Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

Volourn · May 15, 2015

"Historically, games have respected women about the same as you might respect a banana peel, or a used tissue. Women have been sexualised, objectified, belittled, discriminated against and misrepresented at every juncture."

These are the very first lines of that article. It illsuatres how pathetic and stupid that writer is. The nonsense is EVIL.

"He is objecting to the fact Ubisoft is using a playable female character as part of the marketing campaign...its like saying " hey everybody ...look we have a female character "

The inclusion a of female character should be more natural to make it sincere

To quote from the article "'Its s an affectation. If you're using women characters so nakedly as marketing material, I can't possibly believe that you actually care about them "

\

\Don't you see how asanine that argument is? The character is aprt of the game. It should be used in the adverisment. LMAO This is exactly what is being done with the new Mad Max with their 'strong female' character and its being praised. LMAO Damn SJWs are evil anzi scumbags and strike again. Even when they get what they claim to want they still find things to whine about. PATHETIC.

"I don't think any company should be insincere in its marketing or implementation around things like gender equality. But in this case I believe Ubisoft is being sincere and he doesn't "

ALL companies are insincere.

Calax · May 15, 2015

It's pretty easy to figure out it's false if you know anything about MacArthur during the Post WW2 Japan years, or the simple usage of words then as compared to now.

Meshugger · May 16, 2015

"The magical 8" has been announced to go to the SPJ Panel: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sm7nul

For those who are lazy:

Milo Yanopolis - Writer of the GJP article on Breitbart
Brad Wardell - CEO of Stardock. Painted as a rapist by game media when falsely accusod of being so
Cathy Young - Contributing editor at Reason.com
Christian Hoff Sommers - Author, Professor and contributor for AEI
Oliver Campbell - Needs no explanation
Mark Seb - from 8chan's /v/, creator of videos such as

William Usher - Leaker of the GJP. Has his own media site at http://oneangrygamer.net
Jennifer Dawwe - Video game creator and designer of Seedscape (http://dapperswine.com/seedscape/) Bullied by SJWs and the media for her pro-GG views.

Looking forward for this!

Edited May 16, 2015 by Meshugger

BruceVC · May 16, 2015

Calax you do realize not everyone knows the story of MacArthur or his personality ? And even less people would know the difference between a fake telegram it was said he created and a real one ?

So I'm not sure what your point is ?

Fighter · May 16, 2015

What a nutjob. And I mean literally a nutcase that needs a shrink.

Aram · May 17, 2015

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.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Aram

PK htiw klaw eriF · May 17, 2015

And yet you took time out of your life to whine about it on a videogame forum.

Edited May 17, 2015 by KaineParker

Aram · May 17, 2015

Amazing.

PK htiw klaw eriF · May 17, 2015

And you're still posting here, shouldn't you be doing something about the dead oceans instead of whining about something you don't care about?

BruceVC · May 17, 2015

Well as much as we all really appreciate your insight into this matter you are misunderstanding something fundamental about this debate

GG is just the symbol...consider it a metaphorical battleground , this is about the perception and resistance to SJ changes from certain people. Its an unnecessary battle I keep telling my debating foes. Most of the outrage is exaggerated and unnecessary and is more about the fact people are tired of being told what is acceptable in this game or what is offensive

Volo is intransigent. He refuses to even attempt to have a rational debate ...but he is entertaining :biggrin:

ravenshrike · May 17, 2015

That's not the amazing part. The amazing part is that his feelings on any given subject apparently exist in a state of quantum entanglement with Volourn's and their strength on any given subject is directly inverted with his.

Edited May 17, 2015 by ravenshrike

BruceVC · May 17, 2015

:lol:

Yeah judging a posts relevance based on Volo's view does seem strange and will lead to frustration

Calax · May 17, 2015

See... this is what gets me. I've always viewed "GamerGate" as being more about the fact that the Journalists in the industry have a tendency to give passes or nitpicks based on how much money the publishing company gave to their particular reviewing website. It was something that was broiling in the industry for a while before a particular event... specifically the fact that Zoe Quinn turned out to have been sleeping with at least one of the guys who gave her game a lot of publicity even though it (by accounts I've read) was A) claiming to donate to charity and B) wasn't actually that good.

However, the above has ended up being clouded because the journalistic media doesn't want to lose it's major money pits, so instead of addressing concerns that they aren't being fair to games based on where their **** goes or how much money comes in, they began a full on offensive against their customer base declaring that to care about Quinns personal history and dirty laundry (which is what brought up the revelation of the journalistic fraternization), means that we're sexist **** who are attacking women in the industry and the portrayal within games in general. And it didn't help that Sarkeesian, controversial from the get go, was coming out with a series of badly researched propaganda pieces on the subject.

Add in four doses of 3rd wave femenism, mellenial assumption of inherent "The world owes me ****" and general Trolling and you have a giant snowball of bad behavior and extremism being used to characterize entire groups of people on the internet rather than actual disucssion about these two massive incredibly different issues.

On one hand you have the issue of games media being incredibly incestuous and to tightly bound to the industry it's supposed to criticize because of targeted advertising and the genre in and of itself slowly maturing. On the other hand you've got the issue of sexism in the industry, being used as a microcosm for sexism at large. Those who have the websites, the views, and the clout in the industry want the first issue to be kept away from the public discussion, so they start tackling the second head on, and in as controversial a way possible in order to create the looming cloud of controversy and fighting amongst people who might agree on the first issue. This also summons those women who feel that the world owes them something because they have breasts and a vagina and, as such, the world needs to bend itself into the shape they personally prefer. we've also seen the media manage to link the two issues to a stupid degree, so that whenever the first is brought up immediately the second appears like the Loch Ness Monster demanding tree fitty.

On the journalistic front, due to the nature of the enforced discussion, you won't see a change until a publisher (Or the ESA) comes out against the specialized journalism that has become Gaming. The only way for the reviews to be disconnected from the money is for the reviews themselves to become heavily mainstream. Where every paper/entertainment site has a string of reviews by somebody on staff who reviews games while other products are being sold in that medium. But for that to happen we have to cause a cultural shift to see video games not as a "Child's toy" but rather as an adult entertainment venue (not that way, get your mind out of the gutter). For that latter act to occur then you have to see games grow up a bit about how they reflect the world around them. Which does tie into the sexist aspect, BUT I don't think that you have to totally eliminate sexism. After all, for every thought provoking movie about trashbags in the wind (American Beauty) there's also a sexist jingoist romp that storms through theaters (Transformers1/2/3/4/1000). We should still have our Duke Nukem's and Saint's Rows, but we just need our Portal's and our Tomb Raiders to balance it out.

Hurlshort · May 17, 2015

Sometimes I enjoy the actual discussion about journalism. But yeah, most of the time I scratch my head over the stuff that gets discussed here. Something about nazism and misogyny, I think.

BruceVC · May 17, 2015

The Zoe Quinn incident was just a catalyst, a section of gamers has been getting steadily more and more annoyed by what they perceive as interference in gaming from " SJW". So now GG really represents this frustration. People are now making a stand , its misplaced and unnecessary but people need to do what they want

But going back to your post thanks for sharing your perspective, most people wont do that ( and Noneks grandstanding doesn't count )

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?

I'm asking you this because I find whenever I have these debates with people part of there argument is based on an assumption or something they can't substantiate ...and if you can at least recognize part of your premise may not be true should that not change your overall view ?

Calax · May 17, 2015

It is... it may not be hyper obvious but it's there. Probably the best example of this is the Madden Franchise vs the Warriors series. Now, I'm a Warrios fan (Dynasty, Samurai, Orochi, you name it), but I'm not much of a madden fan. However both operate heavily on the same iteration process with nearly yearly updates that don't really change the formula (Call of duty is the same way) but Madden (and CoD) are both scored quite highly while the Warriors franchise is quite low. It doesn't help that we hear stories like the fact that at a Watch_Dogs press event all the press members got a free Ipad or similar.

Watch_Dogs is probably the best example of this. The game is MASSIVE and is probably the mediocre spearhead to a franchise (you don't put that much work into a game and not franchise off it anymore it seems) and wasn't considered that great on reception by most people I've talked to/seen discussing it. Looking at the Metacritic for it it's got an 80/100 score from critics, with most critics giving it a passing grade, the users are closer to 6/10. I realize that scores are ultimately subjective, but like I said, most people who talk about the game dislike it because of the stupid plot, rampant sexism, and the wierd controls/design decisions.

For the record, Madden 15 gets about an 80 on the metacritic while most recent Warriors game (Samurai 2) getting a 76.

They are getting better than they were before. Although nothing will beat the embargo on magazines for Arkham City's reviews. With the publisher declaring "The only way you can run it during the month the game comes out (it came out mid october) is if you give it over a 90% and put it on 60% of your front cover."

And this is just me personally, but I don't think Arkham City was worth the 90%+ it gets. It's higher than Asylum, but the gameplay and overworld aren't developed enough from the previous game to call it "AMAZING!" or what have you.

Nonek · May 17, 2015

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.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Nonek

Hiro Protagonist · May 17, 2015

Terms like 'fit and proper person' and 'person of integrity' are so foreign to the SJWs and certain parts of the gaming media that it's no wonder they act like they do. Perhaps in time they can learn these terms and concepts about honesty and integrity but at the moment it's the hypocrisy they only know.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Hiro Protagonist

HoonDing · May 17, 2015

#GaiderGate

Meshugger · May 17, 2015

^huh?

Blarghagh · May 17, 2015

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?"

Hurlshort · May 17, 2015

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.

Nonek · May 17, 2015

While true that publications have always been biased, unfit for purpose and simple mouthpieces for publishers, this does not in any way mean that they should insult and demonise their audience, disdain any journalistic ethics or even think to preach at the consumers whom allow the industry to exist in the first place. Wanting a better industry, reviews and integrity is surely a good thing, and demanding a little respect and not to be insulted by those whom should be serving the public is also totally reasonable. It's also an easy to reach goal, disclosure, recusal and objective criticism are not burdensome or difficult to practice, and yet they still refuse to.

However consumers are already moving on to far more effective mediums such as Youtube and Twitch, and such people as Totalbiscuit are pioneering good standards for that industry which gives a lot of hope.

All in my opinion of course.

PK htiw klaw eriF · May 17, 2015

In my experience most people don't rely on them. I'm going to watch a youtuber play the game or get opinions from you people when I want information on a game.

The issue, in my opinion, is that publishers give these publications power when they condition bonuses on reaching a target review score. It's far easier to either discredit or force ethical behavior on a games news site than it would be to get publishers to change their accepted marketing methods.

Calax · May 17, 2015

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.

Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites