Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[Aram]

 

I've tried to figure out what all this fuss was about any of this gamergate nonsense several times and every time I've just been hit with a giant brick to the head of "don't give a ****." This is the stupidest controversy I've ever seen, and anyone who has put any effort into fighting for it in either direction needs badly to realize that we live in a world where a third of the population is going to be in prison soon for no objectively identifiable reason and that the oceans are going to be devoid of life within our lifetime and none of this ****ing matters.

 

The fact that volourn feels strongly about any of this is all the evidence I need that I have absolutely no reason to care about any of this, and anyone who does is profoundly stupid.

 

Well i'll try to explain simply if you wish, though i'm confused by your stated apathy and yet obvious passion and judgement on the matter.

 

Gamergate is a response to years of corruption, unethical behaviour, nepotism, and demonisation of the diverse millions whom play games recreationally. It arose when a proven case of ethical misconduct involving Mr Nathan Grayson was swept under the rug, conversation was censored on the matter, and those wishing to discuss it were accused of harassment. This was followed by a coordinated attack on gamers by twelves articles with the base theme that "Gamers are Dead," and it was at that point that the last twig broke. Consumers had had enough of being demonised by corrupt, unethical, spoiled largely white upper class children, accusing them of being racist, sexist, and various other perjorative terms.

 

So a consumer revolt started, that aimed to make journalists and their publications accountable and fit for purpose, because at the moment they are currently not. It was opposed by lies and misinformation, and painted as an harassment campaign by those with access to the media, that was just white children opposing the inclusion of women and other races in gaming. This was partly disproven by the "Not Your Shield" campaign which showcased the vast diversity of Gamergate and gamers, and now has been totally disproved by an independent third party whom monitor Twittter and have rubbished the harassment claims.

 

So basically the real actors on the stage are:

• Social justice fascists (game journalists and those whom support them,) a hate group whom despise all races and genders except those whom buy into their sick ideology, which consists of such peaches as #Killallmen, advocation of Nazi style death camps, the abolishment of free speech, the sending of bomb threats to those whom dare to have parties where free speech and discussion is held, and the belief that abusing women is something to be proud of.
• A very small proportion of trolls and abusers whom are either mocking both sides or sending real abuse to people, doxxing and trying to harm innocent parties job prospects, though it must be mentioned that the SJF's have indulged in this also and regard it as perfectly justified behaviour.
• Gamergate, a consumer revolt whom are fighting for reform and ethics in the game journalism industry so that a multi billion dollar industry has a public serving media that is truthful, principled and fit for purpose. This is the only side that are actively trying to curb trolls and harassment and propagate a movement for accountability and morality.

At the current moment Gamergate has done much, major news sites have been forced to implement ethical codes of conduct, sack those whom led the hate mob against those whom play games recreationally and some sites such as the Escapist have actually started to serve the customer. However more is needed: Gamergate is still being misattributed as a harassment campaign, despite this being factually incorrect, and so we know that game journalists are still commited to lying and libel. The hatred and mockery of consumers is continued, such that even after a bomb threat one of the writers of Rock, Paper, Shotgun insulted those threatened. The ethical abuses of certain individuals have still not been dealt with, and there are years of ethical abuses that must be brought to book with heavy fines and possibly revocation of their journalism degrees.

 

Personally i'd like to see an independent Ombudsman formed, with the power to bring the industry to book, levy heavy fines, force retractions and enforce a code of moral and ethical behaviour. The game journalists have proven time after time that they need supervision, that they are liars, unethical, corrupt, far too involved with the industry they are supposed to watchdog and prone to nepotism and flagrant abuse of their powers, they cannot be trusted to monitor themselves.

 

As for the moral relativity, I can support numerous causes and do, my involvement in Gamergate does not inhibit my participation in anything else.

 

Just my personal opinion however.

 

I am someone who hoards huge numbers of guns, makes his own booze, and raises bullfrogs in his swimming pool, and this all strikes me as completely bonkers.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Aram

[Nonek]

I prefer the term delightfully eccentric.

 

Edit: No joking aside I thought the above explanation was very dry and dusty, and the product of a dull, staid old man, it's quite exciting to be thought of as bonkers.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Nonek

[Hurlshort]

 

My argument has always been more about this is simply how trade magazines work.  They rely on the people who create the product to stay in business.  Subscriptions (or in this day and age, hits) only cover part of costs, they need advertising dollars and they need behind the scenes access to content in order to operate.  This is coupled by the fact that a review is a fairly subjective thing, and any game that can afford good advertising is also probably going to look good and be technically solid.  

 

In essence I think that reviews are one of the least important parts of game journalism, and hope that someday the general public moves away from relying on them so heavily.  

Eh, most other trade mag's can be different because the diversity of what's being sold within the mag itself. A movie magazine might be selling everything from laser tag to games to movies, but it's not enough of a money invested from one point that the editors pressure the reviewers to give Transformers a good score. The entire games industry itself is built around selling to itself. You open Game Informer (which is only successful because of gamestop's pushing it), and you're seeing reviews for games, advertisements for games, and discussion only about games. I don't ever remember seeing anything from a "related" industry that thinks the market share would be good to crack (no comic book ads, no movie ads, no car ads).

 

So the Magazine Editors want to keep the publishers happy so they can keep the ad revenue rolling in and the review copies too. Publishers want to keep the magazine/website editors happy because that means their ad's and games get better press, and nobody cares about the consumer.

 

 

Oddly enough, I was just flipping through Game Informer on the commode, and Pillars of Eternity was their game of the month, while Broken Age part 2 also got an extremely high mark.  They also gave a rather low mark to some Assassin's Creed side-scroller. 

[BruceVC]

 

You seem to believe that the review score  of games is based on how much money a gaming website receives from the publisher or developer? This is a serious accusation that implies the entire system of gaming reviews is corrupt and unethical? Do you have any evidence to back this up?

 

Other than the fact of this being common knowledge for a multitutde of years? Consider Jeff Gerstmann. Fired from his editorial position at Gamespot in late 2007 because he gave a low rating to Kane & Lynch: Dead Men while Eidos, publisher of said game, was heavily advertising said game on Gamespot. This was solely rumor for many years because Gerstmann was legally banned from speaking about it due to a non-disparagement agreement but that was nullified in 2012, when Gerstmann came out and confirmed that this was indeed the reason he was fired.

 

There's many more examples, but that is the most egregious one I can think of right now. However, the fact that game review websites and even magazines when they were still relevant would give favorable scores to publishers paying for advertisement has been common knowledge for well over two decades and is the reason why games journalism was regarded as a joke since far before #GamerGate. You can even tell historically simply from looking at these threads, the most often used argument against #GamerGate so far has been "games journalism was always worthless, why do you care now?"

 

 

I have never denied that there are a incidents of irregular conduct by some gaming websites or some isolated articles that subjectively  attacked gamers ( like the Leigh Alexander article )

 

Most gaming websites stay open  through marketing revenues that the publishers are responsible for. Considering the fact that gaming websites don't actually sell product this is perfectly normal and to be expected. Gaming websites also have costs that somehow have to be paid for. We cannot have an issue with the fact that there is relationship between gaming websites and publisher. I am very interested in how you expect, for example, a website like Gamasutra to pay for its costs without getting money through marketing budgets from various publishers?

 

I have a major issue with the fact that somehow GG is going to change this business model or the suggestion that this now means that this relationship is corrupt or unethical. Yes there will be some examples of a publisher paying for a good score but I would need to see data that suggests this is wide spread. And yes I know you cannot produce this data so how can anyone make this statement if it is not fact ? So this is a subjective accusation

 

Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are  articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article?

 

So I try to leave the emotion out of this debate when I assess the validity of the GG movement. We are talking about a business model that won't change, unless you can give me solid suggestions on how gaming websites generate revenue, and a few articles that are rare that have "insulted " gamers

 

Also  as KP mentioned from his own personal experience  I doubt anyone on this forum actually uses the reviews on gaming websites as a benchmark to determine if a game is worthwhile  or not. We all use other methods. So now we have a situation where none of us even look at  the reviews on gaming websites and this existed long before GG ...yet this seems to be a core foundation of GG..." we object to the fact that reviews are biased and are influenced by publishers "

 

So what is the real purpose and objective of GG? It still doesn't make logical sense to me

[kirottu]

Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are  articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article?

Firstly there were 12 "gamers are dead" articles. That's a dozen not "a few". Those were the second major thing what made GamerGate. The feedback from those articles was so negative even SJWs understood it is bad idea to attack your core demographic and they have tried to downplay those articles ever since, like, "there weren't that many of them", "they weren't that bad", and "you're simply misunderstanding what they meant".

 

The attack on gamers still continues. It isn't a daily occurence, but it is weekly. They have simply changed from directly attacking gamers to attacking games instead. Here's a good example.

 

So what is the real purpose and objective of GG? It still doesn't make logical sense to me

Frankly, after all this time and people repeatedly telling what GamerGate is about if it still doesn't make sense to you, I think it is a good sign that GamerGate is on a right track.

[BruceVC]

 

Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are  articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article?

Firstly there were 12 "gamers are dead" articles. That's a dozen not "a few". Those were the second major thing what made GamerGate. The feedback from those articles was so negative even SJWs understood it is bad idea to attack your core demographic and they have tried to downplay those articles ever since, like, "there weren't that many of them", "they weren't that bad", and "you're simply misunderstanding what they meant".

 

The attack on gamers still continues. It isn't a daily occurence, but it is weekly. They have simply changed from directly attacking gamers to attacking games instead. Here's a good example.

 

So what is the real purpose and objective of GG? It still doesn't make logical sense to me

Frankly, after all this time and people repeatedly telling what GamerGate is about if it still doesn't make sense to you, I think it is a good sign that GamerGate is on a right track.

 

 

I think the Polygon article was misplaced,  Arthur Gies is clearly more interested in a SJ soapbox than reviewing Witcher 3 on the merits of the game

 

But as you acknowledge this is  an attack on the game itself and not an attack on gamers so how does this support the narrative that gaming journalists demonize gamers? The two are not related. Also there will always be gaming journalists who review games from the lens of SJ. Sometimes its valid and sometimes its not 

 

Can you guys not see that this does not mean that all gaming journalists review games this way which is biased and unhelpful. For example Kotaku ( another enemy of GG)also had a review of Witcher 3

 

http://kotaku.com/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-the-kotaku-review-1703766283

 

How did you find it?

 

So once again how does  Arthur Gies views support the GG message that " gaming journalists demonize and insult gamers"

 

You need to ask yourselves this because this is something most of you have convinced yourselves is a valid campaign for GG?

Edited May 18, 2015 by BruceVC

[Calax]

 

 

You seem to believe that the review score  of games is based on how much money a gaming website receives from the publisher or developer? This is a serious accusation that implies the entire system of gaming reviews is corrupt and unethical? Do you have any evidence to back this up?

 

Other than the fact of this being common knowledge for a multitutde of years? Consider Jeff Gerstmann. Fired from his editorial position at Gamespot in late 2007 because he gave a low rating to Kane & Lynch: Dead Men while Eidos, publisher of said game, was heavily advertising said game on Gamespot. This was solely rumor for many years because Gerstmann was legally banned from speaking about it due to a non-disparagement agreement but that was nullified in 2012, when Gerstmann came out and confirmed that this was indeed the reason he was fired.

 

There's many more examples, but that is the most egregious one I can think of right now. However, the fact that game review websites and even magazines when they were still relevant would give favorable scores to publishers paying for advertisement has been common knowledge for well over two decades and is the reason why games journalism was regarded as a joke since far before #GamerGate. You can even tell historically simply from looking at these threads, the most often used argument against #GamerGate so far has been "games journalism was always worthless, why do you care now?"

 

 

I have never denied that there are a incidents of irregular conduct by some gaming websites or some isolated articles that subjectively  attacked gamers ( like the Leigh Alexander article )

 

Most gaming websites stay open  through marketing revenues that the publishers are responsible for. Considering the fact that gaming websites don't actually sell product this is perfectly normal and to be expected. Gaming websites also have costs that somehow have to be paid for. We cannot have an issue with the fact that there is relationship between gaming websites and publisher. I am very interested in how you expect, for example, a website like Gamasutra to pay for its costs without getting money through marketing budgets from various publishers?

 

I have a major issue with the fact that somehow GG is going to change this business model or the suggestion that this now means that this relationship is corrupt or unethical. Yes there will be some examples of a publisher paying for a good score but I would need to see data that suggests this is wide spread. And yes I know you cannot produce this data so how can anyone make this statement if it is not fact ? So this is a subjective accusation

 

Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are  articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article?

 

That article and the industry wide reaction to this entire thing is why GG keeps going. The fact that the customers were demonized in linked articles showed that not only was there something going on behind the scenes to control the narrative, Most of the major news websites within the industry were involved in adjusting that narrative. And these aren't people who are just "reviewing" games anymore. The longer and more polarizing this is, the more that you end up examining a review and finding that the review is more about how the reviewer's social values were offended by the portrayal of women. And the sad part is, until gaming becomes TRUELY mainstream, with GTA being discussed on morning talk shows at the same level as Transformers or Avengers, and the reviews begin to move to a non-gaming centric platform, there won't be change because it's a self feeding system.

 

The sad part of it is that Kotaku probably won't go under because it's parent company (Gawker media) owns several other sites. Those other sites do pretty well, although the car site doesn't have the reviewers saying "Don't drive this car because it's not a hybrid" or "I don't feel right about driving this car because it's ad had a woman in a bikini 'washing' it". Kotaku, Polygon, et al don't just want to tell us their impressions of the game, they want to tell us how we feel about the game and how we should be OUTRAGED that Yennifer and Tris in Witcher 3 happen to have their breasts pop out during the course of the game.

So I try to leave the emotion out of this debate when I assess the validity of the GG movement. We are talking about a business model that won't change, unless you can give me solid suggestions on how gaming websites generate revenue, and a few articles that are rare that have "insulted " gamers

 

Also  as KP mentioned from his own personal experience  I doubt anyone on this forum actually uses the reviews on gaming websites as a benchmark to determine if a game is worthwhile  or not. We all use other methods. So now we have a situation where none of us even look at  the reviews on gaming websites and this existed long before GG ...yet this seems to be a core foundation of GG..." we object to the fact that reviews are biased and are influenced by publishers "

 

So what is the real purpose and objective of GG? It still doesn't make logical sense to me

The thing is, even if we don't use the reviews to buy the game, it's a good way to get a feel for the game's general quality, AND it also pays the bills for the developers to have that higher score. Last I'd heard, a lot of bonuses etc on games moving units were tied not just to those units being moved, but also to the metacritic score of the game itself. This means that a reviewer who whines about "But it has titties in it! BAD GAME!" and gets pandered to, will ultimately put a paycheck in the pocket of the guy who made the game.

 

At the same time, these news sites don't just run reviews, they also do previews and are part of the overall hype machine for various products. So a smaller developer with a smaller publisher backing them probably wouldn't move nearly as many units on their own with their own marketing over having one of these companies hyping up how awesome it's going to be to be a Hacker in Chicago or an Assassin in France... Or a Rainbow Operative... (sorry, Ubi's been disappointing me lately). And unlike movies, you don't have a press junket for your stars, or a series of previews that play before a competitors product to ensure that people know your game even exists. If the industry and the GameJournoPro's mailing list don't like you, you could hit shelves and have the employees of your gamestop/bestbuy/whatever wondering wtf it is that they're selling now.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Calax

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

You seem to believe that the review score  of games is based on how much money a gaming website receives from the publisher or developer? This is a serious accusation that implies the entire system of gaming reviews is corrupt and unethical? Do you have any evidence to back this up?

 

Other than the fact of this being common knowledge for a multitutde of years? Consider Jeff Gerstmann. Fired from his editorial position at Gamespot in late 2007 because he gave a low rating to Kane & Lynch: Dead Men while Eidos, publisher of said game, was heavily advertising said game on Gamespot. This was solely rumor for many years because Gerstmann was legally banned from speaking about it due to a non-disparagement agreement but that was nullified in 2012, when Gerstmann came out and confirmed that this was indeed the reason he was fired.

 

There's many more examples, but that is the most egregious one I can think of right now. However, the fact that game review websites and even magazines when they were still relevant would give favorable scores to publishers paying for advertisement has been common knowledge for well over two decades and is the reason why games journalism was regarded as a joke since far before #GamerGate. You can even tell historically simply from looking at these threads, the most often used argument against #GamerGate so far has been "games journalism was always worthless, why do you care now?"

 

 

I have never denied that there are a incidents of irregular conduct by some gaming websites or some isolated articles that subjectively  attacked gamers ( like the Leigh Alexander article )

 

Most gaming websites stay open  through marketing revenues that the publishers are responsible for. Considering the fact that gaming websites don't actually sell product this is perfectly normal and to be expected. Gaming websites also have costs that somehow have to be paid for. We cannot have an issue with the fact that there is relationship between gaming websites and publisher. I am very interested in how you expect, for example, a website like Gamasutra to pay for its costs without getting money through marketing budgets from various publishers?

 

I have a major issue with the fact that somehow GG is going to change this business model or the suggestion that this now means that this relationship is corrupt or unethical. Yes there will be some examples of a publisher paying for a good score but I would need to see data that suggests this is wide spread. And yes I know you cannot produce this data so how can anyone make this statement if it is not fact ? So this is a subjective accusation

 

Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are  articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article?

 

That article and the industry wide reaction to this entire thing is why GG keeps going. The fact that the customers were demonized in linked articles showed that not only was there something going on behind the scenes to control the narrative, Most of the major news websites within the industry were involved in adjusting that narrative. And these aren't people who are just "reviewing" games anymore. The longer and more polarizing this is, the more that you end up examining a review and finding that the review is more about how the reviewer's social values were offended by the portrayal of women. And the sad part is, until gaming becomes TRUELY mainstream, with GTA being discussed on morning talk shows at the same level as Transformers or Avengers, and the reviews begin to move to a non-gaming centric platform, there won't be change because it's a self feeding system.

 

The sad part of it is that Kotaku probably won't go under because it's parent company (Gawker media) owns several other sites. Those other sites do pretty well, although the car site doesn't have the reviewers saying "Don't drive this car because it's not a hybrid" or "I don't feel right about driving this car because it's ad had a woman in a bikini 'washing' it". Kotaku, Polygon, et al don't just want to tell us their impressions of the game, they want to tell us how we feel about the game and how we should be OUTRAGED that Yennifer and Tris in Witcher 3 happen to have their breasts pop out during the course of the game.

So I try to leave the emotion out of this debate when I assess the validity of the GG movement. We are talking about a business model that won't change, unless you can give me solid suggestions on how gaming websites generate revenue, and a few articles that are rare that have "insulted " gamers

 

Also  as KP mentioned from his own personal experience  I doubt anyone on this forum actually uses the reviews on gaming websites as a benchmark to determine if a game is worthwhile  or not. We all use other methods. So now we have a situation where none of us even look at  the reviews on gaming websites and this existed long before GG ...yet this seems to be a core foundation of GG..." we object to the fact that reviews are biased and are influenced by publishers "

 

So what is the real purpose and objective of GG? It still doesn't make logical sense to me

The thing is, even if we don't use the reviews to buy the game, it's a good way to get a feel for the game's general quality, AND it also pays the bills for the developers to have that higher score. Last I'd heard, a lot of bonuses etc on games moving units were tied not just to those units being moved, but also to the metacritic score of the game itself. This means that a reviewer who whines about "But it has titties in it! BAD GAME!" and gets pandered to, will ultimately put a paycheck in the pocket of the guy who made the game.

 

At the same time, these news sites don't just run reviews, they also do previews and are part of the overall hype machine for various products. So a smaller developer with a smaller publisher backing them probably wouldn't move nearly as many units on their own with their own marketing over having one of these companies hyping up how awesome it's going to be to be a Hacker in Chicago or an Assassin in France... Or a Rainbow Operative... (sorry, Ubi's been disappointing me lately). And unlike movies, you don't have a press junket for your stars, or a series of previews that play before a competitors product to ensure that people know your game even exists. If the industry and the GameJournoPro's mailing list don't like you, you could hit shelves and have the employees of your gamestop/bestbuy/whatever wondering wtf it is that they're selling now.

 

 

Calax I appreciate the way you can have this debate without feeling the need to insult me. You also spend time making your points in way that make sense, you seem to leave the emotion and hyperbole out of  it and make your perspective based on your understanding of the reality

 

Anyway I will comment on this later, I am at a customer at the moment so I don't have sufficient time now

[Nonek]

 

 

I have never denied that there are a incidents of irregular conduct by some gaming websites or some isolated articles that subjectively  attacked gamers ( like the Leigh Alexander article )

 

Most gaming websites stay open  through marketing revenues that the publishers are responsible for. Considering the fact that gaming websites don't actually sell product this is perfectly normal and to be expected. Gaming websites also have costs that somehow have to be paid for. We cannot have an issue with the fact that there is relationship between gaming websites and publisher. I am very interested in how you expect, for example, a website like Gamasutra to pay for its costs without getting money through marketing budgets from various publishers?

 

I have a major issue with the fact that somehow GG is going to change this business model or the suggestion that this now means that this relationship is corrupt or unethical. Yes there will be some examples of a publisher paying for a good score but I would need to see data that suggests this is wide spread. And yes I know you cannot produce this data so how can anyone make this statement if it is not fact ? So this is a subjective accusation

 

Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are  articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article?

 

So I try to leave the emotion out of this debate when I assess the validity of the GG movement. We are talking about a business model that won't change, unless you can give me solid suggestions on how gaming websites generate revenue, and a few articles that are rare that have "insulted " gamers

 

Also  as KP mentioned from his own personal experience  I doubt anyone on this forum actually uses the reviews on gaming websites as a benchmark to determine if a game is worthwhile  or not. We all use other methods. So now we have a situation where none of us even look at  the reviews on gaming websites and this existed long before GG ...yet this seems to be a core foundation of GG..." we object to the fact that reviews are biased and are influenced by publishers "

 

So what is the real purpose and objective of GG? It still doesn't make logical sense to me

 

 

1. Twelve coordinated articles attacking gamers from the industry leaders is not a "few," insulting gamers is not a subjective matter.

2. Doing business with a publishers marketing or PR department is no excuse for unethical behaviour, game journalist purpose is to serve and inform the public, not please their advertising partners, this argument is a childish strawman. If there are stipulations laid upon advertising simply refuse it and seek other sources of income, simple and ethical.

3. The fact that you have an issue with a moral and ethical consumer revolt should make you question your own moral guidelines (such as they are.) There have been numerous reported and proven cases of unethical and anti consumer behaviour throughout this thread, burying ones head in the sand does not make Ms Hernandez or Mr Graysons corruption go away, Mr Gerstman's sacking for telling the truth is still real, Ms Chobot appearing in a game her company reviewed and awarded top scores is still there, the recent totally factually incorrect attack against Ubisoft's female protagonist which some idiots supported despite the obvious poor journalism, etcetera, etcetera. Deny these all you will, but they are real.

4. The insults against me are not warranted and untrue, I am simply telling the objective truth and that is not hyperbole, I neither exaggerate or use rhetoric. Attacks against the millions who play games recreationally continue, including the absolutely indefensible insults against those whom were subject to a bomb threat, which some sick and twisted individuals laughed about and stated were funny. Pathetic people without morality, intelligence or any shame.

5. Your entire argument in this post is factually devoid and based on personal opinion, there is already a massive change in the industry model, with game journalists publications thanks to their own ineptitude, corruption and contempt for the consumer, driving customers to Twitch and Youtube for honest and objective reviews and news.

6. The aim of Gamergate is what it has always been, to make an industry that is ethical, fit for purpose and sustainable, rather than the self destructicve idiocy of the current hate movement and harassment campaign. To deny that is to deny facts, misrepresent and accuse the membership of having other aims, that is neither logical or truthful and remains an insult accusing Gamergaters of deception.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Nonek

[Blarghagh]

Closed for length. New one popping up in a bit.