Support NeoGAF

[John Rabbit]

I don't think you need to "trust" any reviewer. Don't approach criticism or a review as a buyers guide, approach it as someone making an argument about a piece of media, which you are free to agree or disagree with.

that's not really addressing the issue of the claims of "corruption" in the industry however. and to be clear, Zoe Quinn nor Nathan Grayson are "guilty" of anything other than having a sexual relationship, which is nothing to be guilty over. the issue i'm addressing is specifically the lack of transparency in the gaming media, and moreover, the lack of an ability on the part of readers/gamers/consumers to do anything about it.

and i think that you do have to trust reviewers. you have to trust that you're receiving their honest opinion, that what you're reading is what they actually think about the thing they're criticizing, and that it's not motivated by favors or bribes or personal bias towards an individual or company because of these things. personally i base my purchasing decisions off my own opinions; sometimes weighed against personal anecdotes on places like GAF or YouTube. the last time i purposely went out and bought a game because of a review it received was about a decade ago.

 

[jgminto]

I also find it hilarious that they're objecting to personal relationships with developers because personal connections are even more important in regular journalism. Any successful journalist makes friends in politics, the police force or whatever else they're covering because that's how they get their information.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? Yes, these still exist. Do they exist as much in new media? No, probably not(but then again, I dont go around counting the websites that do this). I do think though, due to traditional media there is this view of how things should be separate and then you have people think that enthusiast press is full of journalists who dont follow the rules. I agree though, at least with game enthusiasts press, most is gonzo journalism. However if I use sports media on ESPN.com, they still use most if not all the distinctions(outside of op-ed, I dont think they do op-ed much).

I just think that for video games, a creative medium, the distinctions just aren't that useful. There are so few things that can possibly be reported on in the industry with any kind of objectivity. "This company is planning to make this game." "This game has this feature." "This company is going to shut down."

Once you start to interact with the actual products of the industry on any kind of meaningful level, like in a review, there is no objectivity to strive for. There is always bias. That will exist no matter what op ed/column/article label you place on it. To try and strive for objectivity in reviewing a game is just misguided, in my opinion.

 

[Laughing Banana]

So I'm really asking: even if we assume gaming media is corrupt, what effect does it have on a person who doesn't visit those sites or any gaming media?

Even if it does not have an effect to a person who doesn't visit those sites, that means those who do visit those sites can't/shouldn't talk about it?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The Rhodes article was very good, I'll have to read the rest after work.

It's a damn shame that stuff like this is costing and will continue to cost the industry talent and good people.

Fuck.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

that's not really addressing the issue of the claims of "corruption" in the industry however. and to be clear, Zoe Quinn nor Nathan Grayson are "guilty" of anything other than having a sexual relationship, which is nothing to be guilty over. the issue i'm addressing is specifically the lack of transparency in the gaming media, and moreover, the lack of an ability on the part of readers/gamers/consumers to do anything about it.

and i think that you do have to trust reviewers. you have to trust that you're receiving their honest opinion, that what you're reading is what they actually think about the thing they're criticizing, and that it's not motivated by favors or bribes or personal bias towards an individual or company because of these things. personally i base my purchasing decisions off my own opinions; sometimes weighed against personal anecdotes on places like GAF or YouTube. the last time i purposely went out and bought a game because of a review it received was about a decade ago.

Then how does reading a "dishonest" review negatively affect you?

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Actually this isn't the case. The first use of the #Gamergate tag was on 8/27. Leigh Alexander's article came out the following day.

The movement began after the Zoe Quinn thing broke and has not abated since. Though I have no doubt Alexander's article spiked participation.

That's true, Adam Baldwin started using the hastag in support to the movement liderated by the InternetAristocrat and others.

Not that I doubt that people want to use the hastag for good reasons, but the leaders behind it, don't deserve those people support. I want to remind people that all this "Quinnspiracy" thing, started by people like InternetAristocrat which only arguments where fallacies and cirscumstancial evidence that wouldn't hold in a real trial. Not even discussing the fact several of his facts are wrong.

That's MORE than enough to abandon this campaign, or directly ignore it, because even if I can agree with more of the reasonable ideas behind it, I can't support such a misoginy abstract layer behind it. Let's face it, all this dosn't make sense, some writer was harassed because she's an acquaintance of Quinn, and all she did was write an opinion. Oh and another writer, from Kotaku, lived or was also an acquaintance, therefore she can't write about Quinn? That's beyond laughable.

Remember the deal with Robert Florence?, now that was something to get to the arms and ask for a better more ethic gaming journalism. #Gamergate is sadly just a subterfuge of conservative mysoginistic ideas. The sooner the moderate and reasonable portion of the people supporting it, starts their own thing and isolates those people the better.

The same I can say of the other side of the coin, equally hateful and extremist ideas (ideas, not actions, we know which side have the "internet weapons here") that should be isolated so a proper talk can be done.

 

[Exploratory]

Blame the culture that demands day 1 reviews in the first place.

How many review threads do you see on this forum that are so anxious for a score from every big game that they're going to buy regardless of what is written about it?

Blame pre order culture in the first place. If we as gamers could stop fucking pre ordering and didn't HAVE to buy "Day 1" then that would alleviate the need to write a review quickly (and in turn increase the quality of those reviews). That doesn't absolve people of writing reviews day 1 of poor quality but it would help remove the incentive to do so.

Pre order culture is the root of so much evil I swear. NoDRM showed that gamers (yes "gamers") can actually effect the trajectory of the industry. Can we not do the same for preordering?

 

[Nephtis]

So now Lana Polansky (developer and writer) has decided to quit as well.

When someone quits using this as their parting line:

https://twitter.com/LanaTheGun101/status/507738700705697793

and this:

https://twitter.com/LanaTheGun101/status/507737870703288320

I find it really hard to feel for them. Good luck, I guess? I mean, it's one thing to want to bow out of the industry, to feel hurt and maybe leave because your personal info is exposed. I can understand that. But when you leave and you do so with insults, you're burning bridges.

 

[jgminto]

Blame metacritic culture too.

 

[Antiwhippy]

that's not really addressing the issue of the claims of "corruption" in the industry however. and to be clear, Zoe Quinn nor Nathan Grayson are "guilty" of anything other than having a sexual relationship, which is nothing to be guilty over. the issue i'm addressing is specifically the lack of transparency in the gaming media, and moreover, the lack of an ability on the part of readers/gamers/consumers to do anything about it.

and i think that you do have to trust reviewers. you have to trust that you're receiving their honest opinion, that what you're reading is what they actually think about the thing they're criticizing, and that it's not motivated by favors or bribes or personal bias towards an individual or company because of these things. personally i base my purchasing decisions off my own opinions; sometimes weighed against personal anecdotes on places like GAF or YouTube. the last time i purposely went out and bought a game because of a review it received was about a decade ago.

When you're bringing up bribes though it's on the onus of the accuser to actually bring up evidence, if not it's just another conspiracy.

 

[chrominance]

that's not really addressing the issue of the claims of "corruption" in the industry however. and to be clear, Zoe Quinn nor Nathan Grayson are "guilty" of anything other than having a sexual relationship, which is nothing to be guilty over. the issue i'm addressing is specifically the lack of transparency in the gaming media, and moreover, the lack of an ability on the part of readers/gamers/consumers to do anything about it.

Here's the thing: why now? The #GamerGate tag wasn't even created until a few days ago. Nothing about the Zoe Quinn thing suggests impropriety of any sort. Nothing about the way games are covered, either on the review side or the investigative side, has changed in the last few months. So why are people only now so concerned about corruption in the industry? We didn't see this kind of backlash when Rab Florence left Eurogamer under murky circumstances because of the article he wrote alleging several reporters had too-close ties to corporations. No one got doxxed, no one had their nude photos posted without permission. We didn't see this kind of backlash during the allegations that EA and other publishers were paying off YouTube streamers to promote their games without identifying their prior financial arrangement. Why not then? Why is this case the straw that breaks the camel's back?

That's not to suggest that there aren't issues with modern games coverage, but I don't know why it's so often suggested that bringing up the treatment of people like Zoe Quinn, Phil Fish, Anita Sarkeesian and Jenn Frank are somehow derails from the real issue, when that real issue has been around for years without nearly the same amount of attention.

 

[unbias]

I just think that for video games, a creative medium, the distinctions just aren't that useful. There are so few things that can possibly be reported on in the industry with any kind of objectivity. "This company is planning to make this game." "This game has this feature." "This company is going to shut down."

Once you start to interact with the actual products of the industry on any kind of meaningful level, like in a review, there is no objectivity to strive for. There is always bias. That will exist no matter what op ed/column/article label you place on it. To try and strive for objectivity in reviewing a game is just misguided, in my opinion.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to say I think the disconnect is because there is this belief of expectation. They expect them to be ESPN, when they are not, the industry doesn't support much external eye's. It's all pretty boring. I think the reason there is a rise in pontificating is due to trying to create a platform beyond the scope of video games. I also think it is why people watch more and more youtube and stick to forums and why we have seen IGN layoffs last year(IGN/Gamespot/Gametrailers/1Up/ect). The differences are minimal outside of interviews.

 

[John Rabbit]

Then how does reading a "dishonest" review negatively affect you?

i used the term "review" as an easy reference, but i think we can agree that in the current climate of gaming media, reviews (written or otherwise) are only one facet of an ever-increasing varied landscape of output. enthusiast press members are writing articles, making videos, recording podcasts, live-tweeting images from events, hosting panels, and doing any number of other things that attach and expose them to a reader/viewership.

if i were to discover somebody that i have come to trust, for reasons that if were to examine closely don't hold up under scrutiny (i.e - 'I like them') it would honestly disappoint and jade me that much further into disassociating with the enthusiast press as a whole. somewhere you have to accept that a dialogue is occurring between you and the journalist. it may not be direct (it often is not) but it does exist. those dialogues spawn additional dialogues and connect people. i'd like to believe that those responsible for starting and creating those dialogues, creating a community so to speak, aren't simply glad-handing their way through the day and accepting a few extra bucks under the table (again, figuratively...hopefully).

When you're bringing up bribes though it's on the onus of the accuser to actually bring up evidence, if not it's just another conspiracy.

you're right, and i already said this in the original post that was quoted.

Why is this case the straw that breaks the camel's back?

i can't answer that. that doesn't mean we can't have the discussion. i mean i guess accuse me of jumping on the bandwagon a little bit, but my original post was addressed specifically at a member of the games press for his thoughts.

 

[CLEEK]

Political journalism is also a strange example, seeing how few outlets, both old and new media, are impartial. Political stories are editorialised, facts are selectively reported, quotes are printed out of context, and so on.

Even with the few sources I trust, there can still be bias. I have huge respect for The Guardian, but their editorial bias is certainly (and openly) left of centre.

Gaming journalism is about discussing entertainment products. It has more in common with consumer reviews than traditional journalism. There should always be visibility that prevents stealth marketing. There always need to be transparency whether the product owner (publisher, developer or platform holder) is funding the review.

Remember when MS were found to be paying bloggers/Youtubers for mentions of the Xbox One? Things like this are far more of a concern than any bias a journo might have about a game or game maker, and yet it made ripples, rather than massive, escalating waves of drama.

One point that gets overlooked is there is one bias that you can never eliminate. One that has nothing to do with money, or personal relationships, or *corruption*. And that's good old fanboyism. Seeing as game journos are just passionate enthusiast like the GAF userbase, there will certainly be a fair number who have their own internal bias for games/genres/platforms.

 

[Earl_Grey]

A lot of gamers seem to forget that there's nothing particularly special about "Gamergate" (ugh). The actual conflict of interest presented by Quinn's relationship with people who've given (some) coverage of her games is troubling, but really nothing more than a minor fuckup on the part of a handful of journalists who warrant a stern talking to from their editor. Embarrassing, yes, but hardly important to the industry at large. Of course, it's now been incorporated into the ongoing, and utterly mystifying, "all games press are corrupt" narrative which paints a bunch of people making less money than your average McDonald's employee as a shadowy cabal that runs on yacht money from EA.

So I dismiss Gamergate not because I don't care about ethics in journalism, but because thus far it's doing more damage to our industry than Quinn's actions ever could. We've lost voices, the kind of unique voices the press is really lacking, to harassment done in the name of the movement, and it's given some utter shitbags a platform, a chance to make a quick buck and access to dissatisfied, easily swayed minds.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Also honestly as a person with interest in gamer culture I actually do want the press to develop relationships with developers because I actually am interested in the people who make the games.

I could give less of a shit about reviews honestly.

 

[unbias]

Then how does reading a "dishonest" review negatively affect you?

I think he may be talking about things along the lines of thanking EA for micro-transactions and then on the other end you get preached at. People are hesitant to trust perspective on issues, because they are pro industry and not consumer 1st. But I agree with you, but probably for different reasons. The press, outside of stuff like gameindustry.biz, really holds no sway with me and I think the need to not hold sway for most people. Pointing out wrong doing and updating me on business moves that might impact game design are about the only things I'm interested in on the press side of things.

 

[nynt9]

Also honestly as a person with interest in gamer culture I actually do want the press to develop relationships with developers because I actually am interested in the people who make the games.

I think you are confusing a professional relationship between the press and industry with personal relationships.

 

[Lime]

When someone quits using this as their parting line:

https://twitter.com/LanaTheGun101/status/507738700705697793

and this:

https://twitter.com/LanaTheGun101/status/507737870703288320

I find it really hard to feel for them. Good luck, I guess? I mean, it's one thing to want to bow out of the industry, to feel hurt and maybe leave because your personal info is exposed. I can understand that. But when you leave and you do so with insults, you're burning bridges.

She is adressing her harassers, not everyone on video games.

But yeah, video game culture just lost another woman because of the final straw that broke the camel's back. It's disheartening to see.

 

[Antiwhippy]

I think you are confusing a professional relationship between the press and industry with personal relationships.

No, I understand that, but a lot of people are equating them as the same.

Also fuck it if it's personal, as long as you can create meaningful dialogue to produce meaningful content. The giantbomb e3/gdc podcasts provides far better insight into what these developers are as people and their stance on the industry.

 

[Fredescu]

That's true, Adam Baldwin started using the hastag in support to the movement liderated by the InternetAristocrat and others.

This is interesting to me. I always assumed this was somewhat grass roots, but it was in fact spearheaded by a public figure known for his conservative politics.

 

[duessano]

Remember when MS were found to be paying bloggers/Youtubers for mentions of the Xbox One? Things like this are far more of a concern than any bias a journo might have about a game or game maker, and yet it made ripples, rather than massive, escalating waves of drama.

It was a tsunami to me and Microsoft, Xbox One isn't selling that well lately. I chose not to buy an Xbox One. People listen and act upon issues like that, with #gamergate, its just the trolls are very very loud.

 

[Nanashrew]

Here's the thing: why now? The #GamerGate tag wasn't even created until a few days ago. Nothing about the Zoe Quinn thing suggests impropriety of any sort. Nothing about the way games are covered, either on the review side or the investigative side, has changed in the last few months. So why are people only now so concerned about corruption in the industry? We didn't see this kind of backlash when Rab Florence left Eurogamer under murky circumstances because of the article he wrote alleging several reporters had too-close ties to corporations. No one got doxxed, no one had their nude photos posted without permission. We didn't see this kind of backlash during the allegations that EA and other publishers were paying off YouTube streamers to promote their games without identifying their prior financial arrangement. Why not then? Why is this case the straw that breaks the camel's back?

That's not to suggest that there aren't issues with modern games coverage, but I don't know why it's so often suggested that bringing up the treatment of people like Zoe Quinn, Phil Fish, Anita Sarkeesian and Jenn Frank are somehow derails from the real issue, when that real issue has been around for years without nearly the same amount of attention.

Because people linked her having sex for reviews (that don't exist, I might add) they moved onto corruption that Zoe's "feminine wiles" got her into bed with journalists for good reviews. During that whole thing, later Phil Fish's Polytron account is hacked as well as his own website displaying very important NDA stuff. People called that a publicity stunt and also part of the conspiracy that he did this on purpose or that Zoe was an accomplice.

It all stemmed from that old conspiracy theory. It got immediate attention from a lot of people and it's just snowballed into what we have now.

 

[HRose]

My interpretation of things, but taken from a discussion elsewhere:

--

All these women (and some guys) are saying is 'Can we have less violent video games please, with less violence towards (insert choice of concern)?' and the reaction from the socially conditioned video game masses (that are mostly teenage boys and maladjusted guys) is 'KILL THEM! BURN THE WITCHES! GAYS!'

You won't reach your goal by ranting about someone else's enjoyment because you don't have yours.

Your actual problem isn't about the next GTA, your problem is about the need for games that do not exist yet. A market space that you feel is empty. So the goal is: fill that space.

But if your strategy to fill that space is about going against someone else's space, you simply won't obtain much (if not reactive hostility).

I'm talking from a purely practical point of view: you will obtain very little by pushing the issue in that way.

--
(context: game critics or players going against perceived rampant misogyny in games)

The problem is that those critics seek contrast. As I said above, instead of trying to find and develop a new space, they rile against current games.

It's only natural that someone who enjoys CURRENT games feels like it's an attack on the things they like. And so all the accuses about limiting expression, freedom and whatnot. It's like: you're stepping into my garden with your haughty judgmental stance. You judge things I like, and by extension you judge me as a human being because I like those things (rape culture, every white male guy gamer endorses rape by liking and playing these games). So now I'm going to kick you out. Very vehemently. You're not anymore a welcome guest.

The core of all problems is this judgmental look from the outside. Someone looks at what you do and what you like, and judges you.

The problem is again that this strategy sucks. If you want new types of games, once again, you don't get them by confronting what already exists and pretend change (like petitioning to add female avatars in Assassin's Creed). You simply open that space. You focus on new games that do not exist yet, instead of ranting against games that exist and that you scorn.

But if instead your style is confrontational, then the contrast just escalates in the ways we've all seen. Legitimately or not.

--

Finally, someone came along and said "Hey, whoa, these are some pretty offensive worlds you guys have created, I mean just look at these examples"

This is a judgmental stance.

It reads like "whoa, you are a lesser human being for liking and appreciating this stuff. Feel ashamed of your gaming habits, poor kid."

It's the implicit scorn that sets people off: "Haha, look at this kid."

Are you surprised that then these guys respond with all the vitriol?

--
Making sweeping generalization only stacks one faction against the other and builds up the hate. I'm simply saying that this "strategy" to address the very issue won't solve a thing, and is instead likely exacerbating it.

Vile, hateful speech is to condemn regardless of its topic. If there's more of it than usual, it's because this war of factions was energized by the amount of attention it received.

The attention itself is good, but too often to defend a position people point to the worst cases in both parties.

I'm persuaded that a majority of the vocal minority is made of trolls who don't even think what they are writing, they just bask in the mess and are having a laugh. Just because there are lots of people like that, who enjoy the vitriol. It's like attending one giant rave party that lasts for weeks. They do it merely for fun, and not for the political heft of the issue.

And it's *these trolls* in particular that create the revolving party. I'm writing about this because my twitter has become 80% clogged by this. And between a number of developers commenting the issue, 90% of their tweets is about POINTING AND LAUGHING at the worst examples.

These developers and players are TAKING THE BAIT, making everything worse.

These are the same people who created the #ResolutionGate because Xbox output 720p compared to 1080p PS4. It's just another giant meme.

You know? Slow News Day.

Nothing exciting happens in gaming, waiting for the autumn releases, people are bored. This one topic is just the occasion for a number of people to enjoy the Internet in their own Special way. Everyone else just took the bait and eagerly jumped in the mud pit. Because it's fun and makes you feel like you belong to a community. And as when kids go around in bigger groups of kids, the naughty becomes the style of choice, because you are anonymous in the group and being part of the group means you don't feel any personal responsibility.

It's exactly like city-wide looting, when people get completely batshit crazy just because they are in a group that legitimates all they do.

 

[lt519]

snip

Excellent post. If there are a subset of gamers that are genuinely interested in real journalism, akin to the political journalism you mentioned, do you think it can coexist on a site like IGN? I don't think so. I don't think they'd put their relationship on the line so what we need is other journalists dedicated to investigation. We need websites that don't do reviews, let's plays, etc and only do investigative journalism. But unfortunately I that isn't where the money is and we won't get that anytime soon. We need to stop expecting places that do reviews and previews to do our investigative journalism too. It's a conflict of interest that can't be overcome unless publishers agree to not blacklist, which is coming at it from the other side, aren't publishers to blame as well. They in fact hold the keys to the car.

 

[QuickSilverD]

How long has it been now? 2, 3 weeks? I feel this whole debacle would have just died down if the recent articles about "The Dead of the gamer" hadn't been posted, that's when people like Boogie2988 got involved into the fray and when #GamerGate really started to take steam.

Some people felt alienated by the press and things just sort of when to shit right then, but as loud as everything is sounding right now, I'm sure it will die down with time.

 

[Shingro]

I assume the game dev is Phil Fish (good riddance honestly), but who is the journalist?

It's past midnight and I embarassingly can't pull her name to mind, and I can't bear to slog back through my massive history on it. my brain says Lana something. Cited concerns about it not being a safe environment to start a family in.

mortified but someone else on the gaf will know and help out (I hope)

 

[JesseEwiak]

Even taking the games journalism ethics concerns at face value, I don't really get it. Like, these worries that the gaming press is too close to publishers seem bizarre to me.

I think this is the biggest disconnect to me. When I see this huge imgur pictures where the main "proof" of the corruption is that developers and the games press are tweeting each other, all I have to say is, "yes, that's called professional networking. You better to learn to do it if you ever want to have a successful professional career."

Yeah, tell me how you got your game, if your friends with any of the developers, or if you played it at a press event. Beyond that, um, I don't know?

I guess I feel like a lot of people are assuming that games journalism needs to work exactly the same way as hard-hitting investigative political reporting, say, without really thinking about what it is they want out of games journalism. Honestly, I suspect relatively few people who pay attention to games journalism would even bother to click on a story that really was the result of a lot of investigative work into something a publisher didn't want revealed (this would probably be boring and financial). But that's the sort of reporting the kinds of ethical standards being talked about are meant to support.

This is the other big thing. Even using my most imaginative parts of my brain, the biggest "scandals" I can see happening from serious Watergate-style investigation is basically, either a publisher straight-up stealing an idea for a big game from a dev, large-scale sexual harassment at a company, some kind of financial scandal involving top-level people, or horrible labor practices.

From the last few weeks, I think we know what the response would be to example two, especially if the developer was beloved, the financial scandal would largely be ignored, and pretty horrible labor practices happen every crunch at a major company and all people largely do in response is call out 'lazy devs' because their frame rate dropped to 57 frames for 8.4 seconds.

I think the only major thing is response one and even that would probably get 1/20th the clicks for the latest AAA trailer.

Investigative journalism is great, but if most major newspapers can't afford it anymore, I don't think a game website barely surviving off ad revenue can either.

 

[JABEE]

Right, but that's a different conversation. When someone says something like "Reviewers are being bribed by developers" it's pretty important to post evidence to back up that accusation!

Yep. I think my biggest complaint about this which we were discussing before this #GamerGate thing took holld is the fact that many outlets don't have public ethics policies. Polygon doing this and Kotaku commenting on their ethics policy was novel for the games writing industry.

When confronted with questions both fair and conspiratorial, journalists would often say, "it used to be bad before," "it doesn't happen in the United States," "that's more of a European press problem," or "I can only speak for myself, but I don't believe our outlet is influenced by these things." There is even a strong current of press members that don't even believe they are influenced by trips, perks, and gifts.

It's all about the approach to limiting exposure to potential conflicts of interest. If you go into a situation thinking that you're Superman and you impervious to the tried and true sales and PR methods honed and perfected by social scientists and marketers, then I have to question whether the games media is prepared for this subject. That should be something you are aware of and it should be reinforced whenever you go to cover a product or person.

It's hard to look at previews and reviews that read like parts that look like they could lifted from press kits and not see a culture of fostering and promoting those that follow the template. Or really, it is probably a case of just not caring or being vigilant enough.

Things are better at some places than they used to be, but there really is no force calling out the outlets that benefit from adhering to the old ways. Giving in to pressure to change scoring systems, because they don't translate well to MetaCritic. Keeping scores at all, because outlets are prioritized based on their ability to help get the team a bonus for their game.

We see these problems all the time, but there really isn't a clear voice to bring up these concerns. Some nameless person on the internet may make a cutting statement that elicits only defensive reactions from the press.

The worst part of this entire #GamerGate ordeal is the harassment. On a much lesser level, the fact that real issues that people have brought up about the press are still there untapped. We have to wade through and dismiss the loudest, most abusive members of this discussion before we even get to real problems. Problems that are systemic. Problems that aren't as easy as finding smoking guns or envelopes of cash on the table. Problems that are out in the open and just basically a part of doing business.

I never had faith in #GamerGate. #GamerGate from the start was a reaction to a number of these false smoking-guns. People who make up this group, for the most part, were looking for a "gotcha" moment to silence and abuse those that they disagreed with. I hope one day we can have this conversation without needing a smoking gun or a individual person to drag through the streets.

 

[Nanashrew]

I assume the game dev is Phil Fish (good riddance honestly), but who is the journalist?

We have lost Lana Polansky, Jenna Frank and Mattie Brice. :<

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Also honestly as a person with interest in gamer culture I actually do want the press to develop relationships with developers because I actually am interested in the people who make the games.

I could give less of a shit about reviews honestly.

I guess the problem is when the journalist becomes more of a marketing speaker for the developer, than just a pure intent of improving the gaming culture.

Drawing the line between the two is definetly not easy, but I think at the end of the day is such a "non-thing". Did Quinn (maybe) got a couple of mentions/articles thanks to her connections she made in the industry (and I'm not even talking about the Five guys thing)? Maybe, but if she did....what about, is not like she wasn't already known thanks to her game. Maybe a few more people knew about "Depression Quest" thanks to that, but THAT'S FUCKING ALL.

She wasn't that known, how many GAF members truly knew her before all this deal? Hell, I think I barely remember her, I had to search her on Google to see it was "that girl who made that game about depresion".

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Is so called gamer culture so niche that it's impossible to have some proper anti-culture thing going? I guess Twitter hashtags are now called movements, but there seems to be certain kind of lack of DIY ethos around. When the shit drops from publishers to select few big sites to some youtube celebs while EVERYONE ELSE gets the last giant turd to the face, you'd think that someone somewhere would actually form something longlasting that would actually make a dent (and wouldn't be bought by Gawker the next day).

Imagine if RiotGrlll movement was just a pencil writing in Hotel Hiltons mens bathroom

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

It was a tsunami to me and Microsoft, Xbox One isn't selling that well lately. I chose not to buy an Xbox One. People listen and act upon issues like that, with #gamergate, its just the trolls are very very loud.

I'm sure Xbox One sales dosn't have to do shit with those things, maybe a combination of all, but of all the problems behind MS PR on release, that was the minor of them.

Want to know why the same people who is harassing Sarkessian and others won't do the same for cases like the Xbox One/BF (a series that to this day, still dosn't features female soldiers) paying Youtubers? Because MS and EA makes the games they want.

Sarkessian and the others wants to "destroy" the games they like. These are the enemies, EA and MS is the cool dude that might fart and lie to you to get some money from time to time, but still he's like "you" and is "your friend"

 

[Warm Machine]

The whole thing comes off as a total mess of half completed thoughts and finger pointing.

There are so many damn factors at play it is near impossible to have any clarity on this issue.

This is what is historically going on as far as I can tell...

Developer Harassment in general. First visible and serious ones I heard were CoD patch death threats in 2012 and Phil Fish a bit earlier in the year. Harassment culture sort of built from there.

Female Developer Harassment just because they are female or happened to say the "wrong" thing (or even just made themselves known).

Female journalist harassment just because they are female and have an opinion against harassment or gender politics or some other opinion that enough people could get angry about..

Visible Feminist critique of game culture and content making certain people upset leading to ridiculous levels of harassment and other unseemly actions.

A non event sex "scandal" with Zoe Quinn that is tenuously linked to press for a indie game that really isn't popular. Opening the door to unsubstantiated positive stories on the back of personal relationships. People are always jealous of sex they are not having.

A game review and press culture that revolves around who the writers are friends or familiar with which is no different from every other industry ever.

Demands from what seems like a very vocal mass for LGBT sensitivity and inclusion in many game types leading to more harassment.

Wide game journalist harassment by way of defense of the above.

All in an industry that over the last 3 years is creatively expanding faster, and in visible directions never seen before building a artificial erosion of traditional game expectations.

Then as a response to all this harassment and vitriol bullshit it seems like writers just got fed up and threw the entire gaming community under the bus. Really, if you are mired in this I can see why that is therapeutic.

This is all coming off of a journalist roller coaster ride that I'm guessing was started in and around E3 2012 with the anti violence / cruelty press rally surrounding The Last of Us and which put so many people on edge to start with.

It sort of brought in the new wave of critical thinking in game journalism which wasn't satisfied with just the look, play and sound of games but what lessons are being taught by games to people impressionable or not. Many readers really seemed to not like being told they are bad people for enjoying a game with violence in it and then this distrust snowballed in multiple directions.

I personally don't see a way out of this manufactured mess other than to have it disappear by not engaging with it and have sites, run business as usual so as to not stir up more shit. It isn't like a Kotaku writer is going to stand up and say thing X and all will be fixed.

Anyway, that is my take or at least how I'm trying to make sense of the factors at play.

 

[alstein]

The Rhodes article was very good, I'll have to read the rest after work.

It's a damn shame that stuff like this is costing and will continue to cost the industry talent and good people.

Fuck.

Given the number of folks who want to write about games despite the horrible pay and conditions, it just opens a spot for someone else very talented.
That's the way it is in my line of work (for now, I might be laid off soon)

That said, I need to make it clear I am not wishing ill on anyone who quits- but there are plenty of motivated folks ready and able to take their places. Or it might be more opportunities for the remaining ones to have a more sustainable lifestyle.

 

[BobbyRobby]

You won't reach your goal by ranting about someone else's enjoyment because you don't have yours.

Your actual problem isn't about the next GTA, your problem is about the need for games that do not exist yet. A market space that you feel is empty. So the goal is: fill that space.

But if your strategy to fill that space is about going against someone else's space, you simply won't obtain much (if not reactive hostility).

I'm talking from a purely practical point of view: you will obtain very little by pushing the issue in that way.

--
(context: game critics or players going against perceived rampant misogyny in games)

The problem is that those critics seek contrast. As I said above, instead of trying to find and develop a new space, they rile against current games.

It's only natural that someone who enjoys CURRENT games feels like it's an attack on the things they like. And so all the accuses about limiting expression, freedom and whatnot. It's like: you're stepping into my garden with your haughty judgmental stance. You judge things I like, and by extension you judge me as a human being because I like those things (rape culture, every white male guy gamer endorses rape by liking and playing these games). So now I'm going to kick you out. Very vehemently. You're not anymore a welcome guest.

The core of all problems is this judgmental look from the outside. Someone looks at what you do and what you like, and judges you.

The problem is again that this strategy sucks. If you want new types of games, once again, you don't get them by confronting what already exists and pretend change (like petitioning to add female avatars in Assassin's Creed). You simply open that space. You focus on new games that do not exist yet, instead of ranting against games that exist and that you scorn.

But if instead your style is confrontational, then the contrast just escalates in the ways we've all seen. Legitimately or not.

--


This is a judgmental stance.

It reads like "whoa, you are a lesser human being for liking and appreciating this stuff. Feel ashamed of your gaming habits, poor kid."

It's the implicit scorn that sets people off: "Haha, look at this kid."

Are you surprised that then these guys respond with all the vitriol?

--
Making sweeping generalization only stacks one faction against the other and builds up the hate. I'm simply saying that this "strategy" to address the very issue won't solve a thing, and is instead likely exacerbating it.

Vile, hateful speech is to condemn regardless of its topic. If there's more of it than usual, it's because this war of factions was energized by the amount of attention it received.

The attention itself is good, but too often to defend a position people point to the worst cases in both parties.

I'm persuaded that a majority of the vocal minority is made of trolls who don't even think what they are writing, they just bask in the mess and are having a laugh. Just because there are lots of people like that, who enjoy the vitriol. It's like attending one giant rave party that lasts for weeks. They do it merely for fun, and not for the political heft of the issue.

And it's *these trolls* in particular that create the revolving party. I'm writing about this because my twitter has become 80% clogged by this. And between a number of developers commenting the issue, 90% of their tweets is about POINTING AND LAUGHING at the worst examples.

These developers and players are TAKING THE BAIT, making everything worse.

A resounding yes to this post. I think most male gamers do not care if games get made that cater to women. It's already happening with the mobile market. Males gamers are dismissive of said ganes, but this is not inspiring the death threats.

It is the targeting and demonization of male-focused games that is inspiring hatred in male gamers.

There's tons of media I don't like because all the men live only to serve women and have no personality. I ignore it. I am not mad that women enjoy said media, nor would I ever campaign to change or take said media away from women.

Doing so would be judgemental and wrong.

 

[CLEEK]

A non event sex "scandal" with Zoe Quinn that is tenuously linked to press for a indie game that really isn't popular. Opening the door to unsubstantiated positive stories on the back of personal relationships. People are always jealous of sex they are not having.

This is the first time I've seen this comment being made, and I really do believe that it's at the heart of the initial reaction to Zoe Quinn, which kickstarted this sordid drama.

I'm sure resentment always plays a part to some people when confronted with a sexually promiscuous woman. "She's only fucking those men to get good reviews." It's sexual entitlement as well as resentment that they don't have a sexual partner. "Why should she be fucking them and not me?".

 

[Lowlander2]

We have lost Lana Polansky, Jenna Frank and Mattie Brice. :<

I have said this before and I shall say it again. I have doubts that Brice's absence will stick simply because she has made this promise before under pretenses almost as emotionally trying as this and come out of it reconsidering her leave. While Lana Polansky has done no such thing, her character also leads me to believe it will not stick.

Jenn Frank, sadly, I can definitely see sitting the rest of it out.

 

[Span]

For what it's worth, I find this whole situation about Zoe Quinn and Gamergate to have had a chilling effect as far as discussion goes. I occasionally post from my phone while I'm on the go doing nothing, but perusing a couple threads and seeing people getting banned. Even the introduction to this thread, I'm paraphrasing but the whole if you make claims you need to back it up, it's not really conducive to how I've used this site.

I will upfront, I am on the other side of the Zoe Quinn issue. I find it slightly appalling that any criticism is met with views of misogyny and sexism and avoiding the issues at hand. Brad Wardell from Stardock was basically slandered by Zoe. Equally, there is the whole Fine Young Capitalist fiasco.

As another poster mentioned, when Gaf discovered Youtubers were being paid off by Microsoft by using a certain tag, it got up in arms. The thread was intriguing and humorous. But when I read about Wolf Wozniak being berated by Phil Fish, I came to Gaf to see anything interesting came out of it, but all I saw people shying away from certain topics out of fear of being banned.

It's not really hard to see how suspect the media is because their side of the conversation rarely is transparent and generally condescending.

So there's my small 1 am rant on the issue.
Tl;dr : allow for actual discussion(good and bad), as I as a user felt relatively intimidated by the idea of posting this, not just from mods but some members here also

 

[Nexas]

I guess the problem is when the journalist becomes more of a marketing speaker for the developer, than just a pure intent of improving the gaming culture.

Drawing the line between the two is definetly not easy, but I think at the end of the day is such a "non-thing". Did Quinn (maybe) got a couple of mentions/articles thanks to her connections she made in the industry (and I'm not even talking about the Five guys thing)? Maybe, but if she did....what about, is not like she wasn't already known thanks to her game. Maybe a few more people knew about "Depression Quest" thanks to that, but THAT'S FUCKING ALL.

She wasn't that known, how many GAF members truly knew her before all this deal? Hell, I think I barely remember her, I had to search her on Google to see it was "that girl who made that game about depresion".

But this is literally what game journalism has been all along. Guess what, all these huge companies don't give the press trailers, invite them out to see previews, and send them review copies out of the goodness of their hearts. They do those things to get to help market their games to us, the consumer.

This only makes the whole #GAMERGATE look even more preposterous. The entire thing seems to be solely focused on indie developers. Why are people obsessed with journalist spending $5 a month to support a project that they are interested in? Is this really the thing that the "ethics" crowd really wants to hang their hat on? The laser focus on fucking Patreon donations at the expense of more closely examining the problematic relationship between big publishers and the press is odd to me.

 

[Nanashrew]

I have said this before and I shall say it again. I have doubts that Brice's absence will stick simply because she has made this promise before under pretenses almost as emotionally trying as this and come out of it reconsidering her leave. While Lana Polansky has done no such thing, her character also leads me to believe it will not stick.

Jenn Frank, sadly, I can definitely see sitting the rest of it out.

I hope you're right. This whole mess has been very depressing. Today especially was pretty scary, I dunno how to give my opinion over Twitter these last few days without something happening. I definitely don't feel like retweeting anymore in case that person may get attacked. I did however retweet my friend who had a lot of things to say that is similar to Rhode's article, just that I asked for permission and did so manually without using my friend's name.

I just don't like any of this =/. I don't fully understand politics, I don't know the exact terms or where I lean in politics. I just believe that people deserve respect, we're all human. I believe in equality. I hate this fighting and it is really starting to affect my mind. I hate to see my friends suffer like this and I feel like I have so little power right now.

 

[Span]

The entire thing seems to be solely focused on indie developers. Why are people obsessed with journalist spending $5 a month to support a project that they are interested in?

There's nothing wrong as long as they're transparent. It's no different than when giant bomb refused to review super giant games. They recused themselves because they were impartial. If a writer supports a dev, then writes about it, just be transparents

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

For what it's worth, I find this whole situation about Zoe Quinn and Gamergate to have had a chilling effect as far as discussion goes. I occasionally post from my phone while I'm on the go doing nothing, but perusing a couple threads and seeing people getting banned. Even the introduction to this thread, I'm paraphrasing but the whole if you make claims you need to back it up, it's not really conducive to how I've used this site.

I will upfront, I am on the other side of the Zoe Quinn issue. I find it slightly appalling that any criticism is met with views of misogyny and sexism and avoiding the issues at hand. Brad Wardell from Stardock was basically slandered by Zoe. Equally, there is the whole Fine Young Capitalist fiasco.

As another poster mentioned, when Gaf discovered Youtubers were being paid off by Microsoft by using a certain tag, it got up in arms. The thread was intriguing and humorous. But when I read about Wolf Wozniak being berated by Phil Fish, I came to Gaf to see anything interesting came out of it, but all I saw people shying away from certain topics out of fear of being banned.

It's not really hard to see how suspect the media is because their side of the conversation rarely is transparent and generally condescending.

So there's my small 1 am rant on the issue.
Tl;dr : allow for actual discussion(good and bad), as I as a user felt relatively intimidated by the idea of posting this, not just from mods but some members here also

What we should do with the first link? Zoe Quinn was arguing about Stardock work conditions and possible sexist actions of Wardell (it wasn't really a personal matter unlike Quinn's relationships). You might not think like her, you might think she was an unreasonable jerk. But it has little to do with the acussations people made about her, that she had sex with guys to gain influence on the gaming journalism. Hell, I don't think I really like her either, but that dosn't mean all that slut shaming was justified or has any foot to stand.

The Wozniak deal was talked over, and the conclusion was that, there wasn't anything to talk about it. Woznial backd out of these accusations without explanation. Was Fish a jerk too in this case? Maybe, but again, it has little to do or barely justifies all the hacking he suffered.

 

[MHWilliams]

My interpretation of things, but taken from a discussion elsewhere:

--


You won't reach your goal by ranting about someone else's enjoyment because you don't have yours.

Your actual problem isn't about the next GTA, your problem is about the need for games that do not exist yet. A market space that you feel is empty. So the goal is: fill that space.

But if your strategy to fill that space is about going against someone else's space, you simply won't obtain much (if not reactive hostility).

I'm talking from a purely practical point of view: you will obtain very little by pushing the issue in that way.

--
(context: game critics or players going against perceived rampant misogyny in games)

The problem is that those critics seek contrast. As I said above, instead of trying to find and develop a new space, they rile against current games.

It's only natural that someone who enjoys CURRENT games feels like it's an attack on the things they like. And so all the accuses about limiting expression, freedom and whatnot. It's like: you're stepping into my garden with your haughty judgmental stance. You judge things I like, and by extension you judge me as a human being because I like those things (rape culture, every white male guy gamer endorses rape by liking and playing these games). So now I'm going to kick you out. Very vehemently. You're not anymore a welcome guest.

The core of all problems is this judgmental look from the outside. Someone looks at what you do and what you like, and judges you.

The problem is again that this strategy sucks. If you want new types of games, once again, you don't get them by confronting what already exists and pretend change (like petitioning to add female avatars in Assassin's Creed). You simply open that space. You focus on new games that do not exist yet, instead of ranting against games that exist and that you scorn.

But if instead your style is confrontational, then the contrast just escalates in the ways we've all seen. Legitimately or not.

I'd say if the bolded is a huge problem, you probably need to look at how much of your self-identity is wrapped up in a product.

Criticism does not need to create to justify its existence. Criticism is part of the process behind creative art. An artist puts their works out there and critics ask "why was this created this way? What was the artist trying to say? What effect does this have upon me and society?" That's how it works in other mediums.

If you wish to have your games without criticism, it's probably because to just stick to fans of the work. Even then, they'll have issues.

I enjoy James Bond a great deal. I have the entire series on Blu-Ray. This doesn't stop me from acknowledging that the franchise is deeply sexist and racist at times. I still enjoy it. It's condemnation on those grounds doesn't make me less of a person.

 

[jabuseika]

I like some points this article by Slate makes. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html


Has the disconnect between gamers and game journalist really grown that wide?

Most gamers don't pay attention to what game journalist have to say anymore, which is little more than PR taglines reworded. They instead go right to the source to get their info, and skip the middle man that used to tell them about video games and just go straight to the gameplay on Twitch or Youtube.

While video game journalist, which seem to be more interested now days on pushing agendas and being advocates of real issues within the community, have grown more resentful towards an audience that just doesn't care.

Rather than stressing that the vast majority of gamers are reasonable people who don&#8217;t harass women, hold reactionary, protectionist views, or start vitriolic online campaigns against the press, the websites trashed the entire term &#8220;gamer&#8221; and, to no one&#8217;s surprise, earned 10 times the enmity overnight.

Without a doubt, the handling of these issues from the major websites has been completely wrong minded. Their generalizations and demonizing of the word Gamer, really stung many individuals that thought we were past that stigma, and that up to this point had no battle in this.

Maybe gamers don&#8217;t trust their press as much as they trust the enthusiasts because the press doesn&#8217;t seem as engaged with the games themselves. Compared with the enthusiasts, the journalists&#8217; hearts aren&#8217;t in it. This isn&#8217;t true for criticism of other art forms. Sure, there are always hack writers, but Pauline Kael didn&#8217;t have to put together five hype-building posts about Destiny for every thoughtful review she wrote. Gaming journalists are caught between capitalist reality and their own frustrated aspirations to be serious cultural critics. But they cannot solve their problems by preaching about the death of their audience. That audience is dying only in that it is leaving them, a process the journalists have evidently decided to accelerate. Game journalists are rage-quitting their meal ticket.

 

[Mooreberg]

How long has it been now? 2, 3 weeks? I feel this whole debacle would have just died down if the recent articles about "The Dead of the gamer" hadn't been posted, that's when people like Boogie2988 got involved into the fray and when #GamerGate really started to take steam.

Some people felt alienated by the press and things just sort of when to shit right then, but as loud as everything is sounding right now, I'm sure it will die down with time.

The first instance of a wider, mass audience latching onto controversy was when people started arguing with "JonTron" and Total Biscuit on Twitter. I had never heard of JonTron before. I was vaguely familiar with TB for his very early coverage of PlanetSide 2, even having people like Matt Higby on to talk about the game. What I was unaware of was just how popular some of these people are. TB has more Twitter followers than even Geoff Keighly, who as far as I can tell, is the most popular "old school" gaming journalist.

"Gamers are dead" was the very ill conceived shot across the bow that completely blew this thing up. From reading all of this the past few days, I get the impression that Kotaku and The Escapist are the only ones who have even had a discussion about how to be more transparent, and to stop providing ammunition to something that just attracts more trolls, burner account, and assorted other misanthropy. The rest of the gaming journalists are running around screaming with fingers pushed into their ears while the estate burns down.

 

[Irnbru]

I like some points this article by Slate makes. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html


Has the disconnect between gamers and game journalist really grown that wide?

Most gamers don't pay attention to what game journalist have to say anymore, which is little more than PR taglines reworded. They instead go right to the source to get their info, or skip the middle man that used to tell them about video games and just go straight to the gameplay on Twitch or Youtube.

While video game journalist, which seem to be more interested now days on pushing agendas and being more advocates of real issues within the community, have grown more resentful of towards an audience that just doesn't care.



Without a doubt, the handling of these issues from the major websites has been completely wrong minded. Their generalizations and demonizing of the word Gamer, really stung many individuals that thought we were past that stigma, and that up to this point had no battle in this.

I get what they are trying to do by demonizing the word. I do, they are attempting to target that small vocal and repulsive demographic. But it really sucks as someone who considers themselves a gamer, that's part of my culture, my life. I'm a pretty regular dude, with a decent job, that's super pro diversity and what not. And gaming has always been a badge of mine, it sucks that now it's being thrown into a fire because of the toxicity on both sides. I don't have a pony in this war, but man it just sucks to see that maybe now I have to hide one of my identities due to this infighting and toxicity. Maybe I'm not looking deeply enough into other, but I just feel shamed for Having this hobby for nothing I have done myself.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

For what it's worth, I find this whole situation about Zoe Quinn and Gamergate to have had a chilling effect as far as discussion goes. I occasionally post from my phone while I'm on the go doing nothing, but perusing a couple threads and seeing people getting banned. Even the introduction to this thread, I'm paraphrasing but the whole if you make claims you need to back it up, it's not really conducive to how I've used this site.

I will upfront, I am on the other side of the Zoe Quinn issue. I find it slightly appalling that any criticism is met with views of misogyny and sexism and avoiding the issues at hand. Brad Wardell from Stardock was basically slandered by Zoe. Equally, there is the whole Fine Young Capitalist fiasco.

As another poster mentioned, when Gaf discovered Youtubers were being paid off by Microsoft by using a certain tag, it got up in arms. The thread was intriguing and humorous. But when I read about Wolf Wozniak being berated by Phil Fish, I came to Gaf to see anything interesting came out of it, but all I saw people shying away from certain topics out of fear of being banned.

It's not really hard to see how suspect the media is because their side of the conversation rarely is transparent and generally condescending.

So there's my small 1 am rant on the issue.
Tl;dr : allow for actual discussion(good and bad), as I as a user felt relatively intimidated by the idea of posting this, not just from mods but some members here also

It seems awfully hypocritical to care so much about chilling effects on your speech, without even mentioning the chilling effect all the harassment has had on Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Fish.

 

[Span]

What we should do with the first link? Zoe Quinn was arguing about Stardock work conditions and possible sexist actions of Wardell (it wasn't really a personal matter unlike Quinn's relationships). You might not think like her, you might think she was an unreasonable jerk. But it has little to do with the acussations people made about her, that she had sex with guys to gain influence on the gaming journalism. Hell, I don't think I really like her either, but that dosn't mean all that slut shaming was justified or has any foot to stand.

The Wozniak deal was talked over, and the conclusion was that, there wasn't anything to talk about it. Woznial backd out of these accusations without explanation. Was Fish a jerk too in this case? Maybe, but again, it has little to do or barely justifies all the hacking he suffered.

http://kotaku.com/stardock-lawsuits-dropped-ex-employee-apologizes-1377925759

My argument isn't about slut shaming, my argument is more to do with that Zoe has equally done her share of bad things that's get swept under the rug in conversations about her. The problem lies that the conversation is painted as sexism, which then paints everyone critical of her in broad strokes.

No actual discussion is ever done as everyone is talking at each other not with. Kotaku, for what it's worth, has actually responded to some of the criticism and updated their articles to be transparent. I think that is amazing and commendable.

As for the Wozniak situation, I am reminded of Paul. People seem to be afraid of actually speaking up, because it'll affect their livelihoods.

I wish I was a better writer to be more succinct. But, if there wasn't so much navel gazing about slut shaming/ misogyny , I'm sure that most people would agree that some of the points brought up are worth talking about.