Quote from: JRT;793422The Bayonetta review he's talking about is not from Kotaku (which has a scoreless review system), but Polygon.

Whoops, my bad.

QuoteAnd here's a clear statement on Gamegate from Polygon.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor

And look at that, Comments are closed!

QuoteWhat's starting to bug me from the GamerGate side of things is that some of the arguments seem to be unclear.  There are two major factions to GG, the anti-feminist side, and the side that wants to root out "corruption in the gaming journalism".  The former faction is pretty clear. The latter faction seems to be very fuzzy.  

Honestly, I don't think that's all that odd in a grassroots movement.
There is an advantage of "focusing the message" by having leaders, but it also gives the opposition a target to character assassinate. And it's not like someone's jumped up to say "I represent the Game Journalist Media!" either...

QuoteIt seems that every time criticism of GG comes up, people assume that the reporter "is corrupt", which is an argument you see political groups making when they don't like the reporting.

It's hard not to assume the worst, when your getting called names (Misogynist/Corrupt) by the other side.

QuotePlus, GG has appeared to ignore things like the recent controversy over Shadow of Mordor, which apparently had some deals going with YouTube folks.

And who broke that story? Totalbiscuit, a YouTube reviewer who is pro-GG.
Polygon ran an outrage article, on how they used the "sneak up and kill a baddie" mechanic, to get a kiss in the Tutorial.

QuoteHonestly, it seems the only things I hear GG doing is either attacking the "big three" feminist targets that have been involved, or swarming the comments articles of anything critical of GG.

It's hard to address corruption and ethics in gaming journalism when:
1) The media does not want to acknowledge your complaint.
2) The media does not want to engage you.
3) The media paints you as a misogynistic hate group.

EDIT: and the last one is the most damning one; they've well and truly painted themselves into a corner with it. They CAN NOT engage Pro-GG at this point, after making that statement, without 1) admitting they lied and we never were a misogynistic hate group, or 2) they're willing to sit down and talk with a misogynistic hate group, which will get them eviscerated by the section of radical feminism they've brought in.

QuoteBut what's really troubling are the campaigns to get advertisers off sites.  How is that helping the integrity of the Journalists?!  First of all, this smacks of trying to shut down opinions they don't like, which is the antithesis of journalism and free speech.  Secondly, before all this craziness regarding the pro/anti feminist stuff came up--most people were concerned that game companies were too tight with ADVERTISERS.  So basically, GG is trying to make what little independence there is in the PR-cozy gaming area even MORE dependent on advertisers?!  Does anybody see how this is going to INCREASE the problem, not decrease it?  

1) Revealing potential Conflict of Interests and refusing Payola/bribes is a professional ethics decision. While I'm willing to admit being paid piss poor rates for writing makes bribery more attractive, it still comes down to an ethical decision. I'm sure there's more than a few McDonalds workers that might put a "little something extra" in your food, for the right price. Would it be ethical for them to do so?
2) No, honestly, we want the corrupt websites to go out of business, and funnel advertisers to those who practice honest journalism. I don't just say "Gamasutra is ebil!" in my e-mails; I list out my grievances, tell them I will no longer patron , and if they want to reach me with their advertisements, I can be found at . The advertisers can make their own decision from there.

QuoteAnd the targets of this are troubling.  Gamasutra is not really a news site but it's more a group of developer blogs, which is about 100% opinion.

Really?
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php
Huh. The link worked just fine for me. No passwords or special access required.
I have to assume the article was meant for anyone and everyone to read.

QuoteSo, let's pull ads for them because one person wrote an article we didn't like.

No. Plenty of people have written articles I did not like.
Leigh Alexander specifically calls those on the other side of the debate out:

QuoteThese obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.

Pretty obviously, she is wrong. And hell, if she was willing to re-engage, clarifying her position and admit she maybe misunderstood or maligned the opposition's viewpoint, a dialogue could start. But she doesn't. She keeps doubling down on the misogynerd comments. I feel no need to support such a person, and feel no remorse for letting the advertisers currently supporting her know that, and where they can reach me, in e-mails.

QuoteLet's go after Polygon because one guy disliked Bayonetta, and gave his honest opinion.  Why should a review have to "toe the line" and not find stuff distasteful.  A game could rub me the wrong way because it's got flashy anime-combat, it could be overtly violent, the plot could be dumb, etc.  Why should critics be forced to shut up about that kind of thing.  People wouldn't expect a movie reviewer to not comment about things they didn't like!

That would be fine, if it wasn't his only complaint.
Literally, he praises the game otherwise throughout, saying it's an overall improvement over the original. His sole critique is how she's dressed, and the game's camera placement, that leads to "over-sexualization" in his opinion.

It should be noted, Polygon has also changed it's review score, when it has suited them:
http://slumz.boxden.com/f13/polygon-changes-drive-club-review-from-7-5-to-5-a-2132530/
http://www.giantbomb.com/battlefield-4/3030-39035/forums/polygon-changes-their-review-score-bf4-drops-from--1462715/

And, it not like Polygon has ever rated an awesome game, as average before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_Us#Critical_reception
 

QuoteThat's why it's hard for me to accept that GG is about rooting out journalist corruption, but rather it's more about politics.  I think the group should split because there's so many decentralized views that they get confused.

It's hard to escape politics, when people are trying to inject a socio-politic agenda into your arena.

And you know, abortion and climate control are two very different issues. I think the Democratic/Republican party should split in two, so these issues don't get confused...

Quote from: woodsmoke;793436As for the ethics vs ideology divide, the best I can figure as to why some are maintaining GG has nothing to do with politics or feminism is they don't want gaming to get involved in and potentially weighed down by a larger cultural conflict.

Specifically, "Hey SJW's, stop forming Cabals to take over our hobby, thanks."

Anti-SJW is not anti-Feminism.

Quote from: Novastar;793441And look at that, Comments are closed!

They have one comment that leads to the forum.  Seems to be a good conversation there.

Quote from: Novastar;7934412) No, honestly, we want the corrupt websites to go out of business, and funnel advertisers to those who practice honest journalism. I don't just say "Gamasutra is ebil!" in my e-mails; I list out my grievances, tell them I will no longer patron , and if they want to reach me with their advertisements, I can be found at . The advertisers can make their own decision from there.

Actually, if you truly care about corruption, you'd just vote with your wallet.  By calling for a boycott, you are going beyond, you are actually working against the ethical standards you want by saying "hey, advertisers, bully these folks into complying with my side".  That's how I see it.

QuoteReally?
Huh. The link worked just fine for me. No passwords or special access required.
I have to assume the article was meant for anyone and everyone to read.

I did not say that it was a private site.  I said that Gamasutra is not a "news site", it is more akin to an op-ed site, since it's a collection of publicly accessible blogs by game creators and some enthusiasts.  And when it comes to op-ed pieces, by conduction a boycott, you're basically saying I want to punish an op-ed site simply because somebody there offended my feelings.  If you were truly into journalistic ethics, this should be troubling to you.  

QuoteThat would be fine, if it wasn't his only complaint.
Literally, he praises the game otherwise throughout, saying it's an overall improvement over the original. His sole critique is how she's dressed, and the game's camera placement, that leads to "over-sexualization" in his opinion.

You still haven't explained why a reviewer giving a lower score to a game because he feels there's gratuitous T&A shots is somehow some sort of ethical corruption.  Based on what I read, he feels the game is a bit exploitative and it turns him off to the overall experience.  How does this proof any sort of corruption?

Calling for an advertiser boycott because somebody gave a lower review is probably the antithesis of what you want for journalistic integrity or artistic judgement.  If another critic disliked the gratuitous blood in a game and decided to rate it a B- when the rest of the Internet gave it an A+, calling for a advertiser boycott is stupid and it only encourages more groupthink, more collusion, and actually tells advertisers yes, we want to punish people for criticizing your game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;793462Specifically, "Hey SJW's, stop forming Cabals to take over our hobby, thanks."

Anti-SJW is not anti-Feminism.

It's weird that this keeps coming up.  So far, there seems to be a demonization of a few individuals, and it's weird that people somehow think people like Anita and Brianna are somehow going to overnight ruin AAA games because they have opinions.  

If anything, I think there's a massive overreaction, and I suspect too many people fear--what, exactly?  That we might have more nuanced female characters in games?  That we might have games that aren't just aimed at the young single male?

Quote from: JRT;793463They have one comment that leads to the forum.  Seems to be a good conversation there.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there, m'thinks.

QuoteActually, if you truly care about corruption, you'd just vote with your wallet.  By calling for a boycott, you are going beyond, you are actually working against the ethical standards you want by saying "hey, advertisers, bully these folks into complying with my side".  That's how I see it.

I see it as announcing my intentions, bringing it up to the advertiser, and giving them a chance to react, if they want my patronage. Just taking off would be punishing the advertiser, for the publisher's comments.

And hell, if the publisher wants to print an apology (especially for that "Bring Back Bullying" bullshit), and make lasting changes to their policies, to keep me and advertisers from leaving, I consider that acceptable as well.

QuoteI did not say that it was a private site.  I said that Gamasutra is not a "news site", it is more akin to an op-ed site, since it's a collection of publicly accessible blogs by game creators and some enthusiasts.  And when it comes to op-ed pieces, by conduction a boycott, you're basically saying I want to punish an op-ed site simply because somebody there offended my feelings.  If you were truly into journalistic ethics, this should be troubling to you.

And as a publisher if you produce and distribute an op-ed, you own it. There was no disclaimer. It was written by "The Editor-At-Large", part of their professional staff.

And to be perfectly honest, the "Gamers are dead!" articles were ALL op-ed's, not news stories.
Spectacularly shitty ones, at that. It wasn't just biting the hand that feeds you, it was slapping your readership across the face and saying "Do I need to give you another?!?"

QuoteYou still haven't explained why a reviewer giving a lower score to a game because he feels there's gratuitous T&A shots is somehow some sort of ethical corruption.  

I don't believe I ever said it was.
I said he was pushing a narrative ("over-sexualization").

QuoteBased on what I read, he feels the game is a bit exploitative and it turns him off to the overall experience.  How does this proof any sort of corruption?

So, disliking a direction in art in the game (not saying the art is poor, or glitchy; just doesn't meet your artistic preferences), is worth downgrading a game 1.5 to 2 points, from your peers consensus?

Do I have anything definite? No, I'll grant you that.
But it does make it seem that, given the reasoning in the review, that Polygon is pushing an agenda.

QuoteCalling for an advertiser boycott because somebody gave a lower review is probably the antithesis of what you want for journalistic integrity or artistic judgement. If another critic disliked the gratuitous blood in a game and decided to rate it a B- when the rest of the Internet gave it an A+, calling for a advertiser boycott is stupid and it only encourages more groupthink, more collusion, and actually tells advertisers yes, we want to punish people for criticizing your game.

Well, it's a good thing I've never called for a boycott over a review.
I've only ever criticized it as an example of "agenda pushing".

There's plenty of other things from their staff (mostly Ben Kuchera), that make me want to boycott their website.

I can't see anything wrong with giving a game (Bayonetta) a lowish score and honestly saying this was because you disliked the over-sexualisation. People who don't share your preference can take that into account. Some people may then go buy it *because* you've drawn attention to the over-sexualisation.

Conspiring in the flurry of 'Gamers are Dead' articles, telling gamers they hate women, and such behaviour that shows general contempt for the audience that pays your salary, certainly looks worthy of a boycott to me. And there's certainly nothing wrong with telling advertisers this.

Gamers shouldn't have to put up with a game journalist class that despises gamers while taking their money. FWIW I don't expect SJWs to fund stuff they don't like, either, and if they were ever the oppressed class they claim to be or represent I'd say the same on their behalf. But a major feature of SJW activism is their constant dishonesty; they lie and distort constantly in service of their agenda - http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/21/From-Farage-to-Freud-how-the-cultural-Marxists-are-murdering-our-language/ - they're not honest actors, although they know how to fool many well-meaning left-liberals to take up arms on their behalf.

Quote from: Novastar;793485So, disliking a direction in art in the game (not saying the art is poor, or glitchy; just doesn't meet your artistic preferences), is worth downgrading a game 1.5 to 2 points, from your peers consensus?

Do I have anything definite? No, I'll grant you that.
But it does make it seem that, given the reasoning in the review, that Polygon is pushing an agenda.

I'm not a big video-gamer, but from reading the review and knowing my video-gamer friends, that weighting seems perfectly reasonable. For some of them, the art described would be a deal-breaker - they wouldn't be interested in playing the game at all. For some of them, they might play it, but the gratuitous T&A would significantly detract from their enjoyment. And some of them probably wouldn't be bothered.

Is it really so hard to believe that this genuinely detracts from some people's enjoyment? Do you truly believe that the reviewer doesn't mind the T&A art in the game, and instead he is lying about his enjoyment solely to promote an agenda?

Seriously, imagine in your head for a minute if you were playing a game where there was a male lead character whose clothes kept coming off and he stood in various sexual poses. Would that make any difference in how you enjoyed the game? I know for many players, that would make a significant difference.

Quote from: JRT;793422What's starting to bug me from the GamerGate side of things is that some of the arguments seem to be unclear.  There are two major factions to GG, the anti-feminist side, and the side that wants to root out "corruption in the gaming journalism".  The former faction is pretty clear. The latter faction seems to be very fuzzy.

You could say the same about feminism:

http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/100468222394/anti-feminism-pro-equality-elizabeththorne

Doesnt that bug you? Or is feminism exempt from that standard?

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2014/10/22/things-that-are-not-consistent-noh/

Quote from: JRT;793463Actually, if you truly care about corruption, you'd just vote with your wallet.  By calling for a boycott, you are going beyond, you are actually working against the ethical standards you want by saying "hey, advertisers, bully these folks into complying with my side".  That's how I see it.

None of those media outlets are entitled to sponsor's money, anymore than the 'nappy headed ho' idiot or Rush Limbaugh are.

Quote from: TristramEvans;793282Um, doesnt just about every group of professionals have private mailing lists where they dont have to deal with fanboys? I mean, comics professionals have several, theres at least one professional authors one that I know of, I assume hundreds more. Why is this a big deal?


In addition, anyone who thinks that gaming journalists are actually "journalists" in an investigative-reporting, non-biased way is kinda deluding themselves. Its like thinking White Dwarf is a real magazine, not just a monthly catalogue. These people are advertising opinions, nothing more. there's no "stories" in gaming journalism, just a bunch of promotions for games a reviewer likes, and complaints about games they don't. I don't want unbiased reviews. I remember when there was this big call for unbiased rpg reviews at RPGnet (back when it was still about RPGs), and I read these reviews that went to great pains to be unbiased, and without fail, 100% of the time, these were the most boring, pointless reviews on the planet. If I read someone's review I want thier personal opinion, no holds barred. I dont have to agree with an opinion to find it entertaining.

That's not exactly the problem. The problem as I see and understand it, is that the opinions are far too heavily biased by the money and access deals. Let me put this in a practical perspective:

I have collected a certain gaming magazine from a year 2000 to about a year 2003, then got more copies of them when my buddy was getting married, so now I collect all monthly copies from 2000 to 2006. Back then, it was usual to see a certain amount of games panned or simply rated mediocre, given 5 or 6 out of 10 when they deserved to be named such. Tens were very rare, even nines were happening about once per magazine tops.

I pick up the same magazine today. All AAA titles have at least 8+ rating, in fact I can't find a single game rated underneath 7. The best show is the FIFA review - back in the day, FIFA's scores were very uneven, with certain editions being panned for being the same game with slightly refreshed graphics. Now, I actually take 4 magazines - one from year 2003, one from 2004, one from 2012 and from 2013 and suddenly, everyone's okay with FIFA in the last two ones, despite it being, well, practically the same game.

And you know, that's the problem - people want to read those opinions to see if the game's playable or not. And that's harder and harder to find, especially when everyone wants to play Serious Art Critic and forgets that if you want to discuss games as arts, gameplay is a crucial part of what actually districts games.

Quote from: Novastar;793382If it's an information item only type of thread ("Hey! George Perez's art on is awesome!" or "George Perez is going to start drawing for