Denis Dyack did an interview with 1up.com where he explained the reasoning behind his decision to argue with the Too Human haters on the Neogaf forums. I wrote an article in response to it, and think part of it is appropriate here. It also elaborates on the point I think FHQ was making.
What I have long perceived, but have been unable to fully interpret into alphabetic symbols, Denis addresses with an intense amount of clarity and thought. He speaks about the lack of reliable information and opinions that can be found on the internet, and he explains how rampant speculation and unverifiable remarks are incredibly damaging to the public consciousness. What I have believed for a long time about certain educational (and I use the term loosely) resources (wikipedia), he applies to internet forums and message boards. One factor that complicates the issue both he and I are referring to is something known to penny-arcade readers as "The Greater Internet ****wad Theory," which, in no uncertain terms, pinpoints a naturally occurring phenomenon: Normal person + Anonymity + Audience = Total ****wad. But obsessively ignorant people are not the problem, the internet has always acted as a jumping point for the immature degenerates of the world to spew their pearls o' wisdom. The problem is that these people are starting to be listened to, even heard. The great equalizer that is the internet, the place where people of all walks of life can be given a voice without prejudice, has given everyone a soapbox with which to exploit. But in many cases the people who are most vocal on their soapbox are the same people who don't deserve a box at all, soap or otherwise. It has become impossible to determine whether the source of information is credible or not, and the default position in judgment seems to be that everyone is considered credible until they are proven the opposite. The inability to determine truth from lies, and assuming truth when in doubt, creates a situation where misinformation, if heard and repeated often enough, becomes fact. The result is a kind of democratic truth, where the majority is compiled of misinformed individuals who vote on whether something is factual or not by failing to research and substantiate claims. This is what the internet is, and if you don't believe that, you must at least concede this is where it's heading.
What is worse is something Denis describes as a lack of "reciprocity" on the internet, where anonymous people on a message board cannot be held accountable for their comments, nor face consequences for the remarks they make. This again relates to PA's TGIF theory, but is also relevant when considering the age of misinformation in which we live. Denis Dyack points out a commonly held assumption that technology has improved communcation in that it has expanded the variety of means by which human beings can interact. Once again, the internet has made communication all over the world instaneous and effortless, but this assumption has failed to take into account the subjectivity of language, especially in written form. By eliminating the human element of information exchange (via instant messaging, message boards, or text messages) people cannot take into account visual or audio clues in determining the meaning of a person's words. A person's body language and tone of voice can make the intention of a person's words quite obvious, but once that element is removed the intent is not clear, and words have to be interpreted. Ever been misunderstood when you sent a sarcastic text message and the person receiving it thought you were being serious? I know that's never happened to me, not once (QED). This is a problem with written language that has been amplified by poor communication skills in people and has become exponentially problematic when coupled with the widespread use of text as the primary way of communicating. Throw in the anonymity of the internet, and you've just created the perfect environment for unchecked assumptions to bring out the least inhibited response possible from another person. A useless and unpleasant interaction.
These ideas form the lense with which Denis Dyack views the gaming public, and it would be irresponsible for him to do otherwise. Video games, the industry in which he has invested everything, are read about, talked about, and reviewed on the internet. He mentions metacritic and how it can define one's employment status. Like any responsible business enterprise, game-makers answer to their customers, who learn about, play, and talk about games on the internet, spawning and spreading misinformation and miscommunications. Assumptions made from presuppositions based on rumor from sources undefined are the judges, juries, and executioners of the modern day video game company. How can an industry survive in such a turbulent and unregulated environment? It can't, which is why Denis tries to promote change, which sometimes makes him look a little loco.
