Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;46122446][url]http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/the-darker-side-of-gamergate[/url] Have you guys seen this? My dash is showing periodic tweets about this person[/QUOTE] Called it. Notable Conservatives getting involved in this have no care at all about the perceived problems, they just want a easily accessible platform to attack the left without repercussion. At least this guy fucked up turbo-hard.

I'm just shaking my head at some of the replies from other people who should fucking know better but apparently feel sad about the account being deactivated. Are you fucking kidding me? Twitter themselves should have shut it down weeks ago. The two idiots who ran it did nothing but spread toxicity. And you feel sorry about it being deactivated? Are you kidding me? THIS IS WHY NOBODY TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46120800]I am honestly absolutely fucking tired of certain people around here, mostly from ITNN. They keep parroting the same shit, day in and day out about it. They get proved demonstrably wrong, and yet they use the same strawmans and same lies that have been disproved. They ignore whatever doesn't fit the narrative set up by the industry because it gives them something to lord over others. That's the reality of why many of these white knights are so vitriolic and headstrong about it. Sure some just want to get their dicks wet, but I'd argue the majority are just in it for the simple reason that it gives them an ivory fucking tower to stand in. They want to look down on others and go "We're the real progressives! We're the cultured, educated ones! [I]We're[/I] the [I]good[/I] guys." That's all it fucking is. Frankly, the best chance at blowing that open is probably Reimu, so I'm hoping he can get that out with his work before long. Because before too long I'm going to blow my lid and tear someone's head off around here. I'm almost out of peace and tranquility. Frankly I feel I've been far more peaceful in this whole thing than I should have been since the beginning.[/QUOTE] Didn't want to announce this beforehand, but: a feminist publication is publishing a 2nd edition of my original twitlong. They also want to cover the abuse videos. I don't think this is going to go away any time soon, I think a lot of people are fed up with the bullshit that happens in online spheres. I know whether GG goes on or dies, it's something I'm going to start actively fighting against. When I saw the trans community on tumblr turn sour, that was enough for me. But seeing Zoe Quinn get enabled and supported by SJ folks was when I knew I had to speak out against this, because ZQ is a microcosm for every other fucking time an abuser gets enabled in SJ. I think people legitimately don't realize the collateral damage they are doing. As you said, it's about that ivory tower - seeming on the "right side of history," instead of laying down your Ally Pitchforks(tm) and actually [b]listening[/b] to the people that are struggling in your community. [editline]1st October 2014[/editline] Thanks though, I'm really honored by how supportive FP has been of me during all this. Y'all are lovely

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46120800]Frankly I feel I've been far more peaceful in this whole thing than I should have been since the beginning.[/QUOTE] I sometimes feel this way but in the end I'm glad that GG has kept its cool. Still, I'd be lying if I didn't want to take a giant shit on these crazies. [QUOTE=Reimu;46122928]Didn't want to announce this beforehand, but: a feminist publication is publishing a 2nd edition of my original twitlong. They also want to cover the abuse videos. I don't think this is going to go away any time soon, I think a lot of people are fed up with the bullshit that happens in online spheres. I know whether GG goes on or dies, it's something I'm going to start actively fighting against. When I saw the trans community on tumblr turn sour, that was enough for me. But seeing Zoe Quinn get enabled and supported by SJ folks was when I knew I had to speak out against this, because ZQ is a microcosm for every other fucking time an abuser gets enabled in SJ. I think people legitimately don't realize the collateral damage they are doing. As you said, it's about that ivory tower - seeming on the "right side of history," instead of laying down your Ally Pitchforks(tm) and actually [B]listening[/B] to the people that are struggling in your community. [editline]1st October 2014[/editline] Thanks though, I'm really honored by how supportive FP has been of me during all this. Y'all are lovely[/QUOTE] I think the hilarious irony of GamerGate is that it has in fact made me (and I imagine plenty of others) more sensitive to other people. Through the discussions we have here and (especially) the things you post, I've learned a lot. But the thing is (and this is what SJWs don't understand) we got to do it in our own way and on our own terms. You can't force people to think a certain way: they have to see it on their own, and I think you do a fantastic job of presenting information without poisoning it. On a mostly unrelated note someone has been attempting to access my Twitter account. Not sure why they'd bother with me, I have 100 tweets and 4 followers. But hey, if it is some SJW they aren't exactly known for being rational.

[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;46121747]It's pretty funny that people wanted the RPS News Node bot back, and after this lid blew open, they want it gone.[/QUOTE] If we got rid of news bots for every time someone said "Can we get rid of this bot yet" we would have no news node. There are RPS threads in there right now with tons of winners and people agreeing and talking about the thread article. If you don't like RPS don't read it. I don't read ShackNews articles because of their shitty video player. [QUOTE=Fangz;46122775]Totalbiscuit is wrecking a a SJW (David Doyle) calling for censorship at the moment: [URL]https://www.twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/517319999263113217[/URL][/QUOTE] I'm just going to point out that TB completely overlooks the entirely valid and reasonable point that Patreon funding doesn't equal free speech. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46120800]I am honestly absolutely fucking tired of certain people around here, mostly from ITNN. They keep parroting the same shit, day in and day out about it. They get proved demonstrably wrong, and yet they use the same strawmans and same lies that have been disproved. They ignore whatever doesn't fit the narrative set up by the industry because it gives them something to lord over others. That's the reality of why many of these white knights are so vitriolic and headstrong about it. Sure some just want to get their dicks wet, but I'd argue the majority are just in it for the simple reason that it gives them an ivory fucking tower to stand in. They want to look down on others and go "We're the real progressives! We're the cultured, educated ones! [I]We're[/I] the [I]good[/I] guys." That's all it fucking is. Frankly, the best chance at blowing that open is probably Reimu, so I'm hoping he can get that out with his work before long. Because before too long I'm going to blow my lid and tear someone's head off around here. I'm almost out of peace and tranquility. Frankly I feel I've been far more peaceful in this whole thing than I should have been since the beginning.[/QUOTE] You know Zedacon, if you didn't want to talk about Gone Home you didn't have to post in that thread. Or, hell, if you just got tired of the discussion you could have silently bowed out and the thread would have died, which it did. You don't have to become upset and run to the residential #GamerGate thread to complain about people who were having a pretty reasonable discussion about objectivity vs subjectivity in art and criticism. For all the people giving this post hearts, please go look at that thread and tell me how much vitriol you see.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46123375]You know Zedacon, if you didn't want to talk about Gone Home you didn't have to post in that thread. Or, hell, if you just got tired of the discussion you could have silently bowed out and the thread would have died, which it did. You don't have to become upset and run to the residential #GamerGate thread to complain about people who were having a pretty reasonable discussion about objectivity vs subjectivity in art and criticism. For all the people giving this post hearts, please go look at that thread and tell me how much vitriol you see.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about the S.EXE one? That discussion was pretty tame compared to the direction it could have gone.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46123375]You know Zedacon, if you didn't want to talk about Gone Home you didn't have to post in that thread. Or, hell, if you just got tired of the discussion you could have silently bowed out and the thread would have died, which it did. You don't have to become upset and run to the residential #GamerGate thread to complain about people who were having a pretty reasonable discussion about objectivity vs subjectivity in art and criticism. For all the people giving this post hearts, please go look at that thread and tell me how much vitriol you see.[/QUOTE] I saw a lot of people completely missing the point of what he was trying to say, like Zeke and Sigma. Sigma shifts goalposts so much he's practically ripped them from the ground and is running with them in his arms.

[QUOTE=Reimu;46123440]Are you talking about the S.EXE one? That discussion was pretty tame compared to the direction it could have gone.[/QUOTE] Atleast the people who is complaining about actually replied to him and gave him the chance to bounce ideas off them, even if it may have been futile; nobody seems to understand what he means when he asks for objectivity. Arguing with ivory tower types can be frustrating, but atleast they aren't going down the thread ignoring the replies and rating everyone they disagree with dumb, and everyone they agree with agree or winner.

Also I think "objective" is the wrong word. We basically want higher journalistic standards that engage in nuanced critique while simultaneously accounting for (and reigning in) bias without being heavy-handed. Most publications are terrible at that. Either personal bias crosses the line, or there is absolutely zero nuanced critique. [QUOTE=Banned?;46123476]I saw a lot of people completely missing the point of what he was trying to say, like Zeke and Sigma. Sigma shifts goalposts so much he's practically ripped them from the ground and is running with them in his arms.[/QUOTE] In general the conversation was much, much better than half the Internet's on Gone Home. It was a minor disagreement on gaming journalism, that, at best, was slightly heated. Not perfect, but could have been worse!

[QUOTE=Banned?;46123476]I saw a lot of people completely missing the point of what he was trying to say, like Zeke and Sigma. Sigma shifts goalposts so much he's practically ripped them from the ground and is running with them in his arms.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone got what Zedacon said though. None of the several people who agreed with him actually posted. Could it not be possible that he was explaining his argument poorly? From what I gathered a review should be objective, and take place from an area without bias. No one disagreed with this. The disagreement came from whether subjectivity at all has a room in a review. Personally I think a good review is an objective analysis combined with subjective interpretation.

[QUOTE=Fangz;46122775]Totalbiscuit is wrecking a a SJW (David Doyle) calling for censorship at the moment: [url]https://www.twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/517319999263113217[/url][/QUOTE] I don't get it. Cutting off funding is asshole-ish but it's not censorship in the slightest. Or am I missing the point of this "wreckage"?

[QUOTE=Reimu;46123509] Also I think "objective" is the wrong word. We basically want higher journalistic standards that engage in nuanced critique while simultaneously accounting for (and reigning in) bias without being heavy-handed. Most publications are terrible at that. Either personal bias crosses the line, or there is absolutely zero nuanced critique.[/QUOTE] If this is indeed what he means then that seems reasonable and yes, objective is a terrible substitute for that.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46123514]The disagreement came from whether subjectivity at all has a room in a review. Personally I think a good review is an objective analysis combined with subjective interpretation.[/QUOTE] I think this is true, and this is what I personally want to see in a review. Subjectivity is just a hot button issue right now. I think that's what most gamers want and I think that's what GG, as a whole, wants in video gaming. However, that said, I think some (albeit a very small number of) people legitimately don't want subjectivity at all. They just want a technical review of the game that describes what you can do and whether it executes well. Kind of like a "book review" sidebar, which just talks about what the book does and not the reviewer's impression or take.

The problem with a completely objective review would be that, in order to reach a conclusion, a series of guidelines for what makes a certain type of game good would have to exist, but that quite obviously doesn't. Even if it did you'd run into the problem of having games with completely new mechanics not covered by said guidelines. Subjectivity in reviews isn't a preference, it's a necessity. Without it, video game reviews simply wouldn't exist.

I think the word you're looking for is "impersonal".

[QUOTE=Manibogi;46123613]The problem with a completely objective review would be that, in order to reach a conclusion, a series of guidelines for what makes a certain type of game good would have to exist, but that quite obviously doesn't. Even if it did you'd run into the problem of having games with completely new mechanics not covered by said guidelines. Subjectivity in reviews isn't a preference, it's a necessity. Without it, video game reviews simply wouldn't exist.[/QUOTE] Well an objective review would basically be: [quote]Hotline Miami is a top-down beat-'em-up. The player assumes the role of Jacket, a young man who kills Russian mobsters after receiving strange phone calls. The game uses top-down action mechanics and a wide range of melee and ranged weapons in order to conduct brutal murders. If a player dies, they are given an infinite amount of restarts, with checkpoints after clearing each floor. The game also features an intricate narrative which explores the role of philosophy and player action in a postmodern light. The game can be bought for $10 on Steam and console markets.[/quote] That's very rough, but that's literally an objective review. Most people don't want that, but not all. There's a reason why book review descriptions are still published in magazines - some people literally want a summary. Just a little description of what happens and what you can do.

sorry i been gone for a bit, i took my first real break from gamergate in a month Forza horizon 2 is amazing. it also has one of my [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1cHm9NjIe0"]favorite intros ever[/URL] besides that: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/h5WqpM1.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Reimu;46123665]Well an objective review would basically be: That's very rough, but that's literally an objective review. Most people don't want that, but not all. There's a reason why book review descriptions are still published in magazines - some people literally want a summary. Just a little description of what happens and what you can do.[/QUOTE] A review is a critical evaluation, not a summary. As such it has to reach some sort of verdict/conclusion, and in order to do so the reviewer's subjective opinions must be taken into account.

Obviously that's not what GG wants, they're using the wrong words to describe a clamping down on subjectivity. But, still, fully objective overviews of art are still published in magazines and etc. [editline]1st October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Manibogi;46123724]A review is a critical evaluation, not a summary. As such it has to reach some sort of verdict/conclusion, and in order to do so the reviewer's subjective opinions must be taken into account.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. A review can also be nothing more than a description with summary provided by the writer. In fact, on a professional level, this is relatively common. In academia, that's what we call a Literature Review. It depends on each publication and the goals/aims of the writer. Again, most people [i]don't[/i] want that. But some people legitimately want a barebones description of the game and gameplay, not unlike the synopsis sections on Wikipedia. In fact, I would say a lot of people use Wikipedia as a resource to decide on whether they should buy/play a video game.

this youtuber named eventstatus talks about gg (along with various other recent topics that arnt related to gg) [video=youtube;nVoRnW8u19I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVoRnW8u19I[/video]

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46122800]Called it. Notable Conservatives getting involved in this have no care at all about the perceived problems, they just want a easily accessible platform to attack the left without repercussion. At least this guy fucked up turbo-hard.[/QUOTE] I'm just shocked that people are getting that defensive about their #basedMilo, who's made a living criticising other reporters I think they forget that he's ostensibly a journalist like everyone else, and a completely fair target to question

ever since this started the only time this whole debacle has been even remotely mentioned regarding the site i work for was when i brought it up with a co-worker. i dont think we have any plans on writing an article or such on gamergate, zoe or anyone else because its not relevant. we just want to stick to writing about games, and so far thats gone really well. its just a shame that our site isnt as big as IGN or Gamespot, and its in swedish so nobody really notices us hopefully ill get to work on an english site in a near future and get the type of journalism you guys want; as unbiased as can be, with proper information and no stupid clickbait farticles [editline]1st October 2014[/editline] wait this implies i dont already act like a decent journalist but w/e you know what i mean

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46121757]That may be different groups. Actually, it's pretty likely.[/QUOTE] Nope. While there were super rabid sanius and antisanius groups arguing pro and con, all you have to is go back a couple of years and voila a rather sudden and obvious shift into white knighting and clickbait articles. People wanted RPS gone because the signs they were bought and paid are cartoonishly obvious, pretty much the same thing that happened to the supposedly hard core and tough as nails eurogamer, a rag which literally folded into payola after one article got 86'd, as opposed to RPS's more gradual slide into hysterical over-reporting. This isn't just about SJW insulation and social engineering, it's also about a concerted effort of collusion and nepotism that's been going for far longer then "since 2009". Gaming journalism as an industry/platform has been broken for a long time, and the social engineering attempt is simply the breakout issue. I've been thinking of putting up a video, probably will, considering how clueless most people seem to be on exactly how pervasive this has been and for how long. It's more resemblant of political journalism of the 1920's than it is of journalism of the 2020's.

[QUOTE=LeonS;46124583]ever since this started the only time this whole debacle has been even remotely mentioned regarding the site i work for was when i brought it up with a co-worker. i dont think we have any plans on writing an article or such on gamergate, zoe or anyone else because its not relevant. we just want to stick to writing about games, and so far thats gone really well. its just a shame that our site isnt as big as IGN or Gamespot, and its in swedish so nobody really notices us hopefully ill get to work on an english site in a near future and get the type of journalism you guys want; as unbiased as can be, with proper information and no stupid clickbait farticles [editline]1st October 2014[/editline] wait this implies i dont already act like a decent journalist but w/e you know what i mean[/QUOTE] What's your site?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46123375]If we got rid of news bots for every time someone said "Can we get rid of this bot yet" we would have no news node. There are RPS threads in there right now with tons of winners and people agreeing and talking about the thread article. If you don't like RPS don't read it. I don't read ShackNews articles because of their shitty video player. I'm just going to point out that TB completely overlooks the entirely valid and reasonable point that Patreon funding doesn't equal free speech. You know Zedacon, if you didn't want to talk about Gone Home you didn't have to post in that thread. Or, hell, if you just got tired of the discussion you could have silently bowed out and the thread would have died, which it did. You don't have to become upset and run to the residential #GamerGate thread to complain about people who were having a pretty reasonable discussion about objectivity vs subjectivity in art and criticism. For all the people giving this post hearts, please go look at that thread and tell me how much vitriol you see.[/QUOTE] It was pretty clear from that thread that if you don't like "Gone Home" for any reason, you were actually hating it because you're a misogynist.

[QUOTE=27X;46125047]Nope. While there were super rabid sanius and anitsanius groups arguing pro and con, all you have to is go back a couple of years and voila a rather sudden and obvious shift into white knighting and clickbait articles. People wanted RPS gone because the signs they were bought and paid are cartoonishly obvious, pretty much the same thing that happened to the supposedly hard core and tough as nails eurogamer, a rag wh This isn't just about SJW insulation and social engineering, it's also about a concerted effort of collusion and nepotism that's been going for far longer then "since 2009". Gaming journalism as an industry/platform has been broken for a long time, and the social engineering attempt is simply the breakout issue. I've been thinking of putting up a video, probably will, considering how clueless most people seem to be on exactly how pervasive this has been and for how long. It's more resemblant of political journalism of the 1920's than it is of journalism of the 2020's.[/QUOTE] I'd watch that.

[QUOTE=Manibogi;46123518]I don't get it. Cutting off funding is asshole-ish but it's not censorship in the slightest. Or am I missing the point of this "wreckage"?[/QUOTE] the idea here was that they were trying to convince patreon to cancel their campaign and shut them down. it's one thing to not fund something or advise other not to, it's another to attempt to have a third party shut the tools they are using off because you dont like them or disagree with their message.

[QUOTE=Manibogi;46123518]I don't get it. Cutting off funding is asshole-ish but it's not censorship in the slightest. Or am I missing the point of this "wreckage"?[/QUOTE] This is in a US context. There [I]everything[/I] is free speech, including private funding of politicians etc. Seriously though, apparently that was the reason for not regulating political donations or something. In any case, Patreon is a private corporation. As long as there's no laws being broken anything can be hosted on the site. It's the funders decision whether they want to give money without (significant) personal returns after all, and that really is something that shouldn't be regulated. It's property law, and property law under normal circumstances is pretty much just "you can't steal stuff" and that's it. Patreon may even be unable to shut down the project due to contractual obligations, but I haven't read their terms of service so I don't know. In the EU they probably wouldn't be able to, but in the US even Paypal wasn't a bank last time I checked and could do whatever they please.

I think we want reviews that will represent what the typical gamers' reaction would be. If the controls are janky, then that's a good thing to say. If there are homophobic undertones, that's a good thing to say. It's not good to make a big deal out of either, and then judge the whole game on that single thing you didn't like. Gamers aren't buying propaganda. They're buying games. I've heard someone say this before, but Roger Ebert was a great film critic because he understood the producers' intentions and the market audience, rather than being a pretentious shit all the time. No, the new blockbuster isn't going to measure up against Citizen Kane, but he knew a good blockbuster when he saw it. That's why anyone looking to watch any movie could relate to his reviews.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46125142]It was pretty clear from that thread that if you don't like "Gone Home" for any reason, you were actually hating it because you're a misogynist.[/QUOTE] Examples? I didn't pick up on that at all.