Why I'm Disappointed in Revolution 60

Don't get me wrong: I was hardly super-excited for Revolution 60. I've never planned to play the game, and I certainly have no plans to buy it.

But all the same, I had high hopes for Revolution 60. Well, perhaps more for the idea of Revolution 60 than Revolution 60 itself.

Many women insist that video gaming, if not a hostile environment for women, is at least not inclusive enough of women. They claim that not enough games are made that attract women to gaming. They insist that more games should be made that would appeal to women.

In the latter point, they're not wrong.

In fact, many of the people we refer to as "social justice warriors" believe that more games should be made that would appeal to people of any number of different identity groups.

They're not wrong.

Where they veer into untenable territory is when they demand that AAA companies make such games, and that they only make such games. No one has any business attempting to dictate to any games developer what types of game they should or should not make. That is what the market is for, and it works well.

Games that are more inclusive of such various identity subgroups is what the independent market is for. As a subgroup of the video game industry, robust and healthy indie gaming is the key to ensuring that video gaming is, and remains, inclusive.

Breanna Wu says she doesn't believe video gaming is inclusive enough. She says she believes it's hostile to women. Or so she says. She's certainly willing to lie in order to make it seem that way.

And if she really believed that, Revolution 60 could have been part of the answer to demands for more inclusive games. That is, it could have been if she had actually delivered what she promised.

Wu essentially promised that Revolution 60 would be true to its name. She promised a game inclusive of women, mixing empowering female characters with inventive gameplay in a way that would transform how women are portrayed in gaming.

Instead, Revolution 60 is the mediocre product of a mediocre developer. By all accounts, vast gaps in its gameplay are filled in with banal QuickTime events. Her female character designs are the most hackneyed and typical -- yet unappealing -- imaginable. And Revolution 60's graphics are reminiscent of the worst eyesores of the PS1 generation of games.

In the midst of all of this, Wu's constant wailing to the press about "harassment" and her self-aggrandizing behaviour cannot be ignored. It forces upon me the impression that Wu, whose game is achingly substandard (if not antiquated), is fully aware that her work is substandard, and so insists on injecting herself into the #Gamergate discourse in hopes of using the controversy to coverup the terminal flaws in her work.

In doing so Wu actually becomes the embodiment of the journalistic ethics issue that remains at the root of the #Gamergate discourse. Wu isn't getting coverage from NBC, CBS or CBC because her work is newsworthy, or even because her stunts -- such as "pulling out of PAX East" -- are newsworthy. She's getting coverage because she's connected.

If Wu spent the amount of time that she spends pulling stunts such as suggesting that #Gamergate supporters threatened PAX East with Sarin gas -- it was in fact a #Gamergate opponent who mused about using Sarin gas against gamers -- working on her game, then perhaps Revolution 60 could have become the game she promised it would be.

But instead Wu would rather create threads on Steam message boards asking if she's a terrible person -- only to delete them when she realizes she did so using her own account -- than doing the work giving Revolution 60 the polish that would make it a passable product.

In other words, Brianna Wu is too busy actually being a person to produce a product that deserves people's money.

I can't help but conclude that Wu's plans to not show up to PAX East has more to do with avoiding having to answer any questions about just how awful a product Revolution 60 is, and why it's so awful, than it does any belief that there are any credible threats against her.

After all, the whole Jace Connors debacle did turn out to be a #Gamergate opponent attempting to give other #Gamergate opponents more ammunition to use against #Gamergate. A lot of #Gamergate opponents managed to fall for that, too. Sam "Bring Back Bullying" Biddle even declared Connors "all that's left" of #Gamergate.

How very droll.

Thus, the heartwrenching disappointment in the overwhelming lousiness of Revolution 60. When SJdubs are told to go make the games they want to see made, lousiness of this magnitude is unequivocally not what anyone means.

Reject vs Reject

As much as I hate to give Jace Connors any kind of attention whatsoever, my attention was inexorably drawn to the spectacle of an interview between him and SJdub "gonzo journalist" (read: not an actual journalist) Reuben Baron.

What emerged was perhaps one of the most disturbing incidences of a cripple fight I've ever witnessed.

I say this not to cast aspersions upon disabled people, but because the entire affair bore the lack of dignity characterized these kinds of contests: two people, each with their own personal afflictions, wailing away on each other for the meagre entertainment of others.

But this one bore a deeper element of indignity which made it hilarious, agonizing and saddening all at the same time: the spectacle of watching two deeply defective people devastate one another.

Let's be clear on what makes each of them defective, or rather what doesn't. For Connors, it isn't (necessarily) his mental illness that I consider to be his defect. I myself have been diagnosed with, and treated for, severe depression. I sympathize with many of Connors' struggles because I myself share them.

For Baron it isn't his stuttering, or even his egregiously-annoying voice that I consider to be his defect. In fact, I know numerous people with speech impediments and I understand the struggles they can impose upon people. I sympathize with his struggles because I've seen my friends go through them. In particular, stuttering has been described to be as "literally physically painful" by one particular stutterer I know.

No, I consider the defects of each individual to be defects of personality, defects that each could correct if they so chose.

At least, Connors could potentially correct his if he were undergoing a full treatment regimen (medication, counseling, and appropriate support) for his schizophrenia. The appearance of Connors' mother during the interview indicates that she may perhaps be acting as Connors' enabler, even taking the blame for the carwreck observers have spent the past four days believing he instigated.

Here is the base indignity of what unfolded during that interview: one individual, Reuben Baron, claiming to be acting as a journalist when in fact what he was clearly doing was attempting to extract comments from Connors that would be useful to the agenda of his friend, Brianna Wu. At one point, while Connors is out of the room fetching his mother, he even expresses clear frustration with his inability to get comments out of Connors that he could use against him.

He clearly wasn't aware that the interview was being recorded by Connors, who would eventually use it for his own agenda. I find it hard to feel sorry for Baron in this regard.

Then there is the other individual, Jace Connors, who constantly lies, self-aggrandizes, mocks Baron's speech impediment, utters anti-gay slurs at him (Baron self-identifies as bisexual), and attempts to weaponize each individual's religion against him.

The nadir of the spectacle emerges when Baron asks to speak to Connors' mother, apparently eager to tell his mom on him. Connors mother, however, is a breed not of the internet age in any way, shape, or form. She sucks the wind out of Baron's sails by taking responsibility for the wreck -- calling it a little "slip-slide" -- by telling Baron it was her, not Connors, who was behind the wheel.

Is she just covering for her son? Or was she really driving? At this point I don't know what to believe. While Connors does seem to indicate early in the interview that he was driving the blue Prius -- honestly, who the hell street races in a Prius? -- he's also lied about threatening to shoot guns at Brianna Wu. Why would we take him at his word now, knowing he's a confirmed liar?

Some of the interview seems to confirm what some people have suspected -- that many, or perhaps all, of the so-called "threats" made by Connors against Wu are simply not serious threats. Connors castigates Baron for not realizing that a YouTube video in which he talks about dressing as Batman and doing "Assassin's Creed-style moves" on Wu were a joke. Looking back on it, this seems obvious, but the Connors mythos -- yes, he has a mythos, I'm sorry to say -- was enough to convince some people that these were the genuine words of an obvious madman.

Baron is dead on the money when he says these jokes weren't funny. He was brandishing what appeared to be a real knife while he did them, so no one's laughing. His tortured mental gymnastics trying to dictate Connors' intentions back to him were not necessary. Being unfunny was quite enough.

As for Connors declaring himself the new leader, the "commander" of #Gamergate? That's laughable. And while I fully expect the contemptible Sam "Bring Back Bullying" Biddle to latch onto that in some future hitpiece against the movement that caused his bad behaviour to cost Gawker seven figures in advertising revenue, that doesn't make it any more credible.

(Seriously, Mr Biddle. You should just be happy to still have your job. I suspect it's the last one you'll ever get.)

No one at #Gamergate is following him, and certainly no one is taking his orders.

As for Reuben Baron, someone in his journalism classes should sit down and explain to him that "Gonzo journalism" is not real journalism. Real journalists don't leave their cognizant readers trying to puzzle out how much of what they've been told is real, and how much of it was made up at the "journalist's" whim.

Also, preparing himself before an interview is usually a good idea. It's called "research." Also, when a journalist essentially rage-quits an interview, it's a good sign that this is not a story they should back away from.

In fact, his career will be much better off were he to correct his obvious character flaws and conduct himself like an actual, professional journalist. His agenda may suffer but his work will not.

In future, perhaps we could hope that at least one of these two individuals will not actively seek to participate in a reject fight.