Gaming Journalism Exposed: Indy Devel. Sells Sex For Reviews

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well we all knew those review sites were fraudulent. Now we have yet another example of why:




Some more:




Here's the original story taken down by Zoe Quinn:




TotalBiscuit's Take:

www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s4nmr1/



Zoe Quinn "communication" with r/gaming & r/hardware mod, and the results of those communications:

i.imgur.com/0ZAaahT.png

i.imgur.com/1fdvlxz.png

RPS Response:

i.imgur.com/CyKrS8R.png


This is really scandalous indeed.

[JACK-2]

I haven't bothered with reviews since 2007[?] now. It's obvious now, because it's ridiculous.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 16:53:30 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I haven't bothered with reviews since 2007[?] now. It's obvious now, because it's ridiculous.

I stopped with the magazines I read waaaaaaaaaay back in the day, like late 90's.

[JACK-2]

I'm watching the videos. I haven't bothered with media gaming or otherwise. But, I didn't know that things were this bad. I mean kotaku is notoriously bad. But, wow. I'm glad I quit the gaming community.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 17:16:19 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I'm watching the videos. I haven't bothered with media gaming or otherwise. But, I didn't know that things were this bad. I mean kotaku is notoriously bad. But, wow. I'm glad I quit the gaming community.

This is also an Indie developer no less, who are supposed to have a good reputation. Journalism is all about pumping up whatever side you're in bed with (literally and figuratively).

[JACK-2]

I've never been into indy games tbh. At least in the west, I never bothered. Crap like Fez and overhyped stuff like child of light. Maybe there are great games, but I've stuck with the small core games I'm playing or interested in [mostly Japanese].

After these incidents, I don't think that's a bad choice. The first video is unbelievable.

[JACK-2]

I watched all three vids, just woooow.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

What was the best part?

[JACK-2]

The part where Zoe Quinn sleeps with her boss who gives her good reviews for a hummer. This is low as low can get.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 18:24:46 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

The part where Zoe Quinn sleeps with her boss who gives her good reviews for a hummer. This is low as low can get.

Low for the boss for sleeping with a fat pig, or low for her?

[JACK-2]

Aug 20, 2014 18:37:20 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Aug 20, 2014 18:24:46 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

The part where Zoe Quinn sleeps with her boss who gives her good reviews for a hummer. This is low as low can get.

Low for the boss for sleeping with a fat pig, or low for her?

Low for people who take gaming journalism seriously.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 18:39:48 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Aug 20, 2014 18:37:20 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Low for the boss for sleeping with a fat pig, or low for her?

Low for people who take gaming journalism seriously.

Would you hit it?

[JACK-2]

Aug 20, 2014 18:45:44 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Aug 20, 2014 18:39:48 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Low for people who take gaming journalism seriously.

Would you hit it?

Just by kissing her on the lips it would be an indirect blowjob to 5 guys, no thank you.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 18:50:54 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Aug 20, 2014 18:45:44 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Would you hit it?

Just by kissing her on the lips it would be an indirect blowjob to 5 guys, no thank you.

Then you don't want to ever touch another girl. They get around nowadays lol.

[JACK-2]

Aug 20, 2014 18:54:13 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Then you don't want to ever touch another girl. They get around nowadays lol.

I wouldn't mind if she had 1 or 2 partners, but this shit is too much. Yeah, girls get around alot these days especially when they "date". They usually settle down after having their fill of cocks. Feminism has turned women into massive cumdumpters. Would you tap?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 18:58:16 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Aug 20, 2014 18:54:13 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Then you don't want to ever touch another girl. They get around nowadays lol.

I wouldn't mind if she had 1 or 2 partners, but this shit is too much. Yeah, girls get around alot these days especially when they "date". They usually settle down after having their fill of cocks. Feminism has turned women into massive cumdumpters. Would you tap?

It's more than even 2. A woman in modern society who goes out regularly might sleep with one man a weekend. You multiply that by the year and that's 52, multiply that by the years and...


Even if you went monthly, that's 12 a year, multiply that by some years.


Even if you took a few long term relationships into account it would still be high. I'm sure it's statistical fact that 50% of women have had some STD at some point, maybe even higher.

It's bad...

And no I wouldn't. She's fat and ugly. Some guys are just desperate lol.

[JACK-2]

So, I pressume you don't date around know all this?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 19:10:03 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

So, I pressume you don't date around know all this?

Dating is just a middle man.

I'm picky so I approach women who are also picky, those women are more desirable, like 9's or 10's. Most guys are scared to approach those girls and they of course go after desirable guys. They have no need to date around because they get the quality that women want.

What's funny is people think the super hot ones sleep around. It's actually the ugly and fat women who do it. It's the only way they can keep a man around. It's known that fat women are the biggest whores. Just like this one in the story.

[JACK-2]

So, the hotter she is the less of a whore she is [Oversimplification I know.]?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 19:26:37 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

So, the hotter she is the less of a whore she is [Oversimplification I know.]?

There's a curve, just like there's a curve with how women get approached.

Women who are truly hideous or deformed are going to have the least partners/approaches. Sometimes women who are fat and ugly will get one night stands though.

Women who are not attractive will be sleeping around a lot to keep a man around.

Women who are average will be about average.

Women who are attractive will get more approaches but be more selective in most case.

Women who are gorgeous will get less approaches (but more than the truly hideous) and are the most selective, since they can be.


There are times however you have women who aren't that attractive who can have a big attitude and be "large and in charge" in America, while women who are beautiful never get asked out and can be easier to approach at times as well. It's all a scale.

[JACK-2]

A bell curve then? So, the average and those close to average will sleep around more?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 19:33:21 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

A bell curve then? So, the average and those close to average will sleep around more?

Sounds about right, with the extremes doing it less.

Actually it slopes down the higher up it gets, kind of like a wave.

[JACK-2]

Can you give me an example of a 9/10 as a frame of reference. Of course, taking your taste into account as well.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 19:38:43 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Can you give me an example of a 9/10 as a frame of reference. Of course, taking your taste into account as well.

Off hand? Hmmm... Trying to find one that's not quite a ten can often be harder lol.

I'd give the girls towards the center close to an 8 or 9. Probably not good enough for you, but it's a start.

[JACK-2]

I think you're spot on about differences in behavior between ugly people and pretty people. I also find that alot of times higher class people are more attractive than lower class people, not sure if it's a fact. But, I know for a fact that in America [Thanks to Charles Murray.] the upper class is generally has less: Illegitimacy, Is more often married, Less single parents, more religious [ not socialist preachers], more optimistic, and general positive traits. I know from experience of being around both that the upper class tends to be more pleasant than the working class or poor.

What do you think?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 20:16:45 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I think you're spot on about differences in behavior between ugly people and pretty people. I also find that alot of times higher class people are more attractive than lower class people, not sure if it's a fact. But, I know for a fact that in America [Thanks to Charles Murray.] the upper class is generally has less: Illegitimacy, Is more often married, Less single parents, more religious [ not socialist preachers], more optimistic, and general positive traits. I know from experience of being around both that the upper class tends to be more pleasant than the working class or poor.

What do you think?

People who are more successful are more attractive on average, that's definitely a fact. People who are attractive and successful tend to date and marry other attractive and or successful people. They tend to diet more, take better care of themselves, of course they can afford better treatments as well. They tend to do better in their careers and sell better. They also get promoted more often. People in poorer areas tend to not take good care of themselves, eat poorly, not exercise as much, not move up in their careers as much as well.

I've been on the both ends. I grew up with nothing in Mississippi which is the poorest state in the union with the highest teen pregnancy rate. Losers will be losers, and have kids who end up losers.

This is why I mention bad genes and good genes so often. It's not just intelligence, it's looks, and success too. Compared to the lowest of the low who just breed like crazy and wear away at everything around them.

I'm not sure about the religious part though, research showed that poorer and less educated people are more religious. Then again if you take an older segment of the population (who tend to be the most successful) they may be religious because of traditional teachings. I'd imagine that people who tend to be successful and didn't have those beliefs drilled into them have more of a feel that they are in control of life.

A person who is poor is going to want someone else to be in control and want to be carried, which is why religion is so popular in small hick towns where I grew up. These people also tend to believe in big government for the same reason and altruism. They want to be carried through life.

Even if a successful person has spiritual beliefs, it's just something they believe in, not a "take control of my life" point of view.

www.smartcitymemphis.com/2011/04/conservative-states-poorer-less-educated-and-more-religious/

[JACK-2]

This is where I got the "more religious" tidbit from:

www.businessinsider.com/growing-divide-in-white-america-2012-1?op=1

I guess I should say spiritual? Because when I say religious I don't mean big mega churches that are scams. I mean religious in the old self reliant, small government, "Only sovereign is God" types, Protestant work ethic types.

I see your point, because alot of poor people use religion as a crutch. But, I don't know if I trust that article since it's arguing that Conservative states are poorer? Places like California are broke and liberal cities like New York, Los Angelos and Detroit [Yes, that's on them] are shit holes.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 20, 2014 20:33:58 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

This is where I got the "more religious" tidbit from:

www.businessinsider.com/growing-divide-in-white-america-2012-1?op=1

I guess I should say spiritual? Because when I say religious I don't mean big mega churches that are scams. I mean religious in the old self reliant, small government, "Only sovereign is God" types, Protestant work ethic types.

I see your point, because alot of poor people use religion as a crutch. But, I don't know if I trust that article since it's arguing that Conservative states are poorer? Places like California are broke and liberal cities like New York, Los Angelos and Detroit [Yes, that's on them] are shit holes.

I don't think religion or spirituality has any bearing on success. This is what I have to often tell my religious family. You've had lots of religious people doing "good" or "bad" things. Rich or poor. Terrorists are religious after all. They have beliefs.

What makes prosperity is production. Hard working people who keep what they earn regardless of what they believe are going to be more successful than those who are a more collectivist nature. Religion has a lot in common with collectivism in many ways. It's essentially the group before the individual. Religion doesn't preach much about individualism, but succumbing to some larger power. Many liberals who don't believe in God, just believe in government, which is the same principle.

Our country was based off of individualism, but the religion wasn't a part of it. We had separation of church and state. Also the Pilgrims settled here and they were religious and tried socialism and it failed. So a belief system doesn't really matter much compared to behavior.

Many states are broke. Not because of their religion though, but because they have too much government.

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/the-conservative-states-of-america/71827/