5 ms·

As opposed as I am to the constant infusion of politics into media (and I'm quite opposed to it) this also seems pretty bad. Why restrict the streamers? More im

As opposed as I am to the constant infusion of politics into media (and I'm quite opposed to it) this also seems pretty bad. Why restrict the streamers? More importantly, why would any streamer listen to a video game developer? Literally nothing is at stake.

AlexandrB 2y ago
> More importantly, why would any streamer listen to a video game developer? Literally nothing is at stake. Getting early access to the next game is at stake. It's the same "access journalism" playbook gaming companies have always run.
KingMob 2y ago
What's at stake is the reputation of developer Game Science, which isn't great atm. There was an exposé a year ago (https://www.ign.com/articles/how-black-myth-wukong-developers-history-of-sexism-is-complicating-its-journey-to-the-west https://www.ign.com/articles/how-black-myth-wukong-developer...) for leaked documents revealing sexism, misogyny, talking about genitals, etc. Apparently the lead creator is prone to saying stuff on social media, like "I want to expand my circle and hire more people, get licked until I can’t get an erection."
- mjburgess 2y ago
  Those are gross mistranslations, and that article has been widely pilloried as yellow journalism. The "reputation" of games companies is something these games journalists use as "protection racket" strategy -- whereby they obtain access/credibility/etc. by "protecting" the reputation of the companies for which they otherwise concoct accusations. The strategy is a common media tactic today: 1) find some way of drumming up an accusation; 2) demand an apology "on behalf of" some group involved in your attack; 3) thereby centre yourself as the important arbiter of online drama; 4) profit from views/access journalism/etc. The only counter-strategy to this is to ignore it.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    Widely pilloried by Mark Kern, and really only Mark. Every followup article points back to them, or the single reddit comment he uses as his source. Mark is not someone I'd trust to be even handed when it comes to people being sexist or not. There have been China based news outlets who have remarked how sexist the statements were. Plus, he conveniently ignores the statement which isn't so easily misconstrued, where the developer claims Black Myth Wukong isn't for women, since they aren't good enough and should stick to sims games.
- bitcharmer 2y ago
  You're either doing this in bad faith or allowed yourself to be played by gaming "journalists". This is a gross mistranslation of Chinese idioms.
multimoon 2y ago
Politics and forced messaging has wormed its way into every aspect of life - I’ll never not be okay with removing it from one of those aspects.
Spivak 2y ago
[flagged]
- everdrive 2y ago
  There's a pretty clear distinction between the following scenarios: - A work of art contains political and social messages, not in the least because it's impossible for any author to wholly avoid coloring their work with political or social viewpoints. The author's experience and ideas do not exist in a vacuum, and will necessarily be a product of their time and environment. vs. - A work of art was primarily conceived to push specific political messages, and the actual "art" takes a clear back seat to the specific moral, political, or social messages being conveyed. vs. - A work of art cannot get funding unless it bends the knee to an outside group of ideologues who modify the work of art so that it specially conforms to the "correct" social values.
  - fuzzbazz 2y ago
    Please can we rollback everything to scenario #1 already? I'm starting to think that #2 and #3 are actively counter-productive and the pendulum is going to swing back too hard.
    - zer8k 2y ago
      2 and 3 are and always have been counter-productive. You’re some kind of -cist or -phobe if you don’t want to listen. Normal people have normal people problems. Normal well-adjusted people don’t want to go to the movies, play video games, go to work, go outside and be constantly bombarded with what the “correct” viewpoint should be. The group preaching tolerance seems to always tend towards moral panic and intolerance. The ship on changing the pendulum back to the average has sailed. A lot of people who’d normally be amicable to listening have been run off by the impossible constantly changing moral standards of the group pushing 3. It’s gone from “good to know” to propagandizing. People just want entertainment that doesn’t make them feel horrible. People want to be entertained without the feeling certain aspects of some movie/video game/music only exist to “convey the message”.
nzach 2y ago
This only applies to streamers who got the game for free. I think this is a bad practice, but it's an already well established practice with 'review outlets'. I remember seeing a yt video a while ago where a reviewer talked about the review embargo they received for some tech gadget(phone?) and how ridiculous it was. But in the end if they wanted to publish a video on lauch day the only option they had was to play ball with these rules.
bathtub365 2y ago
Streamers may receive the game for free, early, or be paid by publishers in exchange for coverage

AlexandrB 2y ago

> More importantly, why would any streamer listen to a video game developer? Literally nothing is at stake. Getting early access to the next game is at stake. It's the same "access journalism" playbook gaming companies have always run.

KingMob 2y ago

What's at stake is the reputation of developer Game Science, which isn't great atm. There was an exposé a year ago (https://www.ign.com/articles/how-black-myth-wukong-developers-history-of-sexism-is-complicating-its-journey-to-the-west https://www.ign.com/articles/how-black-myth-wukong-developer...) for leaked documents revealing sexism, misogyny, talking about genitals, etc. Apparently the lead creator is prone to saying stuff on social media, like "I want to expand my circle and hire more people, get licked until I can’t get an erection."

mjburgess 2y ago
Those are gross mistranslations, and that article has been widely pilloried as yellow journalism. The "reputation" of games companies is something these games journalists use as "protection racket" strategy -- whereby they obtain access/credibility/etc. by "protecting" the reputation of the companies for which they otherwise concoct accusations. The strategy is a common media tactic today: 1) find some way of drumming up an accusation; 2) demand an apology "on behalf of" some group involved in your attack; 3) thereby centre yourself as the important arbiter of online drama; 4) profit from views/access journalism/etc. The only counter-strategy to this is to ignore it.
- falcolas 2y ago
  Widely pilloried by Mark Kern, and really only Mark. Every followup article points back to them, or the single reddit comment he uses as his source. Mark is not someone I'd trust to be even handed when it comes to people being sexist or not. There have been China based news outlets who have remarked how sexist the statements were. Plus, he conveniently ignores the statement which isn't so easily misconstrued, where the developer claims Black Myth Wukong isn't for women, since they aren't good enough and should stick to sims games.
bitcharmer 2y ago
You're either doing this in bad faith or allowed yourself to be played by gaming "journalists". This is a gross mistranslation of Chinese idioms.

multimoon 2y ago

Politics and forced messaging has wormed its way into every aspect of life - I’ll never not be okay with removing it from one of those aspects.

Spivak 2y ago

[flagged]

everdrive 2y ago
There's a pretty clear distinction between the following scenarios: - A work of art contains political and social messages, not in the least because it's impossible for any author to wholly avoid coloring their work with political or social viewpoints. The author's experience and ideas do not exist in a vacuum, and will necessarily be a product of their time and environment. vs. - A work of art was primarily conceived to push specific political messages, and the actual "art" takes a clear back seat to the specific moral, political, or social messages being conveyed. vs. - A work of art cannot get funding unless it bends the knee to an outside group of ideologues who modify the work of art so that it specially conforms to the "correct" social values.
- fuzzbazz 2y ago
  Please can we rollback everything to scenario #1 already? I'm starting to think that #2 and #3 are actively counter-productive and the pendulum is going to swing back too hard.
  - zer8k 2y ago
    2 and 3 are and always have been counter-productive. You’re some kind of -cist or -phobe if you don’t want to listen. Normal people have normal people problems. Normal well-adjusted people don’t want to go to the movies, play video games, go to work, go outside and be constantly bombarded with what the “correct” viewpoint should be. The group preaching tolerance seems to always tend towards moral panic and intolerance. The ship on changing the pendulum back to the average has sailed. A lot of people who’d normally be amicable to listening have been run off by the impossible constantly changing moral standards of the group pushing 3. It’s gone from “good to know” to propagandizing. People just want entertainment that doesn’t make them feel horrible. People want to be entertained without the feeling certain aspects of some movie/video game/music only exist to “convey the message”.

nzach 2y ago

This only applies to streamers who got the game for free. I think this is a bad practice, but it's an already well established practice with 'review outlets'. I remember seeing a yt video a while ago where a reviewer talked about the review embargo they received for some tech gadget(phone?) and how ridiculous it was. But in the end if they wanted to publish a video on lauch day the only option they had was to play ball with these rules.

bathtub365 2y ago

Streamers may receive the game for free, early, or be paid by publishers in exchange for coverage