Considering *that* cameo, do you think Death Stranding should be nominated for the Game Awards?

[Browser]

For me its not just the cameo, but all the presentations he did hyping it and kojima through the years, even cringey at times.

He is supposed to be neutral in the events, but when it comes to kojima he just isnt, he cannot help himself around him. I guess I would be ok with the optics if during the gaming events he did he could keep a professional demeanor around kojima. Of course personally he can have whatever opinion he wants and express that, but he uses his events to hype him, and thats not professional in my book.

 

[Plum]

You think me finding issue with the usage of optics to ignore larger issues or potential underlying conflicts is insulting your career choice?

Lmao

Click to shrink...

"Optics warrants dismissal."

"Optics is a bunch of bullshit."

"Your mental gymnastics is mind-boggling."

"You brought in optics to try and prove some bullshit metric."

Considering optics, in this case, is just a term to refer to the wider area of PR and Marketing then, yeah, I do find it insulting. I haven't been calling your desire for factual evidence (i.e. the line of thinking that stems from your background as a lawyer) "mind-boggling bullshit," even if I disagree that it's what matters right now, yet you've done the same for my claims that optics is more than just what is factually true or factually false. You clearly don't see marketing as a perspective worthy of being taken into account so why should I bother giving you the courtesy of a well-made reply that does so?

 

[jroc74]

Sorry, I agree with those saying at least some of the ones that think it shouldn't have been nominated are arguing in bad faith, or something else I don't wanna get a warning for.....

 

[Deleted member 4976]

"Optics is a bunch of bullshit."

"Your mental gymnastics is mind-boggling."

"You brought in optics to try and prove some bullshit metric."

Considering optics, in this case, is just a term to refer to the wider area of PR and Marketing, yeah, I do find it insulting. I haven't been calling your desire for factual evidence (i.e. the line of thinking that stems from your background as a lawyer) "mind-boggling bullshit," even if I disagree that it's what matters right now, yet you've done the same for my claims that optics is more than just what is factually true or factually false. You clearly don't see marketing as a perspective worthy of being taken into account so why should I bother giving you the courtesy of a well-made reply that does so?

Click to shrink...

You are ascribing far more to me than I actually said. I didn't discredit marketing, I said optics being used here, without considering the optics of a bargained-for exchange which the foundation of the show is premised around, is a bunch of bullshit.

You seemingly have no problem with the very real conflicts of interest that might arise from what typically constitutes these problems (aka money exchanging hands) while honing in on Kojima.

That's why it's bullshit. You have chosen to arbitrarily make the issue about a smaller specific subset while ignoring the optics of the larger issue, which actually, realistically and generally leads to conflicts of interest.

You want to both validate the show and harp on Geoff simultaneously. That's the point. You can't do both when you invoke the optics argument. Geoff secures marketing and sponsorship funding for this show from folks whose games are up for awards. His show cannot live without that money. His show can live without Death Stranding. How is the optics of the latter only at issue?

If you feel calling out selective usage of optics is insult to your profession, fine. Take that insult however you please.

This is precisely why I find the whole issue with optics such a bunch of fucking bullshit. Fuck reality, Geoff should make his show for the toxic manchildren that were fiending at the keyboard ready to go harping on the perception of optics rather than actual, real conflicts of interest.

 

[shinbojan]

Sorry, I agree with those saying at least some of the ones that think it shouldn't have been nominated are arguing in bad faith, or something else I don't wanna get a warning for.....

Click to shrink...

Some? For sure.
Guaranteeing that 650+ people are...embarrassing.

 

[Legacy]

No it still make no sense. The game should be disqualified from receiving an award because the host has a relationship with a creator? Even though the host has no say in who is nominated or who wins?

So in that case every other video game publication that has a relationship with developers and publishers should be removing games from their lists every year?

Giant Bomb should be removing all MS games from their GOTY awards because they have a relationship with Phil Spencer.

Kinda Funny should be removing Sony games because Greg has a relationship with Shuhei and so on...

Look at how ridiculous this sounds.

Click to shrink...

You're listing these examples but using the relationship alone, if that was the case then yeah fair game. When you combine this with the face of the awards show being in the actual game, then that's where I see the issue.

Giant Bomb should be removing all MS games from their GOTY awards because they have a relationship with Phil Spencer. If the reviewers feature in the said game, then yes

Same for Kinda Funny

To be clear, my issue is not with the relationship alone, that by itself is quite normal. It is when you combine this with having a cameo in the nominated game. Now, if you still can't get past that, I'm just going to end our conversation here.

 

[Moves]

Am I the only one that thinks it would be a feel-good moment to see Kojima up there accepting an award for something when he was prevented from attending the show in 2015 by Konami?

It's unfortunate to see Geoff's outspoken fandom of the dude has created this "bad look" for people who are skeptical of the show's legitimacy, but I still think it would be pretty cool moment to see. Curious to see what the general public's reaction will be.

 

[Eggman]

Of course it doesn't because the post isn't about that as it was in another thread that wasn't asking whether the nomination should be revoked. And, no, it doesn't attack Geoff, it says that Geoff's involvement with Kojima is a mistake that would have seen consequences if his awards show were to be run by a board of directors outside of Geoff himself. That's not toxic, that's just basic marketing logic, and this implication that "people are just criticising this to hate on Death Stranding," is some fanboy flame war ridiculousness as well.

Click to shrink...

Yes it is attacking Geoff for having a relationship with someone. Imagine trying to tell someone you don't know it is a "mistake" to have a relationship with someone else you don't know. What a ridiculous notion.

Saying a guy in the gaming industry that also has an award show can't have a relationship with someone else in the gaming industry is nonsense. And yeah let's continue to pretend Kojima is the only other person Geoff has a relationship with in the ideo game industry as if it isn't ridiculous either.

And like I said in another comment than the same should apply to all other video game publications that have relationships with publishers and developers and they should all start removing games from their lists because in some fictional world where they were run by a board of directors they may think it will have bad PR.

Bad PR that would come from irrational people on the internet that are toxic about everything.

 

[JiyuuTenshi]

As long as Geoff and any other organizers of the event aren't involved in the actual voting process I don't see the problem. There would be way bigger issues than a small cameo if this was the case, mainly that the event is largely sponsored by the companies getting the awards.

 

[Legacy]

Yes it is attacking Geoff for having a relationship with someone. Imagine trying to tell someone you don't know it is a "mistake" to have a relationship with someone else you don't know. What a ridiculous notion.

Saying a guy in the gaming industry that also has an award show can't have a relationship with someone else in the gaming industry is nonsense. And yeah let's continue to pretend Kojima is the only other person Geoff has a relationship with in the ideo game industry as if it isn't ridiculous either.

And like I said in another comment than the same should apply to all other video game publications that have relationships with publishers and developers and they should all start removing games from their lists because in some fictional world where they were run by a board of directors they may think it will have bad PR.

Bad PR that would come from irrational people on the internet that are toxic about everything.

Click to shrink...

I still don't understand why you're focusing on the relationship and still no mention of having a cameo in the same game? The combined result of the two is not a good look

 

[Eggman]

You're listing these examples but using the relationship alone, if that was the case then yeah fair game. When you combine this with the face of the awards show being in the actual game, then that's where I see the issue.

Giant Bomb should be removing all MS games from their GOTY awards because they have a relationship with Phil Spencer. If the reviewers feature in the said game, then yes

Same for Kinda Funny

To be clear, my issue is not with the relationship alone, that by itself is quite normal. It is when you combine this with having a cameo in the nominated game. Now, if you still can't get past that, I'm just going to end our conversation here.

Click to shrink...

Okay so now that we have narrowed it down to it being the fact that he is in the game is the actual issue and not the actual relationship, since the reason he is in the game is because of the relationship and nothing else. Geoff has no involvement in the game otherwise.

Do you think Geoff being in the game got the game nominated for the awards? If not than no the game should not be disqualified. It's as simple as that.

 

[Eggman]

I still don't understand why you're focusing on the relationship and still no mention of having a cameo in the same game? The combined result of the two is not a good look

Click to shrink...

Because the comment I replied to only talked about the relationship and wasn't about the cameo. If you are going to piggy back on conversations please read the whole thing first and get context.

 

[Otakukidd]

You're listing these examples but using the relationship alone, if that was the case then yeah fair game. When you combine this with the face of the awards show being in the actual game, then that's where I see the issue.

Giant Bomb should be removing all MS games from their GOTY awards because they have a relationship with Phil Spencer. If the reviewers feature in the said game, then yes

Same for Kinda Funny

To be clear, my issue is not with the relationship alone, that by itself is quite normal. It is when you combine this with having a cameo in the nominated game. Now, if you still can't get past that, I'm just going to end our conversation here.

Click to shrink...

I mean... Greg Miller was in Spiderman. Or a character based on him was

 

[Plum]

You are ascribing far more to me than I actually said. I didn't discredit marketing, I said optics being used here, without considering the optics of a bargained-for exchange which the foundation of the show is premised around, is a bunch of bullshit.

You seemingly have no problem with the very real conflicts of interest that might arise from what typically constitutes these problems (aka money exchanging hands) while honing in on Kojima.

That's why it's bullshit. You have chosen to arbitrarily make the issue about a smaller specific subset while ignoring the optics of the larger issue, which actually, realistically and generally leads to conflicts of interest.

You want to both validate the show and harp on Geoff simultaneously. That's the point. You can't do both when you invoke the optics argument. Geoff secures marketing and sponsorship funding for this show from folks whose games are up for awards. His show cannot live without that money. His show can live without Death Stranding.

If you feel calling out selective usage of optics is insult to your profession, fine. Take that insult.

This is precisely why I find the whole issue with optics such a bunch of fucking bullshit. Fuck reality, Geoff should make his show for the toxic manchildren that were fiending at the keyboard ready to go.

Click to shrink...

Whether or not there may be potential conflicts of interests elsewhere does not matter as the optics in this situation are focused on the more-public and contextually different instances where the relationship between Keighley and Kojima has been shown in the products that both people preside over.

You're declaring that your instance of a potential conflict of interest is exactly the same as the situation between Keighley and Kojima, and then insulting me and my profession for not agreeing with that declaration. They are not the same. Kojima and Keighley's relationship is both more public-facing and more personal than any of the funding agreements made between Keighley and the Game Award's partners. As such, when it comes to optics, a potential conflict of interest no matter how real it is is going to hurt the legitimacy of the show more when it comes to the former than it does the latter. The existence of this very thread coupled with the lack of a thread complaining about its sponsors (and the lack of ones in years prior) proves that I'm right here and I'm sure that the potential "shitstorms," that would occur if DS were win will only do so further.

Because that's the thing about optics. It's not logical. It's not something that would hold up in a court of law or a scientific textbook. It's an art, something that is wholly subjective whilst rarely making sense. It's how Gillette can be seen as progressive for an advert decrying toxic masculinity whilst simultaneously being part of a destructive capitalist organisation. It's how Sony managed to win the generation so conclusively despite the 'fact' that Microsoft backed-off from their DRM desires. And, yes, it's how people can see that a potential conflict of interest between Kojima and Keighley is more important than a potential conflict of interest between Keighley and his sponsors. If you want to continue to see that as "fucking bullshit" whilst making insinuations that I'm a manchild then so be it, but that's just reality.

And I'm not harping on Geoff for crying out loud. Criticism does not equal condemnation, and I'm sick of this heated rhetoric where everyone is a hater and no-one can possibly be reasonable. You can admit someone's faults whilst still seeing them as a good person doing good things; it's not all-or-nothing no matter how much you'd want to believe it is.

Yes it is attacking Geoff for having a relationship with someone. Imagine trying to tell someone you don't know it is a "mistake" to have a relationship with someone else you don't know. What a ridiculous notion.

Saying a guy in the gaming industry that also has an award show can't have a relationship with someone else in the gaming industry is nonsense. And yeah let's continue to pretend Kojima is the only other person Geoff has a relationship with in the ideo game industry as if it isn't ridiculous either.

And like I said in another comment than the same should apply to all other video game publications that have relationships with publishers and developers and they should all start removing games from their lists because in some fictional world where they were run by a board of directors they may think it will have bad PR.

Bad PR that would come from irrational people on the internet that are toxic about everything.

Click to shrink...

The issue isn't that Geoff has a friendly relationship with someone. It's that he's used that relationship to signal boost both himself and Kojima's work throughout multiple heavily-public instances.

Though maybe I should have worded things differently because when I say "involvement" I mean the publicly-facing involvement between the two in situations such as the TGAs and Death Stranding.

 

[Deleted member 4976]

I still don't understand why you're focusing on the relationship and still no mention of having a cameo in the same game? The combined result of the two is not a good look

Click to shrink...

We should also remove Control from consideration. It features a cameo of Kojima, who Geoff is obviously in love with, so obviously he must want to prop up any game Kojima is associated with or in.

 

[pants]

Feels a little weird/gross, but Geoff isn't the one making the call on who wins/loses.

I guess it would be like the host of the Oscars also being up for Best Picture, which I don't think has ever happened?

 

[Deleted member 4976]

Whether or not there may be potential conflicts of interests elsewhere does not matter as the optics in this situation are focused on the more-public and contextually different instances where the relationship between Keighley and Kojima has been shown in the products that both people preside over.

You're declaring that your instance of a potential conflict of interest is exactly the same as the situation between Keighley and Kojima, and then insulting me and my profession for not agreeing with that declaration. They are not the same. Kojima and Keighley's relationship is both more public-facing and more personal than any of the funding agreements made between Keighley and the Game Award's partners. As such, when it comes to optics, a potential conflict of interest no matter how real it is is going to hurt the legitimacy of the show more when it comes to the former than it does the latter. The existence of this very thread coupled with the lack of a thread complaining about its sponsors (and the lack of ones in years prior) proves that I'm right here and I'm sure that the potential "shitstorms," that would occur if DS were win will only do so further.

Because that's the thing about optics. It's not logical. It's not something that would hold up in a court of law or a scientific textbook. It's an art, something that is wholly subjective whilst rarely making sense. It's how Gillette can be seen as progressive for an advert decrying toxic masculinity whilst simultaneously being part of a destructive capitalist organisation. It's how Sony managed to win the generation so conclusively despite the 'fact' that Microsoft backed-off from their DRM desires. And, yes, it's how people can see that a potential conflict of interest between Kojima and Keighley is more important than a potential conflict of interest between Keighley and his sponsors. If you want to continue to see that as "fucking bullshit" whilst making insinuations that I'm a manchild then so be it, but that's just reality.

And I'm not harping on Geoff for crying out loud. Criticism does not equal condemnation, and I'm sick of this heated rhetoric where everyone is a hater and no-one can possibly be reasonable. You can admit someone's faults whilst still seeing them as a good person doing good things; it's not all-or-nothing no matter how much you'd want to believe it is.


The issue isn't that Geoff has a friendly relationship with someone. It's that he's used that relationship to signal boost both himself and Kojima's work throughout multiple heavily-public instances.

Click to shrink...

Great! We're in agreement that this entire thing is entirely subjective, not based on any sort of actual conflict or fact, and essentially rests on the gut feelings of some people who take issues with only some things but not others.

I'm perfectly okay with that and I'm glad we could come to that understanding.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I know what optics are. I'm saying that people who focus on optics rather than actual conflicts of interest are missing the point and creating an issue where one doesn't really exist

Click to shrink...

Optics are extremely important. The appearance of fairness is an important component of actual fairness and transparency. If you dont get this, why do you think Geoff even came out and said he doesn't vote to begin with?

It doesn't matter if there are 0 conflicts of interest in reality if no one fucking trusts you lol. A person's credibility is an important part of trust and of course the optics of a situation are going to play into that.

Do I think anything fishy is going on with Death Stranding? No. Does Geoff's presense do anything to mitigate that? No. His presense and actions literally makes the whole situation look less above water. That's the entire point of contention here. If there was a lesson to be learned here it would be not to do the stupid stanning worship bullshit for your personal friend at your award show for 2 years, appear in their product then host and spearhead an award show that their product is in.

I literally don't get how anyone looks at this situation and goes "this is the look they should be wanting to present". This is the most mild criticism ever.

 

[soundtrack]

Neither outcome feels good. Geoff and Kojima's friendship has been so present throughout everything Keighley does that it's hard not be skeptical. Death Stranding is an incredible game (albeit critically divisive) so pretending it doesn't exist in an GOTY awards show like this is pretty harsh.

 

[Plum]

Great! We're in agreement that this entire thing is entirely subjective, not based on any sort of actual conflict or fact, and essentially rests on the gut feelings of some people who take issues with only some things but not others.

I'm perfectly okay with that and I'm glad we could come to that understanding.

Click to shrink...

Of course it's subjective, but that doesn't make it any less worthy of being discussed or criticised. If you went into Apple and said "you should stop marketing your products because people are subjective and value your brand over the actual specs of your product" you'd be laughed out of the room in an instant, yet here in a similar situation where 'logic and facts' and 'gut feelings' don't exactly mix you're dismissing it as "fucking bullshit mind-boggling man-child nonsense."

Seeing as you don't have any experience in marketing, and instead admit that your view is influenced heavily by your background as a lawyer, I find it hard to see your viewpoint of "optics is fucking bullshit mind-boggling man-child nonsense," as anything but flawed. Maybe stop dismissing someone who does have such experience because you don't personally agree; after all, it makes sense logically for the person who's field is marketing to have more knowledge of marketing than the person who's field is law.

 

[Deleted member 51691]

It's not a good look, but Death Stranding deserves every nomination.

 

[Deleted member 4976]

Optics are extremely important. The appearance of fairness is an important component of actual fairness and transparency. If you dont get this, why do you think Geoff even came out and said he doesn't vote to begin with?

It doesn't matter if there are 0 conflicts of interest in reality if no one fucking trusts you lol. A person's credibility is an important part of trust and of course the optics of a situation are going to play into that.

Do I think anything fishy is going on with Death Stranding? No. Does Geoff's presense do anything to mitigate that? No. His presense and actions literally makes the whole situation look less above water. That's the entire point of contention here. If there was a lesson to be learned here it would be not to do the stupid stanning worship bullshit for your personal friend at your award show for 2 years, appear in their product then host and spearhead an award show that their product is in.

I literally don't get how anyone looks at this situation and goes "this is the look they should be wanting to present".

Click to shrink...

Sure, optics can be important. Doesn't mean every instance of optics is equally important or worth merit.

Geoff makes deals with publishers for marketing and reveals, whose titles are also up for awards. Not great optics or something that instills trust since it's all behind the curtain, but not worth merit and consideration if you hope that Geoff is doing everything above board. And seemingly doesn't make him any less trustworthy despite money exchanging hands. Not to the masses anyways.

Same applies here.

Of course it's subjective, but that doesn't make it any less worthy of being discussed or criticised. If you went into Apple and said "you should stop marketing your products because people are subjective and value your brand over the actual specs of your product" you'd be laughed out of the room in an instant, yet here in a similar situation where 'logic and facts' and 'gut feelings' don't exactly mix you're dismissing it as "fucking bullshit mind-boggling man-child nonsense."

Seeing as you don't have any experience in marketing, and instead admit that your view is influenced heavily by your background as a lawyer, I find it hard to see your viewpoint of "optics is fucking bullshit mind-boggling man-child nonsense," as anything but flawed. Maybe stop dismissing someone who does have such experience because you don't personally agree; after all, it makes sense logically for the person who's field is marketing to have more knowledge of marketing than the person who's field is law.

Click to shrink...

It's funny you think I've invoked my field for purposes of debate rather than point out how conflicts are typically handled when money or jail time is involved and as a result, I find it funny that Geoff is being held to more stringent standards than lawyers or judges, despite having no impact on the actual outcome.

Secondly, you somehow think I'm dismissing marketing when I'm not. I'm dismissing selective usage of optics. I frankly don't give two shits if you have a plethora of marketing experience or not because that's not at issue.

We've already come to an agreement. I've bolded your post and agreed with it. Nothing more needs to be said. Selective, subjective and often illogical optics are at play for some people and since it's subjective, there's no changing of minds.

 

[Eggman]

The issue isn't that Geoff has a friendly relationship with someone. It's that he's used that relationship to signal boost both himself and Kojima's work throughout multiple heavily-public instances.

Though maybe I should have worded things differently because when I say "involvement" I mean the publicly-facing involvement between the two in situations such as the TGAs and Death Stranding.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much every award show does this. They all use famous and well known people in the industry to prop up their award shows and vice versa with movies using award shows to prop up their movies. Should the Oscars disqualify actors, directors etc. that are promoted in the show now?

 

[sibarraz]

My main issue is, how could a game that was released only 2 weeks ago and that isn't exactly setting the world on fire could be considered a GOTY? The fact than also DS got the most nominations really make this feel tainted considering that Geoff really loves Kojima

 

[Sephzilla]

Considering Geoff is a producer of the show, is in the game, and has used TGA's platform to advertise for Kojima for (I think) 3 straight years that's probably going to have some kind of affect on voting. I just think the whole thing is weird and should at least be disclosed.

 

[NathanS]

I'm saying people who look at a base optics level without any consideration of any actual underlying conflict of interest are doing it wrong.

Click to shrink...

No its treating the event like Geoff claims he wants it to be seen. He says he wants it to be seen as professional, well there are standards. and in this case the expected professional behavior is real simple. Your boss is friends with someone and your reporting on that friend, or voting for them, it doesn't matter if you never meet your boss much less have them come in and tell you how to do your job, you still slap a full disclose on it. "Hey my boss is buds with this dude, I don't feel that effected my work, but you should know."

Now I'm not losing any sleep if they don't do that, but it is the professional thing to do. And Geoff needs to decide how much he cares about this thing looking like professional, respectable event or not.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Sure, optics can be important. Doesn't mean every instance of optics is equally important or worth merit.

Click to shrink...

No one said otherwise but you're intent on shutting down any discussion or insinuation of it and I plainly dont understand why.

Geoff makes deals with publishers for marketing and reveals, whose titles are also up for awards. Not great optics or something that instills trust since it's all behind the curtain, but not worth merit and consideration if you hope that Geoff is doing everything above board.

And seemingly doesn't make him any less trustworthy despite money exchanging hands. Not to the masses anyways.

Click to shrink...

These are corporations that he wants their money to do his pet project. They obviously have influencing power but what you ignore is that they all have the ability to be sponsors and they all have the ability to blow the whistle if some shit is not above water. Similarly he can easily hurt any company that tries to pressure the results by simply unmasking them in the court of public perception. As such this business relationship holds no actual benefit to any party to not do things with a reasonable level of ethics. That's why no one gives a fuck.

A personal relationship with one individual that has no coercive power is not the same thing. Geoff got on stage and stanned for Kojima multiple times at these awards out of his own free will. He is friends with Kojima out of his own free will and he appeared as a cameo out of his own free will. So why would these 2 situations be equitable? I'll just answer it for you. They aren't. That's why people are saying the optics dont look good.

Same applies here.

Click to shrink...

See the above. But really. Just go back to my closing point and answer this. Who looks at this situation and goes "yes, this is the look that they should be presenting in their award show they want people to take seriously"

Like L O fucking L dude. Come on.

 

[Plum]

Sure, optics can be important. Doesn't mean every instance of optics is equally important or worth merit.

Geoff makes deals with publishers for marketing and reveals, whose titles are also up for awards. Not great optics or something that instills trust since it's all behind the curtain, but not worth merit and consideration if you hope that Geoff is doing everything above board. And seemingly doesn't make him any less trustworthy despite money exchanging hands. Not to the masses anyways.

Same applies here.

Click to shrink...

This instance of optics is important because the public has made it important. It's not on you to decide what people should and shouldn't worry about or what feelings they should have; you're not god.

It's funny you think I've invoked my field for purposes of debate rather than point out how conflicts are typically handled when money or jail time is involved and as a result, I find it funny that Geoff is being held to more stringent standards than lawyers or judges, despite having little impact on the actual outcome.

Secondly, you somehow think I'm dismissing marketing when I'm not. I'm dismissing selective usage of optics. I frankly don't give two shits if you have a plethora of marketing experience or not because that's not at issue.

We've already come to an agreement. I've bolded your post and agreed with it. Nothing more needs to be said. Selective, subjective and often illogical optics are at play for some people.

Click to shrink...

You invoked your field to make an argument that had nothing to do with the marketing-focused argument I've been making. You then used the example of lawyers and judges to try and dismiss that argument as if they aren't operating on an incredibly different set of rules than a businessman; they're simply not comparable.

And, yes, you are dismissing marketing because you're just assuming that because the criticisms aren't 100% logically 'incorrect' (in your eyes) that Keighley, and in turn everyone else, should just dismiss them altogether despite the fact that I, and the people making those criticisms, are looking at this from the perspective of marketing/PR instead of your own law perspective. It's ridiculous because selective optics is a fact of nature when it comes to optics, and gnoring my examples of selective optics being at play in the real world doesn't change that in the slightest.

Pretty much every award show does this. They all use famous and well known people in the industry to prop up their award shows and vice versa with movies using award shows to prop up their movies. Should the Oscars disqualify actors, directors etc. that are promoted in the show now?

Click to shrink...

I'm not arguing that Death Stranding should be disqualified.

And, no, very few award shows "do this." In fact I can't think of a single instance throughout The Oscars, The Emmys, etc that could be adequately compared to the relationship between Kojima and Keighley. None of those are run by a very-public singular person, for one, but they also rarely show off trailers and hype for upcoming releases in the event itself, and when they do celebrate works in their own respective mediums it's done in a way that doesn't give as much out-weighing attention as Kojima and Death Stranding has in the past. Throwing whataboutisms as if it's going to suddenly make everyone look like idiots just won't work because all of the whataboutisms I've seen in this thread have been inherently flawed due to their ignorance of context.

 

[jroc74]

So let me see if I understand:

Host has cameo in a game that has numerous nominations, including GotY, bad.

Advisory panel made up of the companies that actually make or fund the game, not bad. Ppl that actually benefit or could lose their jobs, stocks drop, etc if these games sell or received poorly.

Not bad.

But bad optics, conflicts for the host. Just wanna make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

This instance of optics is important because the public has made it important. It's not on you to decide what people should and shouldn't worry about or what feelings they should have; you're not god.



You invoked your field to make an argument that had nothing to do with the marketing-focused argument I've been making. You then used the example of lawyers and judges to try and dismiss that argument as if they aren't operating on an incredibly different set of rules than a businessman; they're simply not comparable.

And, yes, you are dismissing marketing because you're just assuming that because the criticisms aren't 100% logically 'incorrect' (in your eyes) that Keighley, and in turn everyone else, should just dismiss them altogether despite the fact that I, and the people making those criticisms, are looking at this from the perspective of marketing/PR instead of your own law perspective. It's ridiculous because selective optics is a fact of nature when it comes to optics, and gnoring my examples of selective optics being at play in the real world doesn't change that in the slightest.



I'm not arguing that Death Stranding should be disqualified.

And, no, very few award shows "do this." In fact I can't think of a single instance throughout The Oscars, The Emmys, etc that could be adequately compared to the relationship between Kojima and Keighley. None of those are run by a very-public singular person, for one, but they also rarely show off trailers and hype for upcoming releases in the event itself, and when they do celebrate works in their own respective mediums it's done in a way that doesn't give as much out-weighing attention as Kojima and Death Stranding has in the past. Throwing whataboutisms as if it's going to suddenly make everyone look like idiots just won't work because all of the whataboutisms I've seen in this thread have been inherently flawed due to their ignorance of context.

Click to shrink...

You may be right about it hasn't really happened like this for an award show in any other medium.

What I have seen is hosts and/or presenters actually saying they hope X person wins. Either being long overdue, great performances, or whatever reason.

Now...how does those optics look....

This is a complete non issue that some are going to turn into an issue for...reasons.

 

[Deleted member 4976]

No one said otherwise but you're intent on shutting down any discussion or insinuation of it and I plainly dont understand why.



These are corporations that he wants their money to do his pet project. They obviously have influencing power but what you ignore is that they all have the ability to be sponsors and they all have the ability to blow the whistle if some shit is not above water. Similarly he can easily hurt any company that tries to pressure the results by simply unmasking them in the court of public perception. As such this business relationship holds no actual benefit to any party to not do things with a reasonable level of ethics. That's why no one gives a fuck.

A personal relationship with one individual that has no coercive power is not the same thing. Geoff got on stage and stanned for Kojima multiple times at these awards out of his own free will. He is friends with Kojima out of his own free will and he appeared as a cameo out of his own free will. So why would these 2 situations be equitable? I'll just answer it for you. They aren't. That's why people are saying the optics dont look good.



See the above. But really. Just go back to my closing point and answer this. Who looks at this situation and goes "yes, this is the look that they should be presenting in their award show they want people to take seriously"

Like L O fucking L dude. Come on.

Click to shrink...

I'm not shutting down discussion, I'm pointing out I don't see a conflict because it's been appropriately handled.

And your second paragraph is precisely my issue. A business relationship presents more avenues for conflicts as money is involved. It requires more care to avoid conflicts. A personal relationship with no monetary benefit as a result of the awards is easier to address, is more publicly facing and does not present remotely the same level of inheren problems. Yes, they are not equal. A business relationship absolutely leads to much more actual conflicts of interest.

Lastly, I look at this and see no issue. Yes, there's a friendship. Yes, he's promoted the game. But he didn't vote on the panel. He doesn't choose the GOTY. He doesn't influence the process.

For me to find issue with his, I'd need an actual reason to do so. Some evidence that there was improper influence. Otherwise, all I see is a host with a massive friendship but no actual effect on the awards. And truth be told, I don't really give a shit about perceived optics as long as everything is above board.

 

[Deleted member 4976]

This instance of optics is important because the public has made it important. It's not on you to decide what people should and shouldn't worry about or what feelings they should have; you're not god.



You invoked your field to make an argument that had nothing to do with the marketing-focused argument I've been making. You then used the example of lawyers and judges to try and dismiss that argument as if they aren't operating on an incredibly different set of rules than a businessman; they're simply not comparable.

And, yes, you are dismissing marketing because you're just assuming that because the criticisms aren't 100% logically 'incorrect' (in your eyes) that Keighley, and in turn everyone else, should just dismiss them altogether despite the fact that I, and the people making those criticisms, are looking at this from the perspective of marketing/PR instead of your own law perspective. It's ridiculous because selective optics is a fact of nature when it comes to optics, and gnoring my examples of selective optics being at play in the real world doesn't change that in the slightest.



I'm not arguing that Death Stranding should be disqualified.

And, no, very few award shows "do this." In fact I can't think of a single instance throughout The Oscars, The Emmys, etc that could be adequately compared to the relationship between Kojima and Keighley. None of those are run by a very-public singular person, for one, but they also rarely show off trailers and hype for upcoming releases in the event itself, and when they do celebrate works in their own respective mediums it's done in a way that doesn't give as much out-weighing attention as Kojima and Death Stranding has in the past. Throwing whataboutisms as if it's going to suddenly make everyone look like idiots just won't work because all of the whataboutisms I've seen in this thread have been inherently flawed due to their ignorance of context.

Click to shrink...

What the fuck are you on about? Stop putting words in my mouth. I invoked the comparison to law because there is a specific set of rules that governs conflicts in law. Something that removes it from a field of "what is bad" to "hey, this is bad." I invoked it as a point of comparison because thats how I assess things.

But we have already agreed that it is subjective, illogical and based on the person. So I have no fucking idea why you keep going on and on when we are in complete fucking agreement as to the issue.

You take qualms with just one aspect of the TGAs. Fine. I take qualms with anyone that takes qualm with one aspect but not the others. But it's subjective, right? And we are in agreement right? So let's move the fuck on.

 

[NathanS]

Also the whole point of a "full disclosure" when their isn't a conflict of internist, but it might look like that to outsiders, so you acknowledge it to show you have nothing to hide.

 

[Legacy]

We should also remove Control from consideration. It features a cameo of Kojima, who Geoff is obviously in love with, so obviously he must want to prop up any game Kojima is associated with or in.

Click to shrink...

If Kojima was the face of Game Awards, yeah good call

 

[Deleted member 4976]

If Kojima was the face of Game Awards, yeah good call

Click to shrink...

Geoff pretty buddy buddy with Kojima and Control is the lowest rated game on the list alongside Death Stranding. One features Kojima, the other is made by Kojima.

Seems pretty sketchy.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I'm not shutting down discussion, I'm pointing out I don't see a conflict because it's been appropriately handled.

Click to shrink...

You're pointing out the thing everyone has already plainly said but you're shouting it over an over. No one "here" thinks there is a conflict of interest in regards to the results. I dont know why you keep defaulting to this. They think that his personal public facing relationship with someone (who he has at everyone opportunity, jumped out to poor the extra sap for) makes his whole presense in the show with this dudes game having so many nominations weird. And fuck it does. We wouldnt be talking about it if it didn't.

And your second paragraph is precisely my issue. A business relationship presents more avenues for conflicts as money is involved. It requires more care to avoid conflicts. A personal relationship with no monetary benefit as a result of the awards is easier to address, is more publicly facing and does not present remotely the same level of inheren problems. Yes, they are not equal. A business relationship absolutely leads to much more actual conflicts of interest.

Click to shrink...

At the end of the day people are discussing the voting. The producers involvement with sponsor is a necessary part of this endeavour. Any business that was ever caught manipulating results of an award show will die in the court of public opinion. That's why no one is worried. That goes beyond TGA and into literally any type of awarding.

Lastly, I look at this and see no issue. Yes, there's a friendship. Yes, he's promoted the game. But he didn't vote on the panel. He doesn't choose the GOTY. He doesn't influence the process.

Click to shrink...

You think influencing power exists in this small vacuum and not the entirety of his industry reaching power and beyond? I'm not a comspiracy theorist but this is so fucking naive. I'm sorry.

The look of this situation does nothing to help TGA. That's literally already enough of an issue that he has addressed it publicly. That's an admission that even he gets the situation he has painted. But you seemingly cant see an issue. Okay. Not going to bother further there lol.

And truth be told, I don't really give a shit about perceived optics as long as everything is above board.

Click to shrink...

As a minority this is disappointing to here frankly.

 

[Plum]

What the fuck are you on about? Stop putting words in my mouth. I invoked the comparison to law because there is a specific set of rules that governs conflicts in law. Something that removes it from a field of "what is bad" to "hey, this is bad." I invoked it as a point of comparison because thats how I assess things.

But we have already agreed that it is subjective, illogical and based on the person. So I have no fucking idea why you keep going on and on when we are in complete fucking agreement as to the issue.

You take qualms with just one aspect of the TGAs. Fine. I take qualms with anyone that takes qualm with one aspect but not the others. But it's subjective, right? And we are in agreemrh right? So let's move the fuck on.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I'm done.

 

[Deleted member 4976]

You're pointing out the thing everyone has already plainly said but you're shouting it over an over. No one "here" thinks there is a conflict of interest in regards to the results. I dont know why you keep defaulting to this. They think that his personal public facing relationship with someone (who he has at everyone opportunity, jumped out to poor the extra sap for) makes his whole presense in the show with this dudes game having so many nominations weird. And fuck it does. We wouldnt be talking about it if it didn't.



At the end of the day people are discussing the voting. The producers involvement with sponsor is a necessary part of this endeavour. Any business that was ever caught manipulating results of an award show will die in the court of public opinion. That's why no one is worried. That goes beyond TGA and into literally any type of awarding.



You think influencing power exists in this small vacuum and not the entirety of his industry reaching power and beyond? I'm not a comspiracy theorist but this is so fucking naive. I'm sorry.

The look of this situation does nothing to help TGA. That's literally already enough of an issue that he has addressed it publicly. That's an admission that even he gets the situation he has painted. But you seemingly cant see an issue. Okay. Not going to bother further there lol.



As a minority this is disappointing to here frankly.

Click to shrink...

Yes... I pointed to the conflict of interest because that's precisely the reason I don't find this situation weird at all.

And I'm not sure I quite get the minority bit. I'm a minority and I find talk of optics exhausting and dumb as hell (in the context of politics).

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Yeah, I'm done.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much lol.

 

[Deleted member 46489]

This is a complete non-issue. The best way Geoff can handle this is by ignoring it. The haters and trolls don't deserve a response. This is gamergate levels of 'ethics in games journalism' bullshit. Anyone seriously thinking Geoff might've influenced the process is saying more about themselves than about him.

 

[IIFloodyII]

Remove everyone. It's all a conflict of interest /s

Also I like how Sony and Valve are just there as the companies and don't have people representing them.

Click to shrink...

What if Geoff is Sony's? 😱

 

[Eggman]

I'm not arguing that Death Stranding should be disqualified.

And, no, very few award shows "do this." In fact I can't think of a single instance throughout The Oscars, The Emmys, etc that could be adequately compared to the relationship between Kojima and Keighley. None of those are run by a very-public singular person, for one, but they also rarely show off trailers and hype for upcoming releases in the event itself, and when they do celebrate works in their own respective mediums it's done in a way that doesn't give as much out-weighing attention as Kojima and Death Stranding has in the past. Throwing whataboutisms as if it's going to suddenly make everyone look like idiots just won't work because all of the whataboutisms I've seen in this thread have been inherently flawed due to their ignorance of context.

Click to shrink...

Your first reply to me suggests that the game should be disqualified.

And for example the Academy Awards are ran by people who actually make movies which is much worse if you think about. And the actual "academy" is made of people nominated and receiving awards and it is a secret to who they are unlike the VGA's who are very upfront about it.

And yes they do promote movies and television and the industry as a whole all throughout these shows, who are you kidding?

And there is nothing with bringing up the most famous and popular award shows since you are bringing up "optics" and board of directors when the biggest award shows on earth do it on a much larger scale yet there isn't any backlash.

So we should worry about the optics of one video game award show because if possible bad PR? Give me a break.

 

[DodgeAnon]

Considering Geoff is a producer of the show, is in the game, and has used TGA's platform to advertise for Kojima for (I think) 3 straight years that's probably going to have some kind of affect on voting. I just think the whole thing is weird and should at least be disclosed.

Click to shrink...

Not to mention the sheer amount of almost propaganda tweets he's been posting regarding DS on Twitter over the past few years. It will certainly have a subconscious influence on those that follow him.

Sure, he may not have direct involvement in the voting process, but he's done his fair share to influence the vote imo. And for the host of the show, it's pretty unprofessional.

 

[What-ok]

The appearance of this fan boy character In the game isn't conflicting. It's an amazing game and should be considered.

 

[AliceAmber]

Locked at OP's request.