5 ms·

They probably would have to get the permission of the engineer to name them publicly. With how the gaming community behaves on social media I wouldn't be surpri

by lwkl 1y ago

They probably would have to get the permission of the engineer to name them publicly. With how the gaming community behaves on social media I wouldn't be surprised if the engineer doesn't want that. Because that could mean death threats for you and your family the next time a subset of the community gets upset with your employer.

Paratoner 1y ago
Not sure why this is getting downvoted, you are absolutely correct. The unhinged weirdos are still a minority, but less and less ashamed of their own behavior online. No doubt that dev is better off remaining unnamed in this instance.
- mort96 1y ago
  Reminder that all of mid/late 2010s online politics was colored by one reviewer giving a favourable game review to a game that some people disliked.
  - bregma 1y ago
    > all of mid/late 2010s online politics was colored by one reviewer giving a favourable game review to a game that some people disliked That's kind of a twisted interpretation of events. It was coloured by one incel who though he owned the developer of a game and a whole lot of incels who sympathized because they too were owed a vagina by the ones who controlled them. Now it's spread to broader issues and higher levels of politics and is still going.
    - mort96 1y ago
      I remember the start of GamerGate well, it was all people screaming about "ethics in games journalism". But you're obviously right that that it wasn't really about ethics in games journalism, your description is probably a better reflection of the actual psychology of the people involved.
      - hnuser123456 1y ago
        And then there are people, gamers, who were actually just dismayed with the conflicts of interest that ran rampant in the orthodox "games journalism" space and didn't give two shits about the personal drama side of the story, although that's mostly solved by finding your favorite youtube reviewer. And those who were genuinely focused on improving discovery of good indie games were subjected to some pretty horrible commentary that completely missed the point. Now there are smaller dedicated publications or channels that actually do regularly (weekly/monthly) review a decent volume of new promising indie games to help discover standouts, but that turned out to be a niche that the existing publications didn't want to keep up with, and a niche that suddenly many people denied even existed, for some reason? People who can't contemplate that there are amazing passion projects out there to be discovered, I suppose because those people can't imagine actually working hard on something people would enjoy, because they would rather spend their time raining on others' parades instead. But it was too close of a tangent towards criticism of establishment journalism in general, so of course establishment journalism countered back with the only weapon it has, and suddenly the vast majority of people forgot any of it had to do with reviewing and promoting good indie video games. People who make indie games are not losers. People who want good games to be promoted are not losers. It is an art. It's not for everyone. People who just want to play the latest AAA sequel can stick to those. But if you've ever tried a niche indie game and been more impressed than you expected, you know it's art, and you'd want other people discovering and promoting the good ones, and talking about what makes them special.
        mort96 1y ago
        I am not going to re-litigate GamerGate here. There were people who were genuinely concerned about ethics in games journalism, sure. But it did not become the defining event in the online-political sphere of the mid/late '10s simply due to genuine concerns about ethics in games journalism.
        hnuser123456 1y ago
        Correct, because a large portion of the public has no idea what indie games are, or how the software industry works, but they know that angry nerds are funny.
    - akimbostrawman 1y ago
      No you are the one twisting it. It was about conflict of interest regardless how hard you try to throw around ad-hominems and rewrite history. A game reviewer should not be in sexual relationships with people selling games that get reviewed. I think anybody not ideologically captured would agree. I also find it tasteless to use the same rhetoric here as it was used back then to slander someone into suicide.
- dom96 1y ago
  They may be a minority but they are more empowered than ever. Both by the new owner of Twitter and the current politics in the US. It’s a shame that large companies like EA/Bethesda/Valve/etc don’t do more to fight against it, instead of cowering and leaving indie devs that are barely surviving to fend this off.
pilchard123 1y ago
Or even "it has a trivial bug/doesn't run as well as i think it should/insulted my home decor, you die now"

by lwkl 1y ago

Paratoner 1y ago

Not sure why this is getting downvoted, you are absolutely correct. The unhinged weirdos are still a minority, but less and less ashamed of their own behavior online. No doubt that dev is better off remaining unnamed in this instance.

mort96 1y ago
Reminder that all of mid/late 2010s online politics was colored by one reviewer giving a favourable game review to a game that some people disliked.
- bregma 1y ago
  > all of mid/late 2010s online politics was colored by one reviewer giving a favourable game review to a game that some people disliked That's kind of a twisted interpretation of events. It was coloured by one incel who though he owned the developer of a game and a whole lot of incels who sympathized because they too were owed a vagina by the ones who controlled them. Now it's spread to broader issues and higher levels of politics and is still going.
  - mort96 1y ago
    I remember the start of GamerGate well, it was all people screaming about "ethics in games journalism". But you're obviously right that that it wasn't really about ethics in games journalism, your description is probably a better reflection of the actual psychology of the people involved.
    - hnuser123456 1y ago
      And then there are people, gamers, who were actually just dismayed with the conflicts of interest that ran rampant in the orthodox "games journalism" space and didn't give two shits about the personal drama side of the story, although that's mostly solved by finding your favorite youtube reviewer. And those who were genuinely focused on improving discovery of good indie games were subjected to some pretty horrible commentary that completely missed the point. Now there are smaller dedicated publications or channels that actually do regularly (weekly/monthly) review a decent volume of new promising indie games to help discover standouts, but that turned out to be a niche that the existing publications didn't want to keep up with, and a niche that suddenly many people denied even existed, for some reason? People who can't contemplate that there are amazing passion projects out there to be discovered, I suppose because those people can't imagine actually working hard on something people would enjoy, because they would rather spend their time raining on others' parades instead. But it was too close of a tangent towards criticism of establishment journalism in general, so of course establishment journalism countered back with the only weapon it has, and suddenly the vast majority of people forgot any of it had to do with reviewing and promoting good indie video games. People who make indie games are not losers. People who want good games to be promoted are not losers. It is an art. It's not for everyone. People who just want to play the latest AAA sequel can stick to those. But if you've ever tried a niche indie game and been more impressed than you expected, you know it's art, and you'd want other people discovering and promoting the good ones, and talking about what makes them special.
      - mort96 1y ago
        I am not going to re-litigate GamerGate here. There were people who were genuinely concerned about ethics in games journalism, sure. But it did not become the defining event in the online-political sphere of the mid/late '10s simply due to genuine concerns about ethics in games journalism.
        hnuser123456 1y ago
        Correct, because a large portion of the public has no idea what indie games are, or how the software industry works, but they know that angry nerds are funny.
  - akimbostrawman 1y ago
    No you are the one twisting it. It was about conflict of interest regardless how hard you try to throw around ad-hominems and rewrite history. A game reviewer should not be in sexual relationships with people selling games that get reviewed. I think anybody not ideologically captured would agree. I also find it tasteless to use the same rhetoric here as it was used back then to slander someone into suicide.
dom96 1y ago
They may be a minority but they are more empowered than ever. Both by the new owner of Twitter and the current politics in the US. It’s a shame that large companies like EA/Bethesda/Valve/etc don’t do more to fight against it, instead of cowering and leaving indie devs that are barely surviving to fend this off.

pilchard123 1y ago

Or even "it has a trivial bug/doesn't run as well as i think it should/insulted my home decor, you die now"