Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[Something Amyss]

The review in question is clearly biased, he called final fantasy 13 a videogame even but he gave no explanation as to wich factors constitute a videogame. Clearly jim sterling is a shill of square enix for reviewing theyr piece of software, even though it´s status as a videogame wasn´t proven.

Yes, I wish to know his criteria for calling it a video game. Perhaps it's just one of those casual games I hear about all the time.

 

[MrFalconfly]

They were simply examples of reviewers who had a relationship with the developer of the game that was being reviewed.

Jim Sterling doesn't do this, either, so why did you offer him up as an example?

Because the Escapist Magazine was an example of a fully disclosed relationship between the reviewer, and someone involved with the development (in this case, Jim Sterling being both a voice actor in Jazzpunk, and the boss/editor of the reviewer, Jonathan Bolding, who reviewed Jazzpunk)

 

[Something Amyss]

Because the Escapist Magazine was an example of a fully disclosed relationship between the reviewer, and someone involved with the development (in this case, Jim Sterling being both a voice actor in Jazzpunk, and the boss/editor of the reviewer, Jonathan Bolding, who reviewed Jazzpunk)

Except that's only a professional relationship. Jim has not disclosed other relationships in reviews, so it's more likely that this is only disclosed because of a specific financial and professional stake.

How does that apply to other people you have mentioned, whose relationships are personal and of the sort Jim has not disclosed within his reviews?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Because the Escapist Magazine was an example of a fully disclosed relationship between the reviewer, and someone involved with the development (in this case, Jim Sterling being both a voice actor in Jazzpunk, and the boss/editor of the reviewer, Jonathan Bolding, who reviewed Jazzpunk)

Except that's only a professional relationship. Jim has not disclosed other relationships in reviews, so it's more likely that this is only disclosed because of a specific financial and professional stake.

How does that apply to other people you have mentioned, whose relationships are personal and of the sort Jim has not disclosed within his reviews?

Doesn't matter.

I'm not gonna trust a friend of a games developer to give me a clear review when he can't even admit that they're friends.

 

[Netrigan]

If these were the only issues, I think you'd find most folks would support it... although the "Gamers Are Dead" articles were a reaction to the ugly side of Gaming, which has been rearing its head on a very regular basis (including the Zoe Quinn situation) for the last couple of years.

The problem really was the Anti-Feminist Brigade had shown up from outside of gaming a couple of years back and were quick to frame this in a way that had absolutely nothing to do with Journalistic Ethics and all about their on-going Culture Wars against the dreaded Social Justice Warriors. To this day, far too many articles and videos spend a significant portion of their run-time dealing with the Threat of Anita Sarkeesian (not involved in journalistic scandal), which, again, frames the debate in a way that is unpalatable to people. It becomes a war against opinions GG doesn't like, rather than a discussion about the failing of games journalism.

Total Biscuit is really the first person in GamerGate who knows how to keep shit focused on Journalistic Ethics, because he doesn't give a rat's ass about whatever slant a particular site has, so long as they're honest about it. If you had TB out there leading the charge from Day One, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Why does it always fall back to TB to sort our shit out?

He's like the Batman of videogames (I sure hope his parents still live).

Because he's the only prominent voice who doesn't come across as a War On Opinions We Don't Like.

You had more like him who weren't eager to get bogged down in irrelevancies you wouldn't need Batman to salvage your image.

My image.

Do I look like a PAO for #Gamergate?

Also I will say, Being appointed PAO for #Gamergate would be a daunting task. "Here. Make some good PR for this loose collection of people whose only unifying feature is their love for games, using the very journalists who seems to hate said people's guts".

Mate, I'd rather face a firing squad than that.

Well then, I guess I misread the part where you said "sort our shit out."

GG got engaged in an irrelevant Culture War, which frames their agenda. The mega-thread has quite a bit of discussion denying harassment and even folks who love games so much but want to boycott purchasing new games umtil after Christmas... for no reason I can determine, certainly nothing related to journalistic ethics.

I'm not okay with most of their stated objectives (first post of mega-thread) and don't approve of their tactics. TB is the prominent member that I can agree with.

 

[Something Amyss]

Doesn't matter.

I'm not gonna trust a friend of a games developer to give me a clear review when he can't even admit that they're friends.

Then why use Jim as an example? Are you going to trust him, despite his failure to admit his friendships with people within the industry? Are you aware that one of the people Burch is talking about is Jim Sterling, who was reviews editor at Destructoid when favourable reviews went up for some of Gearbox's products, but this was not disclosed in such reviews?

Do you feel it's reasonable to hold one side of a relationship to a different standard than the other side?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Doesn't matter.

I'm not gonna trust a friend of a games developer to give me a clear review when he can't even admit that they're friends.

Then why use Jim as an example? Are you going to trust him, despite his failure to admit his friendships with people within the industry? Are you aware that one of the people Burch is talking about is Jim Sterling, who was reviews editor at Destructoid when favourable reviews went up for some of Gearbox's products, but this was not disclosed in such reviews?

Do you feel it's reasonable to hold one side of a relationship to a different standard than the other side?

I trust him, because he gives me that information. If he (at least I hope. I don't want to add to the list of reviewers and review-sites that I don't trust) thinks something could compromise the journalistic integrity he discloses it (please don't betray my trust Jim).

 

[Something Amyss]

I trust him, because he gives me that information. If he (at least I hope. I don't want to add to the list of reviewers and review-sites that I don't trust) thinks something could compromise the journalistic integrity he discloses it (please don't betray my trust Jim).

How is not disclosing his friendship with Burch any different than Burch not disclosing his friendship with Jim?

 

[JackyG]

This review of Final Fantasy XIII is biased because you made the video black and white to suggest this is a game that came out a few years ago which is ABSURD!

 

[MrFalconfly]

I trust him, because he gives me that information. If he (at least I hope. I don't want to add to the list of reviewers and review-sites that I don't trust) thinks something could compromise the journalistic integrity he discloses it (please don't betray my trust Jim).

How is not disclosing his friendship with Burch any different than Burch not disclosing his friendship with Jim?

The difference is that I don't care if a game-dev say he is a friend of some random reviewer who might not even review the game. I do however car if the reviewer who has analysed a game have a relationship with any of the people who worked on it because that might colour the review.

 

[Something Amyss]

The difference is that I don't care if a game-dev say he is a friend of some random reviewer who might not even review the game. I do however car if the reviewer who has analysed a game have a relationship with any of the people who worked on it because that might colour the review.

You mean like when a reviews editor is close to a person whose product gets a favourable review?

 

[Something Amyss]

This review of Final Fantasy XIII is biased because you made the video black and white to suggest this is a game that came out a few years ago which is ABSURD!

Well, colour could prejudice certain people and it might be seen as bias against people with some form of colour blindness.

 

[MrFalconfly]

The difference is that I don't care if a game-dev say he is a friend of some random reviewer who might not even review the game. I do however car if the reviewer who has analysed a game have a relationship with any of the people who worked on it because that might colour the review.

You mean like when a reviews editor is close to a person whose product gets a favourable review?

Yeah.

That'd be an example.

And it annoys me, because I feel like I'm being driven further and further away from the big names, because it seems most of them are in collusion. I have to go back to the YouTubers who only get a few hundreds, to a few thousands of views to get away from the marketing campaigns of the games-developers.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah.

That'd be an example.

Since that describes Jim Sterling, allow me to ask again:

How is not disclosing his friendship with Burch any different than Burch not disclosing his friendship with Jim?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Yeah.

That'd be an example.

Since that describes Jim Sterling, allow me to ask again:

How is not disclosing his friendship with Burch any different than Burch not disclosing his friendship with Jim?

Fair enough.

Bye Jim. It's been a good run.

I'm out of here.

 

[Something Amyss]

Fair enough.

Bye Jim. It's been a good run.

I'm out of here.

Isn't it possible that it's your priorities which may need reevaluation?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Fair enough.

Bye Jim. It's been a good run.

I'm out of here.

Isn't it possible that it's your priorities which may need reevaluation?

Why?

We're talking about the trust of the reviewers. I'll find my games, no problem, with or without professional reviewers. Question is, will the reviewers survive without any page-views?

 

[Something Amyss]

Why?

Among other things, because the standard here appears to be completely unattainable.

We're talking about the trust of the reviewers. I'll find my games, no problem, with or without professional reviewers. Question is, will the reviewers survive without any page-views?

Do you honestly believe Jim is going anywhere?

Why did you trust Jim right up until now?

Do you feel that games journalism should hold itself to a higher standard than other entertainment media?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Why?

Among other things, because the standard here appears to be completely unattainable.

We're talking about the trust of the reviewers. I'll find my games, no problem, with or without professional reviewers. Question is, will the reviewers survive without any page-views?

Do you honestly believe Jim is going anywhere?

Why did you trust Jim right up until now?

Do you feel that games journalism should hold itself to a higher standard than other entertainment media?

If he looses enough viewers then he might grab another job.

As for "Why did you trust Jim right up until now?". I trusted him because I thought he'd disclose any information pertaining to the review.

As for "Do you feel that games journalism should hold itself to a higher standard than other entertainment media?" This standard is what I hold all media to.