Oh my god was someone mean to Peter Molyneux in an interview for his hilariously mismanaged project where he wasted his fans money and jeopardized his employees livelihood by being completely unable to set a reasonable scope?
Oh noooooo
This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened in that interview, John.
idgi
Noone, as far as I know, is upset that he's 'mean'
The interviewer is insanely unprofessional
He sets himself up to not receive answers by asking the dumbest possible question
and then he hammers and hammers and hammers
its dogged determination that was never at any point going to result in useful information
He did a shitty, asshole thing. Being 'mean' to Molyneux doesn't enter into it. He invited the man for an interview under false pretenses, was a rank amatuer, and then basically forced the man to listen to a litany of accusations against him that weren't even really questions because of course he wasn't going to answer them
its a waste of the interviewers time, the readers time, and molyneux's time, and the only reason it exists is so the interviewer can stroke his own ego and tell himself he has the balls to ask the 'hard questions'
except those questions are fucking stupid
None of this text relates to me "misrepresenting" what happened in the interview. In fact you seem to agree that it was mean? Also you seem to think Molyneux was in some way "forced" to participate in this interview? I'm actually sort of impressed that Molyneux stuck it out. I'm also not disagreeing with you that the interview was poorly performed.
My point is that this interviewer may be an asshole, but he didn't take anybody's money to be one, and he also hasn't jeopardized people's jobs with his incompetence. Molyneux has done those things, and by most accounts will continue to do them.
By that logic noone forced people to work for molyneux, or give money to molyneux
I have literally no idea what this post is meant to get across.
You're saying it's consumers' fault for trusting Molyneux? I have no idea what you're getting at. I'm flummoxed.
Yes absolutely
If you gave him money after his track record he is not solely to blame
I very much disagree.
Well have to agree to disagree then
I think giving funding to someone who has repeatedly proven to be completely unabrle to manage a project is, at the absolute best, a foolhardy risk
Thought its still a contractors fault for failing to fulfil the terms, you better believe that if someone who hires a contractor who has failed to fulfil their obligations over and over is going to have to answer to their superiors
If you want to criticize game journalism, how about calling out the distinction between the Godus feeding frenzy and the absolute radio silence throughout the thick of last August's bullshit.
If you want to criticize game journalism, how about calling out the distinction between the Godus feeding frenzy and the absolute radio silence throughout the thick of last August's bullshit.
Also; LMAO if you thought ghazi-issues got an even remotely appropriate amount of coverage considering the context. It took a long fucking time for anyone to cover it at all, and the big sites basically did nothing.
RPS was one of the few who wrote about it several times, but it was mostly satirey stuff making fun of it than substantive coverage/consideration IIRC.
And then in September, they had three. One of which was about a rebuttal to "feminist critics" from a ghazi-supporter.
So, you're wrong in that case. We were also definitely talking about this well before it appeared on Polygon. IIRC we were posting Fish's tweets basically live as he discovered the hack.
POlygon's stance was noted very publicly on twitter that they didn't want to draw attention to the obvious libel that was Quinn's Ex's diatribe. They thought they were doing the right thing by not giving jerks attention, and for giving QUinn some space, but then it just exploded even more so...they covered it.
in all seriousness Molyneux does need to be taken to task for being incapable of honesty about his games
it's just that some weird fucking public shaming ritual isn't the proper consequence
we just need to stop giving him money
One might say that a public shaming is exactly the way to get the public to stop giving him money.
Ah yes, the GamerGate lite tactic. Treat all people you don't like as not people.
I can understand asking tough questions and putting someone on the spot. Taking them to task for their actions.
This is what John Stewart does a lot of the times in his more heated interviews.
This is not what RPS did.
A journalist called a company's CEO a liar because of the duplicitous way he repeatedly over-promised and under-delivered, and you're comparing that to the systematic harassment (including physical, illegal threats) of people out of the industry on the basis of gender?
That is not correct. I also find it kind of insulting, but that's besides the point that the comparison is ridiculous on every imaginable level.
There is a massive feeding frenzy over Molyneux and while I don't think criticism is unwarranted I've gotta agree with JohnHam that I wish there'd been this much attention paid to GG while it was starting. Or, for that matter, as much attention paid as there was to the SVU episode. Or even attention paid to Crash Override, the anti-harassment group Zoe Quinn started.
That being said, that interview reminded me of this:
You don't have to be nice, but there's a point where it feels like you're being the biggest asshole you can because you know you can get away with it in the court of public opinion.
EDIT: My original video didn't link so this one works too.
in all seriousness Molyneux does need to be taken to task for being incapable of honesty about his games
it's just that some weird fucking public shaming ritual isn't the proper consequence
we just need to stop giving him money
One might say that a public shaming is exactly the way to get the public to stop giving him money.
Ah yes, the GamerGate lite tactic. Treat all people you don't like as not people.
I can understand asking tough questions and putting someone on the spot. Taking them to task for their actions.
This is what John Stewart does a lot of the times in his more heated interviews.
This is not what RPS did.
A journalist called a company's CEO a liar because of the duplicitous way he repeatedly over-promised and under-delivered, and you're comparing that to the systematic harassment (including physical, illegal threats) of people out of the industry on the basis of gender?
That is not correct. I also find it kind of insulting, but that's besides the point that the comparison is ridiculous on every imaginable level.
I'm saying that the hard edge stance is very similar.
Let me ask you this, is there any way you'd stand for someone treating a developer you like the same way during an interview? Would you come to that "journalist's" defense?
Molyneux deserves to be be asked tough questions. He deserves a lot of scrutiny from the press. This wasn't that. This was akin to a Milo Buttfaceamaoutous hit piece.
johnham i think it's patently absurd to try and drag in gamergate coverage as some "Oh so you'll come to the defense of molyneux but not WOMEN BEING HARASSED, HUH?" club, demonizing your opposition and turning this into a way more bitter argument than it has to be
in all seriousness Molyneux does need to be taken to task for being incapable of honesty about his games
it's just that some weird fucking public shaming ritual isn't the proper consequence
we just need to stop giving him money
One might say that a public shaming is exactly the way to get the public to stop giving him money.
Ah yes, the GamerGate lite tactic. Treat all people you don't like as not people.
I can understand asking tough questions and putting someone on the spot. Taking them to task for their actions.
This is what John Stewart does a lot of the times in his more heated interviews.
This is not what RPS did.
A journalist called a company's CEO a liar because of the duplicitous way he repeatedly over-promised and under-delivered, and you're comparing that to the systematic harassment (including physical, illegal threats) of people out of the industry on the basis of gender?
That is not correct. I also find it kind of insulting, but that's besides the point that the comparison is ridiculous on every imaginable level.
I'm saying that the hard edge stance is very similar.
Let me ask you this, is there any way you'd stand for someone treating a developer you like the same way during an interview? Would you come to that "journalist's" defense?
Well while I don't agree with the tone of the interview there's a noticeable difference between what's going on here and how GG came out, where the accusations were easily shown to be bullshit and it became very quickly steeped in misogyny.
in all seriousness Molyneux does need to be taken to task for being incapable of honesty about his games
it's just that some weird fucking public shaming ritual isn't the proper consequence
we just need to stop giving him money
One might say that a public shaming is exactly the way to get the public to stop giving him money.
Ah yes, the GamerGate lite tactic. Treat all people you don't like as not people.
I can understand asking tough questions and putting someone on the spot. Taking them to task for their actions.
This is what John Stewart does a lot of the times in his more heated interviews.
This is not what RPS did.
A journalist called a company's CEO a liar because of the duplicitous way he repeatedly over-promised and under-delivered, and you're comparing that to the systematic harassment (including physical, illegal threats) of people out of the industry on the basis of gender?
That is not correct. I also find it kind of insulting, but that's besides the point that the comparison is ridiculous on every imaginable level.
I'm saying that the hard edge stance is very similar.
Let me ask you this, is there any way you'd stand for someone treating a developer you like the same way during an interview? Would you come to that "journalist's" defense?
It's not a generic "developer," it's the executive leader of a studio with many, many years in the industry under his belt. His studio took money from customers on the basis of claims they could not deliver on (whether he knew this or not is kind of tangential, but he should have known).
If there was an alternate situation where all of that was the same, I would feel the same way.
Also; I like a bunch of Molyneux's games. It's not about me "liking" him, or not.
johnham i think it's patently absurd to try and drag in gamergate coverage as some "Oh so you'll come to the defense of molyneux but not WOMEN BEING HARASSED, HUH?" club, demonizing your opposition and turning this into a way more bitter argument than it has to be
I didn't see JohnHam's argument as that? More just 'it would've been nice if they'd spent as much time worrying about people being harassed out of the industry as they have on this whole thing' and I don't think that's an unfair statement.
It's a journalistic feeding frenzy around Molyneux and it would have been great if 'people are being sent death threats and pushed out of the industry' had gotten nearly as many games journalists riled up and raring to post articles as 'Peter Molyneux does not deliver on promises'.
johnham i think it's patently absurd to try and drag in gamergate coverage as some "Oh so you'll come to the defense of molyneux but not WOMEN BEING HARASSED, HUH?" club, demonizing your opposition and turning this into a way more bitter argument than it has to be
That wasn't the point I was attempting to make; I was basically trying to demonstrate that I'm not rote-ly defending journalists and that I think there are a lot of vital, relevant criticisms to be made of the way they handle individual stories.
I just don't think anyone should give a shit about it being mean. Peter Molyneux doesn't deserve sympathy for making bad business decisions.
EDIT: I should also say directly, to anyone who took my comment as-described above; I wasn't attempting to excoriate anyone for caring "too little" about any issue, and I apologize if that's how it came across.
johnham i think it's patently absurd to try and drag in gamergate coverage as some "Oh so you'll come to the defense of molyneux but not WOMEN BEING HARASSED, HUH?" club, demonizing your opposition and turning this into a way more bitter argument than it has to be
I didn't see JohnHam's argument as that? More just 'it would've been nice if they'd spent as much time worrying about people being harassed out of the industry as they have on this whole thing' and I don't think that's an unfair statement.
It's a journalistic feeding frenzy around Molyneux and it would have been great if 'people are being sent death threats and pushed out of the industry' had gotten nearly as many games journalists riled up and raring to post articles as 'Peter Molyneux does not deliver on promises'.
i AGREE that it would have been nice, but the way johnham said it after following his initial posts made it feel like he was trying to smack down the idea of criticizing the journalist who interviewed molyneux
i can think both are shitty and don't have to have some escalating "not allowed to criticize this, because five months ago something worse happened"
in all seriousness Molyneux does need to be taken to task for being incapable of honesty about his games
it's just that some weird fucking public shaming ritual isn't the proper consequence
we just need to stop giving him money
One might say that a public shaming is exactly the way to get the public to stop giving him money.
Ah yes, the GamerGate lite tactic. Treat all people you don't like as not people.
I can understand asking tough questions and putting someone on the spot. Taking them to task for their actions.
This is what John Stewart does a lot of the times in his more heated interviews.
This is not what RPS did.
A journalist called a company's CEO a liar because of the duplicitous way he repeatedly over-promised and under-delivered, and you're comparing that to the systematic harassment (including physical, illegal threats) of people out of the industry on the basis of gender?
That is not correct. I also find it kind of insulting, but that's besides the point that the comparison is ridiculous on every imaginable level.
I'm saying that the hard edge stance is very similar.
Let me ask you this, is there any way you'd stand for someone treating a developer you like the same way during an interview? Would you come to that "journalist's" defense?
It's not a generic "developer," it's the executive leader of a studio with many, many years in the industry under his belt. His studio took money from customers on the basis of claims they could not deliver on (whether he knew this or not is kind of tangential, but he should have known).
If there was an alternate situation where all of that was the same, I would feel the same way.
Also; I like a bunch of Molyneux's games. It's not about me "liking" him, or not.
Well, if that's how you feel about it.
My opinion is that it's completely uncalled for, amateurish, and unprofessional. It accomplished nothing besides bringing them hits, and didn't help the customers who have been wrong (besides maybe some cathartic "oh man this feels good" stuff).
Someone that wasn't just going for blood but doing so in a professional manner would have done both. As it stands this has just made Molyneux seem sympathetic instead of bringing anything new to the table.
johnham i think it's patently absurd to try and drag in gamergate coverage as some "Oh so you'll come to the defense of molyneux but not WOMEN BEING HARASSED, HUH?" club, demonizing your opposition and turning this into a way more bitter argument than it has to be
That wasn't the point I was attempting to make; I was basically trying to demonstrate that I'm not rote-ly defending journalists and that I think there are a lot of vital, relevant criticisms to be made of the way they handle individual stories.
I just don't think anyone should give a shit about it being mean. Peter Molyneux doesn't deserve sympathy for making bad business decisions.
EDIT: I should also say directly, to anyone who took my comment as-described above; I wasn't attempting to excoriate anyone for caring "too little" about any issue, and I apologize if that's how it came across.
that is an understandable position and i can easily see how you could accidentally shorten that position to the reading i had in your attempts to be brief and to the point
John, weather you think molyneux fucked up or not does not give the interviewer the right to treat him like shit purely to stroke his own ego
Its as simple as that
It's weird how you keep slightly twisting the things I say into a more-extreme version. I never said anyone had a "right" to treat Molyneux like shit.
I'm just not going to spend any time criticizing a journalist for being shitty to a wealthy CEO who's one of the only people at his company virtually-guaranteed to land on his feet if it all comes crumbling down.
I read through that entire RPS interview. It definitely starts out with a hostile tone and is not the best way to approach the subject, however as the interview goes on it gets a lot of information out of Molyneux, and I think that the interviewer realizes maybe he should dial it back, maybe not have taken such an aggressive stance to begin with.
The interview gives me the impression that Molyneux is kind of... like a child put in charge of developing his own video game. He's wide-eyed and full of genuine enthusiasm and never intends any actual harm... but there's no way that he can realistically achieve/deliver on everything he wants. And unlike a child, I think he can recognize this pattern of over-promising and under-delivering, but he has yet to acknowledge that it's a problem he suffers from and wishes to correct. He came so close in the interview, but was not quite there.
the rudeness is not only a problem in and of itself but because it wastes the countless opportunities in that interview to talk about greater structural problems in the game industry that the mismanagement of godus is representative of, instead focusing on the personal failings of peter molyneux
the rudeness is not only a problem in and of itself but because it wastes the countless opportunities in that interview to talk about greater structural problems in the game industry that the mismanagement of godus is representative of, instead focusing on the personal failings of peter molyneux
Is Peter Molyneux the person you should be asking about the greater structural problems in the game industry, though?
I read through that entire RPS interview. It definitely starts out with a hostile tone and is not the best way to approach the subject, however as the interview goes on it gets a lot of information out of Molyneux, and I think that the interviewer realizes maybe he should dial it back, maybe not have taken such an aggressive stance to begin with.
The interview gives me the impression that Molyneux is kind of... like a child put in charge of developing his own video game. He's wide-eyed and full of genuine enthusiasm and never intends any actual harm... but there's no way that he can realistically achieve/deliver on everything he wants. And unlike a child, I think he can recognize this pattern of over-promising and under-delivering, but he has yet to acknowledge that it's a problem he suffers from and wishes to correct. He came so close in the interview, but was not quite there.
I think this is pretty good, like if you put an earnest child in charge of the production of a videogame that child would wreak savage carnage in the lives of basically anyone it touched but you could hardly blame the kid
Basically to avoid a great deal of scorn and responsibility Peter Molyneux needs to claim the competency of a small child
Posts
This does not absolve him of any culpability vis a vis actually using the money though
Well have to agree to disagree then
I think giving funding to someone who has repeatedly proven to be completely unabrle to manage a project is, at the absolute best, a foolhardy risk
Thought its still a contractors fault for failing to fulfil the terms, you better believe that if someone who hires a contractor who has failed to fulfil their obligations over and over is going to have to answer to their superiors
That would be why I said he is not SOLELY responsible
Both parties are responsible, yes.
Wasn't RPS pretty vocal about Gamerghazi?
With the exception of certain sites
Almost everyone was very vocal about the shit going down last august
The godus shit has gotten less attention, if anything
it's just that some weird fucking public shaming ritual isn't the proper consequence
we just need to stop giving him money
One might say that a public shaming is exactly the way to get the public to stop giving him money.
RPS was one of the few who wrote about it several times, but it was mostly satirey stuff making fun of it than substantive coverage/consideration IIRC.
Not really sure what you expected, though
But I definitely remember reading about specific doxxing attacks and shit on there even before here
http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/22/6057317/fez-developer-polytron-hacked-harassment
They also had one Opinion piece from Chris Plante (who left the site not long after).
http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/28/6078391/video-games-awful-week
And then in September, they had three. One of which was about a rebuttal to "feminist critics" from a ghazi-supporter.
So, you're wrong in that case. We were also definitely talking about this well before it appeared on Polygon. IIRC we were posting Fish's tweets basically live as he discovered the hack.
Several articles every day?
One article every day?
What even constitutes a proper amount of coverage for the topic?
Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
Ah yes, the GamerGate lite tactic. Treat all people you don't like as not people.
I can understand asking tough questions and putting someone on the spot. Taking them to task for their actions.
This is what John Stewart does a lot of the times in his more heated interviews.
This is not what RPS did.
I'm not obligated to attach a quota to that criticism. There is not a number of articles that they need to post, per se.
Give me the impression that you, as a site, give a shit about the situation, and I will not have the impression that you don't give a shit.
Even if I feel much the same on a good deal of the sentiment, taking them to the extreme like this isn't something I can get on board with.
A journalist called a company's CEO a liar because of the duplicitous way he repeatedly over-promised and under-delivered, and you're comparing that to the systematic harassment (including physical, illegal threats) of people out of the industry on the basis of gender?
That is not correct. I also find it kind of insulting, but that's besides the point that the comparison is ridiculous on every imaginable level.
That being said, that interview reminded me of this:
You don't have to be nice, but there's a point where it feels like you're being the biggest asshole you can because you know you can get away with it in the court of public opinion.
EDIT: My original video didn't link so this one works too.
I'm saying that the hard edge stance is very similar.
Let me ask you this, is there any way you'd stand for someone treating a developer you like the same way during an interview? Would you come to that "journalist's" defense?
Molyneux deserves to be be asked tough questions. He deserves a lot of scrutiny from the press. This wasn't that. This was akin to a Milo Buttfaceamaoutous hit piece.
it's funny every time I remember
Well while I don't agree with the tone of the interview there's a noticeable difference between what's going on here and how GG came out, where the accusations were easily shown to be bullshit and it became very quickly steeped in misogyny.
It's not a generic "developer," it's the executive leader of a studio with many, many years in the industry under his belt. His studio took money from customers on the basis of claims they could not deliver on (whether he knew this or not is kind of tangential, but he should have known).
If there was an alternate situation where all of that was the same, I would feel the same way.
Also; I like a bunch of Molyneux's games. It's not about me "liking" him, or not.
I didn't see JohnHam's argument as that? More just 'it would've been nice if they'd spent as much time worrying about people being harassed out of the industry as they have on this whole thing' and I don't think that's an unfair statement.
It's a journalistic feeding frenzy around Molyneux and it would have been great if 'people are being sent death threats and pushed out of the industry' had gotten nearly as many games journalists riled up and raring to post articles as 'Peter Molyneux does not deliver on promises'.
Its as simple as that
That wasn't the point I was attempting to make; I was basically trying to demonstrate that I'm not rote-ly defending journalists and that I think there are a lot of vital, relevant criticisms to be made of the way they handle individual stories.
I just don't think anyone should give a shit about it being mean. Peter Molyneux doesn't deserve sympathy for making bad business decisions.
EDIT: I should also say directly, to anyone who took my comment as-described above; I wasn't attempting to excoriate anyone for caring "too little" about any issue, and I apologize if that's how it came across.
i AGREE that it would have been nice, but the way johnham said it after following his initial posts made it feel like he was trying to smack down the idea of criticizing the journalist who interviewed molyneux
i can think both are shitty and don't have to have some escalating "not allowed to criticize this, because five months ago something worse happened"
Well, if that's how you feel about it.
My opinion is that it's completely uncalled for, amateurish, and unprofessional. It accomplished nothing besides bringing them hits, and didn't help the customers who have been wrong (besides maybe some cathartic "oh man this feels good" stuff).
Someone that wasn't just going for blood but doing so in a professional manner would have done both. As it stands this has just made Molyneux seem sympathetic instead of bringing anything new to the table.
that is an understandable position and i can easily see how you could accidentally shorten that position to the reading i had in your attempts to be brief and to the point
Completely hypocritical of me to have said that.
I'm just not going to spend any time criticizing a journalist for being shitty to a wealthy CEO who's one of the only people at his company virtually-guaranteed to land on his feet if it all comes crumbling down.
The interview gives me the impression that Molyneux is kind of... like a child put in charge of developing his own video game. He's wide-eyed and full of genuine enthusiasm and never intends any actual harm... but there's no way that he can realistically achieve/deliver on everything he wants. And unlike a child, I think he can recognize this pattern of over-promising and under-delivering, but he has yet to acknowledge that it's a problem he suffers from and wishes to correct. He came so close in the interview, but was not quite there.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Is Peter Molyneux the person you should be asking about the greater structural problems in the game industry, though?
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think this is pretty good, like if you put an earnest child in charge of the production of a videogame that child would wreak savage carnage in the lives of basically anyone it touched but you could hardly blame the kid
Basically to avoid a great deal of scorn and responsibility Peter Molyneux needs to claim the competency of a small child