You can argue that no one ever deserves to be harassed online, but I think you'd have to be utterly oblivious to continually act that way in public and not expect to be hated.
He says "Japanese games suck", and he's grinning, while the rest of the panel cracks up. Then Jonathan Blow explains why they do, and at the end, Fish says something about Zelda. At no point does he attack anyone personally, not even a whiff of it. Then the panel including moderator end up agreeing on Japanese games being "joyless husks".
If that's what it takes "to be hated", the question to me becomes "by whom?" And why are they not hating the panel for those belly laughs, too?
Yes, Fish has said some shitty things. Back when that happened, I was one of the people who argued against him and said he was a huge dick. But that doesn't mean he deserves a flurry of abusive and hateful speech; it means people should tell him to shut up and learn some manners.
Surely you agree there's a difference between "being disliked" and "being on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse"?
I think, in many ways, Fish's situation is a combination of the "perfect storm" of abrasive personality put into a situation where trolls can take advantage of that personality.
I don't think anyone will say that Fish is a saint; he's certainly no Notch, or Gaben, or Tim Schafer. And I worry that a large portion of the hate that is directed at him is /because/ he's not someone who can take things in stride.
I think what a lot of people who get accused of "victim blaming" are insinuating is that, if Fish could have taken criticism more in stride -- or, you know, been respectful of other people when they ask him legitimate questions -- when they were more innocuous and less extreme, then it might not have gotten this far. It's like he threw gasoline on a small fire and is bewildered at why his house is now burning down around him.
Does he deserve it? Not at all; /nobody/ does. But perhaps we shouldn't all be so surprised at it when you try putting out a fire with gasoline.
It's very important to be allowed to say publicly that things suck. I would argue that more people should do it.
I'm not sure that's anywhere in the same league as what's being discussed here though. His comments in the video were harsh and opinionated and the questioner was disappointed with the answer, but as the same time he was being asked for an opinion and gave a fair one.
That isn't necessarily what he does in his own twitter feed though and it's certainly not like the personal abuse described in the original article.
>It's very important to be allowed to say publicly that things suck. I would argue that more people should do it... His comments in the video were harsh and opinionated and the questioner was disappointed with the answer, but as the same time he was being asked for an opinion and gave a fair one.
I totally agree about the need for honest criticism. If Jonathan Blow had started the reply, and Phil Fish had followed up with his apt comparison involving the Zelda games, they wouldn't have come across negatively to me at all. Seriously though, how can you not see how rude (and even mildly racist) his opening remarks are, especially when given to someone who is not fluent in the English language (and is thus likely to take what he says even more seriously)?
"They suck. I'm sorry, but you guys need to get with the times and make better interfaces and like update your technology... we're totally kicking your ass... back then you guys were the king of the world, but your time has passed."
What the fuck? How can people on here get bent out of shape over the mildest use of unnecessarily gendered language, but let something like that pass?
To the sibling comment from PavlovCat's, obviously I can't get into their heads, but the impression I got was that the people on the panel were laughing at Phil's complete lack of tact. Listen again and hear Edmund exclaiming "oh wow" just before he bursts into laughter.
> how can you not see how rude (and even mildly racist) his opening remarks are, especially when given to someone who is not fluent in the English language (and is thus likely to take what he says even more seriously)?
I'm not saying he's not rude. Rude is fine, abusive is not. In some cases there's a fine line between rude and abusive, but not here.
The guy looked heartbroken, it's true. He was clearly a fan of the genre while Fish is not, but it wasn't personal.
As for racist? I don't think that any sensible person watching that video should come to the conclusion that Fish hates Japanese people as a race.
His criticism of modern JRPG design vs older JRPGs is a perfectly valid opinion, he makes some good points. Whether you agree or not is another matter.
Being arrogant is fine too, BTW. No law against being arrogant, or of using hyperbole. Again, this is not anything like the kind of abuse being talked about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMPIcV6zsPw
You can argue that no one ever deserves to be harassed online, but I think you'd have to be utterly oblivious to continually act that way in public and not expect to be hated.