Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 31, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 31, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
Let's talk about accountability
by Adriel Wallick on 03/31/14 03:21:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

Today I want to talk about accountability. I want to talk about how one person can crumble an entire environment. I want to talk about community.

Recently, after days of contract negotiations, I began participation in what was supposed to be a four day long competitive game jam which would be broadcast to YouTube. The description we were provided for this jam was simple:

"Green Label Game Jam seeks to provide viewers with insight into the technical and artistic process of developing a game, in the format of a reality competition show. We seek to do for indie games what “Top Chef” did for cooking."

The game jam was to be sponsored by Pepsi and produced by Polaris/Maker. There were a multitude of mysterious prizes to be won.

I was invited to be a member of a team by a friend of mine and together, with one other, we were set to spend the next four days in Los Angeles, California working on a game and collaborating with each other for the first time in our friendship's history.

I love game jams. I think that participating in a game jam is one of the greatest parts of game development culture and a wonderful way to truly foster creativity. In one space you can get a multitude of people together, all with different backgrounds/perspectives/styles/etc. You put them all into one room, let them pair off, and the result is a wonderful array of new and creative things.

To me, a lot of game development is the community that surrounds it. It's the people who get together to share ideas, meld those ideas into new ideas, and help build each other up.

I guess this is why I tend to associate with non-competitive jams. I view a game jam as an event where I can explore something I haven't explored before (be it a technology or an idea), work with people I've never worked with before, and try to create something with those new friends. Adding a competitive element to a game jam adds this extra component that each development team needs to worry about - and it just feels wrong to me. It feels wrong to pit developers against one another, and it feels wrong to ask developers to compromise their game for the sake of "winning". Game jams should be the one place where you shouldn't have to worry about compromising your vision. It should be a safe space in all senses of the word. It should be a place that you as a person feel safe as well as you as a developer.

From the beginning there were potential problems with the "Green Label Game Jam" (branded on set as "GAME_JAM"). The contract was full of corporate legalese. There were clauses about being allowed to misrepresent us in any way on any topic for "dramatic effect". There were sections barring developers from appearing on any form of broadcast media for a period of time longer than anyone should be comfortable with (honestly even any time was too much time). Many of the participants were the sole faces of their company. We, off the bat, would be risking our reputations - our livelihoods - to participate in this jam. We negotiated the contract as a group. We reworded the most egregious sections - but not before having to push back for days.

With trepidation, I participated in day one. Day one of what was supposed to be four days of jamming under slightly uncomfortable circumstances. In my mind, worst case scenario was that I would spend four days working on a game with some friends while being surrounded with green logos and sipping water secretly off-camera. I could deal with all of this if it meant I could work on something in a fun space and be filmed in order to expose more of the public to how game development works (though we all acknowledged in some way that it was probably going to be dramatized in a way).

So there I was, standing on stage waiting to be judged on a "mini-challenge" only marginally related to game development with lights shining down and the cameras rolling. I was underneath a Mountain Dew sign, watching a team win their Mountain Dew lawn chairs where they could sip on their brand new Dew Pack of Mountain Dew. We were all vying for a grand prize only slightly more insulting than the aforementioned lawn chairs.

The product placement and forcing of the brand onto us was over the top. I understand who was sponsoring it and where the money to produce this event was coming from, but when I am no longer allowed to have easy access to water in order to hydrate myself after sweating under bright lights for hours because it wasn't Mountain Dew, then we have a problem. I don't want to speak ill of Mountain Dew. They are a brand and they sponsored an event - it is 100% acceptable to slap their branding all over the place. It was the enforcement of shilling out our image to constantly and overtly push this beverage that made me uncomfortable.

Every prize for our mini "challenges" was a branded prize (dew colored lawn chairs, cases of Mountain Dew, etc). Even the grand prize - a year's supply of Mountain Dew, a trip to a Mountain Dew sponsored extreme sport event in Breckenridge, CO, and access to ID@Xbox - was so overly corporate and "bro culture", that it was just uncomfortable.

I've spent a lot of time over the last year learning how to be true to myself.  I've been learning how to listen to who I am and consistently try to base my actions on what I feel is right and what I feel represents who I am as a person. Here I was participating in an event that, by it's very nature of being competitive, stands against everything I feel about game jams. Here I was selling out my integrity to participate in an event where I had to pretend to love Mountain Dew more than any other beverage in the world (I don't even drink soda, FYI). I was pretending to laugh at gamer jokes. I was clapping at prizes I couldn't have cared less about. And most of all, I was just not representing myself as me.

This was uncomfortable enough for me to consider walking out. At that point - as I was still negotiating certain points of the contract - I had no contractual obligation to be there. I could leave and take my integrity with me. What kept me there were the other developers, and the people who worked so incredibly hard to put this entire thing together. This was not a small production. There was a film crew, a set crew, a staff, producers, directors - and the other developers. Everyone had put so much into this - how can I throw it back in their face and say "Sorry, I'm not a corporate sellout"? Okay, I'll deal with it. I'll make fun of it under my breath and off camera, I'll power through. At the very least, there will be a show about game development that maybe some non-developers will watch and be interested in. Maybe we can educate people about the amazing culture that is indie game development. Maybe there's a redeeming factor to this.

I can deal with that. I can deal with selling out to have some fun with my friends.

What I can't deal with is supporting what happened next.


You can literally trace back the entire crumbling of this show to one individual - Matti Leshem, CEO of Protagonist, a Brand Energy company. Here was a person who, from the get-go, rubbed me the wrong way - he and I were definitely different people. He is the one who headed up removing even un-labeled water bottles from being allowed on our desks. He is the one I heard asking around if there was any way that we could drink the water out of empty Mountain Dew cans.

He is also the one who asked my team the following question:

"Do you think you're at an advantage because you have a pretty girl on your team?"

All love to my teammates as they declined to engage. But, after pushing more - he got a rise out of me. He got me to, with an embarrassed and flushed red face launch into a statement about how his question is indicative of everything that is wrong in our industry in terms of sexism. That no, we weren't at an advantage because we had a woman on our team - we were at an advantage because I'm a damn fine programmer and game developer. We were at an advantage because my skills allowed us to be at an advantage - not my "pretty face".

He had the audacity to approach me later and explain that it wasn't personal. This wasn't a personal attack on me - he knew this was a sensitive topic in the industry and wanted to address it.

Well, you know what? It was personal. You sat there and overtly questioned my skills, my intelligence, my life. It was so personal, that I can't even wrap my head around the fact that someone could even pretend to believe that it wasn't a personal attack.

And, on top of that, it was a completely inexcusable way to address the issue of sexism in games. You address this by having a rational conversation about the nuances of how it feels to be an underrepresented part of an industry that you love. You address it by making a marginalized subset feel safe. You address it by allowing the minority to feel like they have a voice - a voice that is being listened to. You don't address it by shoving cameras in a woman's face and insinuating that the only reason she was brought onto a skill-based competition was because she was nice to look at.

In addition, I'm trying to participate in a friendly competitive game jam. I'm not here to stand on a soapbox and discuss sexism, this isn't the venue for it. It's a venue for being a corporate sellout, sure - but this is not where I am going to engage in a discussion about sexism.

I spoke with my team, and as a group decided to not engage any further lines of questioning about the women participating in the jam (out of the 11 people participating, there were two women. This means that there were two all male teams and two teams with one woman each). We wouldn't give him the rise he was looking for out of us. We were there to power through and make a game.

So there I was - at about 99% capacity of what I could deal with in terms of corporate bullshit and sexism - and then the final straw. The two all male teams were questioned in a similar fashion:

"Do you think the teams with women on them are at a disadvantage?"

That was it.

I cannot be a part of something that, in any way, feels like this is an appropriate way to expose game development to the world. The other teams also declined to engage, but the very notion that this is something that could potentially be written into a story - the notion that it, even if disproven throughout the entirety of the show, would even be addressed is what completely did it in for me.

I will not put my face and my "stamp of approval" on something where this is even a question. No, we are not at an advantage because we have women on our team and no, we are not at a disadvantage because we have women on our team. We all have advantages and disadvantages because of our varying skills and strengths. Having the audacity to be a woman does not hinder nor help any of these things. Being a woman simply means that we are women.

After airing our grievances with the production, there were four of us who immediately dropped out. Me and the other woman as well as one person from each of our respective teams. The rest tried to salvage what was there, but the four of us were out. None of us could reconcile being a part of something that would hire someone like Matti. Whether he is asking those questions as a representation of his personal thoughts or simply as a way to poke and prod to make 'entertaining drama', I cannot be a part of a culture that believes that this is an appropriate action on any level.

I do want to stress how wonderful mostly everyone else involved in the production was. As we made our decision and explained everything to those in charge, we were supported 100% for our decision. This has nothing to do with Maker, Mountain Dew, Pepsi, Polaris or anyone. This has to do with Matti Leshem and people like him.

However, I want to talk again about accountability.

Yes, he was not an actual employee of ANY of these companies - but he was there. He was a part of this. Somewhere in the chain of command, he was hired as a contractor to have control over this project. Someone out there vetted a person like this and thought he was a good person to work with.

Just as this person needs to be held accountable for his actions, so do those who agreed to work with him. It is unclear to me who made that decision, but someone did. He may not work for any of these companies, but he was still there. I want everyone involved in this to understand that who you hire and who you work with is, in some way, a reflection of who you are. When you choose to work with a person and allow that person represent your brand in any way, you damn well better make sure that that person's beliefs and actions align with yours.

After we left the show, the producers, content managers, and countless others involved in the production of the series tried to work through a way to get us back to finish the jam. Though many of the immediate concerns were addressed (e.g. Matti was removed from the project) and they offered to completely restructure the event, the point remained - there was once a person there who destroyed everything. There was a person involved on this project who felt that it was appropriate to humiliate, embarrass, and harass. Our trust was broken and we were done.

The day that followed was a constant stream of the production team offering up new ideas on how to 'fix' the situation. Each offer was slightly more desperate than the last, as it came to light throughout the day just how grim their situation was. This was Polaris's first large production after Maker was acquired by a much larger corporation - and it crashed down in a spectacular ball of fire.

People were about to lose their jobs.

Not the set crew, they were fine, they had nothing to do with this. But the people responsible for hiring those who ultimately destroyed it - they all contributed to a toxic environment, and they should be held accountable for that.

While something like Train Jam, to me, embodies every single aspect of game jams that I find to be special - the "GAME_JAM" embodied everything that I find to be wrong and abhorrent about how people view us as game developers. I came into this event expecting to make a game, show people a glimpse into game development, and possibly have some fun. Instead, my intelligence, my legitimacy, and my integrity were all pushed and questioned. We, as developers, were being treated as desperate stereotypes, and we, as women, were treated worse than that.


Despite all of this, there was a wonderful thing that happened. That community that I hold so dear banded together. As individuals, we were insulted and hurt, but as a group we were able to stand up and support one another in a way that I truly appreciate.

Our night, once the production was officially deemed dead, consisted of hanging out, forming new friendships, reinforcing existing friendships - exemplifying the environment that should have existed all day.

Some developers began to devise ideas on how to film a game jam that would properly capture the spirit of game development. Some developers discussed potential future game design ideas. Some developers simply played games.

No matter what everyone was doing, however, we were all in this together - sharing, collaborating, talking, and creating.



There were many other people at this event - however, we all have varying degrees of how we can talk about this (mostly for legal reasons). Because we are all individuals with different backgrounds and experiences, we were all affected in unique ways. I've listed below links to the people who were present and have written about this in some capacity:

http://indiestatik.com/2014/03/31/most-expensive-game-jam/

www.beesgo.biz/reality.html

http://soundselfgame.com/?p=302

This was originally published at msminotaur.com/blog/?p=187


Related Jobs

Vicarious Visions / Activision
Vicarious Visions / Activision — Albany, New York, United States
[10.31.14]

VFX Artist-Vicarious Visions
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand
[10.30.14]

Level Designer
Amazon
Amazon — Seattle, Washington, United States
[10.30.14]

Sr. Software Development Engineer - Game Publishing
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand
[10.30.14]

Lead Game Designer






Comments


Dusty Hunsaker
profile image
Awesome writeup. Thanks for sharing. I'm one of the folks who left another profession to come to game development. I learned a very valuable lesson from my previous profession. Happiness and quality of life far outweigh monetary gain and compromising your integrity.

David Ngo
profile image
I'm surprised Matti's wikipedia page hasn't been updated yet. Somebody should :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Leshem

Wendelin Reich
profile image
Wow, that's quite a story! Thanks for sharing, I can see that that must have been a horrific experience.

I think you're onto something in your analysis of how the behavior of one individual indicates something larger. I want to add that, just like 'extreme situations' (and a reality-show game jam qualifiies as such) can sometimes show something deep but hidden about a person, they can also show something deep and hidden about organizations or social structures.

The fact that one person's sexism wasn't cut off, PR-managed, hushed up or whatever, but allowed to flow freely and create a total disaster, that may be due to the 'extremeness' of the whole situation (time pressure etc.). But visible it did become, and maybe that throws a light on institutionalized sexism in the industry? I can only ask that question because I am (and always have been) 'indie' in the literal sense.

Allan Rowntree
profile image
Find an indie film crew and invite them to a true indie game jam then 'broadcast' it on youtube or twitch tv and have fun doing it.

Kaitlyn Kaid
profile image
I'd watch that :)

Juliette Dupre
profile image
Right on.

Jorge Gonzalez
profile image
That's kinda what Zoe Quinn is thinking about now

Pat Moore
profile image
Thank you for doing this so that when my girls grow up they don't have to put up with this shit.

Eric McConnell
profile image
This just sucks that it turned out this way. Everytime I watch Chopped on Food Network, I always tell my wife how I could make a game jam version of Chopped. There could be stages of deliverables such as first gameplay loop. The judges could judge theme, mechanics, fun, art, etc. It would be amazing and would help the industry gain personal exposure and respect just as the food revolution has done for professional chefs

Kenneth Nussbaum
profile image
Good for you and your team who was willing to stand by you. I don't want to see game development turned into a spectacle anyway. I hate this mentality on making games being this 'care free' process that anyone can do and doesn't actually require skill. The idea that someone would even think about taking someone on their team because of their sex or personality instead of their ability to design, draw, or develop is just insane to me. I have a hard time developing with a producer(a necessary role and i love mine) let alone someone on my team who isn't there to contribute skill or experience.

Much love to polaris for putting this together, i hope it works out for them in the future as it's clear there is still a lot that we as developers need to teach our audience.

I'm empathetic towards your frustration and wish you all the best, and as a game dev and brother to four sisters, thank you.

David Paris
profile image
Ouch! I'm sorry for everyone who had to go through that, particularly Zoe who doesn't need more shit. I'm glad the group banded together and got people out.

Wes Jurica
profile image
WTF!

Craziness. I'm sorry you all had to deal with that and I'm impressed with the courage the group showed to not put up with that shit.

If the survivors (punny) of this production are thinking about doing something like this more realistically and ethically, don't forget about 2 Player Productions. They have experience and they are great at what they do.

Gary LaRochelle
profile image
Sorry to hear of what you went through. You should of ran other way as soon as you realized that it was a "reality" show. They never are real. The producers always try to put together a cast that will grate on each others nerves so as to create "drama". But it sounds like you and the rest of the cast got alone fine and just wanted to produce (and show how to produce) a game.

This Matti guy saw that there wasn't enough drama so he started to through grenades into the mix. A lot of those grenades were thrown in your direction. Kudos to you for standing up to those grenades.

It just goes to show that all it takes is one idiot in a suit to ruin it for the whole team/project.

Clinton Keith
profile image
Kudos for your integrity and sharing this with us.

Jon Solmos
profile image
As a father of 2 very young girls I am very proud of you and your values as a female game developer and the way you conducted yourself through what I can only imagine as extremely humiliating, frustrating and degrading. This kind of toxic behavior needs to be addressed and dealt with as soon as it happens.

Alexander Jhin
profile image
In general, there are two ways to deal with situations like this: boycott or protest while staying involved.

Each approach has differing effects: Boycotts usually end the situation and it's only through supplemental reporting that anyone knows about it (the press.) Usually, the audience who learns of the boycott is different than the original audience of the project. Sometimes, the original audience doesn't hear ANYTHING about the boycott, especially when a project is in pre-production like this one was.

Protesting while staying involved uses the original project's medium (in this case, a YouTube show) to transmit a different message than the producer wants to transmit but to the original audience. However, in a medium like TV, the protest can be re-edited to twist the meaning of the protest.

A boycott also says something fundamentally different than a protest: a boycott implies that the entire enterprise is fundamentally flawed to the point of fruitlessness in any exchange, while a protest involves an exchange of counter points.

I don't know all of the details here, but in general, I prefer protest over boycott. In general, shutting down the exchange of ideas can be less useful than an argument. The response to hated speech should not be the end of speech, but rather, more speech.

However, in this case, it's not only speech that's happening: the participants must spend a good amount of time and stress to finish games for corporate entities... so it's a little less clear.

There are plenty of examples of this in non-video game world: Students encouraging schools to disallow traditional marriage proponents from even speaking, questions about whether scientists should be involved in creationist debates or just ignore them, etc.

Michael Hayes
profile image
Well said.

Saniyyah Rahman
profile image
*Thumbs Up*


none
 
Comment: