GamerGate's Image Problem

[Shadowalker]

1. People who are journalists for Entertainment Industry X should ideally be at least cordial with fans of that Entertainment Industry. It's not good for an entertainment industry's journalists and the same entertainment industry's fans to hate each other.

The theory is a sound one, but in practice, the negativity that comes with being in the spotlight can make one jaded.

Yes, but getting some critical or negative attention from *some* of the fans in the entertainment industry you're covering doesn't mean it's acceptable to bash *all* of them in reply to that. Attacking "gamers" in general is like attacking "sports enthusiasts" in general. If 10 different sports journalists writing for a variety of pro sports magazines all wrote "sports enthusiasts are dead", what do you think the response would be from sports enthusiasts?

3. The primary purpose of entertainment is to be entertaining. It's nice if entertainment can also contain positive pro-social ideas and/or be thought-provoking, but the primary measure of entertainment should be how much fun people get out of it. That should definitely be reflected in entertainment reviews.

And if the subject matter effects the fun factor what then? And why should a review withhold certain opinions?

I never said it should. I implied that the *primary* focus should be on entertainment value. In the case of video game reviewers, that would mean focusing on how enjoyable the game mechanics and controls made the game to play, how much the visuals and sounds contributed to the enjoyment of the game, and (where applicable) how effective the game's narrative and characters were in engaging/entertaining the reviewer. If there were certain elements of the game that were offensive, or even just problematic, to the reviewer, then sure, mention it. Maybe take a point or 2 off the game when you rate it. But harshly bashing an otherwise well-made game just because a particular element or two offended you does not make for a good video game review, in my opinion.

4. There should be a clear wall of separation between reporter and report subject. Perfect objectivity may not be possible, but that doesn't mean that objectivity shouldn't be aimed for in news reports.

But this is the problem, define "separation"?

MailOrderClone's reply here was pretty good, I felt. So I concur with his thoughts.

I get the impression that for many GG supporters, this is about stopping the politization of video games. Which, I think, is something that most gamers would agree with.

That really depends on what you mean.

Well let me clarify then. I don't consider "politization" to be briefly mentioning how your political viewpoints impacts on your experience with a particular game. What I do consider "politization" is putting those political viewpoints ahead of *everything* else (i.e. quality of the game mechanics, quality of the art design, quality of the BGM and sound effects, etc...) when evaluating a game.

Ideally, a video game reviewer should be trying to be as helpful as possible to people considering buying the game. And that means exploring every major element of the game, and focusing mostly on things that all (or at least most) gamers care about, like game mechanics, visual quality, audio quality, etc... If something offends the reviewer, then by all means, mention it, because the reviewer probably isn't the only person that would be put off by that. But by the same token, many other people may not care about that particular element, and as consumers, it's up to them whether or not they care about whatever it is that offends a reviewer.

The recent Tropica 5 review that has many GG supporters upset is a clear example of this. The reviewer felt bad playing the game because of the role the game has you play. It's fine if that gets a mention, but the reviewer ought to remember that loads of video game players are comfortable playing as "the bad guy" in video games. So just because a game seemingly makes you do that isn't a good enough reason, in my view at least, to come down harshly on a game.

 

[aliengmr]

4. There should be a clear wall of separation between reporter and report subject. Perfect objectivity may not be possible, but that doesn't mean that objectivity shouldn't be aimed for in news reports.

But this is the problem, define "separation"? Its really hard to define since friendships can produce access, which can lead to more depth in reporting. Also trying to define the boundary in which bias may or may not occur is hard to do.

And who is to say one cannot be critical of a friend's work? Personally I think unbiased critique is more important than friendship to an artist. The worst thing for an artist is telling them what they want to hear, as they may be unable to see the differences between good and bad critique. In art critique is everything, its as important as the piece itself.

As for objectivity, that's very tough to do as reviews are viewed for their subjectivity.

I would suggest transparency here. If a journalist does have ties to a developer or a publisher and they are either unable or unwilling to recuse themselves from the subject, then it's as simple as making your relationship publicly known. "I have such high hopes for this developer's game that I personally put my own money behind it, but that it no way means that it is perfect. Here are a few places where I hope that they improve going forward." Just for example. There are a myriad of ways that a journalist can address this particular ethical minefield directly and honestly, without obfuscating it in any way.

I agree, and intended to say that I preferred transparency to rules governing one's "contacts". Just forgot to include it.

 

[aliengmr]

snip

As reviews go, the problem is there is no uniform way to review games. A set of standards might be an idea. As it is though people are free to make whatever judgment they want to make. As I said before, what the development side decides to do with regards to Metacritic is their problem and should be addressed. Given that, I say a reviewer has a right to score the game however they want and those that disagree can go elsewhere. That's not to say I don't think its shallow to mark games down for nit picky reasons, but ultimately it is up to the reviewer.

That said, this is a bit of a two-way street. In so far as gamers ought to be far less defensive about the games they love. In fact we could all be a lot less hyper emotional games in general. A reviewer marking a game you love down for anything isn't the end of the world and so in my opinion isn't really something that needs to be reformed.

As for the "politics" of the movement and games I'd feel a lot better if it was just left alone. People are entitled to opinions and should be allow to express those opinions in the games they make and the articles they write. This seems to run contrary to what parts of GG believe. But the anti-feminist rhetoric fuels the anger that keeps that part alive. The unfortunate result of a movement fueled by anger is its outlook tends to drift a lot. It worries me a lot. If its a choice between feminist critique and some mysterious option that opposes such critique, I choose feminist critique. At least I can see what Anita Sarkeesian is commenting on and agree or disagree when I feel like it. And I'm not opposed to developers using her suggestions if they wish either.

In the end I prefer thinking for myself, and simply cannot support a movement in which a good part of its intentions are varied and largely emotional.

Overall though I think you have good suggestions that I don't entirely disagree with.

 

[Shadowalker]

snip

As reviews go, the problem is there is no uniform way to review games. A set of standards might be an idea. As it is though people are free to make whatever judgment they want to make. As I said before, what the development side decides to do with regards to Metacritic is their problem and should be addressed. Given that, I say a reviewer has a right to score the game however they want and those that disagree can go elsewhere. That's not to say I don't think its shallow to mark games down for nit picky reasons, but ultimately it is up to the reviewer.

In theory, I get your perspective. It's basically the old "If you don't like it, just change the channel" argument. Which is a good argument insofar as there's actually another channel to change to.

But that's the problem (or potential problem) that I think some GG supporters are seeing in those 10 "Gamers are Dead" articles and what Milo revealed about the Game Journalist mailing list. If Game journalists are operating behind the scenes to discuss ways to promote a particular political agenda in their articles and video game reviews, and if they are in fact successful in consistently pushing that through a wide spectrum of major gaming sites, then where does your average gamer go to if they just want a good, solid, no-frills, minimal-politics review of an upcoming game?

I don't have a problem with gamers who care a lot about certain political issues being able to find game reviews by people who share their political viewpoints. In fact, that's probably a good thing. It's good for gamers to have a trusted source of game review from someone who shares their tastes and concerns. But it's for that very same reason that I think that gamers who *don't* particularly care about these sorts of political concerns should be able to similarly get game reviews from people who share *their* tastes and (lack of) concerns. And the impression I get from the "Gamers are Dead" articles is that the people who wrote them are actively against the more apolitical (or libertarian or conservative) gamers that just want to enjoy video gaming on their own terms. So if we want a diverse range of gaming journalist/review sites, that can be of good practical use to most gamers, it's probably necessary to push back against some of the ideas put forward in the "Gamers are Dead" articles.


As for Anita Sarkeesian, I honestly consider her largely separate from what I'm discussing here. To her credit, she seems fairly upfront about what her videos are criticizing. She's speaking clearly and directly to people who care about the particular feminist issues she raises in her videos. Which is different than somebody writing a review for a particular video game for a general gaming audience.

 

[aliengmr]

snip

As reviews go, the problem is there is no uniform way to review games. A set of standards might be an idea. As it is though people are free to make whatever judgment they want to make. As I said before, what the development side decides to do with regards to Metacritic is their problem and should be addressed. Given that, I say a reviewer has a right to score the game however they want and those that disagree can go elsewhere. That's not to say I don't think its shallow to mark games down for nit picky reasons, but ultimately it is up to the reviewer.

In theory, I get your perspective. It's basically the old "If you don't like it, just change the channel" argument. Which is a good argument insofar as there's actually another channel to change to.

But that's the problem (or potential problem) that I think some GG supporters are seeing in those 10 "Gamers are Dead" articles and what Milo revealed about the Game Journalist mailing list. If Game journalists are operating behind the scenes to discuss ways to promote a particular political agenda in their articles and video game reviews, and if they are in fact successful in consistently pushing that through a wide spectrum of major gaming sites, then where does your average gamer go to if they just want a good, solid, no-frills, minimal-politics review of an upcoming game?

I don't have a problem with gamers who care a lot about certain political issues being able to find game reviews by people who share their political viewpoints. In fact, that's probably a good thing. It's good for gamers to have a trusted source of game review from someone who shares their tastes and concerns. But it's for that very same reason that I think that gamers who *don't* particularly care about these sorts of political concerns should be able to similarly get game reviews from people who share *their* tastes and (lack of) concerns. And the impression I get from the "Gamers are Dead" articles is that the people who wrote them are actively against the more apolitical (or libertarian or conservative) gamers that just want to enjoy video gaming on their own terms. So if we want a diverse range of gaming journalist/review sites, that can be of good practical use to most gamers, it's probably necessary to push back against some of the ideas put forward in the "Gamers are Dead" articles.


As for Anita Sarkeesian, I honestly consider her largely separate from what I'm discussing here. To her credit, she seems fairly upfront about what her videos are criticizing. She's speaking clearly and directly to people who care about the particular feminist issues she raises in her videos. Which is different than somebody writing a review for a particular video game for a general gaming audience.

I agree, their should be a place for no-nonsense reviews and in general everyone should have a place they are most comfortable, I can't fault you for wanting that.

the "gamers are over" article were heavy handed and did not help.

I personally take everything Milo says with a hefty bag of salt.