sites that you know."
See above, re: my own affinity for Angry Video Game Nerd, Spoony, Super Best Friends Play, Nostalgia Critic, etc. Those guys, in my opinion, tend to "keep it real" which is why I like them, and they don't act like insufferable pricks, for the most part (though Spoony can be quite the insufferable prick when he wants to be, admittedly).
"Is that a good thing? Is that a good shift? Well, I think it can be, because individuals are generally easier to hold to account. If I criticize a website, then the obvious counterargument to that is 'Well, it was just one writer on that website. That doesn't represent the whole website.' And that's a valid point. It doesn't. It seems like some sites are attempting to adapt to the modern landscape by either creating personalities or pushing already existing, nascent personalities on their staff, either the most camera-friendly person or the most interesting person, giving them a show or something along those lines. We see sites like GameSpot doing that a lot. They're really chasing after the dream of what Giant Bomb did years ago, and it's the reason why Giant Bomb is extremely relevant at this point, because they saw that coming."
And, to think, GameSpot could have had that if only they hadn't fired Gerstmann over asinine bullshit.
"However, when you do that, and when you give a platform to people's opinion, then you also enter the territory of op-ed, editorial, and the kind of stuff that can be disagreeable to some people."
Yes. And that's why I pay practically zero attention to game media nowadays, outside of shit like this here.
"And that's where the question comes in: what do you want from games media?"
Obviously not the opinionated bullshit, that's for sure.
"Nathan Grayson received a lot of flak for his interview with Blizzard regarding Heroes of the Storm, and he focused on female design within so-called MOBA titles."
Oh shit. Okay, here we go, finally. We're getting to the meat of the issue now, it looks like. Let's see where TotalBiscuit stands on this. (Here is the interview in question, by the way. Also, I'll just point out, on a tangentially related note, he was interviewing a Blizzard employee. Blizzard, who had been displaying the height of hubris at that point in time and for years before. No, don't worry, I'm not going to turn this into yet another dead-horse beating session about Diablo III. I'll leave that alone, beyond that.)
"It got a little bit awkward, to say the least, and he received quite a lot of fire as a direct result. This interview in particular, I feel, shows a disconnect between what the general audience of that interview actually wanted, and what the interviewer was attempting to derive from it. The interviewer went in there with a particular agenda."
Oooh, ooh, let me guess, that agenda was the dreaded "feminist agenda", right? Am I right? Ooh, we hates it, precious, we hates it forever! Okay, okay, I'll let the man talk. Give him his own rope to hang himself with, so to speak. Or maybe I'll be wrong about TB. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised here. Let's just see.
"And at that point, you have to wonder, well, was this work journalistic? Or was this very much editorialized? Is this actually agenda-driven punditry? Is this demagoguery? And you could argue that, actually, yes it is."
Well, if one is a GamerGate-supporting, misogynistic asshole, then yes, of course it is. No shit, Sherlock. It's subjective opinionated bullshit to be completely ignored and dismissed out of hand, or otherwise to have the Wrath o' God brought down upon, or so one such described person might very well believe. Just to be crystal clear here, I don't believe that at all.
"But simultaneously, you can also make the argument that there are plenty of other places to find interviews about game mechanics and the design of the title that are not necessarily agenda-driven, and that agenda-driven commentary can actually have value as part of the conversation. It can add a different perspective."
Yes. Yes it can. But try telling that to a typical GamerGate-supporting, misogynistic asshole, and you're likely to get a death/rape threat or be doxxed for your trouble. Not to say that all GamerGate supporters are that way, mind you. No sir. Not All GamerGaters. Anyway, I find it somewhat disingenuous that TotalBiscuit says that you can make that argument, because why do I get the feeling that he's not going to make that argument but instead fly into a rant about the particular interview in question? (EDIT 1, made before even actually posting) To be fair, he kind of does go more into that argument way farther down there, and good on him for doing so, but he also flies into a five minute rant about the particular interview in question just below here, so... yeah. Go figure. (/EDIT 1)
"Now I think there's a very clear distinction between saying 'You should not have asked that question in the first place,' and 'Hey, that question was unfairly loaded.' Here's what the question actually said: 'You have some interesting alternate outfits for heroes. Roller Derby Nova especially caught my eye. On its own that's totally fine. Just a silly goofy thing. A one-off. But it got me thinking about how often MOBAs tend to hyper-sexualize female characters to a generally preposterous degree. That is to say, make it the norm, not a one-off at all. And Starcraft's own interesting focus choices of late, how are you planning to approach all of that in Heroes?'"
Now I don't see anything wrong with that question. It's a bit of an ambush, sure, but it's definitely no "Do you think that you're a pathological liar?" It's a fair question. I looked up Roller Derby Nova and, while not the absolute worst example of hyper-sexualization of female characters in video games that I've ever seen, it's not great either. As such, using that as a lead-in, I think it is indeed a fair question. Let me guess, though, that TotalBiscuit does in fact see something wrong with it.
"Now I feel that that question was loaded. The idea that MOBAs hyper-sexualize... he's claiming that there is a tendency in MOBA games to hyper-sexualize female characters. Now I, having played a lot of MOBA games, would say that that is not necessarily true."
Welp, he's got me there. Since I'd just about rather take a claw hammer to the eyeballs than to play any MOBA games at all, there's no real way for me to counter that claim. He could even be right, and I wouldn't know. It's TotalBiscuit's word against Nathan Grayson's. (EDIT 1, made before even actually posting) Or I could have just looked up each individual female hero via wikia and DuckDuckGo search like I did down below. Yeah. (/EDIT 1)
"I would say that League of Legends does quite a bit of it."
So Mr. Grayson's claim is at least partially true. Okay.
"But DOTA 2 really doesn't do a lot of it at all."
Doesn't do a lot of it at all. But... it does do it. That's the implication I take away from TB's statement there, anyway.
"At last count, DOTA 2 has 16 female characters, and I think the only character you could argue was hyper-sexualized was the Queen of Pain. I think you could successfully argue that the sexual element of that character and the BDSM implications involved in the Queen of Pain are necessary to define that character in the first place. I don't think that that character is unnecessarily sexualized. I believe she is sexualized for a good reason, because she is a more sexual character. The other 15 female heroes within DOTA 2 don't seem to have anything of that going on at all, they're all reasonably dressed, they don't run around with bikini alternate skins and they're all perfectly viable characters within their own right."
Okay, for reference, here is Akasha, the Queen of Pain (because I'm sure this character was vital to the artistic integrity of DOTA 2 and it would have been shot all to shit had they left this character out of the game, I'm sure). Also for reference, via DuckDuckGo Image search via the DOTA 2 wikia page, here are the other female heroes in DOTA 2, or at least the ones that are obviously humanoid in appearance, anyway. Rylai, the Crystal Maiden. Aiushtha, the Enchantress. Mirana, the Priestess of the Moon. Traxex, the Drow Ranger. Lina Inverse, the Slayer. Shendelzare Silkwood, the Vengeful Spirit. WindRanger/Alleria, the Windrunner (because the DOTA 2 wiki wasn't clear on what the name of this character actually was). Legion Commander. Luna Moonfang, the Moon Rider. Lanaya, the Templar Assassin. Slithice, the Naga Siren. Krobelus, the Death Prophet. Mortred, the Phantom Assassin. I leave it entirely as an exercise to the reader to determine whether they find these characters to be hyper-sexualized or not, as that is a completely subjective thing and just because TotalBiscuit says they aren't, doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't. Personally, I find way more than just that one character to be rather sexualized (i.e. skimpy armor, boob windows, excessive cleavage, and that sort of thing), but again, it's a subjective thing. Nathan Grayson thinks they are. TotalBiscuit thinks they aren't. I think some of them are indeed worse than others, so I'm probably somewhere between the two. It's as simple as that. Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one and they all stink. Again, this would probably be another good stopping point, but I'm going to forge ahead regardless. We're getting dangerously into inordinate minutiae to argue whether a specific character is or is not hyper-sexualized, losing sight of the overall (which might, of course, have been TB's intention all along).
"It's also difficult to find hyper-sexualized female characters in abundance in titles like Dawngate or Strife."
Yeah... no, I'm not even going to pretend to look up a list of female characters in every MOBA game ever just to see if TB's talking out of his ass or not. Another exercise for the reader, perhaps.
"Though you could argue that Smite tends to do it quite a bit, though they do have a historical basis for doing so."
Oh, of course they do. I'm sure.
"Goddesses in ancient history were frequently sexualized to ludicrous degrees. It was simply part of the culture and the history surrounding them. It was part of the mythology."
Yeah. And it's a good thing we still live in that culture today, so as to make that relevant in a discussion about video games using those characters. In any case, I'll just leave this here and let you make your own determinations.
"The point I think to take away from it is that, in fact, most MOBA titles do not hyper-sexualize female characters..."
A "fact" that I would probably argue is not actually a "fact" at all, but merely TotalBiscuit's opinion.
"...and that that question was loaded as a direct result of that."
Again, I found the question, as quoted by TotalBiscuit above, to be mostly fine. Again, that's merely a matter of differing opinion, and not a matter of "fact" as TB seems to imply.
"But did he have the right to ask it? Well, he did. I just didn't think he asked in the right kind of way."
Whew. Man, I have to say, this is starting to get really tedious, and I'm not even halfway through yet. *weary sigh*
"I would love to have a discussion about character design. I think that could have turned into one. And yet, it didn't, because it was so agenda-driven. And that's the real problem."
Yeah, that is the real problem. It didn't become a discussion about character design, true enough, but it isn't because Nathan Grayson asked the question "wrong" or whatever. No, the reason it didn't become a discussion about character design, is because in the aftermath the whole goddamn thing was highjacked into a tedious, never-ending "discussion" about "agenda-driven" this and "rampant feminist conspiracy" that and about how "SJW"s are the devil or whatever and rape/death threats, precisely because of a bunch of GamerGate-supporting, misogynistic assholes.
"When you go into an interview, and you have a predefined mindset, then it's going to color everything that you say."
In other news, when you go into a critique of said interview, and you have a predefined (Gamergate-supporting, misogynistic asshole) mindset, then it's also going to color everything that you say.
"And at that point, it crosses over from being journalistic into the realm of being op-ed, editorial, and in the worst cases, propaganda for a particular cause."
*weary sigh* Yeah, he's really skirting around the issue and trying his absolute damndest to avoid saying the word "feminism," for whatever reason.
"Now the question you then have to ask is whether or not it's simply due to malice or stupidity that this thing blew up."
It can't be both? "Malice and stupidity" are both incredibly accurate descriptors for GamerGate, after all.
"I would argue that it was a badly worded question, and it's the sort of thing that a good journalist would avoid doing. I think you can ask those questions and not word them incorrectly."
Again, the opinion that the question was worded "incorrectly" is just that, TotalBiscuit's opinion. Yes, it might be shared by a bunch of other GamerGate-supporting, misogynistic assholes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is mere opinion.
"You can also not continue to badger the interviewee with this particular topic. The follow up question both condemned the comic industry..."
What's TotalBiscuit's point here? The comics industry is fucking infamous for hyper-sexualizing female characters. Is he trying to claim that they somehow aren't? Also, Mr. Grayson wasn't "badgering" the interviewee, he was following up on a specific point that the interviewee himself brought up concerning comic books. Are we even referring to the same interview here at this point? Fuck, here is the full answer to Mr. Grayson's full question, which was quoted by TotalBiscuit above: "Well, I mean, some of these characters, I would argue, are already hyper-sexualized in a sense. I mean, Kerrigan is wearing heels, right? We're not sending a message to anybody. We're just making characters who look cool. Our sensibilities are more comic book than anything else. That's sort of where we're at. But I'll take the feedback. I think it's very fair feedback." The Blizzard guy fucking acknowledged that their characters were hyper-sexualized. It's right there, in print. The Blizzard guy also said it's "very fair feedback," and I agree with that. And yet, there's TotalBiscuit, on his white horse, defending Blizzard's honor against the evil Nathan Grayson. Goddamn, I'm still only 12 minutes into this 28 minute fucking thing. *facepalm*
"...and then claimed that 'The goal is to let people have fun in an environment where they can feel awesome without being weirded out or even objectified. This is a genre about empowerment. Why shouldn't everyone feel empowered? That's what it's about at the end of the day: letting everyone have a fair chance to feel awesome.'"
That sounds like a laudable goal to me. Maybe I'm just crazy, though. TotalBiscuit has a problem with this goal? Let's find out.
(To be continued in Part 2.)
So. I said the previous post was going to be the only post I made about TotalBiscuit. After I had a night to sleep on it, this is a new day, so I've decided that it wasn't fair to judge TotalBiscuit by only that GOG thread and the shit that came up in that. And so, as I did with PewDiePie, I have decided to go straight to the source and see exactly what TotalBiscuit actually has to say and has indeed said about the whole thing. And I'm going to be pausing it as I listen to make my own comments/editorials in response as I go along with it. Maybe that's not necessarily the best way to do it, and maybe I should listen to the whole thing first, but no. This is how I've chosen to do it. Fair warning, too, since I'm going into this with an already negative opinion of TotalBiscuit, I might get a little bit snarky. But, to be fair to TotalBiscuit, the video that I am responding to was posted in September 2014, so it's possible that his stance may have altered at least somewhat since then, except that it's pretty clear based on what he said in the GOG thread I posted a link to in the previous post that he still to this day supports GamerGate, and that is my main point of contention with him. Anyway, let's get on with it.
Click to view"Ladies and gentlemen, my name is TotalBiscuit. The last few weeks has been turbulent, there's no doubt about that, and many, many people have got hurt in, unfortunately, what appears to be a necessary discussion on the role of games media and, more to the point, the ethics of games media in 2014. The harassment is deplorable. The death threats, some of which I've received myself, flying left and right. The actions of psychopathic individuals, it's disgusting, there's no question about that."
*nods* Okay, so far so good.
"However, it's also a giant distraction. These few psychopaths are not the real issue at play."
Few? Seem like a lot more than a "few" to me. But okay, let's leave that alone for now.
"This whole topic has brought up, in my opinion, an interesting discussion that we could have, and that's on the role and the relevance of games media in 2014. And more to the point, what do you as a consumer actually want from games media."
I agree with this. And I and others like owsf2000 have, in fact, said as much, many times. And for a whole lot longer than just since the advent of this relatively recent GamerGate bullshit brought it to the fore again.
"Well the answer is certainly not going to be easy, nor is it going to be the same, regardless of who I ask. The reality is that many people have varying opinions, wildly varying opinions, on what exactly they want from games media. Some people want lengthy op-eds on specific topics. Some people merely want to read press releases. Strangely enough, most of the information that I find from games media that is useful is essentially posting a press release."
Over the years, I've found myself agreeing more and more with this sort of sentiment as well, i.e. I'd almost prefer to just see the bland press releases. On the one hand, I don't necessarily want the games media industry to just become a mere mouthpiece for the games creation industry, but on the other hand, I've found that it is indeed when the opinions start to come into play in games media is when the problems start. (Unless they are opinions that I mostly agree with, of course, then it's not really a problem, is it? *nods sagely* But I'm sure we'll be getting to that sort of thing later on.)
"I want to know the release date of a certain game. I want to know when a game is announced, or when there's an interview with a developer about a specific feature. That's the kind of thing that I want to know, but I'm also in a reasonably unique position. I'm not really a consumer, I'm a critic. So, to me, what's important is having accurate information and being able to keep up-to-date on the happenings of the games industry itself. And I also understand that, frankly, a lot of people don't want to write this stuff, and why would they? They're basically reposting a press release. There's no talent involved in that. It would be similar to me just reading out announcements on my channel. There's no creative input involved in that. I want to editorialize. I want my opinion to be heard."
So, essentially, it's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." I am speaking both about TotalBiscuit and myself here, obviously.
"But that's the weird thing, isn't it? Because when you think of a journalist, you don't initially think of someone that is giving you their opinion. A journalist investigates. They report. They observe. They attempt to, at least hopefully, maintain a reasonable degree of neutrality on an issue. They exist to inform."
I would agree that this is a good working definition of what a journalist is, yes.
"Which makes me wonder how many journalists do we actually have in games media?"
Not very fucking many, that's for damn sure. At this point in time, I certainly can't think of any. What we do have are "critics" and "pundits" and "commentators" and "D-List Youtube personalities" like TotalBiscuit and "rinky dink bloggers" like myself. But I may be jumping ahead of TB here, because I think he's about to say basically the same thing.
"Do we have any? I assume that we do, but they are certainly not all that well known. According to the American Press Institute, 'Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities. Journalism can be distinguished from other activities and products by certain identifiable characteristics and practices. These elements not only separate journalism from other forms of communication, they are what make it indispensable to democratic societies.'"
Hell, by that definition (and I think it's a good one), I'm not sure we still have very many journalists in general, much less in games media. There certainly aren't any journalists on shit like Fox News and the like, and those on the other side of the political spectrum from me would clearly claim the same thing about stuff like CNN or NPR or whatever (and I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with them either, to be honest, at least by the above)... but that's a whole other kettle of fish that I'm not going to even touch beyond that at the moment. Let's stick to games media.
"Now the dissemination of information is certainly the role of these major websites. That's how the news gets out. Here is the process by which most of these announcements actually work, yeah? They get sent out by a PR agency that is hired by a publisher. They send out a press release to all of their contacts. This press release is then posted on the website, sometimes alongside some commentary, maybe a bit of it's rewritten. Usually the original press release is posted at the bottom verbatim to make sure that there's no misinterpretation. There we go. You are now the news. But what did you do? You reposted a press release from a company. A company, of course, who wants to receive maximum publicity, or wants their product to be viewed in a positive light."
Yes, that's pretty much how it goes on the big websites. Rote regurgitation, for the most part. It is what it is, for good or ill. Or, at least, to be fair, that's what it used to be before I stopped paying attention at all to the big websites, anyway.
"So how exactly could a games journalist look at that more objectively? Or, indeed, is posting the press release the most objective thing they could do? Is any commentary after the fact merely subjective? Does it cross into the realms of punditry or op-ed?"
Unless said commentary is just in the form of correcting blatant mistakes (e.g. "Company X said in its press release that Game Y is coming out on console Z, but we have confirmed with Company X that this was actually a mistake and that Game Y will not be on console Z" or something along those lines), then yes, it is indeed crossing over into the realms of punditry and op-ed, in my opinion.
"It's a strange notion, particularly when many of these same people also engage in critique. They are reviewers, but they also write these articles. There's a very large crossover in games media. There is very little distinction between an industry commentator, a pundit, a reviewer, a critic, a journalist. Most of those involved in games media cross over most of those lines."
And that's part of the problem.
"'And why?' you might ask. Why is there no distinction between the two? It mostly, in my opinion, comes down to money. It's as simple as that."
And there, of course, is the true crux of the issue, at least as far as "actually, it's about ethics in game journalism" is concerned. I agree that money, or the love of it, is indeed the root of all evil, as they say. I could probably just stop listening right there, only 4 minutes in, but I'm going to keep going, hoping that he might actually get back to what I feel to be the crux of GamerGate itself (i.e. the thing that TB champions so fiercely), which is the rape/death threats and doxxing and such, and not actually any of the above concerns that he's going on about. We'll see. Back to the video.
"You cannot make a living without wearing multiple hats in this industry, unless you are very successful on Youtube. And even then, those of us that are successful on Youtube cast a fairly wide net. I make industry commentary, but I also sometimes play Hearthstone. I critique video games, and sometimes I'll be involved in promotional tournaments and Let's Play stuff."
In other words, TotalBiscuit is indeed no different from the rabble he's talking about in this very video.
"There's a lot of crossover there. And that is potentially dangerous. Something that I've recognized a great deal when I've been debating publicly my own ethical stance on whether or not certain things are okay. I like to keep that stuff transparent and out in the open. I feel that if I wear my particular biases and opinions on my sleeve, then it's difficult for someone to misrepresent what my opinion is."
Such as, let's say, calling somebody a "faggot," trying to justify said calling of somebody a "faggot," and then later on ostensibly "apologizing," in a lame "I'm sorry you got offended" sort of fashion. Those things are okay with TotalBiscuit, apparently. It is, indeed, difficult to misrepresent that sort of thing. Okay, okay, I'm shooting fish in a barrel there. I'll stop. I'll leave that kind of shit in the other post as best as I can.
"Although, needless to say, many have tried to do that regardless."
Right, of course they have. I wasn't even being entirely facetious when I typed the previous sentence, because I don't doubt that it's actually true, at least for some of TB's critics. But like I said, moving on.
"Now you could argue that as a result of sites wearing many hats, they're able to establish themselves as independent and interesting entities. I think Giant Bomb is one of the most notable examples of that. When I hear Giant Bomb's opinion, I trust it because they haven't given me a reason not to."
Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about Giant Bomb, except that it was started as a direct result of the whole thing with Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot. I don't follow either GameSpot or Giant Bomb, though, so for all I know, TB may actually be on the level with his opinion of Giant Bomb being a good thing.
"And yet, they are able to present content in a very unique way. Their 'Quick Looks' straddle the line between entertainment, Let's Play, and critique, and I modeled 'WTF is' after that, although with a more serious focus, because I had a great respect for that particular format. As it turns out, that format has been highly successful, both for Giant Bomb and for myself, and we see even more traditional outlets going down the route of creating this more off-the-cuff content which provides a more unedited and uncensored look at a particular title, and I think that's actually quite valuable."
So, what he's basically saying here is that the video game journalism industry has the same problem that the video game industry itself has, i.e. someone does something that's vaguely cool and interesting, and then everyone else jumps on the bandwagon and tries to copycat it, often poorly. Right. Gotcha.
"And yet, in many situations, we have either game site writers or personalities on Youtube creating hype pieces and then following them up with reviews, or in the worst possible case scenario, creating a promotional video which is straddling the line between promotion and review, or worse still, creating a promotional video and then creating review or critique content after the fact. Something that I've very carefully tried to avoid."
Yeah. That happens. It's one of the reasons I dislike Jim Sterling so much, at least based on his stint at Destructoid. Except that with Sterling, he would create negative content about a game, bashing it and such, both before and after writing a "professional" (and also highly negative) review of the game in question. See Heavy Rain and Final Fantasy XIII, among others, as examples of this. But I digress. This is about TotalBiscuit and his views, not Jim Sterling.
"Why does this happen? Well on Youtube it happens because, usually, these big personalities are that guy plus a couple of staff and that's it. They're usually not large companies. Why does it happen on gaming websites? Well, it's usually because, again, those gaming websites are small companies. They don't have the staff to do the proper separation, so they have people that wear many hats. Indeed, only IGN, I would say, is large enough to be able to hire enough people to ensure that there really isn't a lot of crossover between news writers and critics and those that actually do the reviews. In the past, though, they have run into those problems. And that is a sprawling media company at this point and they're covering so many different things."
And yet, in my not at all humble opinion, IGN is pure, unadulterated, weapons-grade shit... so what does that say about those little guys? Honestly, I don't know. I almost never listen to random ass people on Youtube (outside of guys like James Rolfe and Mike Matei and that new guy Ryan, Noah Antwiler, Matt, Pat, Woolie, and Liam, and Doug Walker [though Doug rarely talks specifically about video games], and I only started listening to/watching those guys because I personally found them to be funny, first, and then, as it turned out, actually informative, at a far distant second, and even then I don't always agree with them on every issue, either [for example, I found Spoony's opinion of Metroid: Other M to be incredibly terrible and wrongheaded]) any more than I listen to the bigger sites like IGN or whatever, so... yeah. I'll just leave it at that.
"This, I think, is the reality of the industry that we are currently in, and it's something that Jeff Gerstmann predicted back in the day, when he talked about the byline, and the fact that the person writing the review was just as, if not more, important than the actual text of the review itself, or of course the video of it. And I would agree with that."
Yes, and that too is why video game journalism is so incredibly shit nowadays. The small names, big egos in game media are, they seem to believe, more important than the actual work they do. It's why I dislike guys like Jim Sterling and Robert Summa (both formerly of Destructoid) so much.
"It's come down to trusting individual personalities, names that you know, over trusting sites that you know."
See above, re: my own affinity for Angry Video Game Nerd, Spoony, Super Best Friends Play, Nostalgia Critic, etc. Those guys, in my opinion, tend to "keep it real" which is why I like them, and they don't act like insufferable pricks, for the most part (though Spoony can be quite the insufferable prick when he wants to be, admittedly).
"Is that a good thing? Is that a good shift? Well, I think it can be, because individuals are generally easier to hold to account. If I criticize a website, then the obvious counterargument to that is 'Well, it was just one writer on that website. That doesn't represent the whole website.' And that's a valid point. It doesn't. It seems like some sites are attempting to adapt to the modern landscape by either creating personalities or pushing already existing, nascent personalities on their staff, either the most camera-friendly person or the most interesting person, giving them a show or something along those lines. We see sites like GameSpot doing that a lot. They're really chasing after the dream of what Giant Bomb did years ago, and it's the reason why Giant Bomb is extremely relevant at this point, because they saw that coming."
And, to think, GameSpot could have had that if only they hadn't fired Gerstmann over asinine bullshit.
"However, when you do that, and when you give a platform to people's opinion, then you also enter the territory of op-ed, editorial, and the kind of stuff that can be disagreeable to some people."
Yes. And that's why I pay practically zero attention to game media nowadays, outside of shit like this here.
"And that's where the question comes in: what do you want from games media?"
Obviously not the opinionated bullshit, that's for sure.
"Nathan Grayson received a lot of flak for his interview with Blizzard regarding Heroes of the Storm, and he focused on female design within so-called MOBA titles."
Oh shit. Okay, here we go, finally. We're getting to the meat of the issue now, it looks like. Let's see where TotalBiscuit stands on this. (Here is the interview in question, by the way. Also, I'll just point out, on a tangentially related note, he was interviewing a Blizzard employee. Blizzard, who had been displaying the height of hubris at that point in time and for years before. No, don't worry, I'm not going to turn this into yet another dead-horse beating session about Diablo III. I'll leave that alone, beyond that.)
"It got a little bit awkward, to say the least, and he received quite a lot of fire as a direct result. This interview in particular, I feel, shows a disconnect between what the general audience of that interview actually wanted, and what the interviewer was attempting to derive from it. The interviewer went in there with a particular agenda."
Oooh, ooh, let me guess, that agenda was the dreaded "feminist agenda", right? Am I right? Ooh, we hates it, precious, we hates it forever! Okay, okay, I'll let the man talk. Give him his own rope to hang himself with, so to speak. Or maybe I'll be wrong about TB. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised here. Let's just see.
"And at that point, you have to wonder, well, was this work journalistic? Or was this very much editorialized? Is this actually agenda-driven punditry? Is this demagoguery? And you could argue that, actually, yes it is."
Well, if one is a GamerGate-supporting, misogynistic asshole, then yes, of course it is. No shit, Sherlock. It's subjective opinionated bullshit to be completely ignored and dismissed out of hand, or otherwise to have the Wrath o' God brought down upon, or so one such described person might very well believe. Just to be crystal clear here, I don't believe that at all.
"But simultaneously, you can also make the argument that there are plenty of other places to find interviews about game mechanics and the design of the title that are not necessarily agenda-driven, and that agenda-driven commentary can actually have value as part of the conversation. It can add a different perspective."
Yes. Yes it can. But try telling that to a typical GamerGate-supporting, misogynistic asshole, and you're likely to get a death/rape threat or be doxxed for your trouble. Not to say that all GamerGate supporters are that way, mind you. No sir. Not All GamerGaters. Anyway, I find it somewhat disingenuous that TotalBiscuit says that you can make that argument, because why do I get the feeling that he's not going to make that argument but instead fly into a rant about the particular interview in question? (EDIT 1, made before even actually posting) To be fair, he kind of does go more into that argument way farther down there, and good on him for doing so, but he also flies into a five minute rant about the particular interview in question just below here, so... yeah. Go figure. (/EDIT 1)
"Now I think there's a very clear distinction between saying 'You should not have asked that question in the first place,' and 'Hey, that question was unfairly loaded.' Here's what the question actually said: 'You have some interesting alternate outfits for heroes. Roller Derby Nova especially caught my eye. On its own that's totally fine. Just a silly goofy thing. A one-off. But it got me thinking about how often MOBAs tend to hyper-sexualize female characters to a generally preposterous degree. That is to say, make it the norm, not a one-off at all. And Starcraft's own interesting focus choices of late, how are you planning to approach all of that in Heroes?'"
Now I don't see anything wrong with that question. It's a bit of an ambush, sure, but it's definitely no "Do you think that you're a pathological liar?" It's a fair question. I looked up Roller Derby Nova and, while not the absolute worst example of hyper-sexualization of female characters in video games that I've ever seen, it's not great either. As such, using that as a lead-in, I think it is indeed a fair question. Let me guess, though, that TotalBiscuit does in fact see something wrong with it.
"Now I feel that that question was loaded. The idea that MOBAs hyper-sexualize... he's claiming that there is a tendency in MOBA games to hyper-sexualize female characters. Now I, having played a lot of MOBA games, would say that that is not necessarily true."
Welp, he's got me there. Since I'd just about rather take a claw hammer to the eyeballs than to play any MOBA games at all, there's no real way for me to counter that claim. He could even be right, and I wouldn't know. It's TotalBiscuit's word against Nathan Grayson's. (EDIT 1, made before even actually posting) Or I could have just looked up each individual female hero via wikia and DuckDuckGo search like I did down below. Yeah. (/EDIT 1)
"I would say that League of Legends does quite a bit of it."
So Mr. Grayson's claim is at least partially true. Okay.
"But DOTA 2 really doesn't do a lot of it at all."
Doesn't do a lot of it at all. But... it does do it. That's the implication I take away from TB's statement there, anyway.
"At last count, DOTA 2 has 16 female characters, and I think the only character you could argue was hyper-sexualized was the Queen of Pain. I think you could successfully argue that the sexual element of that character and the BDSM implications involved in the Queen of Pain are necessary to define that character in the first place. I don't think that that character is unnecessarily sexualized. I believe she is sexualized for a good reason, because she is a more sexual character. The other 15 female heroes within DOTA 2 don't seem to have anything of that going on at all, they're all reasonably dressed, they don't run around with bikini alternate skins and they're all perfectly viable characters within their own right."
Okay, for reference, here is Akasha, the Queen of Pain (because I'm sure this character was vital to the artistic integrity of DOTA 2 and it would have been shot all to shit had they left this character out of the game, I'm sure). Also for reference, via DuckDuckGo Image search via the DOTA 2 wikia page, here are the other female heroes in DOTA 2, or at least the ones that are obviously humanoid in appearance, anyway. Rylai, the Crystal Maiden. Aiushtha, the Enchantress. Mirana, the Priestess of the Moon. Traxex, the Drow Ranger. Lina Inverse, the Slayer. Shendelzare Silkwood, the Vengeful Spirit. WindRanger/Alleria, the Windrunner (because the DOTA 2 wiki wasn't clear on what the name of this character actually was). Legion Commander. Luna Moonfang, the Moon Rider. Lanaya, the Templar Assassin. Slithice, the Naga Siren. Krobelus, the Death Prophet. Mortred, the Phantom Assassin. I leave it entirely as an exercise to the reader to determine whether they find these characters to be hyper-sexualized or not, as that is a completely subjective thing and just because TotalBiscuit says they aren't, doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't. Personally, I find way more than just that one character to be rather sexualized (i.e. skimpy armor, boob windows, excessive cleavage, and that sort of thing), but again, it's a subjective thing. Nathan Grayson thinks they are. TotalBiscuit thinks they aren't. I think some of them are indeed worse than others, so I'm probably somewhere between the two. It's as simple as that. Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one and they all stink. Again, this would probably be another good stopping point, but I'm going to forge ahead regardless. We're getting dangerously into inordinate minutiae to argue whether a specific character is or is not hyper-sexualized, losing sight of the overall (which might, of course, have been TB's intention all along).
"It's also difficult to find hyper-sexualized female characters in abundance in titles like Dawngate or Strife."
Yeah... no, I'm not even going to pretend to look up a list of female characters in every MOBA game ever just to see if TB's talking out of his ass or not. Another exercise for the reader, perhaps.
"Though you could argue that Smite tends to do it quite a bit, though they do have a historical basis for doing so."
Oh, of course they do. I'm sure.
"Goddesses in ancient history were frequently sexualized to ludicrous degrees. It was simply part of the culture and the history surrounding them. It was part of the mythology."
Yeah. And it's a good thing we still live in that culture today, so as to make that relevant in a discussion about video games using those characters. In any case, I'll just leave this here and let you make your own determinations.
"The point I think to take away from it is that, in fact, most MOBA titles do not hyper-sexualize female characters..."
A "fact" that I would probably argue is not actually a "fact" at all, but merely TotalBiscuit's opinion.
"...and that that question was loaded as a direct result of that."
Again, I found the question, as quoted by TotalBiscuit above, to be mostly fine. Again, that's merely a matter of differing opinion, and not a matter of "fact" as TB seems to imply.
"But did he have the right to ask it? Well, he did. I just didn't think he asked in the right kind of way."
Whew. Man, I have to say, this is starting to get really tedious, and I'm not even halfway through yet. *weary sigh*
"I would love to have a discussion about character design. I think that could have turned into one. And yet, it didn't, because it was so agenda-driven. And that's the real problem."
Yeah, that is the real problem. It didn't become a discussion about character design, true enough, but it isn't because Nathan Grayson asked the question "wrong" or whatever. No, the reason it didn't become a discussion about character design, is because in the aftermath the whole goddamn thing was highjacked into a tedious, never-ending "discussion" about "agenda-driven" this and "rampant feminist conspiracy" that and about how "SJW"s are the devil or whatever and rape/death threats, precisely because of a bunch of GamerGate-supporting, misogynistic assholes.
"When you go into an interview, and you have a predefined mindset, then it's going to color everything that you say."
In other news, when you go into a critique of said interview, and you have a predefined (Gamergate-supporting, misogynistic asshole) mindset, then it's also going to color everything that you say.
"And at that point, it crosses over from being journalistic into the realm of being op-ed, editorial, and in the worst cases, propaganda for a particular cause."
*weary sigh* Yeah, he's really skirting around the issue and trying his absolute damndest to avoid saying the word "feminism," for whatever reason.
"Now the question you then have to ask is whether or not it's simply due to malice or stupidity that this thing blew up."
It can't be both? "Malice and stupidity" are both incredibly accurate descriptors for GamerGate, after all.
"I would argue that it was a badly worded question, and it's the sort of thing that a good journalist would avoid doing. I think you can ask those questions and not word them incorrectly."
Again, the opinion that the question was worded "incorrectly" is just that, TotalBiscuit's opinion. Yes, it might be shared by a bunch of other GamerGate-supporting, misogynistic assholes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is mere opinion.
"You can also not continue to badger the interviewee with this particular topic. The follow up question both condemned the comic industry..."
What's TotalBiscuit's point here? The comics industry is fucking infamous for hyper-sexualizing female characters. Is he trying to claim that they somehow aren't? Also, Mr. Grayson wasn't "badgering" the interviewee, he was following up on a specific point that the interviewee himself brought up concerning comic books. Are we even referring to the same interview here at this point? Fuck, here is the full answer to Mr. Grayson's full question, which was quoted by TotalBiscuit above: "Well, I mean, some of these characters, I would argue, are already hyper-sexualized in a sense. I mean, Kerrigan is wearing heels, right? We're not sending a message to anybody. We're just making characters who look cool. Our sensibilities are more comic book than anything else. That's sort of where we're at. But I'll take the feedback. I think it's very fair feedback." The Blizzard guy fucking acknowledged that their characters were hyper-sexualized. It's right there, in print. The Blizzard guy also said it's "very fair feedback," and I agree with that. And yet, there's TotalBiscuit, on his white horse, defending Blizzard's honor against the evil Nathan Grayson. Goddamn, I'm still only 12 minutes into this 28 minute fucking thing. *facepalm*
"...and then claimed that 'The goal is to let people have fun in an environment where they can feel awesome without being weirded out or even objectified. This is a genre about empowerment. Why shouldn't everyone feel empowered? That's what it's about at the end of the day: letting everyone have a fair chance to feel awesome.'"
That sounds like a laudable goal to me. Maybe I'm just crazy, though. TotalBiscuit has a problem with this goal? Let's find out.
(To be continued in Part 2.)