Blacklisting, Integrity in games journalism... At what cost?

kunst nugget

Do you honestly think the notion of ethics in something as superficial as games journalism is an important subject?

Robert ninja

If you're a gamer... a little.

kunst nugget

Robert ninja wrote: »

If you're a gamer... a little.

Do you think it was worth all the guff? All the death threats? All the doxxing? All the humiliation? All the bullying?

Robert ninja

kunst nugget wrote: »

Do you think it was worth all the guff? All the death threats? All the doxxing? All the humiliation? All the bullying?

I don't know if 'Worth it?' is a proper question for things outside most of our responsibility and control. If I could prevent it I would. All I can do is support things like http://www.spj.org/kunkel.asp and hope we can get a discussion panel or debate that isn't completely one-sided or threatened with bombs.

Oh, and buy and play awesome video games of course. That's the most important thing.

gizmo

Robert ninja wrote: »

The lengths I've gone through? You mean a few clicks?

And what is the actual problem at hand? That the press and the publishers have been too close for too long a time? I can agree on that. Whatever the issue at hand is, have at it. I'm all for more discussion. I'm actually tired of drama in here and want people to get back to the topic everyone seems so desperate to focus on but seem to think I'm some juggernaut in the way.

No, not the clicks, in terms of the point you're trying to make.

Look, if you're actually asking what the problem is with all of what's been posted, then you're simply being disingenuous when you say you're all up for discussion. The fact that you even think the topic of this has anything to do with "Gawker's U-turn on what it wants to write about" and how that will affect Kotaku speaks volumes.

Robert ninja

gizmo wrote: »

Look, if you're actually asking what the problem is with all of what's been posted, then you're simply being disingenuous when you say you're all up for discussion.

Say what you want, gizmo. I've never tried to stop discussion no matter how much you want to believe that.

gizmo wrote: »

The fact that you even think the topic of this has anything to do with "Gawker's U-turn on what it wants to write about" and how that will affect Kotaku speaks volumes.

Right because Gawker trying to recompile their image and sites to be less click-bait garbage totally doesn't affect what kind of articles they release now and in the future.

Gawker have taken down many of their sites already. If Kotaku was to go soon after this controversy it would definitely raise some heads because of the timing. But that's off topic? Fine, whatever. Talk about what is on topic, then.

gizmo

Robert ninja wrote: »

Say what you want, gizmo. I've never tried to stop discussion no matter how much you want to believe that.

You're not trying to stop discussion, you're just refusing to properly engage with it and despite repeated requests by other posters, keep trying making it about Kotaku.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Right because Gawker trying to recompile their image and sites to be less click-bait garbage totally doesn't affect what kind of articles they release now and in the future.

The reliance of a number of publications on poor quality, click bait articles is a perfectly valid topic and one which is very much worthy of discussion. Now, while I may not agree that Gawker Media itself should be the focus since it affects gaming sites across the board, that doesn't change this fact. The problem is that it's totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Gawker have taken down many of their sites already. If Kotaku was to go soon after this controversy it would definitely raise some heads because of the timing. But that's off topic? Fine, whatever. Talk about what is on topic, then.

If you listen to Stephen Totilo's interview with TotalBiscuit from October last year you'll see that their output has pretty much matched the direction he outlines during their conversation. The causes of the blacklisting issues Kotaku are currently facing are also a few years old so if they were to close now, I can't really see how it would relate to the present situation if it were need to happen.

Links234

kearneybobs wrote: »

I don't think I'm wrong in saying that what Links234 means is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we need to remove Kotaku from the equation when discussing this. Instead of Kotaku think 'no name games website'. It allows an all encompassing discussion about the problem at hand, without letting people's biases (positive and negative) get in the way of the bigger discussion to be had.
By posting memes.gif about Kotaku you bring the discussion back to you not liking Kotaku, detracting from a bigger discussion about the relation ships between developers/publishers and ALL games websites. Yes, what Kotaku has done has gotten to this point, but they're not alone in what seems to be endemic in the games/games journalism industry.

Well, it's that but it's not just this instance in particular. It's not just that focusing on Kotaku is detracting from the bigger issue, it's that any time there is a meaningful discussion about anything related to games media, or issues with the sycophantic relationship between publishers and journalists, we end up with people trying to drag the discussion down and make it about gamergate's targets; in this case Kotaku. And this is ultimately what GG has done, it has scuppered discussions about games media, and made a laughing stock out of the issue of... *sigh* ethics in games journalism. So much so that a lot of people who otherwise have a keen interest would rather just walk away.

Kunst Nugget asked if games journalism is an important topic? Well, yes I and a lot of other people here think so, but it's often been not worth the effort, and rather than get drawn into yet another debate with a gamergater, just walk away is the simpler option. For the most part, people don't want to hear it any more, either you know about gamergate, or you just couldn't care less. Either way, it's a debate that's been made not worth having for a lot of people, and when certain folks come along and try to drag the discussion down that particular rabbit hole, couch the debate in their terms yet again, it becomes too tiresome to deal with.

And there sadly is a lot to discuss here. So many people are sick of what counts as games journalism, how there's really very little real criticism happening, and how reviews are shallow and pander to publishers and PR, or that everyone's all so happy to go along with review embargoes. Or the fact that there's serious issues with how crazy things have gotten with DLC, ridiculously expensive season passes, and microtransactions in full price AAA titles, yet there is little outcry from games media? Utterly ridiculous! Yet a site publish leaked info, and some folks try to turn the debate around into how they're the ones who are such bad guys? In a way, I feel as though gamergate is the useful idiot for AAA publishers, they can act as the attack dog for those pesky journalists who step out of line, break embargoes or score their games too low. That might be me being way too cynical, but it is kinda funny how they're the ones on the side of big publishers.

super_furry

Links234 wrote: »

Well, yes I and a lot of other people here think so, but it's often been not worth the effort, and rather than get drawn into yet another debate with a gamergater, just walk away is the simpler option.

That sums up my feelings on the issue exactly. No number of links to Breitbart, Youtube videos or poorly stitched together Twitter screengrabs is going to change my mind on Gamergate. I've seen so many of these arguments go round in circles before becoming increasingly nasty that as soon as Gamergate is dragged up, I mostly check out.

Generic Dreadhead

My Gamergate feelings these days

Robert ninja

gizmo wrote: »

The reliance of a number of publications on poor quality, click bait articles is a perfectly valid topic and one which is very much worthy of discussion. Now, while I may not agree that Gawker Media itself should be the focus since it affects gaming sites across the board, that doesn't change this fact. The problem is that it's totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

I don't think so. I think their attempt to look more like journalists because of this change at gawker is the only reason their follow up article even exists and it is objectively the match that lit the OP. But I don't mind if we can drop Kotaku from the discussion.

gizmo wrote: »

If you listen to Stephen Totilo's interview with TotalBiscuit from October last year you'll see that their output has pretty much matched the direction he outlines during their conversation. The causes of the blacklisting issues Kotaku are currently facing are also a few years old so if they were to close now, I can't really see how it would relate to the present situation if it were need to happen.

I've listened to that before but forget most of it and right now I can't re-listen to it because this device has no speakers or even audio drivers I think. Might have a re-listen later if I have time, thanks.

if they were to close now, I can't really see how it would relate to the present situation if it were need to happen.

Neither would I but you know how these things go. People might want to put a spin on it. Oh well who cares it's just one site I suppose, doesn't matter if it stays or goes. I think it's probably going to stay, anyway. Video games are just as popular as movies at this point.

Links234 wrote: »

That might be me being way too cynical, but it is kinda funny how they're the ones on the side of big publishers.

I think that's a bit far, honestly. Opposing sites that a publisher may also appoose does not make them aligned. Agree with the rest of what you said, though.

super_furry wrote: »

That sums up my feelings on the issue exactly. No number of links to Breitbart, Youtube videos or poorly stitched together Twitter screengrabs is going to change my mind on Gamergate. I've seen so many of these arguments go round in circles before becoming increasingly nasty that as soon as Gamergate is dragged up, I mostly check out.

As long as your feelings on the issue are against GG, you're grand. If you're talking about a neutral stance then aGG think you're proGG. Not that you should care.

johnny_ultimate

Listen: any self proclaimed movement that claims to be focused on ethics in gaming journalism yet at the very same time celebrate Milo Yiannopoulos as pretty much their figurehead deserves to be ignored and ridiculed. Actually, if you want to see exactly how ideologically skewed, hypocritical, manipulative, dishonest, logically suspect and just generally ethically dubious journalism can get, there's a perfect example

Back on topic, one thing that irks me a little is the prevalence of the description 'clickbait' in these discussions. To me clickbait is the sort of vague, cockteasing nonsense you see on the likes of Buzzfeed or those horrible 'viral' sites, where literally the only motivation behind them is a quick click. An interesting or provocative headline is a different thing entirely, because the thing is all publications need strong, stand out headlines that draw a reader in. Yeah, most gaming sites probably have a fair share of shallow or light content that needs a strong header to make an impact, but I also think that comes with the territory. If you want real, insidious clickbait, I would direct you to International Business Times and their gaming content, who abuse the **** out of SEOs and cheeky headlines for no other reason than to force unsuspecting readers to click in. Their typically amateurish and substance-free 'content' (a word I use lightly in this case) is basically an afterthought alongside their lust to further embed themselves in Google search results.

gizmo

Robert ninja wrote: »

I don't think so. I think their attempt to look more like journalists because of this change at gawker is the only reason their follow up article even exists and it is objectively the match that lit the OP. But I don't mind if we can drop Kotaku from the discussion.

Why would those changes at Gawker (rather than Gawker Media) affect Kotaku though? I mean, is it not considerably more likely that the article highlighting their blacklisting by Bethesda and Ubisoft was caused by the lack of launch day reviews for the flagship titles from both companies and readers asking about their absence?

It would be cool if we could just steer away from Kotaku specifically though, as others have said, it just tends to muddy the conversation.

Links234

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Back on topic, one thing that irks me a little is the prevalence of the description 'clickbait' in these discussions. To me clickbait is the sort of vague, cockteasing nonsense you see on the likes of Buzzfeed or those horrible 'viral' sites, where literally the only motivation behind them is a quick click. An interesting or provocative headline is a different thing entirely, because the thing is all publications need strong, stand out headlines that draw a reader in. Yeah, most gaming sites probably have a fair share of shallow or light content that needs a strong header to make an impact, but I also think that comes with the territory. If you want real, insidious clickbait, I would direct you to International Business Times and their gaming content, who abuse the **** out of SEOs and cheeky headlines for no other reason than to force unsuspecting readers to click in. Their typically amateurish and substance-free 'content' (a word I use lightly in this case) is basically an afterthought alongside their lust to further embed themselves in Google search results.

To be fair Johnny, I don't think people are using the term clickbait without merit here. I mean, take one look at Kotaku and you have fluff pieces galore, if you want to see a near perfect example of clickbait, then I give you: This Japanese High School Student's Room Will Amaze You. Now, it is actually kinda cool, but it's still clickbait. That isn't to say there isn't actual content there, there certainly is and sometimes it's quite decent, yesterday I was reading a post about Hard West, which is a game I'm very interested in. But their content isn't really about games, it's always been a sort of mishmash of nerd interests and general Japanese pop culture, fluff pieces about anime, Japanese snack foods, cosplay, and games. It's never really been a serious gaming site.

And I think the quality of Kotaku speaks volumes about this particular scandal, because if a frankly low-effort publication like themselves are speaking up about blacklists, and pissing off publishers, then what the hell are the more well respected 'real' games sites doing? Why are they not stepping up? This should be a much bigger issue than it is, yet a lot in the games media are taking the side of the games publishers. You'd think that if Kotaku was so terrible, other publications could indeed step up, but the fact they've not demonstrates perfectly the sad state of games journalism. In the PC Gaming forum, there was a link posted from gamezone, and it shows exactly what is wrong with this situation:

Sure, Gamers wanted to know if Fallout 4 were in development. And at the proper time, presumably E3 (when Fallout 4 actually was revealed), they would have. The truth would have been made public with or without Kotaku’s leak because that was part of Bethesda’s marketing plan.

Utterly sycophantic. That's supposed to be how games journalism is done? That they are not just happy to be an extention of Bethesda's marketing plan, but that everyone else should be too, because that's the proper order? It's all part of the plan, apparently. This is embarrasing, cowardly 'journalism' that's afraid of being critical of the big publishers.

Speaking of actual games criticism, I've been meaning to ask you Johnny, is there anyone you'd recommend? I've quite enjoyed Errant Signal's youtube channel, and I'm always on the lookout for more voices that will offer deeper criticisms and insights into games. Thanks

kearneybobs

How do you think it would all play out if websites were honest about being blacklisted and what for. They can't blacklist everyone...can they? But being blacklisted shouldn't be something that they should fear or stop them from doing their job on interesting, relevant and topical news.

Links234

TotalBiscuit chimes in on this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zaW1sQg0M

johnny_ultimate

Links234 wrote: »

To be fair Johnny, I don't think people are using the term clickbait without merit here. I mean, take one look at Kotaku and you have fluff pieces galore, if you want to see a near perfect example of clickbait, then I give you: This Japanese High School Student's Room Will Amaze You.

Yep, that absolutely is a clickbait headline, although I don't always think there is a particularly nuanced way to sell fluff pieces. And you're right - as someone who has been reading Kotaku for the guts of a decade now, they have always been heavily focused on a mix of reporting, features and fluff. Their original 'blog' form was obviously a lot more casual than it is today. When it started bridging the gap between enthusiast blog and more serious journalistic endeavour is when there was a bit of dissonance, although also plenty of good stuff too. The one thing I do like about the site is it has always allowed writers to do their own thing - certainly, for better or worse, all of their staff have very distinct interests and styles.

Still, I do think 'clickbait' is thrown around rather nonchalantly, and I've definitely seen it used on the likes of Eurogamer as a misjudged synonym for 'I don't like this story!!!'. But when there's sites like Viral Nova out there (google it, I'm not giving them the satisfaction of a hyperlink ) I think the crimes committed by gaming outlets tend to be quite low down the spectrum - especially since they're usually backed up by actual content, however light it may be.

Speaking of actual games criticism, I've been meaning to ask you Johnny, is there anyone you'd recommend? I've quite enjoyed Errant Signal's youtube channel, and I'm always on the lookout for more voices that will offer deeper criticisms and insights into games. Thanks

As I said earlier, Kill Screen are by far my favourite - they're running a Kickstarter for new print volumes at the moment as well (although shipping means I had to stick with the digital editions ). If there's a more reliable source for consistently strong critical pieces, I haven't found it Look up their pieces on something like The Beginner's Guide - they have some fascinating observations on games like that.

Other than that I just stumble upon pieces from time to time. I like some of Leigh Alexander's writing a lot, even if she is enemy no 1 of GG (endears me to her if anything :pac:). Her piece on MGSV was a good one. Tim Rogers stuff on Kotaku used to be great, not sure if he's writing much these days anywhere. Used to love Randy Smith and Clint Hocking in Edge, really disappointed they retired / were got rid of a year or two ago - Steven Poole is the only of their columnists I really dig these days (I find Ian Bogost's stuff oddly lacking).

Some of the Eurogamer weekend columnists are excellent.

K.O.Kiki

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Tim Rogers stuff on Kotaku used to be great, not sure if he's writing much these days anywhere. Used to love Randy Smith and Clint Hocking in Edge, really disappointed they retired / were got rid of a year or two ago - Steven Poole is the only of their columnists I really dig these days (I find Ian Bogost's stuff oddly lacking).

Tim Rogers has never been anything but lost up his own arse for 10'000 word long "reviews".


He embodies everything wrong with "New Games Journalism".

BlitzKrieg

Links234 wrote: »

TotalBiscuit chimes in on this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zaW1sQg0M

That was the video that ended up having me unsubscribe to TB. I like his WTF videos and I did enjoy his hearthstone shinanigans quite a bit. But I always find his talks about the industry videos to be a chore at best and frustrating at worse.


On the whole blacklisting discussion. I thought Kotaku brought it up more because they were getting hammered over and over in their comments over the late reviews of Fallout 4 and Assassins Creed. Which kind of makes this being a hot button topic rather hilarious cause it was set off not by any notion of blowing the lid on anything but as a statement on why they have late reviews/limited access on such prominent titles. They've discussed the fact they've been blacklisted before many years ago and did a news story on the blacklisting in much the same manner then too.

orubiru

I wouldn't be surprised to find that a lot of publishers would be looking for ANY excuse to distance themselves from websites like Kotaku, Polygon and Kill Screen etc.

These websites are poisonous.

Can this conversation even happen without bringing up the dreaded "GG"? I don't think so.

The truth is that the word "gamergate", and most of the talking points that surround it, is completely toxic. Certain individuals like Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu were sneaky, confrontational, @$$holes LONG before the phrase "gamergate" had been thought up and there are plenty more just like them.

Websites like Kotaku etc could have helped themselves by just reporting honestly on the whole thing. You know, looking at both sides of the story. They did not do this.

Instead, they alienated a lot of the consumers and so put themselves in a position where it's not beneficial for the publishers of games to align themselves with these toxic websites.

Here is an article from Kotaku by Nathan Grayson titled "Ubisoft Refused To Talk To Me About Women" http://tmi.kotaku.com/ubisoft-refused-to-talk-to-me-about-women-1590289504 Read the article and actually think about what's happening there.

So, from a publishers point of view, why would you want to engage with a journalist who is really only angling for a "Gotcha!" moment with your employees?

Here is Kill Screen calling out Nintendo because they created a new female character but not the female character they wanted, or something. https://killscreen.com/articles/nintendo-still-wont-make-link-girl-theyll-put-him-dress-and-call-him-linkle-2/

Now, I would have thought all I need to do to have a female Link would be to just change the name to "Mary" or whatever on the game select screen? I don't even really know what people specifically mean when they say "I want to see a Female Link".

From Nintendo's point of view here they have created a new female character and they've basically been told "Not good enough. Here, have some negative publicity."

Anyway, again, the question is why would publishers actually ever want to deal with these journalists? They are only interested in pushing their stupid personal agendas.

Just like any mention of Gamergate, these websites are toxic. It may even be beneficial for publishers to blacklist them.

orubiru

kunst nugget wrote: »

Do you think it was worth all the guff? All the death threats? All the doxxing? All the humiliation? All the bullying?

No.

What I really don't understand though is why reporting on the story had to be SO one sided?

Anyone with access to Google and Youtube can quickly establish that there are reasonable voices on both sides. Anyone with a bit of time to look can figure out that there are A LOT of people, on both sides, with sizable platforms, who are just flat out lying about gamergate or gaming or gamers or whatever.

Folks, if someone showed up your home with their Manchester United jersey torn and their face bloodied and battered complaining that they'd been beaten up by Liverpool fans. You would definitely be sympathetic and you might even think "wow, Liverpool fans are awful". That's fine. If you found out that they had been parading through town trash talking Liverpool fans, antagonizing them and provoking them before finally walking down a dark alley where any potential attackers could be guaranteed anonymity. Would you just pretend that this extra bit information didn't exist?

Would you just flat out lie because "Group X are terrible people" gets you a pat on the back from your buddies and "wait, can we look at this thing objectively" gets you "all the death threats all the doxxing all the humiliation and all the bullying"? It works both ways. Why not try a little objectivity?

I feel like the response of "Gaming Journalists" should have been to just give both sides of the story, come to the conclusion that both sides have reasonable people and both sides have terrible people then basically call for both sides to "break it up".

They should have been playing "peace keeper" instead of adding fuel to the fire.

Links234

With all due respect Orubiru, we don't want to hear it any more. Lots of people have had it up to their eyeballs already, and no amount of "but, both sides!" links to GG approved sites, arguments no matter how empassioned, or false equivalence and football hooligan parables, are going to convince anyone. Most people, I think, just want to move on from it and actually have a serious discussion, one that was made impossible this past year. Let it go.

We just don't want to see another fruitful discussion be scuppered by gamergate nonsense yet again.

BlitzKrieg

The truth is that the word "gamergate", and most of the talking points that surround it, is completely toxic. Certain individuals like Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu were sneaky, confrontational, @$$holes LONG before the phrase "gamergate" had been thought up and there are plenty more just like them.

I'm sorry but lets be frank here. Go to any AAA publishers and say the names Zoe Quinn or Brianna Wu and they'd say who? There is nothing in the whole *SJW crisis* that remotely affects or concerns. It always strikes me as the oddest thing that this is what became the focus of the so called ethics crisis when it barely affects 1% of the industry. I mean the issue at hand struggled to get any comment let alone endorsement for either side when it blew it up. I think the most high profile developer that said anything on the issue was Tim Schaffer who's still an independent though prominent personality. The game industry doesnt care about this. They'll brush it off and wait for it to blow over like all their other problems.

Folks, if someone showed up your home with their Manchester United jersey torn and their face bloodied and battered complaining that they'd been beaten up by Liverpool fans. You would definitely be sympathetic and you might even think "wow, Liverpool fans are awful". That's fine. If you found out that they had been parading through town trash talking Liverpool fans, antagonizing them and provoking them before finally walking down a dark alley where any potential attackers could be guaranteed anonymity. Would you just pretend that this extra bit information didn't exist?

Looking at this objectively I'd say that's a bit of victim blaming and excusing violence because "they deserved it".

orubiru

Links234 wrote: »

With all due respect Orubiru, we don't want to hear it any more. Lots of people have had it up to their eyeballs already, and no amount of "but, both sides!" links to GG approved sites, arguments no matter how empassioned, or false equivalence and football hooligan parables, are going to convince anyone. Most people, I think, just want to move on from it and actually have a serious discussion, one that was made impossible this past year. Let it go.

We just don't want to see another fruitful discussion be scuppered by gamergate nonsense yet again.

OK. OK. OK.

The 11th post in this thread is "Okay, who am I sending death threats to this time…". A post that you have "thanked" and not called out at all.

BUT you were happy enough to respond to the 13th post, the Go Home Gamer Girl.gif, saying that "it's not conductive to any discussion".

I thought that both posts were funny and basically alluded to what we were ALL thinking "when will this conversation become a GG conversation".

Your blatant double standard does as much to scupper fruitful discussion as the inevitable mention of GG. In fact, you kind of kicked it off yourself by calling out "Robert Ninja" in the first place.

That's the thing though isn't it? The gaming press themselves have pretty much guaranteed that any conversation around gaming journalism has "GG" lurking under the surface. They dealt with the situation horribly and so whenever gaming journalism is brought up the behavior of gaming journalists is mentioned and this inevitable leads to talk of "GG".

It's pretty much here to stay.

orubiru

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'm sorry but lets be frank here. Go to any AAA publishers and say the names Zoe Quinn or Brianna Wu and they'd say who? There is nothing in the whole *SJW crisis* that remotely affects or concerns. It always strikes me as the oddest thing that this is what became the focus of the so called ethics crisis when it barely affects 1% of the industry. I mean the issue at hand struggled to get any comment let alone endorsement for either side when it blew it up. I think the most high profile developer that said anything on the issue was Tim Schaffer who's still an independent though prominent personality. The game industry doesnt care about this. They'll brush it off and wait for it to blow over like all their other problems.

Looking at this objectively I'd say that's a bit of victim blaming and excusing violence because "they deserved it".

I don't wanna derail the conversation any more but, yes, I am hoping that you are right and AAA developers are just oblivious and this thing will eventually just disappear.

I was definitely trying to avoid a situation where I was "victim blaming" but there are obviously cases where provocation leads to consequences and while we are not saying "they deserved it" we can still say "they were obviously being antagonistic."

Anyways, best leave it there, I think.

kunst nugget

orubiru wrote: »

OK. OK. OK.

The 11th post in this thread is "Okay, who am I sending death threats to this time…". A post that you have "thanked" and not called out at all.

BUT you were happy enough to respond to the 13th post, the Go Home Gamer Girl.gif, saying that "it's not conductive to any discussion".

I thought that both posts were funny and basically alluded to what we were ALL thinking "when will this conversation become a GG conversation".

Your blatant double standard does as much to scupper fruitful discussion as the inevitable mention of GG. In fact, you kind of kicked it off yourself by calling out "Robert Ninja" in the first place.

That's the thing though isn't it? The gaming press themselves have pretty much guaranteed that any conversation around gaming journalism has "GG" lurking under the surface. They dealt with the situation horribly and so whenever gaming journalism is brought up the behavior of gaming journalists is mentioned and this inevitable leads to talk of "GG".

It's pretty much here to stay.

That 11th post was mine and I'm guessing he liked it because he knew I was being light hearted. The problem is I suppose that a lot of people take the whole bullshít that was gamergate too seriously. It was never about games journalism no matter what anyone says and the negative response to Kotaku calling out the fact that they've been blacklisted because they didn't toe the line of the publishers proves it.

It was, and always will be, a culture war pitting social justice orientated progressive with a ironically fascistic bent who are more ban happy than the PRMC and have a misguided notion of what people should be offended about and libertarian knuckleheads who seem to spend their whole life blaming feminism for the state of the world and destroying the preciousness of our free speech ideals by using them to be complete arseholes.

If jihadis had spent time looking at forums discussing gamergate they probably wouldn't bother waging war on the west because they'd know it was eating itself from the inside out.

If I want to know about games I'm interested, here's my port of call because there's people whose opinion I trust and I'll get a good idea of whether something is for me by reading over the debates some games have generated. Games journalism is fluff that really doesn't reallly impinge on my life at all. Gamergate seemed all-encompassing for a while and I have to say it kind of made me hate people. It was horrendous.

BlitzKrieg

Games journalism is fluff that really doesn't reallly impinge on my life at all. Gamergate seemed all-encompassing for a while and I have to say it kind of made me hate people. It was horrendous.

games journalism is like Top Gear (or it's upcoming replacement), it's likes showing off new toys while waxing warmly over classics but you'd never expect to see them break the news about the VW test scandle on the show.

kunst nugget

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

games journalism is like Top Gear (or it's upcoming replacement), it's likes showing off new toys while waxing warmly over classics but you'd never expect to see them break the news about the VW test scandle on the show.

I think it's time we started to get people thinking about 'ethics in car journalism'.

BlitzKrieg

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think it's time we started to get people thinking about 'ethics in car journalism'.

No you need to wait until they have a female host on top gear

then you can care about ehtics in car journalism.

Shiminay

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No you need to wait until they have a female host on top gear

then you can care about ehtics in car journalism.

Well Top Gear used to have Vicki Butler-Henderson who stuck with Tiff and Quentin when they left BBC and started 5th Gear

And of course German equivalent was co-hosted by the very excellent Sabine Schmitz.

:P