Destiny: A Job You Pay For!

Destiny is among the weirdest games I’ve ever played.

I’ll get the obvious and repetitive stuff out of the way first.

The minute-to-minute gameplay is excellent. Bungie clearly knows how to craft a tight first person shooter. The abilities of the player character and smart use of level geometry provides a welcome departure from the pop up shooting galleries that are the default in the FPS genre. It’s enormously satisfying to fly around a room tossing grenades/meleeing and swapping between weapons. The guns themselves are far less interesting though, besides increasing or decreasing the numbers popping out of enemies when you shoot them, after a few hours they all feel the same. You’ll quickly stop caring about what a gun does and simply look at the numbers and colour; the game borrows the coloured gear system from WoW so Yellow > Purple > Blue > Green >White.

The missions themselves are very by the numbers unfortunately, typically consisting of “Go here, shoot the bad guys around this computer, deploy your robot buddy at the computer, your robot buddy will say something sounding like Tyrion Lannister on Ambien, mission complete, now wait 30 seconds for no reason”. And because the missions will take you through the same environments several times, the issue of repetition becomes even more egregious.

The story is abysmal. It is among the worst stories I’ve ever experienced in a video game. It introduces concepts, characters and races strangely casually as if you should already understand everything and they’re just filling in details. Nearly all of the exposition comes from your robot companion voiced by Peter Dinklage which sounded great on paper. Unfortunately, the game can’t seem to decide if your “Ghost” is supposed to be witty and sarcastic or simply an emotionless robot. The result is that Dinklage sounds so disinterested its a wonder he was able to stay awake to read his lines. Combined with the barely there story, cutscenes are an exercise in endurance.

With regards to setting, the promise of an epic adventure through the solar system is never really fulfilled. The worlds feel more like palette swaps than anything; Brown for Earth (of course), White and Black on the moon, Red for Mars and Green for Venus. And while I’m not asking for an entire planet to explore, it feels strange to be told “we’re going to a new world” and then being placed a relatively sparse environment. Destiny attempts to make the world seem big by giving you your own spaceship and providing long glamour shots of light-speed travel, but those are merely their method of hiding loading screens; which are among the longest I’ve seen in recent memory.

The enemies reflect this barely there story, you’ll fight the Fallen: 4 armed aliens with several eyes, the Hive: a kind of insectoid species, the Vex: requisite generic robots and the Cabal: who are essentially humanoid but bigger. The races do fight slightly differently but I found it impossible to care who I was fighting because I had no idea who they were or why I don’t like them. The most you’re ever given is that they are “creatures of the darkness” and “the darkness” is bad. If they had decided to make one species the enemy, maybe they could have had more time to develop the story; instead of telling you; “you like this big white orb thing, its good. Out there is the darkness, its bad. Now shoot some aliens”.

The game does look beautiful, but rightly so. In the past when next generation took us from papercraft figures in Goldeneye to characters who could actually make facial expressions it was important to mention graphics. Now with increasingly minute improvement, graphics only really matter when the game looks sub-par based on current technology. So yes, Destiny looks great but when the production budget was roughly the GDP of a small country, it better.

Now that I’ve got the boring “regular review” stuff out of the way I want to talk about what makes Destiny so strange for a console shooter.

If you ask Bungie. Destiny is not an MMO. It’s a shooter with an online component, its an FPS with large RPG elements, it’s a new kind of game that defies genre, etc. Those are lies, it’s an MMO.

Sure it doesn’t play like WoW, you don’t need to learn a circumscribed “rotation” to properly play the game but it has all the features of an MMO. There is a hub town with vendors, you match up with other players randomly to do missions independent of where you are in the game that are only tangentially related to the plot, in WoW it’s dungeons, here it’s strike missions and your primary means of communicating with players you meet is dancing. However, the most MMO-like feature is the end game content.

In Destiny, to buy the best gear you need to earn currency via cooperative Strike Missions or online multiplayer. These “Vanguard Marks” and “Crucible Marks” are capped, so you can only earn 100 per week. Obviously this system greatly resembles the currency system in WoW.

(By the way, sorry to keep referencing WoW, its the only MMO I ever played long enough to know what the hell I’m talking about.)

Similarly again, you need to grind reputation with in-game factions to have access to their best gear as well. None of this happens quickly, so getting the best/coolest stuff will take a long, long time.

This is no accident. MMOs are designed to be played to the exclusion of almost every other game. This is what Bungie wants from Destiny, to have you coming back every week to grind for gear, reputation and currency. They want the player to feel obligated to reach these caps every week, because that is what makes players ignore other games in favour of theirs.

This is why I find Destiny so incredibly strange. It is the first console release to attempt to control the market in this way. We’ve heard about Bungie’s 10 year plan for the game; I like many was skeptical of how the hell that would work, especially considering console generations average about 7-8 years. After seeing how the game operates though, I can see how that plan would shape out. By creating obligation in the player, its not unfeasible that through expansions and patches players will stick around for years at a time.

That is my major issue with Destiny. I played it for a few weeks, but it got to the point that when I sat down to play it I wasn’t excited for anything that was happening. I would dismantle all the green and blue loot I had accumulated, decode any engrams I had lying around and go back to what I was doing the night before. It wasn’t an escape, it wasn’t fun, it felt like a job. I was doing things, PvP, strike missions because that was how you get new gear, not because I was having a good time. This sense of obligation is best demonstrated by the Loot Cave; a way of getting gear quicker by shooting enemies at a conveniently placed spawn point.

When addressing the exploit Bungie stated that “shooting at a black hole for hours on end isn’t our dream for how Destiny is played” But they failed to realize that by using this exploit their players were telling the developers “shooting at this cave for 2 hours straight is preferable to actually playing your game.”

That is the issue with the MMO style emphasis on gearing up. People are more concerned with  having the best stuff than they are with the fun of the game. It’s great if your game has these sort of RPG elements that can enhance an already fun experience, but when the RPG gearing and stat building are the reason you are still playing, something is definitely wrong.

To conclude,

I’m possessed of a radical notion that games are supposed to be fun. But while there were fun moments, exciting firefights, I wouldn’t have described the overall experience of Destiny as fun. I was told the game came alive at level 20, so I grinded until level 20. I was told that I could get better, cooler gear if I kept playing; so I kept playing. I was told that if I spent 3 weeks playing the multiplayer, I’d be able to buy the best gear, so I played multiplayer for 3 weeks. All the while I was thinking about going back to play the original Mass Effect again or looking forward to Shadow of Mordor or Dragon Age Inquisition. So I figured, if this game isn’t fun and it isn’t holding my attention, why am I still playing it? There’s no question it’s addictive, but addictive and fun aren’t the same thing.

It’s a shame too, Bungie obviously had the tools to make a great game. The gameplay is tight, the graphics are excellent but their desire to keep the gamers glued to their game seemed to supersede everything that makes a game fun. It’s an excellent move from a business perspective, but as a gamer, I can’t help but feel let down.

Dear Ms. Watson

Ms. Watson, may I call you Emma?

Emma, you recently gave a speech in front of the UN. I agree with the spirit and message of the speech, gender equality is a noble goal worthy of pursuit from both women and men.

At one point you mentioned how it is regrettable that feminism has become synonymous with man hating. You go on to state the dictionary definition of feminism as the pursuit of gender equality. Your mistake here is not attempting to understand why feminism has been defined recently as man hating.

Feminism is a movement, an ideal, a pursuit; and as such has no formal leadership or requirements for membership. If you say you’re a feminist, then you’re a feminist. This means that for every rational person like yourself, there are others who are significantly more radical. People who with their zeal for the perceived idea of equality do damage to the very idea they believe they are fighting for.

There are the writers at Jezebel who mock male victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault.

There are the Tumblr feminists who call gay men misogynist by definition and shout about their love of “bathing in male tears”

There are the Twitter feminists who in the wake of significant news stories trumpet the M&M analogy and #killallmen.

I’m certain that if asked you would say that these are not feminists, that feminism is for everyone, that there is room for men’s issues as well. That is a good attitude, but for better or worse, these people are carrying your banner of Feminism and doing damage with it.

I’m also sure these people are a minority of the population, obviously the majority of women don’t want to kill half the population for being born with a Y chromosome. However, these are also the loudest voices to be heard online; even if these are 1% of self-identified feminists they are making 99% of the noise. For every link to your speech, there are articles about how proud they are that they have abused boyfriends, guides to “ending” white men and endless tweets about how the world would be better off without males.

So when a man goes online and sees “feminists” dispensing nothing but hate of his gender, it’s hard for him to separate the feminists who hate him based on his genitalia, and those like yourself who are coming from a place of compassion.

This is why you see men (and women!) choosing to go by the label “egalitarian” or “humanist” or say things like “I support equality but I’m not a feminist”. Because the label of feminist, to them, is associated with hate. Whether you believe it or not men support gender equality, a lot of us do. What they don’t like is being associated with a label that seems (on the surface at least) to want nothing to do with them.

Feminists need to call out this bad behaviour being carried out under your name, simply saying that those people aren’t “real feminists” isn’t enough to convince those who feel unwelcome in the movement. Condemning said acts of hate is the best thing you can do to gain even more support in the world, as it demonstrates true compassion for both genders. Ignoring the hate being dispensed in the name of feminism is seen to many as tacitly agreeing and I am certain that s not the message you wish to send.

I hope you take this message to heart, because I agree with your position. Gender equality is very important but it takes more than an offer of welcome and a hashtag to convince people that contrary to what they have seen, feminism does care for them.

I wish you the best of luck with your campaign,


The Thing About Hitman

For better or worse the recent issues in the gaming world have reinvigorated a discussion of Anita Sarkeesian’s work. We’ve resumed a debate that most believed we were done with as the Tropes Vs. Women series dropped from millions of views to a hundred thousand. The question being should Anita Sarkeesian have any influence in the future of gaming?

I say no for a number of reasons, other people say yes for a number of reasons. In these discussions, whether cordial or vitriolic, one subject appears frequently; Anita’s analysis of Hitman Absolution.

This has been a fixture of the Anti-Sarkeesian crowd for a long while and in a recent tumblr argument (I know, I go for the hard-hitting sources) I saw someone say “You always bring up Hitman! Don’t you have any other points you can make!?” And they were right, a ton of attention is paid to a small part of her over 2 hours of content. So why is the Hitman point so prevalent? Thats what I’m here to answer.

The following might seem like a patronizing over-examination of a small part of Sarkeesian’s work but to understand why everyone uses this as their go-to point against Anita, fine examination is necessary.

The first issue is what Anita does in-game. She shows a small section of gameplay where the player character (in this case controlled by Anita) kills two exotic dancers and proceeds to drag their dead bodies across the room. The two dancers are not the target of the mission, there is no goal/indicator/objective that says “kill these women”. They are NPCs which are meant to be avoided, lest they see the player character and cause an alert/failure in the mission. The killing of such NPCs (male and female alike) is discouraged by the game’s scoring mechanics; which rewards stealth and non-lethal tactics. Yes these characters can be killed by the player, as can hundreds of male NPCs; Anita chooses to zero in on this and kill them. I contend that Anita going out of her way to kill two female “sex objects” (as she calls them) that she is under no obligation to kill says much more about Anita as a person than the game says about the gamers who play it. To see the treatment of women as equal to men, who can be killed in droves in this and countless other games, as an issue seems counterintuitive to a movement which champions equality

Secondly Anita uses small fraction of a relatively long game as her example in this instance. The game has 20 missions in total. Of those 20 missions, Anita looks at one mission. Of that one mission, 2 parts take place in the strip club. Of those 2 parts, Anita looks at an approximately 30 second snippet of gameplay. Which as stated above, only exists because of choices Anita made in-game. To use this tiny section of a particularly long game as damning evidence for the game itself would be a stretch, to use it to draw a conclusion about all video games is simply absurd.

The final issue is the conclusion she draws, using Hitman as her touchstone. She states that, though the harm of women is not always mandatory, by having it as an option in games (multiple, Hitman included and highlighted) it is implicitly encouraged behaviour for the player. She then continues that the player “cannot help but treat these female bodies as things, to be acted upon. Because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters.” Her ultimate conclusion is that gamers internalize violence against women as acceptable and encouraged and if a gamer professes that they are able to divorce themselves from a perceived negative message that means they are all the more likely to internalize it.

“The more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected”

-Anita Sarkeesian

Her belief that the option to treat women in a video game the way the player has the option to treat men in a video game is misogyny is woefully misguided. Using this Hitman footage as one of her centrepieces for this conclusion demonstrates just how absurd her arguments ultimately are.

Why this game?

But Anita’s detractors, myself included, don’t just have a problem with her opinions on Hitman; they disagree with the majority of the conclusions drawn from Tropes Vs. Women series. So why does Hitman appear so frequently in the responses?

Because the Hitman example is the quickest, most effective way to demonstrate the most glaring flaws in Anita Sarkeesian’s crusade.

It is widely believed by dissidents, myself included, that Anita has no interest in games as a hobby or artistic medium and she is using them as a platform for an agenda. She chose to murder the dancers when SHE played it, contrary to the actions of dozens of other players‘ choices and the intention of the designers. This demonstrates a willful ignorance of how this game and essentially all games work. This treatment of the freedom of modern games as an endorsement of a certain type of real life behaviour is a position commonly seen in outsider critics. For example, Jack Thompson’s crusade against game violence or mainstream news’ Mass Effect “Sex-Box” controversy. At best she is misunderstanding how the game functions, at worst she is playing the game just to make choices that benefit her argument.

Cherry-picking has also been a consistent complaint about Sarkeesian’s work. Taking a small snippet of a 10, 20, 40 or 100 hour experience can hardly be called representative, of either the game or the medium itself. Hitman forms the best example as the small snatch that is displayed in the video is the only part that could be construed as endorsing violence against women for its own sake. Even that is a stretch, as the section displayed only occurs if extremely abnormal choices are made. If something is to be used as support or proof of an argued position, choosing to show only the smallest part of it is disingenuous and harmful to the argument as a whole. This is a large part of what the Tropes Vs. Women series does in its analysis of video games, and Hitman: Absolution is the most telling example.

The last issue is the conclusion she draws. If Anita chooses to believe that video games are imparting deeply misogynistic sentiments in gamers, that is her right. If Anita wants to try to convince the world that games are sexist by their very nature, that too is her right. But using incorrect, cherrypicked information to come to a weak conclusion that is then held up as fact in the gaming world is deeply troubling.

Really the only Hitman is mentioned so much in rebuttals of Anita Sarkeesian’s position on the sexist nature is that it is shorthand. It is easier than writing a diatribe like this one. It is easier than trying to explain in paragraphs that freedom in games is not endorsement of the least common behaviour. It is easier than explaining how out of context snippets cannot and should not be used as a representation of “gaming”. These arguments have been made and made and made so instead of making them for the umpteenth time, people who disagree with Anita’s conclusions on video gaming just say;

“Look what she said about Hitman”

And that really says it all.

Nerds, and the Bullying Thereof

It seems gaming culture has come full circle.

It wasn’t that long ago that video games were a niche activity, popular with computer enthusiasts, young boys etc. After the crash of 1983, nobody was putting a ton of faith in games as an industry. So like comics, fantasy, sci fi and tabletop gaming it was easy to see video games as “for nerds”, an activity that could be safely mocked by the cool kids. Gamers were nerds, dweebs, pathetic, losers, dumb, morons and fat … I could go on but I’m getting sad.

That was what you had to deal with if you liked video games, and clearly a lot of us did. Gaming grew from a curiosity to a bigger industry than movies. The insults became less and less common as more and more people became interested in video games. More people were earning their living in the industry; promoting, producing or commenting on video games. It stopped being a part of your life you would hide and became one you could celebrate. Bottom line, the achievement of mainstream attention for video games was a good thing.

Which is what makes what’s happening in the gaming media right now so depressing.

With the growth of gaming as an industry came growth in the gaming media and journalism industry, gaming journalists (if thats the right word to use) became less homogenous. They bucked the “straight white male” stereotype and they helped demonstrate that the gaming world was for everyone.

The issue arose, as we have seen in recent years and especially in the last month, when these members of the gaming media dispensed with true journalism and began to push an agenda upon the gamers who they ostensibly write for.

They decided that there weren’t enough female protagonists and that the women who did appear in games were too token, too sexual, too useless. They decided that gamers were largely sexist and that the actions of gamers in-game reflected that.

Gamers are homophobic, gamers are racist, gamers hate women, gay people and non-white people; the thesis was that games need to change dramatically to meet their approval.

Personally I don’t believe either gender is represented perfectly in video games. If you have a problem with the stereotypical femme fatale or damsel in distress, you should also take issue with the testosterone fuelled psychopath role that men so often take on in games. But that doesn’t make as good a headline so I understand why you won’t see it. (Youtuber ScannerBarkly made a great video on this topic and I recommend you watch it)

Now I’m not saying that women are perfectly represented in video games, I’m not saying that video games should not contain depictions of gay people and I’m not saying that games should only feature white people. I’m saying that instead of creating games that met their standard or advocating positively for representation of X group in the medium; these “journalists” vilified games that didn’t pass muster in their eyes and did it repeatedly.

These were the people who crusaded endlessly for games to be considered art and as soon as they began to reach that point, they turned to the artists and said

“your art is bad, here are the things you need to do to make your art suit us”

Understandably there was hesitance, but as this was carried out under the banner of equality and justice it was hard for game developers or media personalities to disagree without being painted with the brush of the bigot. When the gaming media is the one leading the push, the best thing for game makers to do is capitulate, lest the media decide not to cover their projects.

To give companies a choice of “agree with us or be doomed to irrelevancy” is not a different viewpoint, it is not progress, it is bullying. For a group with major concerns about oppression and silencing they are incredibly quick to push an agenda without concern for disagreement or dissent.

This shouldn’t be the method by which progress (however loosely you define progress) is made. If this is your method for getting a message into the world, it does not mean everyone agrees with you, it means they’re scared of you

#GamerGate however provided more pushback against an increasingly agenda driven gaming media. The proponents of #GamerGate (myself included) have demanded the gaming media be accountable and transparent to its readers about conflict of interest, nepotism and cronyism. The dissidents claim that we are all misogynists who hate that women are becoming involved in video games.

I don’t have a problem with dissident opinion, not at all. The only way progress is made is through discourse; #GamerGate supporters shouldn’t unilaterally dictate the future and neither should the social justice advocates of the gaming world. There are people who use the #GamerGate movement as an excuse to be toxic and misogynist, just like there are people who abuse social justice to further their own career. NOBODY is 100% correct, but instead of reporting on the issues fairly the gaming media committed what I believe is their greatest betrayal.

They burned their base.

They turned on the gamers. The people who provide the ad revenue that keeps them employed, the ones who turned them from basement bloggers to respectable journalists, the people who created their career via their support of a fledgling industry; these people weren’t good enough anymore. “Gamers” don’t have to be your audience anymore. “Gamers” are over, they said. Once these “journalists” received enough attention from the social justice crowd, from mainstream media and any number of other sources they announced to the world that gamers don’t matter anymore; thanks for the money, now piss off.

As a lifelong gamer, that hurt, but it was nothing compared to what happened next. Gaming “journalists” and #GamerGate dissidents started getting creative with their criticism of #GamerGate supporters. We weren’t just “over” or “dead” we were;

Terrorists (

Pathetic (

Racist (

Nerds (

Parasites (

Worthless (

Deserving death (

Confederates, Neo-NAZIs (

Misogynists (

Drug users (

Dweebs (


Subhuman (

Sociopaths (

Scum (

Morons (

Fat (

Nonexistent (

Hateful (

Autistic (

Deserving violence (

Bullies (

Enablers of child pornography/Pedophiles: (

Peddlers of child porn: (

Threatened with violence (

Shit (

Manbabies (

Terrible people (

And best of all — Trash:

(Thanks to JW at for this handy list)

I don’t want to portray #GamerGate supporters as thin-skinned babies who can’t handle criticism but it isn’t pleasant to hear these sort of insults directed at you. Especially when the reason for this abuse is a desire to have more clarity in video game journalism.

Anyone with a pulse would bristle at being called these things, it’s not fun to be called a fat, basement dwelling manbaby child-porn peddler, but here it feels worse. It feels worse because these people were supposed to represent us. They grew up with games, they were called nerds, losers and shut-ins and they understood what it meant to love a hobby that could get you labelled uncool. We thought that with those people in positions of influence and respect then those labels would no longer be applied to video gamers. Instead it meant that the gaming media just has an intimate knowledge of fun insults to use against us.

They were supposed to understand, but as soon as we disagreed with them they did not hesitate to twist the knife where they knew it hurt. Those terms; nerd, dweeb, basement dweller, neckbeard, loser etc. they aren’t the worst thing you can be called, far from it. But they were supposed to be things of the past, relics from an age when games weren’t important, they were a hobby for losers. To hear the people you used to respect speak to you in that way tells us that not only do they not care about us, they used us. They built their career, their success on your attention but now that you aren’t toeing the line they’ll tell you what they really think.

That is the behaviour of a manipulator, of a two-face, that is the behaviour of a bully. The attitude of these bullies is best demonstrated by a tweet responding to a #GamerGate supporter; “Get on the right side of history or fuck off”. Essentially saying, if you don’t agree with us then your opinion no longer matters.

Whether it comes from pushing agenda into games and news media or from dismissing criticism with insults; its clear that the bullies here aren’t the ones holding the controller, they’re the ones holding the pen.

When Your Banner is an Anchor

#GamerGate is still trending strong this week, and I have some thoughts about where it stands.

For weeks now Gamers have been loudly stating that we are tired of poor journalistic standards, cronyism and corruption in the video games journalism industry. Those accused of said corruption and cronyism have been loud and prolific in their responses. The prevailing message has been;

“Sit down, shut up, you’ll read what we tell you to.”

The aggregated response is

“No. That’s not good enough anymore”

However, beyond a few pockets of moderate response and analysis the games journalism world remains committed to the narrative that #GamerGate is a misogynist crusade. This is traceable to the genesis of the movement.

This topic first came to everyone’s attention as a result of the Zoe Quinnspiracy, when the internet learned how Zoe had conducted herself and her business and learned just how incestuous the games industry can be; the internet took umbrage. Unfortunately, some did not look past the accusations of infidelity. So when we began to see tweets, blog posts and YouTube videos addressing the issues in business and journalism, it came with typical internet responses. Rational arguments were given infinitely less attention than hyperbolic threats, accusations and insults of “cunt”, “whore”, “bitch”, “slut”.

This is why #GamerGate is so easy to dismiss as the rantings of “Shit people who care too much about video games”

Screen Shot 2014-09-02 at 4.14.31 PM 

Because when those who disagreed looked at what was being said, they saw what they expected to see and decided to stop there. They saw immaturity, they saw profanity and they saw misogyny. These things do exist in the gaming world and unfortunately it gets a lot of attention but misogyny is not endemic to games and especially not to #GamerGate. To say that people who enjoy video games are tainted as a group by the actions of a vocal minority is a generalization these activists claim to oppose. These journalists chose to overlook all the rationality, all the civility and all the frankly warranted outrage in order to fit this story to their desired narrative.

They looked at the people screaming at them, saw their banner and decided to turn it into an anchor.

By painting all gamers with the brush of the very worst, these journalists’ job became infinitely simpler, the story was much easier to write. The gamers insisting that something was wrong with the industry could be ignored, they’re misogynists. Those expressing concern about journalistic integrity could be written off, they send death threats. Anyone who didn’t agree with the agreed upon narrative could be dispensed of, they care too much about video games.

At this point, with at least a dozen articles written on the “death of the gamer identity” it would be the easiest thing in the world to give up the fight, put down the anchor they’ve been shackled to and move on.

But if gamers want to truly drive change in this industry they have to make a decision. Put down the burden of being labeled the scum of the earth, capitulate to this narrative. Or,

Pick up that banner and carry it anyway.

If gamers agree that these journalists are right then nothing will change, not now, maybe not ever. But if gamers continue to insist upon change, insist upon standards, this industry can be saved from itself.

The Untouchables of the Video Game Industry

I’m scared guys.

The Zoe Quinn story broke last week and divided the gaming industry quite effectively. The majority of developers, journalists and industry personalities supported Quinn and chastised the toxic public; while a large portion of gamers see her actions as an offence to the industry that she represents for better or worse.

First I want to say; I don’t support the public disclosure of everyone’s indiscretions. Your life should not be an open book for the world to read. That said, we would be idiots to ignore a situation like this because it’s part of someone’s private life. Donald Sterling made racist comments in private, he was fined 2.5 million dollars and banned from the NBA for life. Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair and was nearly impeached. It does not matter where information comes from, you cannot un ring that bell. We can’t give you a pass on abhorrent behaviour because we technically should not have found out about it.

I’m not here to write a scathing indictment of Quinn’s affairs, better writers than I have already done that. I’m here to talk about what this controversy has revealed about the industry we love.

I’m scared.

Not of the Feminist Gaming Illuminati as one media critic put it, but of what we are doing to certain figures in the industry.

Major personalities in the gaming industry; Totilo, Sessler, Phil Fish and others have been vocal in their support of Zoe Quinn. Thats fine, and expected in a controversial event such as this one. Whats missing is the other side of the discussion.

Quinn abused the Youtube DMCA to get a video critical of her pulled. The only gaming news outlet that covered the Quinn story impartially (a site called GamesNosh) reported their host wanted the story pulled and shortly after the site began displaying a 403 error. It was also reported that Quinn sexually harassed someone at a recent wedding, a claim summarily and tactlessly dismissed by Phil Fish. Finally a redditor; SillySlader reported that when Zoe found an issue with a project designed to promote women in games development she marshalled her troops to destroy it.

(Sidebar, this project has been revived and is thriving. Donate here)

Any coverage by significant gaming media outlets has been universally sympathetic of Zoe Quinn. All the dissenting opinions have been limited to user comments on sites like Reddit; a large portion of which were censored by moderators or personalities with an interest in supporting Quinn.

In my last post I spoke about body armour that angry gamers built for Anita Sarkeesian. This is the evolution of that idea. We have created an environment of untouchables; personalities that will not be criticized regardless of their actions.

This frightens me.

Anita Sarkeesian was the first example, and frankly her case would be preferable to what we’re currently experiencing. Her videos are bad, nowhere near worth 20,000 dollars each, she steals content and she admitted in 2012 that she does not like video games; she is in fact using them selfishly. None of that matters, we can make all the youtube videos and blog posts we want but Anita is untouchable. It is suicide for a gaming journalist, developer or publisher to oppose her so whatever we do or say, we’re not going to make a dent.

The Quinn situation is worse. She achieved an unprecedented level of immunity to criticism. Quinn is so ingrained in this industry that her supporters, friends, coworkers etc. actively and for a time effectively censored any negative mention of her to protect her image as “one of gaming’s only strong voices for equality” (Her words). Coverups of this scale are not seen outside government administrations, but an indie game developer somehow made it happen.

Her army of censors were ultimately not successful, but if you believe that anything besides Zoe Quinn’s ego has been damaged, you are dreaming. A large portion of the gaming public hate her, but the people who matter still love all things Quinn. Game devs, games journalists, trade shows and panels all support Zoe. Whether they are true believers in her as a person or they know they can make money by pandering to her crowd is irrelevant, she is not losing support from them.

To Conclude

We should be worried about how this is playing out. This is the only case I can think of where the major players in an industry have decided that certain people are above criticism. Whatever reason you want to give that the industry has not turned on these two personalities; harassment, under-representation of women, or genuine universal praise for Sarkeesian and Quinn. The fact of the matter is that gaming is an industry where it has been decided that some people are above reproach.

Doesn’t that scare you?

It scares me.

The Cult Of Sarkeesian

Anita Sarkeesian and the importance of controlling the discussion

If you’re interested in video games or feminism and had an Internet connection during the last two years, you probably have an idea who Anita Sarkeesian is, but in case you don’t;

Anita is a self-identified media critic and feminist who in 2012 began a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for a YouTube video series. It is called Tropes vs. Women in Video Games; a series based around identification of features of video games that reinforce negative perception of women. She sought $6000 for “production costs, equipment, games and downloadable content” Unfortunately as is common when dealing with the Internet, video games and anonymity (Especially when dealing with all three) the trolls emerged with a defensive cavalcade of vitriol aimed at Sarkeesian.

I do not agree with what was said to Sarkeesian. I love video games but I will be the first to admit that gamers and gaming culture can be vindictively defensive of what they perceive as an imposition on them by outsiders, which regrettably often includes women.

I would not wish threats of rape and death on anyone, for any reason. That being said, I would be willing to wager that Anita Sarkeesian would not change anything about how her Kickstarter campaign played out.

Due to the massive backlash, Anita gained infinitely more support (primarily from feminists) as a counterattack to the ongoing harassment. She was transformed from a minor YouTube personality to a martyr for females in video gaming to the tune of raising $158,000, more than 25 times what her initial goal was.

Many framed this story as the troll hordes shooting themselves in the foot with their own toxic messages and creating a victory for feminist video gamers. And it was, by trying to silence this woman they gave her a soapbox to speak profound change to a stalled industry. Or this would have been the case had the campaign been quarterbacked by anyone but Sarkeesian.

The Fallout

Supporters of Sarkeesian must have been overjoyed; with $158,000 dollars she could do so much more than she could have with $6,000. Anita was quick to tweet about all the research she was doing, posting pictures of all the games she was able to buy for the series thanks to her generous donors.

I am not here to critique her content, though I disagree with the majority of her arguments, hundreds of video responses have done that already.

I am here to call into question whether Anita Sarkeesian is the person to be leading this crusade for equality of the sexes in videogames; based on how she has behaved since she raised this money and who she is as a person.

Where is the money?

Before the Kickstarter Anita was releasing about a video a month of around 5-10 minutes in length. The videos consisted of Sarkeesian on screen with a monotone backdrop with superimposed images popping up to her side a la televised news broadcasts.

It took nine months for her to release the first video in this new series. It consisted of Sarkeesian on screen with a different coloured (!) monotone backdrop with superimposed images popping up to her side a la televised news broadcasts. You can see the difference below.


Screen Shot 2014-08-03 at 6.53.37 PM


Screen Shot 2014-08-03 at 6.53.00 PM

Her hair appears to be more professionally done, her makeup also seems more professional, the picture appears a bit clearer and she now wears exclusively plaid shirts.

So where did all the money go? One of her stretch goals was based around improving the production quality, so the donors should not be satisfied with a quantum leap forward relative to the videos she was making before she was bestowed with tens of thousands of dollars.

Screen Shot 2014-08-03 at 6.58.24 PM

Some supporters claim that the money went towards buying all the games she would have to play to get all the information for her videos. From the picture she posted, it would seem she purchased a great deal of games from the previous console generation (PS3, X360, Wii & PC). My estimate based on counting the visible games and approximating the hidden pile is there are ~190 games pictured. If Sarkeesian paid full release retail for every one (which is highly unlikely as game prices drop over time) it would have cost approximately $13,110; [60 x 190] x 1.15 accounting for taxes.


Sidebar: If Anita is a lifelong gamer as she claims to be, shouldn’t she have had some of these games already? It stands to reason that a serious fan of video games would have already played Assassin’s Creed, Bioshock, Fallout, Borderlands, the Orange Box and Twilight Princess. Or at least one or two of them.

I’ll also assume she spent some money on older games which by then would have been much cheaper. Being generous we’ll say she spent $5,000 on older games.

We can also account for equipment purchased, but as we have seen no great jump in quality or production value I find it hard to believe a hundred thousand dollars was spent on equipment. The new videos appear higher definition and better lit, so we can assume she purchased a new camera and lighting setup. Let’s say for our argument Sarkeesian spent $10,000 dollars on new equipment.

So if $28,110 was the amount of money spent on equipment and content for the series, where is the other $130,812?

The logical conclusion from Sarkeesian’s supporters is that this massive sum of money allowed Anita to work full time on this project with her boyfriend/producer Jonathan Mcintosh. That’s fine, that’s a common result of successful Kickstarters and it would have been perfectly acceptable in this case.

So what she has done with this wealth of time and money?

Screen Shot 2014-08-03 at 7.31.10 PM

Five videos.

Five videos totaling just over 2 hours of content.

She only just began her second topic (of a planned 12) after almost a year and a half. At this rate it will take nine years for her to finish the video series.

Yes, obviously it took more than 2 hours to film and produce these videos; she wasn’t paid 1000 dollars per minute of work. But it’s still an amazingly small amount of content produced for an exorbitant amount of money. People who are paid next to nothing for producing YouTube videos do so at a much faster clip, and people who make their living this way typically release videos weekly, or at least, monthly.

So what was she doing with all that time instead?

Well it’s become increasingly clear; she was building her personal brand. Establishing Anita Sarkeesian as the preeminent Feminist gamer. She’s been invited to games conferences, TEDX talks and was interviewed dozens of times about the internet vitriol as well as her new role as the best judge of female portrayal in video games, her qualifications of which we will get into later.

That’s fine, I have no issue with Anita pursuing these opportunities. You have to be your own hype man but it seems increasingly clear that Sarkeesian pocketed tens of thousands of dollars and went on her pariah world tour instead of doing the only thing that money was supposed to be for.

I don’t care that she didn’t make more videos; I think they are a mess of confirmation bias fuelled self-indulgence. But her donors should care that she seems to have pocketed the money she was paid.

Obviously I don’t know the financial breakdown of this video series. The guesses I made above are likely flawed but since Anita has never once made public the expenses on the project, all we can do is make these sort of assumptions. If Anita publishes the invoices for the project and it is clear that all the money went to video production I will be the first to admit I was wrong, but it doesn’t look like that will be happening any time soon.

Anita the Thief

Sarkeesian of course has made 5 videos with her $158,000 dollars, and argumentative content aside there are significant problems with what she’s done.

Tropes Vs Women Logo

When Anita made her initial Kickstarter campaign video she made this flashy logo of the series title, surrounded female video game characters. Included is an image of Princess Daphne from the 1983 game Dragon’s Lair. This image however bore a suspicious similarity to a work created by an artist known as cowkitty. The below image created by @Sarochi1 proves the image was stolen from her. Sarkeesian seems to have gone hunting for images that fit her needs, once she found one that worked she took it with no regard for the artist who created it.

Comparison picture (tammy)

Similarly in the videos themselves, viewers began to notice that the game footage she uses were incredibly similar to Let’s Play videos that had been uploaded to YouTube. Now obviously there will be similarities, games are only so variable, but the images used were identical; with the same scores shown at the exact times, the exact same decisions made and actions taken in game. Smarter people than I compared the lets play videos to hers and they confirmed; Sarkeesian had lifted these videos directly too.

Sidebar: What was Anita doing with all those games then? She lifted her video content and draws her conclusions from the videos she stole. If she wasn’t capturing footage from the hundreds of games she bought and she wasn’t using them to formulate her arguments, then why did she even buy them? Maybe they were just a prop for that one picture.

Every time Anita or her producer Mcintosh are called out for lifting content for their own use they cite the fair use clause in copyright law as their justification. Never mind that fair use necessitates that the work is non-profit which Tropes vs. Women doesn’t seem to qualify for; Anita has never once credited the creators, a requirement of fair use. Even when called out for her theft Anita has never rectified the issue by providing due accreditation; she simply quotes the copyright law that she is bastardizing and moves on. This has become the norm for Anita Sarkeesian, state her side of the issue and carry on as if any opposition is not only wrong, but not worth addressing… but again, more on that later.

Anita the Fraud

In every piece of promotional material, every interview she’s ever done and in her Kickstarter materials Anita Sarkeesian is referred to as a gamer. She speaks about growing up a girl gamer, faced with people telling her that her game boy was for boys, that girls shouldn’t play video games. This is a situation that was regrettably common for young girl gamers until recently.

Anita %22Gamer%22

Fortunately Anita Sarkeesian never had to deal with any of that, because by her own admission she is not a fan of video games.

In September of 2012, a YouTube channel called Flying Turkeys posted a video of Anita Sarkeesian in 2010 giving a lecture to a classroom when she mentions a project she recently completed. It was a video criticizing the lack of women in video games and while introducing it she says, “I’m not a fan of video games, I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this”

When she saw the video, Sarkeesian took to twitter to defend herself claiming she was the victim of “angry gamer dudes bravely defending the status quo”. While it is true that far too often women are burdened with the responsibility of “proving” that they play video games to the male fans of the industry, in this case it seems justified.

Before her Kickstarter campaign, the only evidence that Anita was even aware of video games was a video (since deleted) criticizing Bayonetta. But as soon as she stood to profit from the industry, suddenly Anita was a gamer, she had been playing games since she was five.

The default response to a woman saying she plays video games should not be to shout, “prove it!” but we have a video of Anita Sarkeesian, the canonized saint of female gamers saying she doesn’t like video games. That does necessitate proof.

If someone who didn’t like movies told you how to fix your film, you wouldn’t take them seriously. If someone who hadn’t read a book since grade school told you how to write your protagonist you would ignore them. So why should we listen to anything Anita Sarkeesian says about video games?

She said herself she isn’t a fan of video games, she’s blatantly stolen content from several people and it seems like all the money she raised as a result of the harassment she experienced has gone to line her own pockets.

Why do people still care about what Anita has to say? Let’s find out…

Controlling the discussion

I wish to reiterate that I do not endorse anything that was said to Sarkeesian during her Kickstarter campaign, threats of rape and murder should not be employed simply because someone disagrees with you. That rude behaviour was despicable, but it is also the reason she is still at all relevant in the gaming world.

The insults and threats levied at Sarkeesian were what allowed her to raise 158,000 dollars, but they also gave her something even more valuable; total immunity from all criticism.

The harrassment gave her justification to disable comments, ratings and statistics on all her videos as a countermeasure to the avalanche of vitriol being thrown at her. While that was certainly for the best at the outset, it also gave Anita license to ignore any criticism. While YouTube comment sections are not historically known for rational debate, when no disagreement is visible it’s easy to pretend there’s no disagreement at all.

The harassment didn’t only create a rationale to silence low-level disagreement on her videos it provided an easy way to explain away any well thought out criticism. Sarkeesian and her legion of followers have made a habit of dismissing critique (indirectly of course, lest a dialogue be started) as the machinations of the trolls, the gamer dudes, the misogynist masses; faceless groups that can be summarily disposed of without ever truly being addressed.

It really was this perfect storm of conditions that made Sarkeesian the respected figure in video gaming that she has become. By suffering the worst Internet anonymity had to offer, Anita was justified in building a system of insulation from any dissent. Because criticism fell on deaf ears, it became increasingly popular to stand with Sarkeesian rather than opposite her. To reap positive PR companies like EA and events like GDC began making their support known and Anita became the media darling she wanted to be.

The Aftermath

If there was never any harassment against her, if Anita hadn’t been turned into a pariah by the lowest common denominator of the gaming community then we could have better called her on all these issues. But now if you say, “what did you do with all the money” you are bitter that a woman is successful. If you call her an unapologetic thief, you are just trying to derail an important conversation and if you question whether she even cares about video games at all you are trying to tell women they can’t be gamers.

By controlling the terms of any discussion of her work, Sarkeesian effectively manipulated an entire industry into believing she was a necessary part of it. She’s no longer daily headline news but she has created lasting effects for the industry; such as the drama over AC Unity and Anita’s role in the development of Mirror’s Edge 2.

It’s easy to complain about Sarkeesian, just look how many words I wrote up there. But we need to remember she is the monster gamers created; without the vitriol to rail against, Sarkeesian would have remained relatively unremarkable and very little would have changed in the gaming world.

Instead we built body armour for one of the biggest con artists in gaming history.

So What Just Happened?

The Subban negotiation and the state of sports reporting

PK Subban just signed a big fat, 8 year, 72 million dollar contract. It makes him the highest paid defenceman in the league. Well, by average value, Shea Weber’s circumvention deal pays him heavy up front.

So big sigh of relief for Habs fans right? We’ve got our superstars locked up long term and life is good in La Belle Provence.

While I’m psyched Subban is signed and glad we didn’t have to pay the ~12 million he definitely would have gotten as a UFA, I’m more interested in what the Subban negotiations say about the state of sports reporting in Canada.

That said, I am not a sports reporter. I am a dude who likes hockey and follows a bunch of sports reporters on twitter.

Canadians love hockey. We like hockey the way Americans like football. By that I mean we will tune in for news about it 12 months out of the year. So obviously the Subban arbitration was big news, especially when of the other 25 RFAs this summer, 23 were settled before arbitration. This is where first issue appears; nobody seems to have any idea how arbitration works.

In simplest terms, the player and his representation make an argument for why they are worth X dollar value; “when I skate, the ice turns to gold beneath my feet”, “I urinate blue Gatorade, saving us thousands in refreshment costs, “I am the demigod son of Zeus himself, blessed with a holy slapshot” yknow, that sort of thing.

Meanwhile, management makes an argument for why said player is worth Y dollar value (usually much less); “Your ligaments are made primarily of string cheese at this point”, “You didn’t chip in for pizza that one time and then you totally ate like 4 slices”, “your wrist shot and slap have the accuracy and power of the stream of a 95 year old man with prostate issues”

The arbitration ruling is typically a number between X and Y, decided by an impartial arbitrator, let me know if I’m moving too fast for anyone.

So when hundreds of journalists state that Subban’s representation and Canadiens Management are 2.75 million dollars apart (8 – 5.25, MATH) and speculate on what that means for the potential deal…

They are talking out their asses.

 Those numbers are initial bargaining positions, Bergevin did not believe Subban was only worth 5.25, that is where he chose to set his bargaining position for a potential arbitrated RFA contract.

All those journalists predicting doom because of the “almost 3 million dollar difference” were either A) woefully misinformed about how any part of this process works or B) bad journalists using clickbait tactics and I’m not really sure which one is worse.

While sports journalists not knowing how arbitration works is mildly distressing, what followed the Subban hearing was even more so.

After both parties left the hearing, the reports from everyone were that Subban felt personally offended by the proceedings and the relationship between the player and the team was potentially permanently damaged.

These were not wannabe hockey bloggers ranting from their parent’s basement (I’m in my Mom’s living room, its completely different) this was major media outlets; TSN, the Score, CBC and respected hockey “insiders” like Elliote Friedman and Bob Mackenzie.

They all, ALL stated how damaged the relationship was, that we should be prepared for Subban to play another 2 years and then go UFA. That was how bad it was, the sky was falling and Bergevin had continued the recent history of horrible GM moves in Montreal (McDonagh for Gomez still stings).

24 hours later and the insiders did a 180 and were reporting the terms of the deal half an hour or so before the team announced it as they’ve always done.

Okay so they got this one wrong (“super wrong!”) super wrong, yes, which is concerning.

Canadian sports journalism, especially with regards to hockey, is predicated on the Insider. These journalists that have knowledge we can only dream of, their unlimited access allows them to break these stories for our consumption.

Obviously we want these journalists to break these stories for us, but its not ALL we want; ideally we the stories broken to be true, and for the people reporting on these stories to know what they are talking about. Elliote Friedman wrote a 700 word blog post about the damage done to this relationship and 16 hours later is reporting the terms like he didn’t just predict doom for the Canadiens.

You’ll always gain more respect for being right than being first, here’s hoping at the next negotiation a few reporters remember that.

But again, I’m no sports reporter.

When is an opinion not an opinion? Tony Dungy and Homosexuality

“That’s my opinion” is the golden gun of arguments.

Nearly impossible to counter, it is the last resort of someone who does not have the tools to win an argument, but will not concede defeat either.

If someone tells you “that’s just my opinion” and you continue arguing, they can accuse you of trying to impose your beliefs on them. Suddenly you are the didactic one, suddenly the argument is not about the issue any longer but their right to their own beliefs and that is when you know that the discussion is well and truly over.

Why do I bring this up? Because the sports world was taken over by a story concerning the first gay player drafted into the NFL; Michael Sam.

During an interview, former coach and current NBC football analyst Tony Dungy said he would not have drafted Michael Sam; stating, “I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it. It’s not going to be totally smooth… things will happen”

Okay fine. Dungy believes that as the first openly gay player in the league, there will be a media circus surrounding the player and he would not want to deal with associated distraction. I don’t agree with this as a position, but it is hardly a public denouncement of Michael Sam as a person and homosexuality as a concept.

So what’s the big deal? Well it has to do with Tony Dungy as a person.

Tony Dungy is a Christian. A Christian who has stated he “doesn’t agree with Michael Sam’s lifestyle” and that he has “traditional views on marriage.” (read: he doesn’t believe in gay marriage as an institution.)

So when this story broke, people on both sides of the issue came out of the woodwork.

Some people who have no issue with homosexuality, that support marriage equality contended that Dungy not wanting Sam on his hypothetical football team is because he is anti-gay who finds issue with homosexuality

Some people in support of Dungy claim he was looking at this purely from a football perspective and his views on homosexuality did not factor in. Furthermore, we should not judge him for his Christian beliefs or criticize his opinions on marriage equality.

Now I’m not here just to throw another shovelful of dirt on Tony Dungy, smarter people than me have already done that, I want to talk about how dangerous the nature of opinion is when it comes to these types of arguments.


What is an opinion?

To bastardize a common metaphor, imagine I hate mushrooms (and I do, they are a vegetable wrought in the fires of the underworld). I have decided to never eat mushrooms, and when someone tells me how great they are, that I should try them again, I am allowed to say “I do not like mushrooms” because that is simply my opinion.

That all sounds reasonable doesn’t it? I’m sure some people agree with me that mushrooms are a disgusting affront to mankind and other people believe I am wrong and mushrooms are crafted of rainbows and starbeams, but as long as we’re only talking about my preference, nobody cares that much.

But imagine I hated mushrooms so much I didn’t want anyone else to eat mushrooms, ever. I try to convince everyone else how gross they are, I push legislation limiting mushroom rights and stop mushrooms from marrying other mushrooms and you can see how this metaphor is falling apart on me.

The bottom line is that an opinion is only valid as long as it is limited to YOU. When people begin to impose their personal preferences on others at the cost of rights, freedoms and equality we are no longer talking about opinions or personal beliefs.


What the hell does this have to do with sports!?

This is the issue with the Tony Dungy story. Tony and all his supporters have used sentences like this;

“I’m a man of faith”

“I have Christian beliefs”

“You can’t persecute a man for his faith”

“Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion”

Supporters of these controversial positions have cunningly held onto the word “opinion”. It is much easier to defend their morally reprehensible views when they are referred to as “opinions”.

As I mentioned above, Dungy is against same-sex marriage. No matter how he says it (“I have traditional views on marriage”, “I have Christian beliefs”, “I don’t agree with his lifestyle”) he is in favor of restricting people from marriage due to their sexuality. This is not a personal opinion. This is a political position taken with the intention of limiting the rights of millions of human beings because something makes him uncomfortable.

On the Dan Patrick Show on July 23rd 2014, Dungy stated that it hurt when people said “being a Christian that I’m somehow hateful of gay people or that I am anti-gay” And yes Tony, it is unfortunate that your feelings are hurt, but can you not see where we were coming from in this situation? You say you “do not agree with their lifestyle and you have traditional views on marriage” but you are surprised people believe you are anti-gay?

Tony, you are anti-gay. You cannot claim to love Michael Sam and oppose his possession of the basic rights you enjoy. You cannot claim to disagree with a “lifestyle” that homosexuals cannot control any more than you can control being black and maintain a moral highground. You cannot impose your opinion on others and still call it an opinion.


What now?

When faced with this issue, supporters of said controversial opinion will fall back to the favorite political right of the bigoted; the first amendment. The issue with this right however, is that the people who consistently invoke their right to free speech have no idea what it means.

The right to free speech means that you cannot be prosecuted for your speech.

What the right to free speech does not mean is that we have to listen to you.

And it certainly doesn’t mean we have to agree with you or treat your views with respect.

Nobody will throw you in jail for saying homosexuals are an affront to god and they will all burn in hell; the Westboro Baptist Church has made that very clear

But if you believe that we have to listen to your bigoted views, that we are not allowed to disagree with the views of the man that will restrict rights to those he deems acceptable, that we cannot find fault in Tony Dungy when he tries to straddle the line of morality by claiming he is a traditionalist Christian who does not “agree” with homosexuality but is not anti-gay then you are 100% wrong.

But hey, that’s just my opinion


The Faculty Fairy Tale

We all came to McGill with a dream. That dream could have been getting a diploma from one of Canada’s best schools, or it could be finding out how many shots of Jaeger we could do before we passed out. Usually though, your university fantasy has something to do with the faculty you chose. And while I wind down my university career and prepare to be a broke wannabe writer living at my mom’s house, I’d like to go back and examine the dreams of our first year selves by faculty. So without further adieu…

Once upon a time…

In Arts  

There was a reasonably smart person. This person had subjects on which they were the authority. Renaissance politics? Check. Philosophy in the early Holocene era? You got it. This young go-getter could not be stopped when it came to debates on Russian peasant culture in the 1800s. They dominated discussions on the origins of the accordion.

When this fresh-faced first year walked through the Roddick gates (and then walked out again because the Roddick gates are not the fastest way to anything) it was with confidence that their chosen subject was the way to go.

Throughout that first year of raised hands in 400 person lectures and buying more scarves than any one person could theoretically wear, our hero grew. They got good marks, not A’s though, lets not get crazy. They impressed TAs with their fervent dedication to the 6 weekly readings; I swear one time the professor nearly remembered their name.

Someday they thought, someday I will get my degree and I will be the smartest philosopher/historian/political scientist/English-er around. And they would be, they would be able to reference authors like no other, argue ecumenical policy in 1900s like a champ.It’s just a shame that unless they decide to extend their school days, their story ends with disappointment.

They never did find their chosen career; they got a decent job in another field, at a regular company. They made okay money and lived in a decent apartment. But they never stopped hoping that someone in the 21st century would need a Philosopher, and on that day their ship would finally come in.

In Management  

There was a person who liked money. Like, really liked money. I mean we all like money but our hero in this story had a fascination bordering on fetishistic. They heard the stories, they read the books and decided that unless they were one of the chosen ones like Zuckerberg or Gates then the way to get that money was to journey through the lands of Bronfman.

Our protagonist felt important there. They wore suits when everyone else was wearing jeans. They were giving presentations while others slogged through conferences. They were cracking cases while everyone else was cracking coursepacks. They learned about money, business, how to make more money, how to be the best at handshakes, to win meetings and various other business things.

It was tough of course. But our hero had a goal. They knew that by going to three mandatory classes a day they were forging their better future. They knew that if they could survive the test of will that is Business Stats they could do anything. The riches of the world would be theirs!

Our hero got a job! It was boring and tedious and forced them to do even more school, take even more tests. But it was worth it, there were promotions to achieve, more money to acquire. Love can come later, travel is secondary, the money, that’s what’s important. This is why they worked four years in university; this is the job that leads to the job that leads to the job that leads to the job that will make them happy!

But when our hero’s story ends, it ends not with true love or a dream achieved, but with introspection and doubt. A black card in the wallet, 4 sports cars in the garage; this is happiness right? They did it! But when they look at their phone, the only numbers they see on speed dial are the upscale sushi restaurant down the block, Enzo; their personal tailor and Intimate Encounters, a *ahem* business specializing in discretion. Its not all sadness, our hero goes to sleep every night knowing they will have plenty of white collared blue shirts and double-breasted suits to keep them warm at night.

In Science

There was a person with dreams. This hero didn’t dream of money, jobs or success. That was all secondary. This time our protagonist wanted to change the world. Their heroes weren’t Gretzky or Jordan, but Salk, Tesla and Banting. To reach this dream, they ventured to the nations of Wong and Rutherford, to the newest, shiniest lands in this world of McGill University. They sought Science.

It was hard, as they knew it would be. Nobody who ever changed the world did so by slacking, but this seemed oppressively difficult. There was so much work, so much time to be spent on minutia. Our hero was not dissuaded however, they knew that success is forged in adversity; this work was necessary. They had to learn, they had to gather the knowledge necessary for their breakthroughs, but they still glanced at the calendar and wondered when their Eureka moment would come.

It got disheartening though, going into the lab at 3am to check data, sacrificing their weekends for analysis. They had been told they would see amazing things, awe inspiring experiments but all their work ever resulted in was disappointed sounding lab reports lamenting that their results didn’t match their hypothesis. Maybe it will be better when McGill springs for new equipment, I hear it’s finally going to happen next semester.

When graduation rolled around our protagonist was elated. No more restrictions from the classes! No more assignments to be marked on! It was time to truly achieve something! But the more time our hero spent in the real world the less hope they had. In the 21st century there was bureaucracy, there was corporate investment and agendas had found their way even into the scientific field. The reclusive labs of the scientific greats; home to the greatest discoveries were increasingly uncommon. And Newton had already developed Calculus.

Our hero got a good job and they made good money. While they had hoped to be the next famous scientist that children would read about and get inspired; the next Newton, Einstein or Degrasse Tyson, there’s nothing wrong with being a Lab Tech.  But every time our hero ran a sample they pined for that one in a billion chance that they would discover something incredible.

In Engineering

There was a person who wanted a job. Like really wanted a job. This hero had already heard the Arts fairy tale and wanted to dodge that like the goddamned plague- (sorry, Fairy Tale! Fairy Tale!) This hero had heard tales of those stuck in the purgatory of poor employment opportunities and they wished to avoid a similar fate.

They had examined the world they lived in and decided to embark to the lands of McConnell and Macdonald (yeah McGill really didn’t think that through) to become one of the builders of the future.

They of course had their dreams too; once our hero had dreamed of being a famous artist, then they thought they could end up on the silver screen. but they figured it was better to have a guarantee for their future.

It was hard, amongst the hardest things one can do in the world we call McGill. It took nearly all their free time, a large portion of which was dedicated to perfecting their handwriting for crib sheets.

It tested our hero’s dedication. When their friends were done their training and off having fun and pursuing their dreams our protagonist had another year of work to do. They knew however that it would be worth it in the end; they would get their job, they would make their money. The world of the future would need them.

And they were right! Their years of work paid off! They got a high paying job and never worried about their future even once. It didn’t get easier though, there’s a reason they got paid so well; the work was tough, they worked long hours and it required constant study and research to stay at the top of their field.

While our Artistic protagonist might envy the Engineer’s security and paycheck, our heroic engineer occasionally glances out the window and wonders what would have happened had they not traded their dream for security.

In Computer Science

There was a hero who learned how to code and make apps.

Everything was fine and his life was great.

Fuck that guy.