Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Malcador]

He should open a Patreon, then.

[Fighter]

 

Wow, that's some pretty overdeveloped victim complex there.

 

"No, no, no, you don't understand! Feminist analysis on games shouldn't be a thing, they might call me bad names!"

 

Whatever. I don't want the games media becoming like Polygon and give lower scores across the board because the character is 'too sexy' or some such nonsense. And we have already had media deny coverage to whom they don't like.

[Longknife]

 

While we are at it: http://gamergate.community/showthread.php?tid=659

Eh. I've never really cared about Brianna Wu. 

 

 

 

I only care because this tells me bad hair days are a lifetime habit for Wu and that's fascinating.

 

But yeah other than that who cares.

[Longknife]

 

And this is why hegemonic agenda pushing across major gaming sites would be bad.

 

 

 

Wow, that's some pretty overdeveloped victim complex there.

 

"No, no, no, you don't understand! Feminist analysis on games shouldn't be a thing, they might call me bad names!"

 

 

 

I don't think he's saying he's not open to critique. If he is then he's in for a wakeup call.

 

Again, as I've said before: I don't think anyone has a problem with niche gaming journalism websites. That Christian Gamer one has gotten nothing but praise for how objective they present both critical reviews and subjective christian outlooks on games. But the different between websites like the Christian Gamer one and websites like Polygon on Kotaku is:

 

 

1) They lack transparency when it comes to letting people know about their political agenda, or just how much influence that holds over a game's score. These websites do not state themselves as holding specifically feminist agendas, nor are we aware of how much this effects the overall scores of games like Bayonetta. Yes, if you give a game a 7.9, we'd like to know what % of those docked points are attributed to political indifferences because frankly not all of us agree with their politics, and we have every right to disagree. Their attitude suggests their politics and ideologies are morally superior and factually correct, but this is not so. As such, those of us who don't adhere to them want to be able to read a review and adjust it to match our own political stances, AKA increase or reduce the score based on what portion of that score is based on politics alone. I don't want to read reviews for example where Obama vs. Zombies gets a 10/10 because "OBAMA IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER." Good for him, how is he as a video game protagonist and how is his game?

 

2) These websites hold a significant amount of influence within the market and thus the pressure they apply to devs is more capable of being on par with coercion. Sadly these games did NOT come to power due to the consumers loving the SJW way of viewing things; that just kind of seemed to slip it's way in somewhere along the way and no it's not popular. Transparency would allow these games to be judged by the consumers and the free market appropriately, receiving the proper amount of traffic and influence that the people wish to provide them with; if they would STILL hold significant influence after that, so be it, but I sincerely doubt they would.

 

3) The above is if we're looking at gaming journalism as though it isn't corrupt, AKA it's just those two kinda coerce a dev into adopting certain political stances for coverage....but it IS corrupt. I don't see how anyone can feel fairly rated and reviewed when they know no matter how good their game is, EA can swing their **** around, drop fat stacks of cash and convince the world their next half-assed title is 9/10 front page material.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Longknife

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with niche gaming journalism websites. That Christian Gamer one has gotten nothing but praise for how objective they present both critical reviews and subjective christian outlooks on games. But the different between websites like the Christian Gamer one and websites like Polygon on Kotaku is:

 

 

1) They lack transparency when it comes to letting people know about their political agenda, or just how much influence that holds over a game's score. These websites do not state themselves as holding specifically feminist agendas, nor are we aware of how much this effects the overall scores of games like Bayonetta. Yes, if you give a game a 7.9, we'd like to know what % of those docked points are attributed to political indifferences because frankly not all of us agree with their politics, and we have every right to disagree. Their attitude suggests their politics and ideologies are morally superior and factually correct, but this is not so. As such, those of us who don't adhere to them want to be able to read a review and adjust it to match our own political stances, AKA increase or reduce the score based on what portion of that score is based on politics alone. I don't want to read reviews for example where Obama vs. Zombies gets a 10/10 because "OBAMA IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER." Good for him, how is he as a video game protagonist and how is his game?

 

 

I heavily doubt you can read that Tropico review (f'rex) and have no idea why it has gotten a low review score.

 

So, yeah, that problem can be easily solved: read the reviews. ("But the feminism! IT BURNSSSS USSSS!")

 

 

2) These websites hold a significant amount of influence within the market and thus the pressure they apply to devs is more capable of being on par with coercion. Sadly these games did NOT come to power due to the consumers loving the SJW way of viewing things; that just kind of seemed to slip it's way in somewhere along the way and no it's not popular. Transparency would allow these games to be judged by the consumers and the free market appropriately, receiving the proper amount of traffic and influence that the people wish to provide them with; if they would STILL hold significant influence after that, so be it, but I sincerely doubt they would.

 

3) The above is if we're looking at gaming journalism as though it isn't corrupt, AKA it's just those two kinda coerce a dev into adopting certain political stances for coverage....but it IS corrupt. I don't see how anyone can feel fairly rated and reviewed when they know no matter how good their game is, EA can swing their **** around, drop fat stacks of cash and convince the world their next half-assed title is 9/10 front page material.

 

 

Okay, I'm not really getting the point you're trying to make here, but it might be the fact that it's around 1:30 in the morning here. I'll look back later, possibly.

 

 

In other news, this is hilarious:

 

[Longknife]

 

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with niche gaming journalism websites. That Christian Gamer one has gotten nothing but praise for how objective they present both critical reviews and subjective christian outlooks on games. But the different between websites like the Christian Gamer one and websites like Polygon on Kotaku is:

 

 

1) They lack transparency when it comes to letting people know about their political agenda, or just how much influence that holds over a game's score. These websites do not state themselves as holding specifically feminist agendas, nor are we aware of how much this effects the overall scores of games like Bayonetta. Yes, if you give a game a 7.9, we'd like to know what % of those docked points are attributed to political indifferences because frankly not all of us agree with their politics, and we have every right to disagree. Their attitude suggests their politics and ideologies are morally superior and factually correct, but this is not so. As such, those of us who don't adhere to them want to be able to read a review and adjust it to match our own political stances, AKA increase or reduce the score based on what portion of that score is based on politics alone. I don't want to read reviews for example where Obama vs. Zombies gets a 10/10 because "OBAMA IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER." Good for him, how is he as a video game protagonist and how is his game?

 

 

I heavily doubt you can read that Tropico review (f'rex) and have no idea why it has gotten a low review score.

 

So, yeah, that problem can be easily solved: read the reviews. ("But the feminism! IT BURNSSSS USSSS!")

 

 

2) These websites hold a significant amount of influence within the market and thus the pressure they apply to devs is more capable of being on par with coercion. Sadly these games did NOT come to power due to the consumers loving the SJW way of viewing things; that just kind of seemed to slip it's way in somewhere along the way and no it's not popular. Transparency would allow these games to be judged by the consumers and the free market appropriately, receiving the proper amount of traffic and influence that the people wish to provide them with; if they would STILL hold significant influence after that, so be it, but I sincerely doubt they would.

 

3) The above is if we're looking at gaming journalism as though it isn't corrupt, AKA it's just those two kinda coerce a dev into adopting certain political stances for coverage....but it IS corrupt. I don't see how anyone can feel fairly rated and reviewed when they know no matter how good their game is, EA can swing their **** around, drop fat stacks of cash and convince the world their next half-assed title is 9/10 front page material.

 

 

Okay, I'm not really getting the point you're trying to make here, but it might be the fact that it's around 1:30 in the morning here. I'll look back later, possibly.

 

 

In other news, this is hilarious:

 

 

 

 

Tropico...?

 

I'm not familiar with this game. The sample game I was referencing was Bayonetta 2, where no we don't know how much of it's final score was swayed by an ideology and yes I did read the review.

 

 

I'm also not quite sure I can rephrase or re-explain the post for you. :U

 

The jist of it is that currently, not only is our games media corrupt, willing to take bribes, endorse friends without disclosure and partake in all sorts of unethical practices, but we also now have a little feminist clique who have a disproportionate and unearned (unearned in the sense feminism is not the dominant narrative amongst journalists because the free market chose it, but because it seems to have slipped it's way into the media by knowing journalists a year or so ago and only now are we noticing) representation by the media.

 

   The solution is simply full disclosure and that if you want to be a website that colors it's reviews with feminism, state so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a website that would like to provide feminists with reviews catered to their politics, but there is something wrong with feminism wanting to control the MAIN media websites and not disclose what exactly is going on or how much a game score was effected by a subjective ideology. If we merely had disclosure and if we had websites like Polygon clarifying how many points Bayonetta 2 (for example) lost because of the skin tight outfits, then no one would mind and the free market would be able to choose if they value such opinions or not, and thus website like Polygon would receive proper influence proportional to what consumers as a collective actually want. The way things currently are, it's as if both journalists and this feminist clique that's appeared are trying to game the system and force their political stances to be the standard, completely disregarding what the consumers actually want. It may happen consumers DO want these feminist ideologies in their games, but that's yet to properly be put to the test. And as for the blatant corruption....? I don't think anyone wants that.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://m.soundcloud.com/johnfbowman/interview-bowman-bharaj-raw

[Enoch]

The jist of it is that currently, not only is our games media corrupt, willing to take bribes, endorse friends without disclosure and partake in all sorts of unethical practices, but we also now have a little feminist clique who have a disproportionate and unearned (unearned in the sense feminism is not the dominant narrative amongst journalists because the free market chose it, but because it seems to have slipped it's way into the media by knowing journalists a year or so ago and only now are we noticing) representation by the media.

 

   The solution is simply full disclosure and that if you want to be a website that colors it's reviews with feminism, state so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a website that would like to provide feminists with reviews catered to their politics, but there is something wrong with feminism wanting to control the MAIN media websites and not disclose what exactly is going on or how much a game score was effected by a subjective ideology. If we merely had disclosure and if we had websites like Polygon clarifying how many points Bayonetta 2 (for example) lost because of the skin tight outfits, then no one would mind and the free market would be able to choose if they value such opinions or not, and thus website like Polygon would receive proper influence proportional to what consumers as a collective actually want. The way things currently are, it's as if both journalists and this feminist clique that's appeared are trying to game the system and force their political stances to be the standard, completely disregarding what the consumers actually want. It may happen consumers DO want these feminist ideologies in their games, but that's yet to properly be put to the test. And as for the blatant corruption....? I don't think anyone wants that.

 

This made me laugh a bit.  I mean, you're essentially setting an impossible burden for anybody who wants to be a games reviewer.  They're supposed to know exactly who the consumers of a game will be, weigh the factors they consider in reviewing it based on the desires of those consumers (which, again, they are supposed to know innately), disclose all those factors and their weights, and still write a review that people are going to want to read?  That's something that nobody has done or seriously asked for in reviews of any media. 

 

What I'm really hearing is the unrealistic expectation that any reviewer whose opinion is affected negatively by a game's disturbing portrayal of women is and should remain "niche," and that the reviewer should warn everybody when they come out of their corner so that you won't have to be challenged by their opinions.  Because they haven't "earned" the right to express that opinion based on your impression of what the free market for games media is or should be.   

[Hurlshort]

How much do game reviewers even make?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How much do game reviewers even make?

http://www.gamesradar.com/ask-gr-anything-how-much-do-game-journalists-earn/

 

Keep in mind it is dated 2011 though.

[Longknife]

 

The jist of it is that currently, not only is our games media corrupt, willing to take bribes, endorse friends without disclosure and partake in all sorts of unethical practices, but we also now have a little feminist clique who have a disproportionate and unearned (unearned in the sense feminism is not the dominant narrative amongst journalists because the free market chose it, but because it seems to have slipped it's way into the media by knowing journalists a year or so ago and only now are we noticing) representation by the media.

 

   The solution is simply full disclosure and that if you want to be a website that colors it's reviews with feminism, state so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a website that would like to provide feminists with reviews catered to their politics, but there is something wrong with feminism wanting to control the MAIN media websites and not disclose what exactly is going on or how much a game score was effected by a subjective ideology. If we merely had disclosure and if we had websites like Polygon clarifying how many points Bayonetta 2 (for example) lost because of the skin tight outfits, then no one would mind and the free market would be able to choose if they value such opinions or not, and thus website like Polygon would receive proper influence proportional to what consumers as a collective actually want. The way things currently are, it's as if both journalists and this feminist clique that's appeared are trying to game the system and force their political stances to be the standard, completely disregarding what the consumers actually want. It may happen consumers DO want these feminist ideologies in their games, but that's yet to properly be put to the test. And as for the blatant corruption....? I don't think anyone wants that.

 

This made me laugh a bit.  I mean, you're essentially setting an impossible burden for anybody who wants to be a games reviewer.  They're supposed to know exactly who the consumers of a game will be, weigh the factors they consider in reviewing it based on the desires of those consumers (which, again, they are supposed to know innately), disclose all those factors and their weights, and still write a review that people are going to want to read?  That's something that nobody has done or seriously asked for in reviews of any media. 

 

What I'm really hearing is the unrealistic expectation that any reviewer whose opinion is affected negatively by a game's disturbing portrayal of women is and should remain "niche," and that the reviewer should warn everybody when they come out of their corner so that you won't have to be challenged by their opinions.  Because they haven't "earned" the right to express that opinion based on your impression of what the free market for games media is or should be.   

 

 

...No, I'm saying the free market is a logical system with a "survival of the fittest" mentality, and that the website that would become most popular under an environment of full disclosure would be without a doubt the most popular website amongst consumers.

 

  If they wish to make a review site catering to a niche group, they're welcome to do so, and I'd hope that such idealists would be happy with running a website they themselves are proud of ideologically, even if it didn't turn out to be the most popular website of the bunch. I'm not expecting them to know and to cater directly to us, I'm saying every website should do whatever the hell they want and be honest about it, and we the consumers will naturally "choose" which ones we agree with most.

 

That they would remain niche? That's merely my suspicion. Hell, I could be wrong. And no, I'm not asking for disclosure every time; if a website like Polygon openly stated somewhere that their journalists review things while considering feminist principles then there you go.

 

Likewise....what the flying f*** are you talking about? I couldn't make it any more clear that I have nothing against their opinions existing or even having websites dedication to them. And if I didn't want to be challenged by them, I would never have - for example - watched Anita's videos. Have you seen them? I have, because I actually like challenging my own opinion. Some of her stuff holds merit, some is blatantly misleading or dishonest, hence why I have the opinions I do today.

   As I've said: my only concern is that we currently have a system where the feminist group was just kind of dumped on us all of a sudden by befriending an already corrupt journalism industry, and I consider GamerGate a sign that their opinions are unpopular and don't represent the interests of the average gamer. It's not rocket science: it's like if a politician becomes influencial, powerful or gets elected while neutral on an issue like global warming or considered it a serious issue to address, and then out of nowhere after they get their power, they start talking about how it's all a hoax and he intends to promote all sorts of industries that increase carbon emmissions, then people are understandably upset because they never heard any of these stances when they elected him.

 

 

   There wouldn't be ANY problem or any outrage if he had simply been honest and straightforward about their stance on the issue....but perhaps he never would've been elected had he been honest. Sucks for him, yes, but for the society as a whole this is better because the society and the vast majority of the people are getting what they want without being misled. That's essentially what's going on here: people want more transparency so that our natural actions will promote the most fitting businesses, but the journalists don't want transparency cause hella corrupt and the feminists now latched to those corrupt journalists don't want this because of a sneaking suspicion they'd never become the voice of the most popular journalism websites if this happened. Yknow what? Tough ****. Stop being a spoiled brat. You're welcome to have your opinions and your ideologies, and I would gladly defend those same ideologies were the tables turned and we somehow had some story of people trying to run ANY feminist views or publications out of the industry, but expecting everyone to adopt your moral code is the very definition of being an extremist. They do it because they think it's the right thing to do and we don't know what's good for us. I'm sure that's what the Spanish Inquisition thought to, as did every single person ever who ever tried to force their religion on someone and convert them. It's also not far off from arguments that led to the treatment of Native Americans, and how taking their lands was a good cause because we were civilizing these poor savages. No, live and let live. Everyone go make a games journalism website they wanna make, the one that happens upon what consumers want will get the most power and influence, and the others I would hope the job would be it's own reward in that they must be passionate about inserting their own subjective views into their reviews and therefore must be more than happy to keep them running, with or without the legion of fans that opposing ideologies might have.

 

   What they're doing is essentially saying "democracy (the majority voice of the people) is wrong this time" and trying to force their opinions onto everyone. You'll struggle to name a time when this pleases anyone, no matter what issues we're discussing.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Longknife

[Malcador]

How much do game reviewers even make?

Far too much.

[Zoraptor]

 

How much do game reviewers even make?

http://www.gamesradar.com/ask-gr-anything-how-much-do-game-journalists-earn/

 

Keep in mind it is dated 2011 though.

 

 

It should also be borne in mind that some major players employ unpaid interns to do a lot of work, indeed Gawker (and hence Kotaku) is currently being sued for 'mislabelling' employees as interns and not paying them properly.

 

On the matter of what reviewers should and should not take into account when reviewing it is very much a question of what I can only really call 'declaration of interests'. Explicit interest sites can mark on 'ideological safety' whether they be SJW, Christian, Muslim, Communist or whatever. You don't go to a Christian gaming site without expecting Christianity to be a factor, that's not reasonable- and if you do then that's your problem, not theirs.

 

If you're a general interest site you should not mark on ideology unless you have specifically said that you do so. That's not to say that it can not be mentioned, but if the outside, external interests of the reviewer are given undue weight the review cannot be good. Judging on gameplay, graphics and the like are inherently necessary to the process of reviewing, and you have to assume that your views are legitimate when writing or you wouldn't write one at all. OTOH, external ideology is not inherently necessary, you don't have to assume your views are legitimate and necessary in that case. The example I'd give is something like ME2, I thought some of the poses and camera angles on Miranda were pretty cringe inducing. Mark it down for it? Nah. Same as I wouldn't mark it down for being made by Bioware or EA- or more accurately since I have nothing particularly against Bioware/ EA, mark Fallout 4 down for being made by Bethesda. That's all external from the game itself and just me pushing my own agenda which others reading the review may well not share. If I'm pushing any other agenda than whether my readers will like it I'm not doing a good review.

 

(I have rather more tolerance for activist reviews when they aren't actually labelled as reviews, such as the 'Wot I Thinks' that RPS do and do not give scores as they are not reviews per se, but are explicitly what the person thinks- and can not be metacriticed either)

Edited November 4, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Enoch]

   As I've said: my only concern is that we currently have a system where the feminist group was just kind of dumped on us all of a sudden by befriending an already corrupt journalism industry, and I consider GamerGate a sign that their opinions are unpopular and don't represent the interests of the average gamer.

Ah.  And, as I see it, the "feminist group" was not "dumped" into games media.  Games media finally openly acknowledged what is blindlingly obvious-- that it was no longer acceptable for the community of "traditional gamers" to blithely tolerate those who heap scorn and abuse on anybody with the temerity to point that mainstream games regularly trade heavily in cheap titilation and casual misogyny.  Calling out this kind of stuff in other media has been a prominent and accepted element of critical responses since the 60s, and the time has come for games to stop being the exception. 

 

Did some writers consipire with one another to do so?  Sure, and understandably so-- it helps a lot to have open support from other like-minded individuals when you're stating agreement with a position that has gotten many others abused and harassed.  Is this at all unethical?  It is the most ethical thing that games media folks have ever done.  (The conduct of some of those like-minded folks in the industry since then, less so.) 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://archive.today/StMbS

 

Group of female gamers harassed...by another group of female gamers.

[Longknife]

 

   As I've said: my only concern is that we currently have a system where the feminist group was just kind of dumped on us all of a sudden by befriending an already corrupt journalism industry, and I consider GamerGate a sign that their opinions are unpopular and don't represent the interests of the average gamer.

Ah.  And, as I see it, the "feminist group" was not "dumped" into games media.  Games media finally openly acknowledged what is blindlingly obvious-- that it was no longer acceptable for the community of "traditional gamers" to blithely tolerate those who heap scorn and abuse on anybody with the temerity to point that mainstream games regularly trade heavily in cheap titilation and casual misogyny.  Calling out this kind of stuff in other media has been a prominent and accepted element of critical responses since the 60s, and the time has come for games to stop being the exception. 

 

Did some writers consipire with one another to do so?  Sure, and understandably so-- it helps a lot to have open support from other like-minded individuals when you're stating agreement with a position that has gotten many others abused and harassed.  Is this at all unethical?  It is the most ethical thing that games media folks have ever done.  (The conduct of some of those like-minded folks in the industry since then, less so.) 

 

 

 

....And again, there's nothing wrong with that scrutiny. I welcome it.

 

But that scrutiny does not get to dictate the narrative, which is what it's doing (or in some cases attempting to do) now. :U

 

And yes, I would be inclined to question how they got here because those guys aside, our game journalists have been corrupt for a while now. No one even denies this. What I see now is a symbiotic relationship between the two where journalists use the feminist clique as a convenient shield for any corruption allegations while the feminists utilize their corruption and the heat they're receiving as a unique opportunity to spread their voice and their opinions to a degree they'd likely never see via transparency.

 

So yes, I will question how much of that scrutiny is deserved and to what degree it's "neccesary." Neccesary as a part of our community the same way EVERY opinion has a place, absolutely, but as the MAIN opinion that gets preached and that we're all expected to listen to...? I see no justification for this, especially since people don't seem to want to listen and especially since ultimately the people will dictate what gets read and what doesn't, whether the journalists like it or not. Even if you wanted to make a case this is neccesary, the methodology is ridiculous, both for how it denies people from having discerning opinions and in how it denies that this is a case where the free market WILL dictate things in the end; I'm not blathering about the free market cause I'm some obsessed libertarian who thinks all government intervention is a pest and the free market is flawless (definitely not), I'm saying this because it's the reality of the gaming industry.

 

 

   If they wish to go scream at DoA Xtreme Beach Volleyball for sexism, by all means. But getting on Tomodachi Life's case for not including gay marriage...? Or Bayonetta 2 for the fashion choice...? Sorry but I don't see it, so no I'm not going to keep clicking and reading articles going on political rants about a game that takes itself as seriously as this:

 

 

[Hurlshort]

 

How much do game reviewers even make?

Far too much.

 

 

Uh, not according to the link KP put up.  You couldn't get me out of bed for most of those salaries, and I'm an underpaid educator!

 

An average for freelancers is $26k?  Yikes.

 

I can see why they all suck.  No legitimate journalist would go near those numbers.

[Longknife]

 

 

How much do game reviewers even make?

Far too much.

 

 

Uh, not according to the link KP put up.  You couldn't get me out of bed for most of those salaries, and I'm an underpaid educator!

 

An average for freelancers is $26k?  Yikes.

 

I can see why they all suck.  No legitimate journalist would go near those numbers.

 

 

 

It was suggested part of the issue with corruption is that the earnings can be so abysmal that OF COURSE these people give into the bribes. How to go about fixing the wages though...? I don't know, and some have suggested that gaming journalism itself might be an obsolete industry as anyone can review a game in this day and age.

[Hurlshort]

Reviews are totally obsolete.  The only ones I ever read anymore are user reviews, not just for games, but any products.  I skim through a few and get a good idea of what I'm getting into.

 

The only thing game journalists are any use for is previews.  They go to a company, interview someone and get some neat screenshots we haven't seen.  Congrats, you are a game journalist and get free games, crappy pay, and an inflated ego.  

 

Seriously, it's literally the worst form of journalism.  I mean literary.  Or do I?

 

Working for a High school Newspaper may be tied.

 

This is the best reviewer in the biz:

 

http://teamcoco.com/video/clueless-gamer-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare?playlsist=x%3BeyJ0eXBlIjoidGFnIiwiaWQiOjExfQ

Edited November 4, 2014 by Hurlshot

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

How much do game reviewers even make?

 

Far too much.

Uh, not according to the link KP put up. You couldn't get me out of bed for most of those salaries, and I'm an underpaid educator!

 

An average for freelancers is $26k? Yikes.

 

I can see why they all suck. No legitimate journalist would go near those numbers.

It should be noted that freelancers have some other kind of income(according to the link), and you would need to as well with those peanuts. Then there is the whole unpaid interns thing zor brought up, which arguably drives the average lower. The staff wages aren't much better unfortunately, and you get what you pay for, evidenced by the glorified bloggers currently staffing these sites.

 

Unfortunately, said bloggers do have more power than some dude on WordPress, and I can see how a hit-piece or negative **** dump can severely affect the reputation of a dev, game, or studio. That isn't to say we should bar any ideology from criticising games, but a separation between reviews and opinion pieces would be nice.

 

All of this is pretty irrelevant though, YouTube personalities will probably dominate the reviews market and professional printed reviews will go the way of the typewriter. I personally welcome this, as I find footage of gameplay to be much more informative than some hipster in a tiffy about Bayonetta's bewbs or that the game needlessly encourages violence.

Edited November 4, 2014 by KaineParker

[Volourn]

"Ah.  And, as I see it, the "feminist group" was not "dumped" into games media.  Games media finally openly acknowledged what is blindlingly obvious-- that it was no longer acceptable for the community of "traditional gamers" to blithely tolerate those who heap scorn and abuse on anybody with the temerity to point that mainstream games regularly trade heavily in cheap titilation and casual misogyny.  Calling out this kind of stuff in other media has been a prominent and accepted element of critical responses since the 60s, and the time has come for games to stop being the exception."
 

Oh please. Games are more geared to be more hateful to males. Male victims are more prevelant in video games. The vast majority of enemies killed are either me or monster (of cours meany believe men are monsters lol).

 

 L0L Misogny L0L

 

That word is so abused and misused it loses a lot of meaning. Espciially when you see rea legit cases of sexism in the world.

[kirottu]

Producers didn't want the full story of gamergate according to journalist:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/11/producers-didnt-want-the-full-story-of-gamergate-according-to-journalist/

[Volourn]

I'm not surprised CBC would pull that kind of crap. They're evil that way. They don't believe in equality.

[kirottu]

GameJournoPros page was deleted from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GameJournoPros

[TrashMan]

No, that's not an important thing. It cannot be important how she acted before this because she is not important in this. She may be irritating but she has nothing to do with GamerGate. GamerGate should be focusing on biased and corrupt journalism, not witch-hunting opponents. Nothing Brianna has done has impacted me or anyone else, it's just a lot of empty posturing.

 

Hmm... not entirely correct.

 

GamerGaters are fighting against those who slander and attack them.

Part of the reason journos and media are corrupt is because they got inflitrated by SJW's.

 

So Brianna, Anita and Zoe - they have impacted us by crying "mysogony" and spinning their narrative. A narrative the media was too quick to jump on to.

 

The 3 are a symptom of a problem, and technically small fish. But make no mistake in thinking we're just fighting against game journos. Even if we were to win, the SJW's won't stop attacking us.

 

GamerGate is about ethics in game journalism - this may be the only reason *some* GGers joined. But not all. Don't get me wrong, I fight for ethics and professionalism in the media (ALL media) too, but to me personally, the main fight is against SJW's.

The game journos are just the fist fight. Once they are taken care off, we can move onto other targets.

Edited November 4, 2014 by TrashMan