Sign in to follow this  
suejak

Twitter Tim: Amazing

Recommended Posts

I hope everyone has checked out Tim's Twitter over the past week or so. As you probably know, it absolutely exploded after Tim linked to an Anita Sarkeesian video with a positive recommendation.

For some reason, he got targeted hard for this and spent the next week fending off various kinds of people vaguely or directly associated with the #gamergate hashtag. These people ranged the gamut from misogynists to anti-corruption-in-journalism types -- a real hodgepodge of issues glumped together in a confusing real-time stream of anger, hatred, 4chan gifs, loooots of anime, and claims of feminist misandry/harassment.

Tim was going hard on Twitter for hours every day, responding to what seemed like the vast majority of tweets he got.

I just want to say that as a guy who has given Tim and Double Fine a rough time over the past year or so, Tim really blew me away on Twitter. I'm not the most consistent guy in the world, but I am a strong supporter of Anita Sarkeesian. The truth is that I had never heard of her before Tim tweeted the video that had him fending off wolves for the rest of the week. So I'm not only grateful to him for having spread her insightful commentaries to me (and I guess other people too) on Twitter, but really moved by his tenacity and poise in the face of such a flood of feedback, occasionally bizarre in its cruelty. (For example, several dozens of people said they had lost all respect for Tim, others said they would never buy his games ever again, and still others disparaged his career, appearance, and life.)

I think the reasons Tim was attacked are complex and varied, and not all of his critics were horrible people. Everyone had their own narrative and their own interpretation of every argument. Regardless, all I want to say is that I was really won over. I wish I had saved more of the best Tim tweets, but here are some good ones:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Suejak. Can't say I've seen you in the off-topic area before. I was very impressed with him during that whole situation, too.

I also liked the tweet he did after the recent earthquake out in Cali that was pretty serious, where he remarked on all the things in his house that were affected by the earthquake, which included something like one broken lunchbox and some items in the kitchen shifted out of place. Some guy accused him of being an inconsiderate a***hole to people who were more seriously affected, to which he simply responded:

"Hi. Please unfollow me."

I thought that was great. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I'm feeling some serious 2nd-hand embarassment from all these angry hypersnerds taking a swipt at Tim in the name of """a good cause"""

Way to go to Tim for shutting these guys down. I REALLY love the ones where crowd of angry hypersnerds are trying to discredit the budget and spending for BA and Tim just calmly goes "Well yeah, if you do the math it all adds up, with a little rounding here and there" to every question. And they just don't come back after that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my favorite response was when someone told him to kill himself and he said "Not until I see the end of Game of Thrones!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just too old, but I find Twitter "discussions" incredibly confusing and hard to follow. Can someone make, like, a best of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I'm just too old, but I find Twitter "discussions" incredibly confusing and hard to follow. Can someone make, like, a best of?

...or just explain how the damn thing works? ;)

I can echo the original post - in having given Tim a really hard time in practically all my online communities (re. budget explosion). But it was great to see that he got into this and wasn't afraid to answer to people who would rather draw the discussion to the lowest possible level, link to "rebuttal" videos without ever watching or even understanding Sarkeesian's original videos.

And the basic concept is so easy to grasp - "enjoy games at will, but use your brain as well". Essentially, Sarkeesian is a video game reviewer with a focus on gender inequality. That's all there is to it. That's all this series 'means'. Compare that to all the hate poured over the simple raising of a finger, all those insinuations of an agenda, of dishonesty, of preaching values she herself supposedly doesn't have. And of course all those desperate attempts at classifying Sarkeesian as "not a gamer" - as if that label was a badge you only earn in decades of hard work. You wouldn't insinuate that a movie reviewer doesn't watch movies, but insinuating that a (certainly somewhat knowledgeable) game reviewer doesn't play games, or not enough games, or not the right games, that seems to be an argument today.

I can only hope that Tim continues that path and will link to every single past and future Tropes vs. Women video.

I have my quarrels with some of the earlier TvW videos and the way Sarkeesian started the series, but particularly the last two parter drives pretty irrefutable points home. Sure, there's not much wrong with consuming the media uncritically - and in fact I'd rather the people who are set on "hating off" valid criticism of the medium would just not enter the debate and continue to consume without context. But creating games without thinking about these questions, that just won't do.

The series struck me as somewhat odd at first because I, too, felt part one to be a bit of an attack on beloved vintage games - i.e. my childhood. That wasn't what she was after, Nintendo nerd that she was back when she was a kid. I'm still not an unconditional "supporter" of Sarkeesian's series, but I am usually perceived as such in discussions I enter, because people would rather debate Sarkeesian as a person than the actual content of those videos. So I end up setting basic rules that need to be met for her to talk about video games (a right e.g. every single person on this forum has without a background check, isn't that incredible?). And that's just a bullshit waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so people are still taking twitter posts serious. Sad times.

Oh of course they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a lot more clever and brave than I am. I've been the focus of internet hate more than once, and my default for such situations is just to ignore and move on (except in two cases where I confronted the individuals in question because I was being cyberstalked).

The internet can be a really creepy place sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...or just explain how the damn thing works? ;)

Nah, it'll blow over in 5 years tops.

I have a basic idea of how it works, it's just that it's kind of a mess, like the new Telltale for.. community thingy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so people are still taking twitter posts serious. Sad times.
I don't see how it's any more or less serious than forum posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I noticed the hate directed at him too. In fact, when the tropes vs women kickstarter was going on, he tweeted his support and was harassed about it at the time as well (somewhere on Off Topic I posted captures of the conversations) by some clearly confused individuals. He's a really, really cool dude. Also, yeah, really quick. I think if I had insults/accusations hurled at me I'd curl up in a ball and wait for it to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still confused why her videos get so much support when she loads them up with dozens of factual inaccuracies and a healthy amount of bias. Among the more ridiculous of her claims is that the entire point of Hitman Absolution's strip club level was to abuse, murder and degrade women, even though the game actively punishes you for those actions. Not that there isn't a point to be made on the subject, but making the point by saying things that are blatantly false, cherry picking things that make your point while avoiding anything that goes against it, and misleading people is not exactly a helpful approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because she gets so much hate just for making Youtube videos. No, scratch that, just for planning to make Youtube videos.

Also, she's pretty much the only game in town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, is this thread going to turn into a debate about Anita? lol

It's so ridiculous to me that people get angry at her. It's mind-blowing.

People compare her to Jack Thompson, for example. Jack Thompson was suing people, man! He was actually trying to bring companies down and impose laws. He was suing for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages because he claimed GTA made some people murder other people.

Anita is literally simply presenting a dispassionate analysis on YouTube. It doesn't even matter if it's right or wrong, fair or unfair, whether she's a gamer or not. What matters is that she makes a levelheaded, academic argument purely for its own sake. No lawsuits, no laws. She isn't saying gamers are sick and diseased. She's simply analyzing video games.

The world could use more of that in every field, especially artistic ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol silly anita

just give the games 10/10 A+ lik everone else

...Seriously, most game reviewing is pointless because every review just says the same shit. People wonder why and it's because the moment anyone dares to have a different opinion than the "right" one, they get jumped on and murdered by the internet. And then people complain why we have shitty games that are just the same thing over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the new Godwin's law. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a debate involving Sarkeesian approaches 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's so ridiculous to me that people get angry at her. It's mind-blowing.

Many people get angry when something is being willfully misrepresented for profit. Do you know how mad Glenn Beck makes people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Jack Thompson was a completely different kind of crazy. He threatened to sue people for breaking laws that didn't actually exist, explained how video games were violent by making up video games that didn't actually exist, and when people tried to take him to task for these things, he threatened to sue them for libel and other such nonsense.

In short, Jack Thompson was the lawyer equivalent of police brutality.

If you never saw the Penny Arcade exchange from like a decade ago (or whenever it happened) that ultimately resulted in Jack Thompson finally getting disbarred so that he can't practice any more, you should try to look for it. It was one of PA's greatest moments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so ridiculous to me that people get angry at her. It's mind-blowing.

It is. It's both mindblowing and completely expected at the same time. My take on it: people are afraid to start thinking about things that they're comfortable with. They like games the way they are, and don't want anyone to mess around with it. She's right wrong, because it's the easiest explanation. All the discussions on the internet seem to boil down to being right or wrong, when it very often should just be "can we do better?". I really don't think Anita is right in every single point she makes, but her videos are still great as food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still confused why her videos get so much support

That puzzle's been solved long ago. Jim Sterling has a nice video on that issue. Short version: It's the haters' fault. Indeed, if a thousand lowlife idiots hadn't massively insulted, harrassed and threatened Sarkeesian before any argument was made, just for daring to announce such a series on Kickstarter, the whole video series would never have generated much awareness, and Sarkeesian would probably still be stuck with making videos in her free time. We would not know the name. And I guess Sarkeesian would have preferred that.

Among the more ridiculous of her claims is that the entire point of Hitman Absolution's strip club level was to abuse, murder and degrade women, even though the game actively punishes you for those actions.

You misrepresent the points made by Sarkeesian. Law of the playground: Either ignore it or use the tools in the sand. The ONLY thing you can do with the strippers is to abuse, murder and degrade. And before the reverse sexism "point" is made - nope, there probably isn't an equally sexually charged scene in Hitman involving dead men in lingerie. OF COURSE the player is encouraged to use the mechanics provided, and that argument would persist even if dragging the dead sexualized bodies through the room and putting them in a dumpster would actually not get you a considerable amount of those "lost points" back.

making the point by saying things that are blatantly false

If Sarkeesian has said things that are "blatantly" false, they weren't necessarily the ones she made her points with.

cherry picking things that make your point while avoiding anything that goes against it

The series is called "Tropes vs. Women". Sarkeesian uses the data that matches her object of investigation. It's a scientific approach.

Sarkeesian is just about as "misleading" as a book or movie reviewer who points out some flaws in a franchise you happen to like. The facts are in the footage; it's the classification of those facts that may be challenged by people who have actually seen these videos in full. The discussion among gamers usually never reaches that intellectual height. With the prevailing core conspiracy belief that people are "misled" or even "lied" to by Sarkeesian (suggesting an agenda, which is bullshit), a sensible discussion about the classification schemes is impossible because the basis for discussion is corrupt.

Sure, if I made a documentary about total surveillance, I could take a trip to Sweden and tell people that everything's all right under the sun. But the "cherry picked" points would be made in the US, the UK and in Germany. Looking elsewhere means loosing the focus.

If you are so desperate for games, scenes and examples that may show that there's light at the end of the tunnel, hang in there. According to the TvW Kickstarter, there is at least one [entire] video reserved for that at the end of the series. But it must be understood that by showing games which possibly get it right, the questions raised by Sarkeesian are still extremely valid questions to be asked.

Among them the really simple one: Do we really need provocatively posed half naked women's corpses spread throughout our games to get a little bad boy sexual jolt out of them?

Imma go with "no" here.

Anita is literally simply presenting a dispassionate analysis on YouTube. It doesn't even matter if it's right or wrong, fair or unfair, whether she's a gamer or not. What matters is that she makes a levelheaded, academic argument purely for its own sake. No lawsuits, no laws. She isn't saying gamers are sick and diseased. She's simply analyzing video games.

That's the only relevant thing, yes. And, really, what could her "agenda" look like? As if youtube videos changed the world. Neither does Anita Sarkeesian sue anyone, nor is she the new Upton Sinclair (that would be yesterday's "Social Justice Warrior"). She knows that the dispassionate, merely educational approach is the only thing that may actually help her evaluations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's so ridiculous to me that people get angry at her. It's mind-blowing.

Many people get angry when something is being willfully misrepresented for profit. Do you know how mad Glenn Beck makes people?

So... you're saying that everything is cool with women in video games? You'd be okay with your mom sitting beside you while you play Hitman Absolution and you'd be able to explain why it's important to the art of the genre why there's all these strippers?

...Okay.

Trust me, though. I had a hard time explaining to my mom why She-Hulk was awesome. She was too hung up on the swimsuit and how degrading it was. And She-Hulk is kinda designed to be a female power fantasy. So I wouldn't be too quick to answer this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so weird about the "misrepresentation of Hitman" thing that all of these people bring up is not only that it's a single short example among several dozen provided, but that it's not even true that the game discourages you from exploring the mechanics with the strippers' bodies. You can incapacitate civilians (as in the Anita video) for no penalty, as "the subdue ability (performed by taking down an enemy from behind while unarmed) [causes a] minor score penalty [that] is completely negated if you hide the body." (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/11/19/a-beginner-39-s-guide-to-hitman-absolution.aspx)

Actively discouraged from taking out civilians, huh? Sounds like you're encouraged to explore the mechanics, as Anita says, and to discover that knocking out the strippers, then dumping their lingere-clad bodies into a trunk (which Anita also does in the video), will rid you of them without any penalty at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You misrepresent the points made by Sarkeesian. Law of the playground: Either ignore it or use the tools in the sand. The ONLY thing you can do with the strippers is to abuse, murder and degrade. And before the reverse sexism "point" is made - nope, there probably isn't an equally sexually charged scene in Hitman involving dead men in lingerie. OF COURSE the player is encouraged to use the mechanics provided, and that argument would persist even if dragging the dead sexualized bodies through the room and putting them in a dumpster would actually not get you a considerable amount of those "lost points" back.

The objective of the game isn't to randomly murder civilians. The game penalizes you for doing so. Doing so makes completing your missions more difficult. "Abuse, murder and degrade" isn't the ONLY thing you can do with them. You can approach them, and have them freak out that some weird guy just charged into their dressing room. You can avoid them (you know, like the game has been teaching and encouraging you to do the entire time, and is the intended interaction, considering they have a long conversation unless you interrupt them). Just because you CAN murder civilians and drag their bodies around doesn't mean the game is ENCOURAGING it, and the fact that you can do this to literally every other human in the game means that the mechanics weren't created solely for degrading women, like she strongly implies. That's why she's being misleading, and that's why it's hard to take much of what she says seriously.

What's so weird about the "misrepresentation of Hitman" thing that all of these people bring up is not only that it's a single short example among several dozen provided, but that it's not even true that the game discourages you from exploring the mechanics with the strippers' bodies. You can incapacitate civilians (as in the Anita video) for no penalty, as "the subdue ability (performed by taking down an enemy from behind while unarmed) [causes a] minor score penalty [that] is completely negated if you hide the body." (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/11/19/a-beginner-39-s-guide-to-hitman-absolution.aspx)

Actively discouraged from taking out civilians, huh? Sounds like you're encouraged to explore the mechanics, as Anita says, and to discover that knocking out the strippers, then dumping their lingere-clad bodies into a trunk (which Anita also does in the video), will rid you of them without any penalty at all.

You lose a huge amount of points for killing them, and you can't get those back.

"Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal, connected to the act of controlling and punishing a representations of female sexuality." <- This is why I don't take her seriously. She makes insane assumptions in rapid fire with absolutely no supporting evidence other than her own opinion/interpretation.

I wrote a bunch of other stuff, but I deleted it out because I'm tired of getting viciously jumped on any time I disagree with her, anywhere. I just wish her "academic assessments" also included any form of context, but she is genuinely more interested in sensationalism for the purpose of self-profit than objectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't seem to understand. She doesn't kill them, nor is she talking about killing them per se. She's talking about desecrating their bodies.

In the video, she literally knocks them out and puts them in a trunk for 0 points lost. Watch it. I don't get why these "hardcore gamers" know less about this game than both me (who's never played it) and Anita (who's "a fake gamer out to steal your moneys.").

Anyway, your absolutely wrong point about disincentives aside, she's making an argument. You might be familiar with this practice. You have an opinion, and you say it. You show some examples, and you give your opinion on those examples. I dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't seem to understand. She doesn't kill them, nor is she talking about killing them per se. She's talking about desecrating their bodies.

In the video, she literally knocks them out and puts them in a trunk for 0 points lost. Watch it. I don't get why these "hardcore gamers" know less about this game than both me (who's never played it) and Anita (who's "a fake gamer out to steal your moneys.").

Anyway, your absolutely wrong point about disincentives aside, she's making an argument. You might be familiar with this practice. You have an opinion, and you say it. You show some examples, and you give your opinion on those examples. I dunno.

It's a lost art. Like the true meaning of Freedom of Speech and Devil's Advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't seem to understand. She doesn't kill them, nor is she talking about killing them per se. She's talking about desecrating their bodies.

In the video, she literally knocks them out and puts them in a trunk for 0 points lost. Watch it. I don't get why these "hardcore gamers" know less about this game than both me (who's never played it) and Anita (who's "a fake gamer out to steal your moneys.").

Anyway, your absolutely wrong point about disincentives aside, she's making an argument. You might be familiar with this practice. You have an opinion, and you say it. You show some examples, and you give your opinion on those examples. I dunno.

"Desecrating" is almost universally used in reference to corpses, tombs, or burial sites. It heavily implies killing.

The game actively wants you to avoid hurting, and especially killing, civilians, and having to carry their bodies around and hide them is an annoying inconvenience at best, and leads to you being detected by an enemy at worst. For me (and just about everyone who played the game), an inconvenience is enough disincentive to not even consider knocking them out a good idea. There's literally no reason to do it unless you're really stupid or really deranged. The fact that she seems to think the scene was tailor made so that every single gamer would go and indulge in knocking out and enjoying the twisted perversion of violating the strippers and stuffing them into dumpsters while caressing some kind of colossal misogyny boner is simply moronic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead of acknowledging that you (and many, many others) were actually wrong about a) Anita killing the women, and b) Hitman's 0 point penalty for beating the women up and dragging their bodies around, you decide it's best to c) misunderstand the nuance of the word "desecrate," and d) claim that the game still discourages you because there's "no reason" to hurt the women?

Have you ever shot or hurt a prostitute or stripper in a video game? If so, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this