Support NeoGAF

[Lowlander2]

The problem with games journalism isn't some systematic campaign to destroy its integrity. I daresay there's nothing insidious about it. It is only a lax attitude towards the ineptitude of those involved that has caused a more widespread, subversive problem. The reason these articles are all springing up at the same time isn't collusion; it's just that the center has, perhaps not become, but certainly taken on hivemind tendencies. That's what I was talking about last week; ultimately, the press has become too lax and has failed to see how misshapen it's become, which is the only reason developers and press are too close as is.

Calm down.

 

[ironcreed]

Yes, the 'gamer' is dead. It's certainly not gamers who are buying the millions of next generation systems and I suppose that games like Destiny or the many other titles releasing will not be bought by gamers, either. Clearly, the gaming industry is better off without the gamers who buy the most games. Furthermore, the gaming press will also be better off without those dirty gamers who read their gaming news and give them the most traffic. The future is bright indeed for the gaming industry without the very individuals who support it the most.

 

[Shinta]

The reason these articles are all springing up at the same time isn't collusion

I just don't think I believe that. They all talk to each other on twitter all the time. They discuss games they're reviewing before the reviews come out. It's really not a big leap to suggest that they discussed this and all went and wrote articles about it.

I can see a lot of angry people when they find out she pimped games by friends/lovers, including showering praise on them and linking directly to sales pages without disclosing that at the time of publication.

Can I get some links to any of this? Just curious.

 

[ironcreed]

I can just imagine Stuart Scott from ESPN coming out on social media to insult his very audience by declaring the sports fan dead just because he hates how some of them behave at sporting events when their team loses. Hell, there are cases of riots, shit being set on fire, cars being tipped over, etc. But do we hold sports fans in general responsible and demonize them as a collective?

 

[Frog-fu]

You cannot make these two arguments together without looking disingenuous. If you really think that people need to stop being vitriolic while seeing themselves as noble crusaders, you should realize how it comes across to read people responding with negative opinions to recent events as "collusion." It's just a bunch of shitty opinion pieces like posts on discussion boards; unlike actual colluding consumer-hurting journalism, they aren't trying to mislead is about the products we consume, they're just treating their readers as shitheads because of some bad eggs.

Those shitty opinion pieces are widespread on popular websites like Kotaku, Polgyon and Gamasutra amongst others. Notice the coinciding dates? It is clear they are spinning a narrative. We are long past the point of actually proving that games journalism is dishonest and corrupt. The lack of ethics is well document, and gamers have known it for a long time, however this whole #GamerGate thing was the last straw for a large number of people.

I can be disappointed and critical of the state of gaming journalism while opposing mindless vitriol on both sides. I disagree that makes me disingenuous.

 

[Menome]

We are long past the point of actually proving that games journalism is dishonest and corrupt. The lack of ethics is well document, and gamers have known it for a long time, however this whole #GamerGate thing was the last straw for a large number of people.

Until you have actual, tangible proof it is still just an unsubstantiated theory. A bunch of opinion articles on how there is a problem within gaming culture after two incidents showing that there is a problem in gaming culture is in no way suspicious.

 

[Vice]

I just don't think I believe that. They all talk to each other on twitter all the time. They discuss games they're reviewing before the reviews come out. It's really not a big leap to suggest that they discussed this and all went and wrote articles about it.
.

It's a big news item for the week. Every newspaper and TV station in NorCal wrote or recorded a segment about the Napa earthquake a week ago but it's not collusion. It's just news for their area. Sometimes by reporting on an important, or unusual, event in your field you write something similar to what everyone else is.

 

[Shinta]

It's a big news item for the week. Every newspaper and TV station in NorCal wrote or recorded a segment about the Napa earthquake a week ago but it's not collusion. It's just news for their area. Sometimes by reporting on an important, or unusual, event in your field you write something similar to what everyone else is.

Most newspapers disclose that they get a lot of their news from the Associated Press. Covering a big news event without any real ideological bent to it like an earthquake isn't a great example.

This is a media bomb of articles all saying "gamers are dead." It's a pretty specific thing to try and say. It's like if every newspaper wrote an editorial piece on the exact same thing and all used the exact same language.

 

[JonathanEx]

But if you read the articles, there's different nuances and ideas between them. Based on similar arguments but hardly identical.

 

[Shinta]

But if you read the articles, there's different nuances and ideas between them. Based on similar arguments but hardly identical.

Which is why people suggested they talk to eachother and agree on the timing of a generalized idea, not that they copy and paste identical articles.

They literally sit and talk about games they are playing for review together. Sometimes they are stuck and need help on a part before FAQs are out. Sometimes they are literally in the exact same social circles. This has been known for a while.

 

[Menome]

Most newspapers disclose that they get a lot of their news from the Associated Press. Covering a big news event without any real ideological bent to it like an earthquake isn't a great example.

This is a media bomb of articles all saying "gamers are dead." It's a pretty specific thing to try and say. It's like if every newspaper wrote an editorial piece on the exact same thing and all used the exact same language.

But the actual content of each article differs in tone and approach. It's not all the exact same language.

EDIT: Beaten.

 

[Vice]

Most newspapers disclose that they get a lot of their news from the Associated Press. Covering a big news event without any real ideological bent to it like an earthquake isn't a great example.

This is a media bomb of articles all saying "gamers are dead." It's a pretty specific thing to try and say. It's like if every newspaper wrote an editorial piece on the exact same thing and all used the exact same language.

All AP stories and photos require you give credit to them. I meant that Northern California papers sent reporters to cover the area, or at least make phone calls, all at the same time.

An example of an opinion based one would be the various opinions that pop up after shooting like the Isla Vista or Sandy Hook incidents. They generally have a tone of wanting to have better background checks or mental health exams. It is not some great media collusion since most newspapers rarely interact with each other and is just a conclusion that they came independently of other publications.

It's a trend story. It's perfectly legitimate, ethically, to write about something if it's getting a lot of attention. Due to similar backgrounds opinions will often be similar but there are always dissenters in the media.

 

[JonathanEx]

Which is why people suggested they talk to eachother and agree on the timing of a generalized idea, not that they copy and paste identical articles.

But I said that in direct response to you saying -

This is a media bomb of articles all saying "gamers are dead." It's a pretty specific thing to try and say. It's like if every newspaper wrote an editorial piece on the exact same thing and all used the exact same language.

Exact same thing and exact same language. Same base topic, different points and language.

 

[Shinta]

But you just said...?

"Gamers are dead" or "the end of gamers" or "guide to ending gamers" or "women killing gamers" or "we may be witnessing the end of gamers" is the language I meant. The rest can vary slightly here and there, but it's a pretty consistent talking point.

You guys are really not going to convince me otherwise.

An example of an opinion based one would be the various opinions that pop up after shooting like the Isla Vista or Sandy Hook incidents. They generally have a tone of wanting to have better background checks or mental health exams.

Fox News usually says the exact opposite. And that's not really what I always see being pushed.

And often in opinions like that, many times they bring on representatives from the two main political parties, and they literally do coordinate their talking points before hand.

 

[Vice]

"Gamers are dead" or "the end of gamers" or "guide to ending gamers" or "women killing gamers" or "we may be witnessing the end of gamers" is the language I meant. The rest can vary slightly here and there, but it's a pretty consistent talking point.

You guys are really not going to convince me otherwise.

Similar opinions does not mean collusion though. Look at the opinions on the Washington Redskin's name. The majority of opinions feel that the name is archaic and should be changed but I doubt every sportswriter got together to come to this conclusion.

Fox News usually says the exact opposite. And that's not really what I always see being pushed.

And often in opinions like that, many times they bring on representatives from the two main political parties, and they literally do coordinate their talking points before hand.

And there are people in the games media saying the exact opposite as well. I am speaking in terms of online or print editorials which are written by the staff of the publication not political pundits.

 

[JonathanEx]

"Gamers are dead" or "the end of gamers" or "guide to ending gamers" or "women killing gamers" or "we may be witnessing the end of gamers" is the language I meant. The rest can vary slightly here and there, but it's a pretty consistent talking point.

You guys are really not going to convince me otherwise.

See, here's our problem. You say we can't convince you at all. But right now we have to prove a negative, that they didn't collude. Surely the onus is on you to prove it, because right now it's a conspiracy theory. I know that sounds loaded, but it's also literally true - there is a theory they conspired with the timing. The "proof" is timing and topic. Which as explained, similarities often happen with say, current affairs.

 

[Shinta]

Similar opinions does not mean collusion though. Look at the opinions on the Washington Redskin's name. The majority of opinions feel that the name is archaic and should be changed but I doubt every sportswriter got together to come to this conclusion.

That's a decades old criticism that one can reach independently. "Gamers are dead" is not. It's just not. Sorry.

See, here's our problem. You say we can't convince you at all. But right now we have to prove a negative, that they didn't collude. Surely the onus is on you to prove it, because right now it's a conspiracy theory. I know that sounds loaded, but it's also literally true - there is a theory they conspired with the timing. The "proof" is timing and topic. Which as explained, similarities often happen with say, current affairs.

I don't care if it's proven. I'm not trying to convince other people. If you don't believe it, that's 100% fine with me.

I was just making an observation. It's hardly airtight proof for a court of law, but I never claimed it was. I'm just having a discussion on a forum. Sure looks a hell of a lot like they planned it out or at least discussed it beforehand. That's about all I'm saying.

And, they do discuss tons of shit on twitter together, all the time. For years now.

 

[Vice]

That's a decades old criticism that one can reach independently. "Gamers are dead" is not. It's just not. Sorry.

.

The idea that gamer culture has changed, or become pointless, is something that has been brought up by the video game media for quite some time though. So has the idea that games should no longer cater to one corner of their audience.

 

[Shinta]

The idea that gamer culture has changed, or become pointless, is something that has been brought up by the video game media for quite some time though. So has the idea that games should no longer cater to one corner of their audience.

Never like this before, with this level of coordinated attack.

Nope. It's a first. I've never read that "gamers are dead" before - let alone on every single major website at the exact same time.

 

[Menome]

Never like this before, with this level of coordinated attack.

Nope. It's a first. I've never read that "gamers are dead" before - let alone on every single major website at the exact same time.

Has there ever been a situation like the past fortnight though, with three separate-if-slightly-connected attacks on prominent people within gaming culture from people identifying as 'disgruntled gamers'?

 

[Scizzy]

It's not a coordinated attack and there's no secret where the "gamers are dead" articles came from. Leigh Alexander wrote an interesting and provocative article (I'm not even sure I agree with it, but it was definitely thought provoking) and a bunch of writers reacted to it. I bet every one of those pieces refers to hers. When a billion writers started talking about reparations online a few months ago, it wasn't because they all got together and said, "now is the time!" It was because Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a widely read cover story about it. No different here.

 

[Vice]

Never like this before, with this level of coordinated attack.

Nope. It's a first.

Because it is a trend because one story was very popular.For example, before last year the Redskin's name was an occasional story but it exploded and everyone jumped on the train. Same with gay athletes and Michael Sam, mental health and gun with the Isla Vista/Sandy Hook/Theater shooting, the inefficiencies of FEMA and Katrina, the threat of ISIS and the killing of Foley, etc. It's a natural part of the news cycle that an idea will become insanely popular then be written about into the dirt and then heard from again occasionally when a similar event happens.

For gaming, similar trends happened with the announcement of the XBONes DRM, blue ocean strategies after the Wii, work conditions and budgets after LA Noire, fan backlash with DmC, and so on and so forth.

 

[Toxi]

Never like this before, with this level of coordinated attack.

Nope. It's a first. I've never read that "gamers are dead" before - let alone on every single major website at the exact same time.

The reason why "gamers is dead" is "everywhere" is because people won't stop clicking on Leigh Alexander's opinion piece with the headline "Gamers are Over". It's clearly a hot-button issue, as so people want to write about it, both in support and against. Opinion pieces always chase the newest trends, both for clicks and for relevance.

That's a decades old criticism that one can reach independently. "Gamers are dead" is not. It's just not. Sorry.

"Traditional gaming is dying" isn't a new opinion and just received some ammo with the recent poll numbers about the gaming demographics.

"Gamers have a problem with mysoginy" is also not a new opinion and also received some new ammo with the death threats against Sarkeesian.

You guys are really not going to convince me otherwise.

See, here's the problem. Why even discuss this with you when you're willing to accuse people of collusion with minimal evidence and outright state you won't be convinced otherwise?

 

[Shinta]

Has there ever been a situation like the past fortnight though, with three separate-if-slightly-connected attacks on prominent people within gaming culture from people identifying as 'disgruntled gamers'?

Once again ...

Reporting that those events happened, is fine. Reporting that they happened and taking a stance on it is fine, if it's an opinion piece.

Using those separate events to come up with a completely unrelated talking point, and just magically coordinating an offensive on every major website saying the exact same thing - "gamers are dead" - is not the same thing. To even arrive at that idea, you have to make the leap that "gamers" is suddenly redefined as a term that only negatively describes misogynists and trolls, something it has never done for 20 years. Then you have to make the leap that suddenly, they're all "dead", despite Sony's appealing to the core gamer crowd being the reason they are literally crushing every sales record right now; and the same reason MS just did a complete 180 and redesigned their entire idea of what Xbox One is.

You can't arrive at those points independently, all at the exact same time. It's not even related. Even worse, it's not even true. Gamers have never been that.

 

[Toxi]

For gaming, similar trends happened with the announcement of the XBONes DRM, blue ocean strategies after the Wii, work conditions and budgets after LA Noire, fan backlash with DmC, and so on and so forth.

Clearly more evidence of the game journalism's collusion. I can't believe we haven't seen it before!

 

[Vice]

Once again ...

Reporting that those events happened, is fine. Reporting that they happened and taking a stance on it is fine, if it's an opinion piece.

Using those separate events to come up with a completely unrelated talking point, and just magically coordinating an offensive on every major website saying the exact same thing - "gamers are dead" - is not the same thing. To even arrive at that idea, you have to make the leap that "gamers" is suddenly redefined as a term that only negatively describes misogynists and trolls, something it has never done for 20 years. Then you have to make the leap that suddenly, they're all "dead", despite Sony's appealing to the core gamer crowd being the reason they are literally crushing every sales record right now; and the same reason MS just did a complete 180 and redesigned their entire idea of what Xbox One is.

You can't arrive at those points independently, all at the exact same time. It's not even related. Even worse, it's not even true. Gamers have never been that.

For years, the gaming press has said that their fanbase had a high number of bad people, who would do things such as send death threats over a review score being .5 points too low. It is not something they came to suddenly.

Retail sales and the relevance of havingto appeal to a smaller audience doesn't mean that gamers aren't over since PC and mobile sales are at am all time high I believes and consoles are virtually dead in one region already. You can have success by appealing to one audience but that doesn't mean that the segment you're appealing to is growing at a great speed or isn't filled with bad people who drown out the good majority with their constant whining, complaints, trolling and threats.

 

[Shinta]

For years, the gaming press has said that their fanbase had a high number of bad people, who would do things such as send death threats over a review score being .5 points too low. It is not something they came to suddenly.

And for years they mostly said that to each other on twitter, in small social circles that a lot are a part of. That's why people have called them guilty of being in a "bubble" and "circling the wagons." Because they routinely discuss things among themselves and come to a coordinated opinion that way.

 

[Menome]

To even arrive at that idea, you have to make the leap that "gamers" is suddenly redefined as a term that only negatively describes misogynists and trolls, something it has never done for 20 years.

Leigh Alexander's piece isn't about what we as a community have thought of ourselves as being gamers, it's about breaking down the stereotype-label of 'Gamers' that was imposed from above by marketers and why we need to break away from that label. We aren't all teenage boys who think shooting everything and ingrained tropes are awesome and that's what Leigh was trying to say. We need to be seen as people who play games and not 'Gamers'.

 

[jordisok]

Never like this before, with this level of coordinated attack.

So this "coordinated attack", what do you think the purpose of it is?

 

[Shinta]

Leigh Alexander's piece isn't about what we as a community have thought of ourselves as being gamers, it's about breaking down the stereotype-label of 'Gamers' that was imposed from above by marketers and why we need to break away from that label. We aren't all teenage boys who think shooting everything and ingrained tropes are awesome and that's what Leigh was trying to say. We need to be seen as people who play games and not 'Gamers'.

You need to define yourself however you want. And let others do the same without bullying them into something else you prefer.

 

[MC Safety]

Once again ...

Reporting that those events happened, is fine. Reporting that they happened and taking a stance on it is fine, if it's an opinion piece.

Using those separate events to come up with a completely unrelated talking point, and just magically coordinating an offensive on every major website saying the exact same thing - "gamers are dead" - is not the same thing. To even arrive at that idea, you have to make the leap that "gamers" is suddenly redefined as a term that only negatively describes misogynists and trolls, something it has never done for 20 years. Then you have to make the leap that suddenly, they're all "dead", despite Sony's appealing to the core gamer crowd being the reason they are literally crushing every sales record right now; and the same reason MS just did a complete 180 and redesigned their entire idea of what Xbox One is.

You can't arrive at those points independently, all at the exact same time. It's not even related. Even worse, it's not even true. Gamers have never been that.

I lament the advent of game journalists as advocates for whatever the position of the day is. It's just another sign the people who write about games are entirely too close to the crumb, as it were.

 

[Toxi]

Once again ...

Reporting that those events happened, is fine. Reporting that they happened and taking a stance on it is fine, if it's an opinion piece.

Using those separate events to come up with a completely unrelated talking point, and just magically coordinating an offensive on every major website saying the exact same thing - "gamers are dead" - is not the same thing. To even arrive at that idea, you have to make the leap that "gamers" is suddenly redefined as a term that only negatively describes misogynists and trolls, something it has never done for 20 years. Then you have to make the leap that suddenly, they're all "dead", despite Sony's appealing to the core gamer crowd being the reason they are literally crushing every sales record right now; and the same reason MS just did a complete 180 and redesigned their entire idea of what Xbox One is.

You can't arrive at those points independently, all at the exact same time. It's not even related. Even worse, it's not even true. Gamers have never been that.

The "gamers are over" narrative, again, is the obvious result of Leigh Alexander's story with that headline receiving a million billion clicks. Combine that with other recent hot topic information like the change in the majority gaming demographics and the reactionary backlash from some nutjobs to people like Anita Sarkeesian, and it's a very easy topic to write about no matter how wrongheaded it is.

It's not a coordinated attack, it's a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon because the bandwagon gets clicks and publicity. And as pointed out, this is not unique to games journalism.

 

[Menome]

You need to define yourself however you want. And let others do the same without bullying them into something else you prefer.

Nobody in these articles has bullied anyone. They've put forward various opinions and it's up to us whether we agree with them or not. There's no gun being held to our head, they're not threatening to block us from reading the websites they work for if we don't agree with them.

 

[Frog-fu]

Until you have actual, tangible proof it is still just an unsubstantiated theory. A bunch of opinion articles on how there is a problem within gaming culture after two incidents showing that there is a problem in gaming culture is in no way suspicious.

Have you not been following this shitstorm, are you not aware of Kotaku's new Patreon policy or the fact Patricia Hernandez was exposed to be one of the biggest offenders and had to update her articles in which she covered close friends of her and linked to their store pages, without disclosing her ties in the first place, or better yet, recusing herself as she should have done? You are not aware of the fact that this is all still happening, with more information coming to light every day, but you are perfectly content telling me that there is no proof when it is right in front of you, and in abundance no less?

This narrative that is being spun by these opinion pieces, how gamer culture is dying and how gamers are responsible because they're intolerant misogynists is no different that the talking points you see on Fox news. They deflect blame, distract from the real issues, and treat their readership with contempt. What's worse is the fact that people actually buy this and feel the need to pile on those nasty, women hating, neckbeard, virgin basement dwellers.

 

[Shinta]

Nobody in these articles has bullied anyone.

That's just factually inaccurate.

 

[Vice]

And for years they mostly said that to each other on twitter, in small social circles that a lot are a part of. That's why people have called them guilty of being in a "bubble" and "circling the wagons." Because they routinely discuss things among themselves and come to a coordinated opinion that way.

So, they come to hold opinions on things after noticing that a group of people continue to harass, threaten and belittle them and their peers. This is not collusion it is having shared experiences that shaped their view on an issue. If someone and their coworkers/peers are threatened over the same thing, often over something incredibly inconsequential, they may come to view the audience that allows this as bad.

So, assuming getting something a death threat over something like a 30 minute video is news worthy the creator of that piece would mention it. A writer would then share a similar experience or thoughts on the event, as most people would perceive death threats as bad then the majority of opinions would be similar.


For the gamers are over articles you can reach that opinion independently. Casual markets, such as mobile and F2P, are exploding while console sales and hardcore games are doing no better, or much worse depending on the region, than they did when the last set of consoles launched. The markets that are appealing to the non-traditional gamers are thriving while traditional ones are growing somewhat stagnant. As a result, appealing to them becomes less important to a business as that market will likely always be there and time would be better used for many companies to appeal to the newer growing ones which means they do not have to appeal to the older gamer market if they don't want to as it may even be detrimental to future success. And, while the traditional console games market is growing smaller, a growing number of people appear to be expression antiquated opinions about something or someone,in this case women, and it's just something that most people want to distance themselves from.

 

[QuantumZebra]

People dislike Geoff Keighley? I think he's a pretty cool guy...

I think he's one of the few that in a way admits to being a "sell out" and accepts the cracks on him for it. He's definitely not as bad as some others...

 

[Fuchsdh]

The problem with games journalism isn't some systematic campaign to destroy its integrity. I daresay there's nothing insidious about it. It is only a lax attitude towards the ineptitude of those involved that has caused a more widespread, subversive problem. The reason these articles are all springing up at the same time isn't collusion; it's just that the center has, perhaps not become, but certainly taken on hivemind tendencies. That's what I was talking about last week; ultimately, the press has become too lax and has failed to see how misshapen it's become, which is the only reason developers and press are too close as is.

Calm down.

Yeah I'm not seeing the collusion others are. There's nothing surprising that other publications jump on a story if they think it's going to get attention--"gamers are dead" is something that got attention.

There are all sorts of issues regarding journalism in general and game news in particular; game journos are often not really trained as journalists and don't have transparent codes that would help police and dispel bad or just unseemy behavior.

I feel like this has gotten so wrapped up with the issues of gamer stereotypes/SJW/identity and diversity in the sphere that it's impossible to discuss it clearly. We're talking about interconnected but very different things.

 

[Menome]

Have you not been following this shitstorm

I've followed it from the moment the Zoe Quinn thing erupted. Kotaku's new policy is a positive step to safeguard against any actual infractions in ethics in future, after this shitstorm blew up over one that didn't even happen. Depression Quest got no positive-boost coverage from Nathan Grayson on Kotaku, there's nothing for the site to put its tail between its legs about. If that means going back and making sure past articles have full disclosure on them as well, then that's the way it's being done. It's not in any way an admission of guilt.

That's just factually inaccurate.

Okay, which of these articles from that day have I missed that threatened the readers against non-compliance with their ideas?

 

[Shinta]

So, they come to hold opinions on things after noticing that a group of people continue to harass, threaten and belittle them and their peers. This is not collusion it is having shared experiences that shaped their view on an issue. If someone and their coworkers/peers are threatened over the same thing, often over something incredibly inconsequential, they may come to view the audience that allows this as bad.

So, assuming getting something a death threat over something like a 30 minute video is news worthy the creator of that piece would mention it. A writer would then share a similar experience or thoughts on the event, as most people would perceive death threats as bad then the majority of opinions would be similar.

But they are often the ones who start the harassment, like against David Jaffe, or Max Tempkin. And who they decide to choose to side with and side against is, again, always coordinated with no diversity of coverage. No diversity of opinion.

For the gamers are over articles you can reach that opinion independently. Casual markets, such as mobile and F2P, are exploding while console sales and hardcore games are doing no better, or much worse depending on the region, than they did when the last set of consoles launched. The markets that are appealing to the non-traditional gamers are thriving while traditional ones are growing somewhat stagnant. As a result, appealing to them becomes less important to a business as that market will likely always be there and time would be better used for many companies to appeal to the newer growing ones which means they do not have to appeal to the older gamer market if they don't want to as it may even be detrimental to future success. And, while the traditional console games market is growing smaller, a growing number of people appear to be expression antiquated opinions about something or someone,in this case women, and it's just something that most people want to distance themselves from.

Growth of mobile is fine, but this is really not what they're talking about. It's something else entirely. It's saying they're "dead" because they generalize them all as misogynistic assholes, and they basically say they're dead because they are going to coordinate to "kill" their influence. Alexander literally calls for that kind of coordinated attack IN HER ARTICLES OPENLY.

 

[Toxi]

Growth of mobile is fine, but this is really not what they're talking about. It's something else entirely. It's saying they're "dead" because they generalize them all as misogynistic assholes, and they basically say they're dead because they are going to coordinate to "kill" their influence. Alexander literally calls for that kind of coordinated attack IN HER ARTICLES OPENLY.

Please tell me what motive journalists would have to conspire to kill their audience.

 

[Shinta]

Please tell me what motive journalists would have to conspire to kill their audience.

Visions of utopia. Literally.

They have dehumanized their audience as being the pure embodiment of evil. We are half-human abstractions that need to have the influence cut, their voice silenced, and to be systematically taken down with coordinated PR ("we are louder than you") until they are gone.

Then they can live in a perfect world. It's classic utopian fantasy. And like all utopian fantasy, it can easily be used to justify bullying and hatred when you focus it on a dehumanized "enemy."

 

[jordisok]

Visions of utopia. Literally.

They have dehumanized their audience as being the pure embodiment of evil. We are half-human abstractions that need to have the influence cut, their voice silenced, and to be systematically taken down with coordinated PR ("we are louder than you") until they are gone.

Then they can live in a perfect world. It's classic utopian fantasy. And like all utopian fantasy, it can easily be used to justify bullying and hatred when you focus it on a dehumanized "enemy."

I feel you've kind of gone over the edge.

These people write everyday about videogames for usually pretty shit money from what I understand because they love the culture, and they write for people who play games (mostly, and obviously for the sake of writing too).

 

[Frog-fu]

I've followed it from the moment the Zoe Quinn thing erupted. Kotaku's new policy is a positive step to safeguard against any actual infractions in ethics in future, after this shitstorm blew up over one that didn't even happen. Depression Quest got no positive-boost coverage from Nathan Grayson on Kotaku, there's nothing for the site to put its tail between its legs about. If that means going back and making sure past articles have full disclosure on them as well, then that's the way it's being done. It's not in any way an admission of guilt.

Consumer outrage over unethical journalisms leads to positive changes to prevent unethical journalism, but those changes are not indicative of any prior unethical journalism? And you're going to ignore the fact Patricia Hernandez was exposed for doing what Nathan Grayson was accused of doing?

There is evidence out there, in vast quantities, that either outright prove or strongly suggest widespread corruption, nepotism and cronyism, but you would rather have me believe that none of that is true, that the games journalism industry is not at all corrupt, and that this latest scandal that has led to #GamerGate is baseless and fruitless, despite the mounting evidence that suggests otherwise? No. You are being intellectually dishonest and wilfully ignorant of the facts.

 

[Shinta]

I feel you've kind of gone over the edge.

These people write everyday about videogames for usually pretty shit money from what I understand because they love the culture, and they write for people who play games (mostly, and obviously for the sake of writing too).

And I feel like you haven't really read everything that's out there on this, or thought very deeply about hyper-ideological people, and what drives them.

 

[jordisok]

And I feel like you haven't really read everything that's out there on this, or thought very deeply about hyper-ideological people, and what drives them.

I've posted more than once in this thread, and could you explain the latter part of your post please?

 

[Averon]

Visions of utopia. Literally.

They have dehumanized their audience as being the pure embodiment of evil. We are half-human abstractions that need to have the influence cut, their voice silenced, and to be systematically taken down with coordinated PR ("we are louder than you") until they are gone.

Then they can live in a perfect world. It's classic utopian fantasy. And like all utopian fantasy, it can easily be used to justify bullying and hatred when you focus it on a dehumanized "enemy."

Yup. Just look at various game journalists Twitter feeds. One even said he had more respect for ISIS that gamers.

 

[MrHoot]

I've followed it from the moment the Zoe Quinn thing erupted. Kotaku's new policy is a positive step to safeguard against any actual infractions in ethics in future, after this shitstorm blew up over one that didn't even happen. Depression Quest got no positive-boost coverage from Nathan Grayson on Kotaku, there's nothing for the site to put its tail between its legs about. If that means going back and making sure past articles have full disclosure on them as well, then that's the way it's being done. It's not in any way an admission of guilt.

There was a demand for investigation (which actually caused Kotaku to change their stance recently, so it seems kinda like an admission) about Patricia Hernandez and Anna Anthropy for example

The call for journalistic integrity is also to prevent what happened to Brad Wardell who was unjustly accused of sexual harassment by the gaming media who didn't think that doing any kind of investigagion was fine for that matter.

Or same thing when it happened to Wizardchan with the escapist article, who was accused as a whole to be organising "harassment against Quinn", but they only took Quinn's word for it and didn't do any actual investigation. It's even worse when you know that Wizardchan is a place that is inhabited by a lot of people with anxiety and depression issues and even has a suicide hotline on it's main page, and ironic coming from an accuser who herself made a game all about depression

These are the kind of things i'd like to see less personally

Okay, which of these articles from that day have I missed that threatened the readers against non-compliance with their ideas?

Leigh's tone of basically caricaturing anyone who doesn't fit her view, plus her subsequent tweets calling off anyone who disagree "gross", "nerd", plus other people who wrote for polygon who also went on quite the mean spree, so far as to comparing basically the #gamergate people as worse than #ISIS. The enormitiy of that last statement alone is aggravating

 

[Toxi]

Visions of utopia. Literally.

They have dehumanized their audience as being the pure embodiment of evil. We are half-human abstractions that need to have the influence cut, their voice silenced, and to be systematically taken down with coordinated PR ("we are louder than you") until they are gone.

Then they can live in a perfect world. It's classic utopian fantasy. And like all utopian fantasy, it can easily be used to justify bullying and hatred when you focus it on a dehumanized "enemy."

Okay, please tell me how rational it sounds to suggest people who write about video games for a living are the a cult conspiring to destroy gamers and create a utopian fantasy.

And I feel like you haven't really read everything that's out there on this, or thought very deeply about hyper-ideological people, and what drives them.

We're talking about people who write about popular entertainment for pennies and are desperate to have Doritos ads next to their columns.

Hyper-ideological they are not.

 

[RockTurtle]

i don't know how you can read comments from leigh saying "i am louder and i have an army", that "gamers as a collective" are dead, and pushing an idea that some non-existent audience that is just waiting at the helm for gaming developers to adopt a all genders, all inclusive medium and NOT see it as notions of some grandeur wish.