Seasons by Scavengers

GWJ Conference Call Episode 740

Demon’s Souls (PS5), Vermintide 2 (PC), 10,000,000 (Mobile), You Must Build A Boat (Mobile), The Game Awards, and Problematic Content and Creators.

Click Here to Download!

Amanda, Rich, and Glendon talk about navigating problematic content and creators.

To contact us, email [email protected]! Send us your thoughts on the show, pressing issues you want to talk about, or whatever else is on your mind.

  • Subscribe with iTunes
  • Subscribe with RSS
  • Subscribe with Yahoo!
Download the official apps
  • Download the GWJ Conference Call app for Android
  • Download the GWJ Conference Call app for Android

Comments

00:02:14 Demon’s Souls
00:09:32 Vermintide 2
00:16:08 The Game Awards
00:33:33 10,000,000
00:36:16 You Must Build A Boat
00:40:44 Problematic Content and Creators

This so pleasing. IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/5fvOb12.jpg)

Gamers With Jobs: Monsters Be Chill

I'm excited to listen to this CC just to hear about who got through both 10,000,000 and YMBAB back to back. That's a lot of swiping.

I can't recommend that Getting Curious episode enough.

After listening to the CC, I'd like to call Rich's bluff. There is no way you ate too many peanut butter chocolate chip cookies because there is no such thing as eating too many peanut butter chocolate chip cookies.

Also, FWIW, I enjoyed this week's topic discussion and I appreciate your efforts in framing that discussion in a positive and constructive way.

I'm sure this comment wont make it far here as this doesn't strike me as a place of open discussion anymore. Either way I will give you a fair shake, and I hope that you can take what I've got to say in stride. Its been a long while since I've visited the ol' GWJ site, and I had a long drive tonight so I popped in. I have to say this was hands down the worst podcast I have ever heard released here.

It was all over the place. Lunch break gaming, 11 year old remakes, half the games talked about it was clear that you haven't played and were just voicing forum opinions. Not a single person had a divergent opinion on anything. On a positive note, you guys were at least passionate about the 10mil game. It was clear that you had played it and enjoyed it.

The main topic "problematic content" we could talk about all day, but I don't recall anyone actually talking about it. You were more focused on problematic developers who you passive aggressively would not name. You beat around the bush with what you wanted to say for 20 min, and then finally got to the point saying that the developers at cyberpunk 2070 don't care about games as much as indie developers.

If you have sh*t to talk about CD Projekt by all means lay out your case. Talk about how they are abusing their employees, find one that will chat with you about it. Tell me how you feel. But absolutely don't disparage the people that work there, that built what may be (after the bugs are worked out) one of the most robust games of my lifetime, without the stones to say what you want to say. Who knows, maybe by the end I would agree with you. Right now though, it just makes you look petty, exclusionist, and pretentious.

This episode felt more like an agenda than a discussion, and I truly hope that it isn't indicative of where this podcast has gone. I realize I haven't given you rainbows and sunshine to work with here, but I cant be the only person that thinks this, and truly want to see this get better. Also, so there is no confusion, I actually would have loved for you to dig into CP and air your grievances. While I might not agree with you, most people can respect a well crafted argument.

Good luck in the future and I'm sorry I've been away for so long,
Postmann88

That's so interesting, because I, on the other hand, thought it was one of the best episodes yet!! If anything, I'm of the opinion that the crew went too easy on CDProjekt.

And for the record, there was no disparaging of the employees, not even a smidge of it. On the contrary, the crew went out of their way to specifically point out that you don't always have to throw out an entire piece of content just because of one person's behavior (speaking of Greg Ellis' transphobia, racism and all around bigotry in regards to Dragon Age: Inquisition).

Having diverging opinions is one thing, but maybe at some point in time, some introspection is indeed when we're adamant about defending content that's made by atrocious people with a loathsome disregard for human life. So here's a somewhat well crafted argument. Not only has CDProjekt demonstrated sexism, transphobia and racism repeatedly over the past years, they also made the deliberate decision to include content which could cause severe health issues to a lot of folks, with no prior warning.
Oh and the game is super buggy and wasn't tested on some platforms they released it on, I guess.

*whispers* It's Cyberpunk 2077.

I'd offer a more serious rebuttal to that screed but honestly i can't get past the "most robust game" line.

IMAGE(https://smackfolio.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/epnlfqlwmaavqyz.jpg)

Postmann88 wrote:

I'm sure this comment wont make it far here as this doesn't strike me as a place of open discussion anymore.

You gotta love this opener. Now if nobody replies to you, you're right, and if everyone who replies disagrees with you (which is happening), then you're also right because it's not an "open" discussion. Textbook move.

Hi Postman88, Thanks for the time you put into this post!

Firstly, the show followed the general structure of the pre-show notes, which is typical for us. The lack of direct naming and shaming was noted there, as well as the reasons listed in our disclaimer at the end of the show (that you stayed to listen for, thank you).

There is a documented history of the game's fandom targeting people providing reviews that are less than glowing about the game, particularly if they're female or lgbtqia+. At the time of recording (before the game was released), it was too much of a risk for us to pursue to discuss the gameplay as an organization with that in mind.

Secondly, you'll notice that the podcast description and show notes that the discussion was centered around the concept of navigating problematic content and creators. That implies it's more of a context for personal reflection and acknowledgment of your own reactions to hot-button topics in gaming, which isn't specific to any one studio as it's a problem across many industries. I'll admit maybe we could have placed a stronger emphasis on the thrust of this and really spelled it out a bit more in presentation and editing to make that more clear.

Thirdly, editing. I'll own that; a lot of the examples given after editing centered around Gr*g Ell*s, CDPR, and maybe a little bit of EA that didn't get cut out, and that did have an impact on continuity. Because CDPR was a hot topic, they did get talked about a lot, as most current events are relevant when discussing feelings around navigating problematic content and creators as it'll be the freshest to google.

I could have left in more of the stuff I'd said about EA and that may have balanced the conversation better. I felt that sharing my former partner's experiences working there was a violation of trust. Those weren't my stories to tell. There was not enough time after recording to ask permission and then give him a chance to review it, so I ended up pulling that part of the track and I do feel the continuity did suffer for that.

I believe at one point, we specifically stated why we weren't wanting to do too many specific "callouts" to various offenders, as a lot of these issues were endemic to any creative corporate industry as a whole and that these situations are going to keep happening until a systemic change is achieved.

I'll push back on a few points here:

You beat around the bush with what you wanted to say for 20 min, and then finally got to the point saying that the developers at cyberpunk 2070 don't care about games as much as indie developers.

No one here stated that CDPR doesn't care about games as much as indie developers. Everyone cares about games in their own ways and aren't a measurable metric to evaluate in this context. That is a strawman. Everyone involved in making games cares deeply about games, otherwise, they wouldn't put up with the toxicity of some of its workplaces or audiences.

Talk about how they are abusing their employees, find one that will chat with you about it.

GWJ has never been known for hard-hitting investigative journalism. No one at CDPR would risk losing their job to talk to a community gaming site about their situation, and no one from this site would put themselves in the position of navigating that close to a company's PR in the middle of a sh*tstorm their management created for themselves. It would seem motivated towards sensationalism. That is a different topic for a different podcast, and best wishes those involved should they actually attempt to do something like that.

Tell me how you feel.

Since you're insistent on fixating on the specifics of this dev and this game, I'll take the bait: they should have brought in outside consulting years ago (and listened to them), and at least part of that should have also been maybe a meeting with a PR consultant back in the GOG drama days. Since that ship has long sailed, if they haven't contacted someone for crisis mitigation at this point, they'll keep hemorrhaging good faith in their investors and hamstring their reputation further, I guess.

Management should hire consultants for a transition team and resign before they do any more damage to their brand/workforce/content. They have a responsibility to their employees, community, and fanbase that they've neglected, and that is entirely on their shoulders. All of this did not come about by bad luck, no one fails this spectacularly by accident.

Spoiler:

Also, they have a history of being mockingly anti-trans, anti-social justice, and catering to edgelords and employing gg memes and methodologies with their forums and social media for years. They rallied their edgy audiences and tacitly take little to no ownership of the spaces they've created.

But absolutely don't disparage the people that work there, that built what may be (after the bugs are worked out) one of the most robust games of my lifetime, without the stones to say what you want to say

That's may be another strawman, unless you're demanding I don't disparage management responsible for this mess. At no point did we disparage all their employees. My heart aches for their staff and all the hard work they'll continue to do because of the choices made by higher-ups that wanted to crush a deadline to the detriment of nearly everything else.

However, in summary for now: Cyberpunk2077 was done dirty and I feel sorry for everyone involved. I hope many of those folks are able to move onto healthier and more rewarding projects in the future.

I'd be interested in having a conversation about the game, and the entire sh*tstorm surrounding it, when it is finished.

I will say I did unsub to the podcast after this episode. Not because I think I'm owed anything, or that I think y'all did a poor job. I fully respect the reasons for what and why you presented things the way you did.

The podcast just isn't for me anymore. It's changed. I'm sure for the better for a lot of people, and for me it's shifted away from what I'm looking for. I find myself disagreeing with the hosts far more than I used to (never about social justice or politics or anything of that nature) just about game mechanics and what makes a game good. I end up not getting anything personally valuable out of the game reviews. This episode was kind of the last straw for me. I was just hoping the topic would have had a lot more substance than what it did, and it really left me wanting more.

I think y'all are amazing people, and I genuinely hope the podcast continues to be successful. Not that I'm flouncing or anything. I'm sure I'll still look around the forums from time to time. This community is still extremely cool.

I liked the episode a lot. I definitely found it to be thoughtful, and it didn't matter as much to me whether CDPR was specifically called out or not. The conversation around problematic creators and companies sounded like a group of friends trying to navigate a fraught issue while respecting each other, and multiple points of view, and I personally like that level of thought and care. It appeals to me so much more than call-outs.

Not that this has to be everyone's take, just my $0.02.

I think it's clear the podcast has changed, as I think the hosts admitted in a recent episode: the discussions now trend indie, with fewer AAA games covered -- or at least, fewer covered at the time they're launched. That's probably in large part a product of turnover in hosts. For me, the change it's better or worse, just different. I don't play a ton of brand-new AAA games, myself. And, most importantly, I like the vibe: people who are friends, and love loving things, talking to each other about the hobby that I love.

Of course, there are going to be people who liked the old way better. That's fine. But when criticizing something that's changed, I think it does us all well keep in mind that there's a big difference between this:

Mechakoopa wrote:

The podcast just isn't for me anymore. It's changed. I'm sure for the better for a lot of people, and for me it's shifted away from what I'm looking for. I find myself disagreeing with the hosts far more than I used to (never about social justice or politics or anything of that nature) just about game mechanics and what makes a game good. I end up not getting anything personally valuable out of the game reviews.

And this:

Postmann88 wrote:

I'm sure this comment wont make it far here as this doesn't strike me as a place of open discussion anymore. ... I have to say this was hands down the worst podcast I have ever heard released here.