Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[Atmos Duality]

Good thing I wasn't accusing you of dishonest then. "Let's be honest" is just another way of saying "Let's face facts"

I know. I just like picking apart the old turns of phrase; especially those with more sinister sounding literal interpretations.

It's dry humor, OK? I'm bored out of my mind reviewing for my next exam.

Pardon me, but is this really a big thing? Aside from those initial articles is this a widespread thing? Not to mention I've seen it said over and over again that the "gamers are dead" article, didn't mean what it sounded like, so it sounds like a lot of people are jumping the gun and trying to play the victim card.

I've seen that defense before, and while I get what the intention was, I don't accept it in practice. Sorry.
First problem: They specified "gamers": literally the most generic term of identity in gaming, and used it in their little tirade.

Second problem: A Genetic Fallacy remains a fallacy, no matter how you qualify it. (see below)

Also when I see gamers called misogynists, it never is about the entire demographic, and is usually in response to something that warrants it.

Well going by your logic (or rather, that of the Gamers Are Over articles), I could wander into downtown Chicago, loudly decree "Black culture promotes crime, here are some examples of black criminals." and walk away unscathed as long as I include the disclaimer "If you're black and not a criminal, this isn't aimed at you".

If I accept that, then I must accept the possibility that if I ended up hanging from a tree next day, it obviously wasn't anything I said but just a misinterpretation on the audiences' part.

Do you see why that defense of those articles is complete bunk?
"People misunderstood. People didn't read. People overreacted."

Absolutely not. No, Leigh Alexander and her cronies overreacted. Instead of calling to an end to the harassment by these damn trolls, they instead went for the low-blow, and aimed their ire squarely at everyone in gaming.

In her own words, from her own article:

All of us should be better than this. You should be deeply questioning your life choices if this and this and this are the prominent public face your business presents to the rest of the world.

(hyperlinks omitted)

Or how about this?

Right, let?s say it?s a vocal minority that?s not representative of most people. ... Don?t give press to the harassers. Don?t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.

Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ?we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do? and ?those people don?t represent our community? -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That?s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.

When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you?re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That?s what?s been happening to games.

Notice the language. Notice the sweeping blame.
She's blaming everyone for not "curating" trolls. She's placing EXTREMELY unrealistic expectations on gaming culture, when the problem is obviously a result of internet culture, and the inherent problem between public figures and anonymous trolls.

Notice how broad the accusations fly on their own, without the tacked-on disclaimer; the intent is clear as day. They didn't just blame a few bad eggs or trolls, they blamed gaming culture itself. It was clear statement of divorce from the gamer audience, and a call for like-minded fools to embark on an exodus.

But it?s unstoppable. A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of ?gamer pride? and special interest groups led by a product-guide approach to conversation with a single presumed demographic.

Oh of course we're entering a new promised land! A land that is all inclusive!...except for those filthy white males I just mocked two paragraphs above. FUCK THEM. Gaming is OURS now!
Culture war!

These straw man ?game journalism ethics? conversations people have been having are largely the domain of a prior age, when all we did was negotiate ad deals and review scores and scraped to be called ?reporters?, because we had the same powerlessness complex as our audience had.

Strawman nothin' honey, when the only narrative you construct is the one that furthers your goals and those of your personal friends, then what purpose does the audience have?
Ethical issues didn't stem from some retarded inferiority complex; but raw economic pressure.

Gaming hard-crashed in the 80s, and re-emerged under Nintendo via monopoly. In that time, publishers learned that gaming magazines were EXCEPTIONALLY vulnerable to collusion because their livelihoods were heavily dependent on ad-revenue and the continued commercial success of said publishers.

From a consumer-awareness angle (which is a critical part of a reviewer's job), that's the proverbial "Let the fox guard the hen house."

What that established, was an insular, semi-paranoid culture of mouthpieces and cronyism.
Critics couldn't be TOO critical if the game was meant to drive system sales. Occasional sparks flew over this for high profile games (like the infamous Total Recall review that had Acclaim pull all ads from EGM), but the back-end business culture between the gaming press and producers all but ensured that the big winners stayed big while the end consumer was largely kept out of the loop.

Gaming "journalism" is a joke and has been for decades; it's only extremely recently that what could be called "Gaming Academics" are emerging since early video games now have enough "historical distance" that they can be analyzed without stepping on some especially big toes.

But that crony-culture gaming "journalism" leaned on hasn't been purged, and ethical problems still present themselves. Before, the ethical issues could be ignored because back in the Nintendo-monopoly days, gaming was still recovering; and fighting for positive purpose in the face of competing media and political scaremongering.

We're past those days now.

Gaming largely competes with itself, but the cronyism culture persists yet; it's just shifting from the now-eroding AAA publishers to indie game developers.

Yes, indies; they aren't as immune to such culture as we like to think. In fact, because their success is HEAVILY dependent coverage, they have more incentive than anyone to get cuddly with the gaming press.

In fact, it's quite obvious how these publications have become highly critical of AAA's antics (especially here on The Escapist) while increasingly rooting for the indie-underdog.

Remember those "Doritogate" articles two years ago? Those articles wouldn't have a prayer of seeing print 15, heck, 10 years ago (despite being just as relevant, if not moreso) because back then, the ball was in AAA's court.

But suppose those indie-devs are leveraging their sudden relevancy to push other political agendas (like Zoe Quinn; whose friendship with Sarkeesian is no secret; they've frequently and publicly supported each other); that trickles back down to, yup, the gaming press.

In all of this mess, the LAST entity whose needs are actually considered are the people that keep everyone in business: the sodding gamers. Yet, methinks even the "silent majority" is moving away from the traditional gaming press now, and into less conventional means like Youtube personalities and Lets Plays.

Why? Because the majority of them aren't interested in gender politics.
They don't give a toss that feminists or SJWs or whatever squawking head at Kotaku starts making a big stink about the sexist art style of this game, or the tasteless undertones of that game.

To up and call "ethics" a "strawman" is hilariously ironic; either as a plea to change the subject (and divert attention from their own shady dealings) or to deny the reality that gamers are leaving magazines and their "social justice" journalism editorials in droves.

They're tired of being preached to. Tired of being condemned for shit that's WAY beyond their control (and largely none of their business to begin with).

Tired of having to second-guess whether that 10/10 came from genuine critical analysis or someone's pocketbook.

They're tired of gaming being less about games, and more about pushing this political propaganda from people who largely don't actually give a shit about the medium so much as their career.

TLDR; Game "journalism" is overly inbred, corrupt, and has been for DECADES; largely by necessity, but also by choice.
Consumers paid it before, but they're pretty damn sick of it now.

It's become one of those things where it means whatever the person speaking wants it to mean. What conflict of interest?

Between the producer and the reviewer, obviously.
Bias and preference are obviously going to occur naturally; we're human.
That's a concession the consumer audience must accept.

But they need to be laid out for perspective.

If a reviewer and a producer have more than incidental relations (like say, if one is related to or works for the other), they definitely need to lay that out.

If there is no basis to assume honest intentions (or neutrality), then why should the audience assume the review isn't just form of advertising?

At that point, why not just fire up someone's Lets Play and use that? It's the game laid bare.

Also once again, unless a reviewer is flat out lying about a game, objectivity shouldn't be an issue.

Outright lies are only half the problem; omission of information can be just as dangerous as an actual lie.
Omitting problems to prop up scores is definitely an issue; especially in an age where Metacritic is used to determine developer salaries, bonuses, and even future employment.

Recall a few weeks back to the Shadow of Mordor and the company-mandated script; "Emphasize this feature, but DO NOT EVER MENTION THIS THAT OR THOSE BAD THINGS!"

I don't expect critics to provide every little detail, but there is a limit to how much information one can spin or omit before their reliability becomes questionable.

In fact, simple assumption of some objectivity doesn't just apply to reviewers either; we need to hold producers to this as well, lest we fall back into demo doctoring...(oh right, they're doing that too)

In the end, these issues should not (and cannot) be dismissed with technical excuses like "It's subjective, it just is" because they're matters of trust.

Strain consumer trust too much, and they will stop buying games.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Unless I'm mistaken, you think this level of satire is beneath him but you haven't watched the video?

This isn't about watching his video....

This is about ethics in journalism.

I see...

Well, we have ways of dealing with situations such as these.

Get in the chair, Jim.

 

[Something Amyss]

I see...

Well, we have ways of dealing with situations such as these.

Spoiler

Get in the chair, Jim.

So...if he weighs as much as a duck...he's made of wood...and therefore...HE'S A WITCH!

 

[Jux]

The 100% Objective Review

This video is good. Unless you think it's bad. Then it's bad.

Watch Video

I appreciate the attempt at objectivity but this video really was really lacking in ethics.

Something something collusion something narrative.

Obviously there is collusion between Bob and Jim this week, how else could their synchronized potshots at all gamers have happened?

Thank You for you Jim. I hope you're powered by the tears of all the whiney manbabies out there getting all huffy about 'objectivity in reviews' (or was this whole thing about ethics in games journalism?)

Cap: Thank You Cap thanks you too Jim!

 

[MrBaskerville]

Snip

Let's be perfectly honest. People can dress it up however they want "Be objective" "Don't be biased" "Focus on what the consumer wants" It's all window dressing. Really people are saying "People keep talking about the portrayal of non-white male heterosexual characters and I don't care about that and I want them to shut up." Most of them will never admit it though.

There are plenty of people out there who really do want better "Ethics" in journalism, but plenty of people just talk about "ethics" to say "don't talk about this thing I'm not invested in and dislike."

Oh cmon now. I think a lot of people, myself included, just want to know if a game is fun to play/enjoyable to experience or not. Fact is, sometimes i want to play a game for it's social commentary (spec ops the line is downloading on steam right now), sometimes i just want to play a game for the gameplay (WARFRAME! CYBORG NINJAS WITH SUPERPOWERS! [which by the way probably has more important female characters than male, so HA]). There's a distinct lack of people reviewing purely on the latter spectrum, and CERTAINLY a lack of people doing so without a corporate string being tied somewhere. I can't speak for everyone, but would it really be SO terrible to see more game reviewers just review a game based on how enjoyable it was? Without being overly influenced by politics or corporate influence? Because that's all i'm really asking for here. Is diversity in games an important topic? Sure. Is it THE ONLY TOPIC AND THE ONLY THING A REVIEW SHOULD EVER BE BASED ON EVER?! That is a definitive NO! I want to know if a game is good, not it's place as a political chess piece.

Considering that the latest game people are complaining about falling victim to this is Bayonetta 2, which has over 60 reviews on Metacritic in the green and only two in the yellow, I have to question if this is really as widespread as people are making it out to be.

I'm always more surprised that everyone likes it, with movies and music you always have a bunch of people who disliked the media at hand, while in games all the reviewers seem to have the exact same taste. I don't think there's anything fishy going on, but i do wonder why that is. It's probably the boring way we approach the subject. There's no such thing as universal praise there will always be someone who dislikes something for whatever resons, why aren't these voices heard?

 

[Hyrist]

The title was enough to avoid me giving the video a 'click'.

This level of satire is beneath you at this point Jim, and I do feel, along with others, that you've been dragged down into the narrative banter that really subtracts from anything resembling journalistic or intelligent in the discourse.

Unless I'm mistaken, you think this level of satire is beneath him but you haven't watched the video?

Your statement is not mistaken, but your insinuation is.

I follow Jim's Twitter (Again, in many cases I'm a fan, even though I don't always agree.) and I've seen his satire episodes before. They're often tasteless and really lacking the in depth discussion and intellectual design I tend to appricate in many of his eppisodes.

I mention the twitter account because Jim linked a similar satire article from a different Journalism about GamerGate, and - as he once stated in defense of the "The Death of Gamers" article 'series' Journalists just happened to write in tandem with one another - this seemed to be an episode, by the title, inspired by the article he linked previously. He's free to correct me if I'm wrong, I've no problem being wrong for making an assumption.

However, after seeing the title and thinking "Oh, hay, that's dangerously like that last piece of journalism I found to be tasteless." I instead went right to the comments section to see if my first impression was right.

Lo and behold, people were already summarizing the episode right here in the comments section, making it so I did not have to click and support an episode I don't want to financially back.

You might find that trite - but I think of it much in the same way a video game review can help dissuade players from forking over the monetary investment before experiencing a game they would have not liked.

This, in the same way, is a small little man's protest to Jim, who has, on more than one occasion, bragged about how it doesn't matter if people disagree with or disapprove of his videos, so long as they share it, and give him more clicks, which in the end, is what gets him paid. And while I do believe in any way shape or form that his opinions should be silenced, I do reserve the right to be critical of his methods and reserve my right not to support them.

Based off of the impressions I've seen in the context I am aware of, I won't be sharing or viewing this episode. It's really the only fair expression of heavy critique I have without resorting to the disrespectful, dirty harassment methods I absolutely despise, aside from being vocal of my criticism which I am doing here in hopes it may provide some modicum of feedback he will take away from this episode.

Let me be clear: I'm a Square Enix fanboy, and I'd much rather something along the lines of "Batman is Everything Wrong with Square Enix" Than an episode like this. I'm absolutely fine with having my viewpoint or opinion critiqued and argued upon. I am not fine with having them mocked.

 

[andri88]

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
-So you wanna go back in time and tell Roger Ebert how to do his job?

Oh, you want to talk about Roger Ebert? Fine, let's talk about Roger Ebert.

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/rogers-little-rule-book

Ebert actually cared about his ethics. Now read that list and let me know how many things on there these "professional reviewers" violate each and every day?.

Yet he contradicts your opinon on the role of reviewers and reviews.

 

[Hyrist]

Honestly, I can understand if Sexual issues are a trigger, especially among female (or feminine spectrum) gamers and reviewers. It's a matter that has increasingly heated up over the past months and that topic really does need to have more conversation going on with it. (however that is an entirely different topic that I'll not touch upon here.)


However, in many cases, it's gone beyond personal preference and triggers. It's become a political issue and what I don't want occurring is someone abusing that. This is why people are wanting reviews to be less personal and more impartial - because they don't want social politics to be dragged into game reviews. That's all.

The problem is, as Jim probably attempted to make a point you can't completely remove subjectivity from a review. That's not however to say the attempt of removing personal bias from the review should not be made. Otherwise, the only other solution to not be click bait is to clarify by what viewpoint you're reviewing from. If you're a sport's game fan reviewing a MMORPG, your readership might want to know that. Same thing with more political leanings like feminism.

Sadly, in my opinion, all of this wouldn't matter at all if the review sites and gaming journalism in general would just ditch the numeric/star rating system all together. I do have to say for all my criticism of Kotaku, their simple "Yes/No" answer for reviews is a refreshing change. It dispenses of any archaic illusions one may have that rating curves are universal across all gaming journalists.

 

[Thanatos2k]

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
-So you wanna go back in time and tell Roger Ebert how to do his job?

Oh, you want to talk about Roger Ebert? Fine, let's talk about Roger Ebert.

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/rogers-little-rule-book

Ebert actually cared about his ethics. Now read that list and let me know how many things on there these "professional reviewers" violate each and every day?.

Yet he contradicts your opinon on the role of reviewers and reviews.

You assume I thought Ebert was the perfect reviewer. Personally I never did, and thought Siskel was far superior. Ebert thought games couldn't be art, he's clearly not a go-to source for proper game review.

The point was about ethics only, and how your average "professional" game reviewer has none. Never was suggesting they should review like Ebert did, but they should act like Ebert did.

 

[andri88]

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
-So you wanna go back in time and tell Roger Ebert how to do his job?

Oh, you want to talk about Roger Ebert? Fine, let's talk about Roger Ebert.

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/rogers-little-rule-book

Ebert actually cared about his ethics. Now read that list and let me know how many things on there these "professional reviewers" violate each and every day?.

Yet he contradicts your opinon on the role of reviewers and reviews.

You assume I thought Ebert was the perfect reviewer. Personally I never did, and thought Siskel was far superior. Ebert thought games couldn't be art, he's clearly not a go-to source for proper game review.

The point was about ethics only, and how your average "professional" game reviewer has none. Never was suggesting they should review like Ebert did, but they should act like Ebert did.

But we can indeed look to ebert as a go to source for reviews in general, whatever the medium. And I agree we should hold game reviewers to a higher standard and be consistent in our complaints and criticism.

 

[ShakerSilver]

I honestly can't understand how people believe that it's impossible to be unbiased in critique and that you can't be impartial. I think it stems from the fact that people believe that since it's pointless to be 100% objective, why bother striving to be impartial in coverage of media? Almost like saying way strive to do better in anything when its impossible to be perfect. I think part of the problem is that game reviewers really don't have any criteria to judge games on and simply say "I noticed these things, here's what I liked, here's what I didn't".

The reason why a lot of film and music criticism (before the blogging age began at least) was mostly impartial and informative was because there was so much study done to both these areas that they could adequately analyze them and critique them on their own merits before dipping into subjective areas. Most critique comes from the analysis of formal elements in the media and how they work together. In music you can discuss the texture/instrumentation, the melody, the harmony, the tonality, the color, how they all work together in creating a piece. Film is rich with formal analysis as there's so much that can be said about technique in cinematography alone: the framing, depth, focus, camera movement, cuts, transitions, the use of time, composition, staging, etc. Jim's "objective review" doesn't really do anything like that at all, he's simply stating a list of formal elements in the game separately, as if they all exist in a vacuum, rather than examining them as a whole. This is especially troubling when talking about mechanics, because like cinematographic elements, they all contribute to a create a greater picture, a "mise en scene", if you will.

There really needs to be more serious analysis of games and their gameplay elements. I know game critics love to go on and on about games and their stories, but there's a lot more to games than that, and games that can't use the medium to its fullest shouldn't be held up as shining examples of the what the medium has to offer. If Citizen Kane was only critiqued because of its story, then it would never have been considered one of the greatest films of all time and not have been nearly as influential as it is. Games can do so much more than simply tell a story. They can marry the storytelling to gameplay in ways that other medium can't, just as film can tell a story through its cinematography.

 

[Netrigan]

If reviews on metacritic are not worth reading and don't help consumers with purchasing decisions, they shouldn't be there. Especially since metacritic scores have tangible effects on the success or failure of studios. Blame the publishers all you want, but game journos know what reality is right now. And if metacritic is so worthless why are sites so keen to get their reviews listed there?

YES!

Let's shit on the consumer. Fuck'em. Even those who actually want those reviews that you want gone because they don't make you feel fuzzy inside. We need to protect the publishers and studios and even more important: METACRITIC! The intransparent piece of shit!

Fuck, and people wonder why I don't side with #GG... When people fight for censorship without realising it.

Also funny that Fallout: New Vegas is the poster child for this, because they came one point from getting the necessary score to get their bonus and not lay off people.

Maybe if they didn't have so many bugs in their game...

And there was also the issue of diminishing returns as New Vegas didn't really do anything not done in Fallout 3, apart from being more colorful and above ground. It's kind of the Casino to GoodFellas. I happen to like Vegas & Casino more than their better received predecessors, but there's no denying the been there, done that vibe of them.

 

[Riot3000]

I honestly can't understand how people believe that it's impossible to be unbiased in critique and that you can't be impartial. I think it stems from the fact that people believe that since it's pointless to be 100% objective, why bother striving to be impartial in coverage of media? Almost like saying way strive to do better in anything when its impossible to be perfect. I think part of the problem is that game reviewers really don't have any criteria to judge games on and simply say "I noticed these things, here's what I liked, here's what I didn't".

The reason why a lot of film and music criticism (before the blogging age began at least) was mostly impartial and informative was because there was so much study done to both these areas that they could adequately analyze them and critique them on their own merits before dipping into subjective areas. Most critique comes from the analysis of formal elements in the media and how they work together. In music you can discuss the texture/instrumentation, the melody, the harmony, the tonality, the color, how they all work together in creating a piece. Film is rich with formal analysis as there's so much that can be said about technique in cinematography alone: the framing, depth, focus, camera movement, cuts, transitions, the use of time, composition, staging, etc. Jim's "objective review" doesn't really do anything like that at all, he's simply stating a list of formal elements in the game separately, as if they all exist in a vacuum, rather than examining them as a whole. This is especially troubling when talking about mechanics, because like cinematographic elements, they all contribute to a create a greater picture, a "mise en scene", if you will.

There really needs to be more serious analysis of games and their gameplay elements. I know game critics love to go on and on about games and their stories, but there's a lot more to games than that, and games that can't use the medium to its fullest shouldn't be held up as shining examples of the what the medium has to offer. If Citizen Kane was only critiqued because of its story, then it would never have been considered one of the greatest films of all time and not have been nearly as influential as it is. Games can do so much more than simply tell a story. They can marry the storytelling to gameplay in ways that other medium can't, just as film can tell a story through its cinematography.

First thing first I want to thank you sir or man or robot for this summary. This whole thread I was trying to come up with a way to frame it because I share the same sentiment.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I really liked FF13 on Steam..that 4k downsample 60fps greatness really helped it.

This opinion is not really a popular one but I don't really care. As long as I enjoyed it that's whats important.

 

[Spearmaster]

This is why we cant have nice things. Rather than having those rational discussions that certain people seem to be proponents of, they instead have to delve into a mocking sarcasm that does nothing but stir the pot. Its very telling of certain people's two-faced nature and overall ignorance.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

I don't think is a question of objectivity vs subjectivity is more like professional vs amateur. For example, sometimes reviewers make comments about the difficulty of a game but the game in focus has difficulty selection. What he wants to say? The difficulty selection don't work or he had expectations about one particular difficult and was too lazy to try the others?

Well, the difficulty of a game is relative to the player's skills. I read a review of Alien: Isolation where the reviewer wrote that the developpers recomended the hard mode. So he reviewed the hard mode, and he had an awful time because it was too difficult for him

So, was it alright that he gave it negative points because he followed the developers recomendation? Or should had he changed to an easier mode to test if the game could be enjoyable for people with his same skills? In fact, isn't in general normal mode the recommended for most people (normal people)?

There's a problem (subjective or not) and there's a tool within the game that supposedly can solve the problem. Is it ok ignore the tool? Hell no! At least you have to try.

In my job, if I go around avoiding trying out solutions a simple end up being fired.

 

[CaitSeith]

I don't think is a question of objectivity vs subjectivity is more like professional vs amateur. For example, sometimes reviewers make comments about the difficulty of a game but the game in focus has difficulty selection. What he wants to say? The difficulty selection don't work or he had expectations about one particular difficult and was too lazy to try the others?

Well, the difficulty of a game is relative to the player's skills. I read a review of Alien: Isolation where the reviewer wrote that the developpers recomended the hard mode. So he reviewed the hard mode, and he had an awful time because it was too difficult for him

So, was it alright that he gave it negative points because he followed the developers recomendation? Or should had he changed to an easier mode to test if the game could be enjoyable for people with his same skills? In fact, isn't in general normal mode the recommended for most people (normal people)?

There's a problem (subjective or not) and there's a tool within the game that supposedly can solve the problem. Is it ok ignore the tool? Hell no! At least you have to try.

In my job, if I go around avoiding trying out solutions a simple end up being fired.

Good point. Now, to which problem they have to find solutions?

 

[Something Amyss]

An answer that preferably wont involve shouting at an entire demographic (because that never works, and you'll piss off quite a lot of "innocent bystanders" if you do it.

The problem here is you don't need to shout at people to piss them off. Look again at Jim Sterling.

Also, apropos of #Gamergate", I thought their issue was with the collusion in games media, not "objective reviews".

They've been the ones spearheading "ethics" and "journalism," though my default position is not to believe them. They have talked a good fight and spent their time going after a pound of flesh.

However, Gamergate is not one person with one goal, but a collective with a bunch of goals. Unfortunately, the collective is very much like that kid in grade school who insisted he was never hit in games.

Or maybe the word "objective" was used to keep the reviewer distance from the company producing the product. Like Chris Harris not having Ferrari looking over his should while he reviews their new car)

Except, again, that's not who they're going after. Hell, we've had people point out they're more embedded than Zoe Quinn and the only thing that got them in trouble with GG was demonstrating that they don't care about ethics, journalism, or knowing what's going on.

But to the larger point, I don't think treating us like we're children to an even larger extent will work. Saying it's your opinion probably won't change anything, based on the track record. People are still railing against the evil SJW conspiracy that is the Escapist, even though this was the site that kept discussion open from the beginning. The site that allowed GG to air grievances. The site that hosted interviews. But they are TEH BIAS and SJWs and need to be boycotted. And last I knew, it wasn't even like "Boycott Moviebob," either.

I don't know that you can find middle ground with fanatics.