The Sunday Papers

Sundays are for doing all the things you’ve been trying to get done the last three Sundays. Or we could put it off again and spend the day reading about videogames. Choose wisely.

  • At Paste, Olivia White writes about “the cloying dominance of the fragile woman archetype”, arguing that the narrative surrounding a woman’s success is too often pitched in terms of hardships overcome and its supposed rarity. Or at least, that’s what I took away. Read it yourself.
  • So here is my issue. Being a female creator today is presented as a universally terrifying, life-ruining, soul-destroying career. With a raised awareness of problems women face comes an identity ascribed to us; that of victim, of “other,” that of A Female Creator, rather than “a creator (who is female).” We are portrayed, by the media and culture that supports us, as anomalies. Strange, brave women who endure terrible hardships, who struggle to succeed in our given career. And the struggle to succeed is key here; we are infrequently portrayed as people who DO succeed. We are portrayed as people who are struggling to against all odds. Odds which, the narrative frequently insinuates, will one day become too much for us.

  • John Harney has been playing Euro Truck Simulator 2, and has reached the end of the world.
  • I haven’t been this interested in a sim, an honest to God use square bracket keys and the quotation mark key regularly sim, in a very long time. I’m not entirely sure if I’ve been this into holding down an arrow key while dotting my hands across a keyboard since Gunship 2000. I cheat, of course. I’m a grown man now and my wife thinks it’s weird enough that I’m driving a truck around a virtual representation of the English midlands. I’m not taking on a Volvo F14’s manual transmission. This actually makes my playing of the game more odd, by virtue of the fact that I have reduced it to controlling a virtual truck through careful use of side mirrors in an attempt to get to an industrial hub in a timely fashion. Sometimes I park the truck so my frequently invisible avatar can get some sleep, once he has rudely snored into my headphones enough. I stop the truck for diesel, and I get on ferries.

  • Everyone is talking about The Witness. Simon Parkin interviewed its creator Jonathan Blow, who estols the virtues of spending all your money.
  • Perfectionism has come at a great and quantifiable cost. The money is—for now, at least—all gone. The Witness cost close to six million dollars, vastly overshooting Blow’s original budget of eight hundred thousand dollars. When Braid’s profits ran out, he borrowed funds from a friend. “Most people would have felt the need to finish the game much earlier than I did,” he said. “It’s absurd how much I spent, really. But I was willing to put it all in the poker pot and make the thing I wanted to make, without interference, without someone telling me I needed to make everything purple, or something else.” Few of indie gaming’s other success stories have been willing to put everything back into their next project, he said pointedly. “Or maybe some of those games just aren’t out yet.”

  • Johnny Chiodini’s Low Batteries series continues, and in episode four looks at anxiety; how games represent it, and which games might help you cope with it. The video is accompanied by a text interview, too.
  • Eurogamer: What was your intention in creating Raik? Did you set out to educate people about what it’s like to suffer a panic attack, was it designed to help suffers?

    I think anxiety and panic are really individual experiences, and that they can manifest themselves in different people in very different ways. So I wasn’t setting out to educate a general audience about a generalised experience of an anxiety, but to tell my own truth of it as accurately as possible: Raik is fiction, but all the thoughts and experiences the anxious character has are things I’ve thought and felt. But writing about your experience can be a good way for readers to understand their own — and it’s something Twine has been really good for in the last few years, with many writers sharing many different experiences of mental health. I’ve learned a lot about myself from reading other people’s twines. I’m generally a bit mistrustful of folk who set out to educate and help others about mental health: too often that tends towards enforcing normative behaviours, rather than meeting people where they’re at. But meeting other sufferers in solidarity, that’s something I really believe in.

  • I’m told Giant Bomb have started running work from freelance contributors, although I wasn’t aware they didn’t do that before. Among them this past week was Heather Alexandra’s argument that it’s okay to feel guilty about your guilty pleasures. I normally don’t believe in guilty pleasures, but I know what’s meant by its use here.
  • The Metal Gear series is my favorite franchise in AAA gaming. I rank Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty as number two on my vaguely arbitrary list of best games ever made. (For the record, number one is Planescape: Torment). Last year, knowing that The Phantom Pain was on the way, I made a vow to myself. I wasn’t going to talk about the game or the series in any serious capacity. Discussion around the game was getting sidetracked by talk of Kojima as auteur and his readily apparent inability to address certain subject matter maturely. I thought it was distracting. People were ignoring the content of the games in favor of arguments about the man. It was getting to the point that I didn’t ever really want to admit that I liked Metal Gear. I felt wrong for liking it. I felt guilty.

  • They also had Greg Kasavin write about his transition from Gamespot journalist to game developer on projects such as Bastion.
  • Bastion was our one shot. I felt like it was my one shot. I grew up playing everything. People ask me what’s my all-time favorite game I tell them Ultima V and Street Fighter II. Those games couldn’t be more different from each other but each in their own right, they’re these worlds. I wanted to make these great big little self-contained gameworlds like those. And Bastion was really the first time I had a chance to be a part of something like that, to create characters and stories, build levels, script encounters. See ideas go from just ideas to becoming real things, which players could then interact with and experience, and with any luck extract from them those kinds of little moments that we remember from our favorite games. Games that spark your imagination like the games you played as a kid. That idea resonated a lot with me and all of us. I’ll always feel indebted to my friends and colleagues for believing that I had it in me to do this kind of work, because there’s just no way anybody else was going to let me do that job, if not them.

  • At Kill Screen, Ed Smith writes about the supposed over-positivity of games criticism. I don’t see it, but I’ll take the lead in negativity by saying: shut up, Kill Screen.
  • But whatever “it” is, games are miles off. In fact, there is no “it”—there is no objective finishing line over which games have crossed, or ever can cross. My problem with gaming positivity—this constant insinuation either tacit or direct that games are “better” than they once were—is that it assumes an end state, some kind of final evolutionary stage whereby artists and critics can rest easy.

  • Stephen Fry’s The Letter is superb.

Music this week is Heartsrevolution’s Kishi Kaisei, which is a big pink birthday cake of a dance track.

You have chosen… unwisely. See you next week!


  1. LionsPhil says:

    I’m disappointed that last item wasn’t a Stephen Fry cover of this.

  2. RobF says:

    Ah, that Killscreen piece is so ‘stop liking things’, it cracked me up.

    Between that and folks drifting into Jon Blow:Auteur Of Auteurs, it’s been a great week for folks nailing their more authenticier than thou colours to the mast.

    Still. Killscreen, bless it.

    • Rhodokasaurus says:

      Killscreen’s the worst thing that’s happened to the games journalism, a bizarre Frankenstein’s monster of high-brow self righteousness and pedantic counter-culture faggotry (in the SouthParkian sense) that shrugs its shoulders and says “Somebody’s gotta do it”. Nobody really needed to do it. Games are not so important.

      And if you wanted proof that they’re not even sincerely in it “for the art”, just consider that they reverted to game reviews with numeric scores so they’d be metacritic relevant. Thankfully nobody reads it, unless the “0 comments” under every article are somehow misleading.

      • gaydog2 says:

        Did you really just try to use ‘South Park’ as a proper adjective? To say nothing else about the rest of the disgustingly self-righteous claptrap you’ve been spewing all over this article, you sound like a massive dick.

        • dontnormally says:

          Say what you will about the tenets of this guys comments, dude, but SouthParkian is a solid adjective.

      • Zallgrin says:

        Many Killscreen issues just completely fly over my head and I don’t care for them, but occasionally they write a brilliant thing here and there. Their Undertale write-up was great and so was the Fallout 4 review, which was hilarious and pretty on point with my experience of the game.

        Anyway, I don’t see the point in being vitriolic towards a site that doesn’t fit your taste. There are dozens of video game sites that are not “pretentious”, so why not visit them? Personally, I always enjoy site with dissenting views, even when I don’t fully agree with them. Disagreement is good for opening new horizons in my opinion.


        “Killscreen’s the worst thing that’s happened to the games journalism” LOL games journalism existence is the worst thing that ever happened to it, child.

        “a bizarre Frankenstein’s monster” You obviously didn’t read that book.

        “high-brow self righteousness” I found the offended shitlord.

        “faggotry (in the SouthParkian sense)” Thanks for reminding us why gamers deserve to die.

        “Nobody really needed to do it. Games are not so important.” LOL oh look an anti-intellectual child that think their opinions matter.

        “if you wanted proof that they’re not even sincerely in it “for the art”, just consider that they reverted to game reviews with numeric scores so they’d be metacritic relevant.” THAT DOESN’T PROVE ANYTHING. Metacritic adds numbers regardless of what you do, if anything they are making their reviews more useful by picking arbitrary numbers that match their review instead of letting metacritic do it.

  3. Andy_Panthro says:

    There was an article on “guilty pleasures” on Den Of Geek last week: link to

    I guess it’s all just about acknowledging the flaws in things that we enjoy, but not letting those same flaws spoil our enjoyment. It’s rare to find anything that is perfect, and sometimes we can enjoy something more knowing it’s imperfections.

    We’re always likely to feel “guilty” about liking certain things though, or at least perhaps not feel like admitting to liking them in public!

    • Thirith says:

      Re: that “guilty pleasures” article: there’s a lot of reverse snobbery going around too, though. Depending on what groups you’re a part of, you’re at least as likely to be accused of pretentiousness as you are of not having sufficiently sophisticated tastes. If I find a group where I have to apologise neither for liking pure cheese nor for having Holy Motors or Melancholia in my DVD collection, I’m happy.

  4. Ashrand says:

    Regarding the Kill screen piece i DO think it’s barking up the wrong tree, but I’m also aware of how ironclad a journos opinion of something has to be to avoid a lynching in this day and age.
    So i think that can have an effect of what people are willing to champion in print, if that trends to the twee (and therefore ‘safe’) over the genuinely avant-garde (that might present ammo to a future hate mob of morons) i wouldn’t be surprised.

    • Thirith says:

      Except there were plenty of people who hated Dear Esther or Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture or Gone Home. One person’s great is another person’s twee, is yet another person’s pretentious drivel.

      • Ashrand says:

        I never said (or meant) that no-one disliked those games (and for a lot of pretty valid reasons too!) i just meant that if your going to bat for a game rapture is the safer option when your worried about having your tastes picked over with a fine tooth comb.
        Neither did i mean that any of those choices were bad ones! It’s more that i think we could be hearing about a lot more interesting stuff if every CoD free post on a games news site didn’t attract a dozen or more entitled gatekeeper jerk-offs.
        Acknowledging gaming is going through a period where presenting anything other than undifferentiated nostalgia in the games press is an invitation to attack shouldn’t be contentious at this stage i feel. Nor is saying “gosh imagine what good writing never happened because of the chilling effect of these morons and their flag waving nonsense”.

        Sorry if i didn’t express myself clearly, it’s an ongoing problem :/

      • dontnormally says:

        > twee


    • ishumar says:

      Aight, I’ll try, for once.

      My issue is this: I don’t understand where anyone is going, because no one seems to set up a proper framework for themselves from where to start. Smith’s approach is attractive to me insofar it has a certain instinctive antihegelianism to it, but seems to offer no solutions beyond simple positioning (“all this hyperbole is wrong because it ascribes artifacts certain values, which are incorrectly understood, because I feel that way”), which the collapses back into the very problem it started with. It resolves nothing but the issue constructed around itself. For an article like this to be productive, it should offer a perspective that allows for – well, productivity.
      Establishing a meaningful manner of approaching the subject (“video games”) outside of simple antagonisms is the only thing of interest here. I have yet to see that happen.

      When games can be considered not as artifacts to be judged against criteria – be it “emotions experienced” or “amount of graphics” but as the result of human creativity in a totality beyond a simple subject-object divide and the inherently nonproductive implications that has for the understanding of the medium, we could potentially get somewhere.

      • Ashrand says:

        I agree with a great deal of what you have to say honestly, a contrarian opinion from my perspective is effecting simply because we are increasing encouraged to direct negative feelings about a body of artistic work toward the creator personally, rather than having a more frank discussion about Why a given work elicits those feelings.

        In this context providing a productive way forward is falling into a logical trap as i see it, attempting to create rigorous logical rules that govern artistic expression *or* appreciation misses the fact that, as you say, artistic works are not valuable due to their productivity, but due to a non-productive subjectivity that assigns them value based on the individuals experience.
        This does not mean however that a critique of such a logical method is flawed in some way, just that a way forward need not be productive to be understood as beneficial.

  5. GernauMorat says:

    Read the Kill Screen earlier, and I really don’t see where they are coming from.

    • Geebs says:

      Try this: grab the side of one of your cheeks between the first knuckle of your forefinger and the ball of your thumb. Vigorously shake your wrist to and fro so that your cheek flaps against your cheek for a few seconds. You have now onomatopoeically summarised the thesis of article.

  6. Sam says:

    My problem with gaming positivity—this constant insinuation either tacit or direct that games are “better” than they once were—is that it assumes an end state, some kind of final evolutionary stage whereby artists and critics can rest easy.

    My problem with this passage is those statements don’t follow logically. That something is getting better doesn’t imply that there’s an endpoint of perfection, nor that if such a point exists it is reachable.

    Indeed virtually all of human endeavour is attempting to improve something without assumption of a perfect end state.

    • Thirith says:

      Positivity may be a necessary corrective for the tiresome, undifferentiated notion that everything used to be better in the good old days, of which there’s more than enough going around in gaming circles.

      • LionsPhil says:

        Conversely, it does us no favors to dismiss everything in the past as the folly of a stupider generation (or younger version of your own), which is also prevelant, not just in games.

        • Thirith says:

          To be honest, I don’t see that attitude very frequently in the games journalism I read, so perhaps I’m just looking in the wrong place.

      • Sin Vega says:

        This is definitely important when critiquing the notion that games are generally better today. The latter isn’t even a point I’d bother mentioning (I still see games regularly make the same stupid, pointless design mistakes again and again for no reason, however much some standards might have improved, so don’t want to excuse them at all) if not for the many people whose looking back at the past is absurdly rose-tinted.

        • Emeraude says:

          But then that’s one issue with market homogenization and standards; given one person’s design’s mistake is another’s right way to do things.

          Conflicting audiences have conflicting needs and often it’s not rose-tinted glasses or self-imposed positivism, it’s that we don’t want the same things. Quite often, we’re not playing the same games even while using the very same game.

          • Sin Vega says:

            I’m talking about things that are objectively shit and inexcusable, like unskippable intro videos, unconfigurable controls, one save per profile systems, that kind of thing. There are some things games do that are completely worthless but continue to get a free pass just because so many other games do them badly that we’ve simply got used to it. The same was true of old games, of course, only the exact issues were mostly different.

          • Emeraude says:

            I’m talking about things that are objectively shit and inexcusable, like unskippable intro videos, unconfigurable controls, one save per profile systems

            None of those things are inherently bad though (and I’m saying this as someone that hates unskippable intro videos). It’s a matter of proper use.

  7. Faults says:

    Everybody seems to be getting really bent out of shape about that Kill Screen article. I had one guy go absolutely nuts at me over Facebook regarding it the other day. Bizarre.

    Besides, haven’t games narratives, you know, always been a bit crap? I mean Ed Smith’s writing style is a touch belligerent, but he’s not exactly the first writer to assert that Everybody’s Gone To The Rapture’s writing is a bit dull. It’s kind of only now that he’s framed it as a wider trend in narrative-focused games that people are getting… surprisingly upset about the whole affair.

    • Foxdyebingo says:

      I follow Ed on Twitter and he ended up reacting to a lot of antagonistic comments he was receiving. Maybe that’s why the guy you were talking to got heated?

      It was quite funny, actually.

    • malkav11 says:

      Not really, no. I mean, sure, a lot of them are, as is true of narratives in general (there’s some really howlingly awful prose out there in the book world, some of it best-selling – c.f. Dan Brown and Dennis LaHaye), but there’s also some really thoughtful, funny, smart, imaginative, etc narratives in gaming. A lot of the rest of the time it’s simply because narrative wasn’t a priority, and even then it’s a rare game in my experience that would be better off without that narrative context.

      But then, I particularly disagree with the “but aren’t stories in games shit?” refrain because so often it’s accompanied by the insinuation “so why bother with them?”, and I think that’s poisonous nonsense that directly attacks one of my core interests in the medium.

      • Blackcompany says:

        Mostly, stories in games are shit. Doesn’t mean people should cease making story driven games. By all means carry on, but let’s find ways to we’d narrative to game play instead of the pair existing in nearly mutually exclusive opposition to one another, within the same game.

      • Faults says:

        I’m certainly not trying to be dismissive of written narrative in games (although I do think gaming’s potential for procedural or emergent narrative is more enticing, but that’s a bit of armchair criticism for another day) – I happen to think that as the complexity of games increases and the medium matures, narrative will become increasingly important.

        However, I wholeheartedly feel that just because we now have more videogames diverging from the typical action-hero format, doesn’t mean that such games should be exempt from scrutiny or criticism. As you say, there’s terrible use of narrative in every format, but just because gaming is a comparatively young medium doesn’t, in my opinion, mean we should make exceptions for it, or hold up thoroughly mediocre writing as shining examples of what can be achieved.

        What counts as ‘good’ writing is, of course, hugely subjective and probably a point of contention between Smith and a lot of his audience; but I do broadly agree with the examples he gives.

        • malkav11 says:

          I think it’s entirely fair to criticize narrative in any game on its own merits, although it’s always going to be a matter of subjective taste to some degree. Just because you’re focusing on the story and aiming for higher heights doesn’t mean you necessarily have the ability to reach them. I just dispute the idea that games are broadly crap at it or really dramatically more so in aggregate than any other medium. People making those comparisons inevitably seem to be comparing to the loftiest heights reached by decades or centuries of work in those other media when the average level is so much lower.

          And I think procedural and emergent narrative is hugely overrated. It might generate occasional anecdotes to tell your friends over a pint, but it’s never going to have the richness or coherency of a hand-authored story and for every “holy shit did you see that?” moment there are 500 “so this thing happened. again.” or “uh…that’s probably not supposed to work like that is it?”

          • Blackcompany says:

            By volume, I doubt gaming even has as many bad narratives as, say, Urban Fantasy. The problem is that gaming never, ever achieves the other end of the spectrum (greatness, or even “really good”) to compensate. Too many devs feel as if mediocre writing is okay ” because video games” I think.

          • malkav11 says:

            I disagree, but that’s more a matter of taste.

      • Emeraude says:

        I think the need for stories that play to the medium’s strengths, that complement and compliment the game rather than get in the way or exist purely as that thing that runs parallel but might as well not be there given it never really intersects in any meaningful way with what you’re doing.

  8. Laurentius says:

    This guily pleasures article: “It may seem contrary to my previous statements but I do think there may be times where guilty pleasures are a by product of a judgmental community seeking to impose particular values. ” Wow, it IS contrary! And tbh this once sentece can easily describe both examples wether it is MGS or Destiny.

  9. Michael Fogg says:

    Oh dear, I wonder if the author of the Paste piece is fully prepared for the wave of accusations of enjoying every type of ‘privilege’ imaginable, which is inevitably coming her way.

    • Geebs says:

      That comes across as rather backhanded, you know.

      Personally I think the article’s problems are that it doesn’t support its rather hyperbolic thesis with any evidence outside of the author’s experience (which it doesn’t really need to, it is after all a think piece), but more importantly that it fails to generalise sufficiently. I would be more inclined to agree with “it’s hard to survive in a career in which the high level of competition and low barrier for entry means that success requires self-promotion without your popular persona getting boiled down to your USP”, which is reasonably incisive by itself.

  10. Foxdyebingo says:

    Ah, I read that piece on Killscreen earlier this week. Ed does tend to write in a moany way, but he’s often correct – like the article where he bemoaned all games set in Britain pander to stereotypes – link to

    Also, glanced over that Paste article last night and deemed it too whiny, but I think I missed the point. On a reread it’s a pretty good piece concerning the problems of using sensationalism and assuming hardships are solely gender-related (as opposed to involving a myriad of other factors).

    • pepperfez says:

      I thought the most important line from the Paste article was

      We are expected to have two careers—one being our chosen career, and one being a spokeswoman for how terrible and impossible it is to pursue our chosen careers.

      That kind of emotional labor is always disproportionately expected of women, and it’s an ugly irony to see it being done by the people who are trying to help.

  11. Rumpelstiltskin says:

    “..he chose to design each puzzle in The Witness not by algorithm but by hand”

    Well apparently he changed his mind later, since there’s an entire (exceedingly misanthropic) section of the game where you have to do a timed run through a sequence of randomly generated puzzles in a maze with invisible walls.

  12. DrollRemark says:

    I’ve never met a writer whom I’ve enjoyed reading, but disagreed so much with as Ed Smith. Long may it continue.

  13. LennyLeonardo says:

    Ed Smith had a definite ‘I’m the only one who tells it how it really is’ tone, which is super annoying. It can be a great position to speak from, but when you’re talking about everyone else’s opinions it’s just condescending.

    • Sin Vega says:

      In his defence, I get the impression that’s kind of the central gimmick of the series.

      • Rhodokasaurus says:

        How is that a defense? How about “don’t make being a prick your gimmick”?

        • Sin Vega says:

          Well now you’ve switched it from “I’m the only one” to “being a prick”, so that’s hardly fair.

  14. Dicehuge says:

    The paste article was interesting. I think it points to the idea that the ‘successful women’ is a lazy archetype that fails to really appreciate the successes and failures of an individual, especially in an industry full of men presented as larger than life, wildly individual personalities. The notion that women are often presented as ‘doomed to fail’ was a bit weird though, I don’t really get that from media discussions on this sort of thing.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      “The notion that women are often presented as ‘doomed to fail’ was a bit weird though, I don’t really get that from media discussions on this sort of thing.”

      You have to be kidding.

      • Dicehuge says:

        In the sense that I thought she was suggesting it was an explicit message in media reports, but it’s more that the writer implies it’s an incidental byproduct of always representing women in tech as crusaders against the odds. Pepperfez put it better than I can

    • pepperfez says:

      I think it’s that successful women in gaming/tech/nerd culture are so often presented as beating the odds or displaying heroic toughness rather than just being good at their jobs. And there’s certainly a lot to be said about the ingrained misogyny of those fields, but it’s a fine line between acknowledging the problem and making it seem like the natural order of things.

      • Josh W says:

        Yeah, the irony there is that when you’re looking out for women to make stories about them, that’s pretty much your motivation; it’s because you believe that the odds are against them that you want to praise them.

        The thing is that after having that original motivation for effort, hopefully you’d find other things to talk about. People doing biographies or reports on famous people try to avoid saying the obvious about them, and find a unique angle based on their own encounters and experiences; and I think the same makes sense in this context too. Yes you’re only making an article about this person because they’re a woman in tech, but don’t make that the reason to read the article.

        In fact, in some ways it’s the difference between writing an article about something because it’s good, vs writing an article about it because it’s the best [x] game this year. The difference is whether the article is trying to position itself relative to the world, or have an innate appeal via what is held within it.


      “a lazy archetype” Tokenism. Once you know a woman is a woman, there’s apparently no other salient aspects of her identity worth mentioning?

  15. Vanillanougat says:

    Kishi Kaisei is a wonderful song and Heartsrevolution are a good band.

  16. Wednesday says:

    Heather Alexandra is right.

    Quiet is both quite a good character and also utter bullshit.

  17. Rhodokasaurus says:

    Anyone getting tired of the self-flaggelation women give themselves in the games industry? Just like being gay, you don’t have to wear your gender as your identity. Just make a game.

    Nobody gives a shit who YOU are, just what you’ve made. Imagine if Stanley Parable or Undertale or Terraria or Life is Strange or Ridiculous Fishing, or Fez, or Journey, or Transistor, or Crypt of the Necrodancer were made by women. Why the fuck AREN’T these games made by women, most of them have women protagonists. Step up your shit, ladies.

    Every time a chick says she makes games you go look up her stuff and it’s like 2 text adventures about being a lesbian. That’s not the kind of thing that’s going to win the hearts and minds of gamers and get you that sweet, sweet attention you crave.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      Wow, that took a left turn. If you’re wondering why women don’t make more games, or why they have to shout louder when they do, just read what you wrote.

      • Rhodokasaurus says:

        The examples I mentioned only succeeded because men are “accepted” in the industry? They made these games in privacy, and released them to praise for their content, not their creators. If they were all made by women, nobody would have oppressed them.

        The author on Paste has made exactly 1 game- a pixel adventure game about “family and desperation”, and a couple 30-minute text games. And she’s complaining about how hard it is being a women developer?

        Guess what, I never heard of you or your fucking games, not because you’re a woman, because you didn’t do good enough. Your game was not better than the other 100 games that come out EVERY DAY. Do better, asshole! How many male game developers are going through the same shit? Most of them.

        People are so fucking sensitive they can’t be objective about this shit.

        • pepperfez says:

          I hope you’re not going to go all sensitive and be unable to take this as an objective, constructive criticism, but you sound like a colossally thoughtless dickhead.


          ” If they were all made by women, nobody would have oppressed them.” LOL so delusional.

          “The author on Paste has made exactly 1 game…and she’s complaining about how hard it is being a women developer?” How illogical do you have to be to not understand the connection between those two ideas?

          “Do better, asshole!” Stop being affected by stereotypes threat? The fact that you are literally blaming women for being outcasts in the game industry shows you haven’t a single clue what you’re talking about. You probably don’t even know what stereotype threat is: link to

          “How many male game developers are going through the same shit? Most of them.” LOL do a modicum of research before ignoring all context, child.

          “People are so fucking sensitive they can’t be objective about this shit.” HAHAHAHA you actually think you are being objective by ignoring every bit of complexity and pretending like our world is just and fair meritocracy? You must be a redditor

    • giantspacenewt says:

      “Imagine if Stanley Parable or Undertale or Terraria or Life is Strange or Ridiculous Fishing, or Fez, or Journey, or Transistor, or Crypt of the Necrodancer were made by women.”

      Weirdly, this isn’t a very difficult world to imagine – The Stanley Parable and Undertale and Life is Strange and Fez and Journey and Transistor and Crypt of the Necrodancer (and Her Story which you mention later) were all made by teams of people which included women! I kind of feel like your using all these neat games as examples of The Fruits Of Man Alone kind of undermines the idea that women just “need to do better, asshole” to achieve the same recognition as men?

      • Frosty Grin says:

        I think it actually supports his idea. Some women complain about being a woman in the gaming industry, other women actually participate in making games. “The Fruits Of Man Alone” is your own bullshit interpretation.

        The only issue here that few women actually lead the teams. It can be caused by a variety of reasons, and the risky nature of indie development is probably one of them.

        • gaydog2 says:

          There are women that complain about the state of the game industry and participate in it at the same time. Not surprisingly, these are the majority of women in the game’s industry.

          • Flatley says:

            “Not only is it expected of us to deal with the everyday struggles of being a female public creator, but also to constantly talk about it … As such, the majority of support and coverage goes only to the women with the energy to do both, a handful of women approved by the media that socially and financially thrives on these stories.”

            From Ms. White’s Article

        • giantspacenewt says:

          “your own bullshit interpretation”

          Personally, I don’t feel like it’s too much of a stretch to say that a statement like “why the fuck AREN’T these games made by women” implies that these games are not made by women. That’s all I meant to say (slightly sarcastically) with the Fruits Of Man thing!

          • Frosty Grin says:

            I don’t think having a woman or two on the team is enough to say that the game is “made by women”. The term clearly implies that the game is made either by a primarily female team, or, more relevantly, under primarily female leadership. And very few game developers we know by name are female.

        • Premium User Badge

          Ninja Dodo says:

          @Frosty Grin: You’re aware that two of the leads on Journey (Hunicke, Santiago) and the art director on Transistor (Jen Zee) were women, right?

    • Premium User Badge

      Graham Smith says:

      i) I don’t think you read or understood the article.

      ii) Why should everyone be making games to cater to you? Game developers do not need your attention. They can make whatever they want.

      iii) What qualifies as a “good” game is subjective. “Good” is not the thing you like. “Bad” is not anything made for someone else.

      iv) Pepperfez and giantspacenewt are right.

      v) You are banned. It is important that everyone knows you are banned, so that it is clear to passers-by that you and your views are not welcome here. Bye.

    • GWOP says:

      “Imagine if Stanley Parable or Undertale or Terraria or Life is Strange or Ridiculous Fishing, or Fez, or Journey, or Transistor, or Crypt of the Necrodancer were made by women.”

      So you automatically assume that those games were made 100% by men and had no women in their development teams, and the only thing women are capable of making are lesbian text adventure games…

      You spout your heteronormative bullshit and then ask why women complain.


      “you don’t have to wear your gender as your identity. Just make a game.” Bullshit. Here let me summarize every news story about a female game dev: _____ _____ is a FEMALE GAME DEV who…(whatever)

      “Nobody gives a shit who YOU are, just what you’ve made.” LOL so naive. Try living in the real world, kiddo.

      “Every time a chick says she makes games you go look up her stuff and it’s like 2 text adventures about being a lesbian.” You obviously don’t know anything about what you’re talking about.

      “get you that sweet, sweet attention you crave.” #WomenAreAttentionWhoresAmIRightGuys

  18. NotGodot says:

    Oh Golly Golly Goshwinkles! The Stephen Fry monologue that he’s described as dated and age-old in two of his past three volumes of memoir.