I'm usually mashing reload after every shot anyway
But then
But then if you're taking a break to reload after a shot and the weapons are anywhere approaching balance then you're taking more time by reloading than if you were just waiting after laser bursts
Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel has a laser named after the ZF-1 from Fifth Element that fires homing lasers at whatever you hit first. You can hit dudes that are behind you.
Letter From the Editor 10/17/2014
by Jeff Gerstmann on October 17, 2014
The staff weighs in on recent events.
We’ve always been a site about different personalities. It’s something that we hope helps us reach as wide an audience as possible. Over the course of the last two months, we’ve seen some people take up arms and begin firing shots back and forth. As we’ve discussed our course of action, and whether this discussion belongs on a site that represents all of us, we’ve tried to respect the opinions of both the staff and our audience. It's been hard at times to watch our hobby, industry, friends, and fans be attacked and to watch many of them also go on the offensive. While the reasons for all this chaos may be diverse, there are clearly actions taking place that are reprehensible. We don’t want to turn the site into a political platform, but at the same time it’s important to be clear that we as a staff and a community will not tolerate abuse, no matter how strongly one’s passions run. We don’t feel we are addressing the offenders that have lashed out most savagely, claiming an agenda to give themselves clearance to continue harassment and attacks. They are not participants in this discussion, and serve only to inflame and frighten those of us who seek resolution. In the end, we’ve decided to speak directly to you, our fans and community. We’ve been talking about this a lot internally, and we believe Jeff’s following thoughts effectively capture what we’ve been feeling over the last few weeks. It has been a trying time, especially for those that have seen the worst of what the Internet can become. We hope through support, civil discussion, and reliance on both facts and empathy, we can heal, and then get back to building and expanding the thing we’re all passionate about: games.
- The Giant Bomb Staff
--
The last two months have felt like I've been staring at some kind of slow-motion car crash. Actually, has it only been two months? At this point, it's getting harder and harder to remember a time before Zoe Quinn's unlikely (and almost certainly unwanted) rise to prominence. How, exactly, did we jump from a group of knuckleheads bombing a Steam page for a game designed to, in its own way, help people better understand depression, to a hardened and politicized hate movement? How did we get from people arguing that Gone Home isn't a game to people harassing women in the video game industry while simultaneously claiming that they aren't? It's beyond the pale. And, preposterously, it's still happening. That might be the most shocking part of all.
Despite my name often being attached to the conspiratorial "gate" suffix, I've never been a big fan of the term. So when "GamerGate" rose up to cover over a campaign of harassment with a veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism, it more or less set off every single disgust alarm I have. Though I'm sure some good people have been roped into this mess under this guise, the ethical concern portion of all this is largely a farce, a fallacy. But the string-pullers at the core of this mess have managed to rope in some number of unsuspecting players who do, in fact, think that this thing starts and stops with outrage over perceived ethical violations in the game journalism industry. To those of you who have been led to believe that this is all about ethics in games journalism and not about the harassment of game developers, I'll say this up front.
You have every right to not believe a word I'm saying here.
I'm a man in the media business. I've been doing this since I was 16. I could sit here and defend my line of work, which I think is largely just and on the level, but if you're deep into the 'Gate, your only reaction will be to probably say "of course he would say that." That's fine. Some of you have been politicized so completely that this is just another "left vs. right" issue to you, and many of you are using the same language used in arguments over other hardened political issues. So keep on "rolling coal" on video games journalism if you think it's actually that corrupt. I'm not here to tell you what to do. But you might want to really look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're spending your time crusading for the right fight. That's all. Make sure this is the position you want to take and, more importantly, how you want that position to be represented. If you genuinely care about ethics in games journalism, GamerGate is not the spot for you. To some of them, "unethical" is being used as a synonym for "a viewpoint I don't agree with." That's not an ethics discussion. That's an attempt to silence criticism. Again, if you do care about ethics in games journalism, GamerGate is destroying your message.
I'm saddened to see the topic that has driven much of my career become so wholly co-opted for hate. Ultimately, that's a side note to the main event, of course. Having people toss all discussion about ethics in games journalism under a bus to hide politicized harassment campaigns is sad for me, but I'll be fine. Games? Game developers? That's what's actually at stake. I'm not sure what the actual end goal of GamerGate seems to be, but it seems to be somewhere between "destroy the careers of anyone who would make a game that falls outside of a certain-yet-unspecified scope and/or topic" and "let's burn it all down because it's fun to see how much trouble we can stir up."
But GamerGate is a speed bump for the video game industry, at best. It was already on its way to the back burner when a fresh crop of death threats whipped everyone back up into a frenzy. The core group of instigators will probably find another group to target, and they'll leave behind a big mess of harassment, hurt, half-truths, and twisted words. It'll be fascinating to see how video games--whether you consider that to be a community, a business, a profession, or a hotbed of increasingly political bickering--moves forward. Regardless of all that, the torrent of harassment being spewed forth needs to stop. I shouldn't need to say "hey, don't issue death threats" for people to understand that issuing death threats is a crappy thing to do, but that's where we're at.
In many ways, that's been the most frustrating part. To watch talented folks like Jenn Frank get pushed right up to a breaking point and for the rest of us to have nothing better to combat this with than "hey, I know you think you're waging some kind of holy war and solving some kind of real-world issue but stop this" feels like the most empty and toothless statement around. It's easy to feel helpless and I don't have a real solution to this. I'm not sure that there is one, honestly. GamerGate has created a group of people who speak in political terms and attack the people they disagree with in the same way a political action group would target someone speaking out against that group's specified cause. They talk in circles that feel like they're designed to waste as much time as possible, exhausting their target in the process.
I hate to present this as one side attacking another side when, at the end of the day, the video games that join this whole thing together makes this more of an "us versus us" sort of conflict. But some of the people falling on the "anti-" side of the GamerGate are employing the same sort of "you are with us or against us" mentality. As those people get more frantic, they also damage the message they're trying to express. Silence isn't complicity. Silence might also be not letting a campaign of hate and chaos be taken seriously by not giving it a place at the table. Now, from a distance, this whole topic looks like every other politicized media conspiracy, with two sides full of extremists and a bunch of people in the middle looking disillusioned by the whole debacle.
Continued success in the face of adversity is the best defense against those that would seek to derail you and mire you in endless arguments that they control, that they frame, and that they aren't actually trying to win. Regardless of your own personal politics, stop letting GamerGate be in your way. For some of you, obviously, that will be an incredible challenge. Some people are getting a lot of hateful garbage hurled their way. But to give in would be to further enable a collection of people who don't even know what they actually want other than to simply disrupt you as much as they possibly can. We can't let that happen. We have faith that video games and the people who make them will persevere.
- Jeff Gerstmann
GONG-00 on
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
God, that achievement in Portal 2. Absolute brilliance.
Which one?
probably the one where he kills you
)
Hmm I unlocked that back in April 2011. I can't remember it. Guess I'll have to play Portal 2 again!
It's one of my favorite kinds of joke done really well with great timing. It being one of the few times an achievement was tied into being part of the experience helped a lot as well.
Glados: "Well, this is the part where he kills us!"
Wheatly: "Hello! This is the part where I kill you!"
Chapter 9: The Part Where He Kills you
Achievement Unlocked: The Part Where He Kills You
Achievement Description: This is that part
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2014
Well that's extremely disappointing. Gamespot's is better, somewhat.
I think gamespot's is actually super weak, all they say is harassment is bad
At least Jeff calls out the 'ethics in journalism' aspect of gamergate as essentially a scam, even if it gets a bit lost in some train of thought stuff
I have a few concerns with some parts of the last couple of paragraphs (it's a great thought to not dignify the tornado of howling vitriol with a response but being able to do that is kinda a thing) but I'm really glad they posted this.
I think gamespot's is actually super weak, all they say is harassment is bad
At least Jeff calls out the 'ethics in journalism' aspect of gamergate as essentially a scam, even if it gets a bit lost in some train of thought stuff
He does a bit of both sides are bad, though. Neither of them are particularly great.
Is it just me, or is he also basically advocating "Ignore them and they'll eventually go away?"
Am I just reading it wrong?
I read that as more of a "people choosing to remain silent are not necessarily doing so because they side with the harassers or don't care, but because they don't won't to give the griefers any legitimacy or attention". You can argue as to whether that's an effective tactic or not, but it doesn't make the folks out there staying silent bad people who agree with the monsters out there.
i read that whole paragraph as "please stop harassing giant bomb because our initial stance was to not give this joke of a movement even a slight nod on our website"
I must be missing something because what I just read was a clear condemnation of Gamergate, and yet this is somehow disappointing?
Jeff spending a couple sentences to say that casting aspersions on others because they are wary of hurling themselves bodily into this shitfest, and then explaining exactly what GB's rationale was, is not wishy washy equivocating. I don't know how anyone's take away from that editorial can be "he's saying both sides are bad".
and to be perfectly frank, some people have fallen over themselves to shit on people who have shown even a hint of gamergate support
tube had to tell the entire indie games thread in se++ to stop embarrassing themselves by immediately dumping on a dude
it does not benefit ourselves to lose sight of the fact that an individual person is not all gamergate, and may be fully disconnected and ignorant from the reason the cause inspires bile in many people
Actually, I wonder if it's from being called out by Brianna Wu for being silent on the matter.
According to Patrick this was already in the works, which she obviously wasn't aware of (and she also didn't know it had been discussed on Bombin). It's cool now, and she actually left a short comment later in the thread.
God, that achievement in Portal 2. Absolute brilliance.
Which one?
probably the one where he kills you
)
Hmm I unlocked that back in April 2011. I can't remember it. Guess I'll have to play Portal 2 again!
It's one of my favorite kinds of joke done really well with great timing. It being one of the few times an achievement was tied into being part of the experience helped a lot as well.
Glados: "Well, this is the part where he kills us!"
Wheatly: "Hello! This is the part where I kill you!"
Chapter 9: The Part Where He Kills you
Achievement Unlocked: The Part Where He Kills You
Achievement Description: This is that part
My favorite like that is still the one from Assassin's Creed III. Just... absolutely perfectly done.
Forgive my ignorance on this, but I am still amazed the gamergate thing is still being talked about. From what I understand, a person named Zoe Quinn made a game. That person may have also had a romantic/sexual relationship with a few people who ended up reviewing said game. Several people noticed this and asked about this and some of the reviewers claimed they hadn't had that relationship with Zoe? (I am unclear on this) It was then revealed that the relationship had been real and thus indicates a bit of possible bias in that review, as typically reviewers shouldn't have intimate relationships with the thing they're reviewing if they mean to be objective. (Or at least objective enough, like GiantBomb.)
So the whole point of there being any sort of movement was to say "hey, corruption in journalism is bad, even in game journalism." But what actually happened was a massive number of idiots all tried to shout that message at once without any sort of cohesion which ended up turning into the actual GamerGate movement, born out of people shouting death threats and hate speech and anti-women things. So there is a good idea of not having corruption in journalism in there, but because of how it was initially created, the entire thing is tainted with dumbass internet trolls and anti-women fucknuts.
But boiled down, sleeping with people to get better scores for your game is a bad thing. Telling women they should go die and threatening to blow them up because they have a vagina and dared to speak is also a bad thing. Everyone should be able to agree on those two points, right? Am I missing some other detail that is making this such a huge deal?
Forgive my ignorance on this, but I am still amazed the gamergate thing is still being talked about. From what I understand, a person named Zoe Quinn made a game. That person may have also had a romantic/sexual relationship with a few people who ended up reviewing said game. Several people noticed this and asked about this and some of the reviewers claimed they hadn't had that relationship with Zoe? (I am unclear on this) It was then revealed that the relationship had been real and thus indicates a bit of possible bias in that review, as typically reviewers shouldn't have intimate relationships with the thing they're reviewing if they mean to be objective. (Or at least objective enough, like GiantBomb.)
So the whole point of there being any sort of movement was to say "hey, corruption in journalism is bad, even in game journalism." But what actually happened was a massive number of idiots all tried to shout that message at once without any sort of cohesion which ended up turning into the actual GamerGate movement, born out of people shouting death threats and hate speech and anti-women things. So there is a good idea of not having corruption in journalism in there, but because of how it was initially created, the entire thing is tainted with dumbass internet trolls and anti-women fucknuts.
But boiled down, sleeping with people to get better scores for your game is a bad thing. Telling women they should go die and threatening to blow them up because they have a vagina and dared to speak is also a bad thing. Everyone should be able to agree on those two points, right? Am I missing some other detail that is making this such a huge deal?
The harassment of women to the point of death threats and revealing home addresses and threatening university massacres?
Posts
But then
But then if you're taking a break to reload after a shot and the weapons are anywhere approaching balance then you're taking more time by reloading than if you were just waiting after laser bursts
GOTY
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
Steam
Which one?
probably the one where he kills you
Hmm I unlocked that back in April 2011. I can't remember it. Guess I'll have to play Portal 2 again!
I assumed we were talking about the end game one. (But that one's also nice.)
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
It's one of my favorite kinds of joke done really well with great timing. It being one of the few times an achievement was tied into being part of the experience helped a lot as well.
Wheatly: "Hello! This is the part where I kill you!"
Chapter 9: The Part Where He Kills you
Achievement Unlocked: The Part Where He Kills You
Achievement Description: This is that part
At least Jeff calls out the 'ethics in journalism' aspect of gamergate as essentially a scam, even if it gets a bit lost in some train of thought stuff
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
He does a bit of both sides are bad, though. Neither of them are particularly great.
Am I just reading it wrong?
I read that as more of a "people choosing to remain silent are not necessarily doing so because they side with the harassers or don't care, but because they don't won't to give the griefers any legitimacy or attention". You can argue as to whether that's an effective tactic or not, but it doesn't make the folks out there staying silent bad people who agree with the monsters out there.
Jeff spending a couple sentences to say that casting aspersions on others because they are wary of hurling themselves bodily into this shitfest, and then explaining exactly what GB's rationale was, is not wishy washy equivocating. I don't know how anyone's take away from that editorial can be "he's saying both sides are bad".
tube had to tell the entire indie games thread in se++ to stop embarrassing themselves by immediately dumping on a dude
it does not benefit ourselves to lose sight of the fact that an individual person is not all gamergate, and may be fully disconnected and ignorant from the reason the cause inspires bile in many people
I can understand if people were hoping he'd just come out swinging against GamerGate but I respect what he did, here.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Were people hoping for Jeff to channel Phil Fish and just start smashing his keyboard while frothing at the mouth?
My favorite like that is still the one from Assassin's Creed III. Just... absolutely perfectly done.
Followed closely by "Irony" from Bioshock.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Steam
So the whole point of there being any sort of movement was to say "hey, corruption in journalism is bad, even in game journalism." But what actually happened was a massive number of idiots all tried to shout that message at once without any sort of cohesion which ended up turning into the actual GamerGate movement, born out of people shouting death threats and hate speech and anti-women things. So there is a good idea of not having corruption in journalism in there, but because of how it was initially created, the entire thing is tainted with dumbass internet trolls and anti-women fucknuts.
But boiled down, sleeping with people to get better scores for your game is a bad thing. Telling women they should go die and threatening to blow them up because they have a vagina and dared to speak is also a bad thing. Everyone should be able to agree on those two points, right? Am I missing some other detail that is making this such a huge deal?
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
https://storify.com/EffNOVideoGames/stopgamergate-it-has-always-been-a-spin
And a good read at the cultural roots for historical instances of this sort of thing previously can be found here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/16/of-gamers-gates-and-disco-demolition-the-roots-of-reactionary-rage.html
The harassment of women to the point of death threats and revealing home addresses and threatening university massacres?