AuronFtw said:
canadamus_prime said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
canadamus_prime said:
Sure. "He slammed my game into the ground, he must be unethical." Seems legit. ¬__¬
Isn't that what most of the "ethics" complaints have been about? "This guy said this thing I don't like!"
Sadly enough, yeah that seems to be the case.
I think most of the ethics complaints are about shit like Sony getting a reviewer fired for a (not even) harsh review and still being allowed to make games without being ostracized by the industry. It's kinda the norm - unspoken acceptance of widespread corruption. It happens in any "big industry," but for some reason if you try to point it out in the games industry you're suddenly some kind of heretic. Or misogynist. Or whatever bullshit people try to label you as to discredit legitimate complaints and inquiries.
Gamesgate didn't do gamers any favors, since that whole debacle was full of fallacious bullshit from both sides. But it was a convenient smokescreen to deflect any legitimate criticism, assuming anyone that levels such claims is part of "the enemy movement" or whatever and stopping discussion before it starts. Shit sucks.
Industry is obviously corrupt, though, nobody can even pretend to deny that after Gerstmann's firing. How complicit the games media is in the corruption is anyone's guess, but they certainly don't seem to be airing stories about it, and the widespread censorship regarding gamersgate/nutty quinnspiracies only serve to raise more questions. I mean, shit, even 4chan had threads deleted. You know an issue is serious when that 4chan gets censored.
You know who broke the Gerstmann story? Who then confirmed it? Kotaku - the main group that GG targets.
When Warner Brothers tried to buy off YouTube coverage with the review code - GG didn't give a shit.
With ethics you can't say "It doesn't matter, it was a good game anyway".
In fact my overall opinion on GG is that not only is it not about ethics, it is actually opposed to ethics.
Consider the talking point around negative reviews based on "agendas".
Corruption in game's journalism is much, much more likely to occur with positive reviews. Threats to independence are always pushing for positive coverage.
For example WB wanted reviewers to not mention the bugs and to highlight what they saw as the big ticket items in their game. Okay the code was relatively clean and those items were going to end up in reviews anyway - but it was still an attempt to make the coverage more positive then it really deserved.
when Konami banned Jim Sterling from getting review code, it was because they wanted to pressure him into giving them more positive coverage than they actually deserved. Sterling is also a target of Gamergate.
Even the issue GG feels most passionately about, friendships between indie devs and reviewers is in fact one in which pressure is applied to make the reviews more forgiving.
And realize reviewers have to constantly guard against this, so when a bunch of people start whinging that they're being too negative in a title based on an "SJW" agenda - it is more corruption.
With any form of corruption, there is always some form of benefit flowing away from the consumer.
Review does boost a game's sales, but sales isn't the point to it.
The point to a review is to tell people about the game, and express an opinion on whether it is any good.
Gamergate are mostly not asking for the consumer to be protected, but rather for the developer to be protected from pertinent criticism.
Normally on the basis that Metacritic influence sales and bonuses from publishers. See how the money flows? See how they want to game the system such that only the agendas they approve of are reflected in those scores? Part of the point to Metacritic is that it averages such agendas out.
Now the consumer may disagree with the criticism any given critic gives, but at least they are informed of it under the current standard.
The same goes with social issues within actual games journalism - you cannot have forbidden topics of discussion, particularly when those topics are uncomfortable for a highly vocal segment of the community. If there is a sexual or violent harassment problem within gaming there is a social need to give the reader the information they require to protect themselves and affect change.
The press isn't there to provide comfort, it is there to provide information. It is unethical when that information is untrue, or when it is presented in a way that is deceptive.
Balance journalism is at the moment largely considered unethical because it leads to deception.
Climate change is the ultimate example of this - the scientific consensus is very much that is happening, and that is being caused by human actions.
So here is what balance journalism has done with that: You will get scientists who present their findings in their climate related fields getting roped into debates with guys like Christopher Monckton.
Monckton has been repeatedly proven to be a liar - yet he still gets air time because "balance". This only serves to deceive the viewer, making it appear there is a debate when in fact there is not.
This is also a major feature in science journalism as a whole - and related to the recent return of Measles as a problem across much of the Western world.
Now with Gamergate, what do they object to? Coverage of feminists and women in gaming getting harassed. That is a thing that is actually happening.
You can't claim the press shouldn't cover it, or be balanced in its coverage, because there is no balance to be had. It either is or it isn't happening. All balance in that situation does, is give a harasser a platform with which to lie to people people in order to further the harassment.
Take the Quinspiracy as an example of this in action. It turned out that there was no positive review of Zoe Quinn's game on that website. In fact after the relationship turned towards dating, there was no coverage of her by Nathan Grayson at all.
Balance would treat this as being a debate, but the fact is the review itself does not exist.
There is no balancing a bald fact like that.