GamerGate's Image Problem

[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.