Support NeoGAF

[CuckFupertino]

And while it's ok to have different likes and dislikes, I honestly want people to sit there and think about why they like or dislike certain items. What bias goes into it, what ideas go into it and why. A lot of game reviewers are very reactionary with game reviews, and even if we sit there and completely ignore any type of corruption that may or may not exist, it's the reason why games like Dragon Age 2 was able to get a 9/10, even though as a game, it was obviously incredibly flawed. Too many game reviewers hold reactionary views on items, and while the line "it's an opinion" comes somewhat into play, if there's no thought behind said opinion, then the only difference between you and me and game reviewers on sites is that they can write well.

Once again, I don't have a problem with sex or looking at pictures of sex. But for me, I don't co-mingle that with my video games. If Vanillaware and Atlus were pushing for some kind of edgy, erotica-themed game here (e.g. Catherine), I could understand the art direction. However, Dragon's Crown doesn't reinforce those "themes" in any other way than the over-sexualization of certain characters. As a result, it feels off-tone. There's a certain place for art like that, hence why our society has come to view "tasteful nudes" differently than a fantasy character literally spilling out of her dress, in a game that's largely about monster bashing.

In regards to Dragon Age 2, your statement that it was "obviously incredibly flawed" is in direct contradiction to your whole argument. You're stating that it is flawed like it is a fact, when in reality it is your opinion. This is why we have reviews and critical discussion. Does Dragon Age 2 execute on what it seeks to accomplish? Some would argue yes, and some of those people would go so far as to give it 9 out of 10 stars.

When we talk about "reactionary" criticism, I honestly think more about the gaming community at large than I do game critics. Look at what happened with Bioshock: Infinite. The game was lauded with great reviews and heaped critical praise, although it's flaws and shortcomings were well noted in many reviews. As months wore on, the talk on message boards and the like took a "reactionary" turn, where one after another people began to pile on the game for its flaws. In my mind, game critics themselves were influenced by this talk. Listen to any "Game of the Year" podcast from last year, and critics who previously heaped praise on the game were much more critical in retrospect. I, for one, am happy that most reviews (this is for single player type games) happen before the game is released, in a relative vacuum. Nobody who writes on the internet can escape being influenced by it, and I'd hate to read a review for a game by someone reacting to internet sentiment.

 

[Shinta]

But there were some correct? I believe his game even showed up on game of the year lists from former co-workers and websites while they continued to cover his games with many previews. If what Quinn is said to do is bad then he should be treated in the same way. It is, whether inherent or not, a pre-existing relationship that could form large amounts of bias in coverage.

I'm all for uncovering stuff like this. I don't watch Giant Bomb, and I can already see that GAF has a giant fanbase of it on here that would probably be less likely to be outraged by anything GB did.

If we can point out other examples of stuff like this, I'm all for that.

 

[Sylas]

I mean, I hate quoting Wikipedia, but these reviews are easily sourced soo...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_Quest#Reception



They aren't passing judgement on a community. This is where we will continually not be able to understand each other. I do not identify with the community that they are passing judgement on. I can't.

I'm a gamer though. I will always call myself one and proudly at that. Twitter slap fights are incidental to my identification and enjoyment of games and the people who write about them. This isn't a campaign of harassment lol) or bullying, this is a campaign of self-discovery within the gaming community.

I simply cannot understand how people can be insulted by Alexanders article unless those people are themselves the stereotypical knuckle-dragging gamer. Obviously you and other in this thread aren't that... so I'm experiencing genuine confusion as to why there's been such a vitriolic reaction from otherwise reasonable gamers.

Of course, people will always point to Twitter to say "see! Gamers are being picked on!" but I can point right back to Twitter to say "See! Developers are being picked on!" this cannot become a game of metooism because that misses the point.

What would you, The Adder, specifically like to see come of #GamerGate? Do you have a target in mind?

Just to chime on in the bolded, and it's really just my own reasoning.

It's because people like Leigh Alexander are loud. They are loud enough to draw attention from the "outside" world.

Being a gamer is something that was stigmatized to the point of having bones broken for a lot of people. Bullying, harassment; just a general bad time for a lot of people that grew up in the 80s and 90s. Only recently was it acceptable in a lot of places to even talk about your love of videogames in a public setting. There was a single Penny Arcade Report (I know, I know) article about how Ben Kuchera was celebrating the fact that you could walk around and proudly talk about how you were a "gamer" these days. It was met with a lot of feedback from people going, "Uh, no. Sadly, I still get bullied in the workplace for identifying as a gamer. I've even had my job threatened because I talked about videogames."

But for a while there, and even going forward, identifying as a "gamer" was not a bad thing. It didn't mean you were met with ridicule for simply talking about something you enjoyed.

Now? I can understand the fear of loud people talking about how "gamers are losers." Loud people are the ones that control the discourse of public opinion. It's always been that way, and it will always be that way. It's not fun when someone with a platform starts putting down a group of people.

Do you think the general public can easily identify the "good gamers" from the "bad gamers"?

 

[APF]

I mean, the GB crew has close relationships with and have covered: Supergiant Games, Cards Against Humanity, Iron Galaxy, Harmonix, Double Fine...

 

[Curufinwe]

But there were some correct? I believe his game even showed up on game of the year lists from former co-workers and websites while they continued to cover his games with many previews. If what Quinn is said to do is bad then he should be treated in the same way. It is, whether inherent or not, a pre-existing relationship that could form large amounts of bias in coverage.

Those relationships were well known and you were free to disparage Giant Bomb for putting Bastion on its game of the year list if you really felt they only did it because Kasavin was their buddy.

 

[Corpekata]

Even if discounting Kasavin and Cards Against Humanity, Giant Bomb is still pretty bad about it, at least as bad or even worse than the people taking shit for it. I mean one of the most famous pictures of Phil Fish is him sitting on Ryan's lap. Gertsmann was among the many journalists making fun of the disclosure type stuff a few days ago. But they don't get nearly as much shit by simply being likeable, I guess?

Or maybe it's not really about journalism ethics for a lot of the people saying it is.

 

[Croyles]

That's exactly how I feel about it. I wrote a post yesterday touching on how the word "sexism" has morphed over time to refer to something that people literally can't even define anymore. "Objectification," while I understand the concept, is also one of the most abused slippery-slope words out there.

Any physical attraction can be classified as objectification. Any attraction to specific anatomy can be classified as reducing people to sex objects. If we can abuse the terms so freely, and they in fact, barely have a definition - then in reality the words simply express now, nothing more than "I don't like this."

If being attracted to breasts and butts is not bad since it's a normal part of heterosexuality, then artwork celebrating someone's sexuality, and what they are attracted to, is not bad. The women in the game are all pretty strong, particularly the Amazon.

I'm fine if people are not into it. Totally get that. But to say the game is objectively bad is not really fair, at all. It's a fantastic game with great production values, and a fantastically detailed erotic art style. If you don't like it, that's okay with me if you want to play something else.

I literally squirmed when I typed out "objectification" because i have the same reaction to it as you, but couldn't find a better way to phrase it.

Really the only problem is when a piece of media hints (either intentionally or unintentionally) that men are better than woman or women are better than men. Of course those still exist out there, but getting these muddled up with products that are simply "sexy" is diluting the problem.

Let's take the issue of sex further in games. Let's explore how sex actually empowers both genders and the power they have over the other because of it.
Women and men are equals and should be treated as such, but they are not the SAME, and should not be treated as such.

Really, like you stated, a big part of the issue here is simply language. No one seems to know what the other person means any more.

 

[ultron87]

I mean, the GB crew has close relationships with and have covered: Supergiant Games, Cards Against Humanity, Iron Galaxy, Harmonix, Double Fine...

So? They haven't concealed these relationships. They are totally open that these guys are their friends and the audience is free to let that fact affect how they view GB's opinions. Isn't this the disclosure that GamerGate wants?

 

[Jarate]

Once again, I don't have a problem with sex or looking at pictures of sex. But for me, I don't co-mingle that with my video games. If Vanillaware and Atlus were pushing for some kind of edgy, erotica-themed game here (e.g. Catherine), I could understand the art direction. However, Dragon's Crown doesn't reinforce those "themes" in any other way than the over-sexualization of certain characters. As a result, it feels off-tone. There's a certain place for art like that, hence why our society has come to view "tasteful nudes" differently than a fantasy character literally spilling out of her dress, in a game that's largely about monster bashing.

Why don't you want it in video games. Are you implying that a woman showing her body is bad? Even if she's strong enough to fight monsters and such. Does sexualization only happen when the main theme happens to deal with sex? Are the Aliens in Alien bad because there is literally a penis on their head bad because Aliens isnt about sex? YOu are not the gatekeeper of what one finds sexy, neither is western culture that you abide in.

In regards to Dragon Age 2, your statement that it was "obviously incredibly flawed" is in direct contradiction to your whole argument. You're stating that it is flawed like it is a fact, when in reality it is your opinion. This is why we have reviews and critical discussion. Does Dragon Age 2 execute on what it seeks to accomplish? Some would argue yes, and some of those people would go so far as to give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The game is incredibly flawed, and I can say that objectively. The Combat is poor, the story is poor, the dialogue is poor, the graphical fidelity and art syle are poor. I don't wanna get too far into the rabbit hole with Dragon Age 2, because I haven't played much of it, but art can be objectively bad. This is why we review things. But it being objectively bad doesn't mean because I DON'T LIKE IT, or I DON'T LIKE THE CHARACTER MODELS.

When we talk about "reactionary" criticism, I honestly think more about the gaming community at large than I do game critics. Look at what happened with Bioshock: Infinite. The game was lauded with great reviews and heaped critical praise, although it's flaws and shortcomings were well noted in many reviews. As months wore on, the talk on message boards and the like took a "reactionary" turn, where one after another people began to pile on the game for its flaws. In my mind, game critics themselves were influenced by this talk. Listen to any "Game of the Year" podcast from last year, and critics who previously heaped praise on the game were much more critical in retrospect. I, for one, am happy that most reviews (this is for single player type games) happen before the game is released, in a relative vacuum. Nobody who writes on the internet can escape being influenced by it, and I'd hate to read a review for a game by someone reacting to internet sentiment.

Gamers are very reactionary, but they are not journalists or being paid to write reviews of games. They should not be held to the same standard as those who do write for games. If gamers are just as reactionary as the journalists covering them, then what's the purpose of even having people review them?

 

[marrec]

Just to chime on in the bolded, and it's really just my own reasoning.

It's because people like Leigh Alexander are loud. They are loud enough to draw attention from the "outside" world.

Being a gamer is something that was stigmatized to the point of having bones broken for a lot of people. Bullying, harassment; just a general bad time for a lot of people that grew up in the 80s and 90s. Only recently was it acceptable in a lot of places to even talk about your love of videogames in a public setting. There was a single Penny Arcade Report (I know, I know) article about how Ben Kuchera was celebrating the fact that you could walk around and proudly talk about how you were a "gamer" these days. It was met with a lot of feedback from people going, "Uh, no. Sadly, I still get bullied in the workplace for identifying as a gamer. I've even had my job threatened because I talked about videogames."

But for a while there, and even going forward, identifying as a "gamer" was not a bad thing. It didn't mean you were met with ridicule for simply talking about something you enjoyed.

Now? I can understand the fear of loud people talking about how "gamers are losers." Loud people are the ones that control the discourse of public opinion. It's always been that way, and it will always be that way. It's not fun when someone with a platform starts putting down a group of people.

Do you think the general public can easily identify the "good gamers" from the "bad gamers"?

This is an interesting way to look at it and one that I never considered. Luckily I was never bullied when I was younger for being a gamer as I was surrounded by friends and family who were also gamers so I never thought that it could be real, physical harassment that people feared.

 

[Sylas]

Even if discounting Kasavin and Cards Against Humanity, Giant Bomb is still pretty bad about it, at least as bad or even worse than the people taking shit for it. I mean one of the most famous pictures of Phil Fish is him sitting on Ryan's lap. Gertsmann was among the many journalists making fun of the disclosure type stuff a few days ago. But they don't get nearly as much shit by simply being likeable, I guess?

Or maybe it's not really about journalism ethics for a lot of the people saying it is.

I think the difference is that they aren't really journalists. Think of them like you do talkshow hosts. They get people to come on, shoot the shit. Show something off for a little bit. Giantbomb is rarely trying to tell you about the product. They are either showing it to you with color commentary on top or they're chit-chatting with the developer. They are, effectively, game enthusiasts with connections.

The only thing I cringe at are the reviews, which are so incredibly few and far between these days that I more or less take them as, "Well, people are gonna want my opinion on this probably."

 

[Curufinwe]

So? They haven't concealed these relationships. They are totally open that these guys are their friends and the audience is free to let that fact affect how they view GB's opinions. Isn't this the disclosure that GamerGate wants?

Yes. Yes, it is.

 

[Cyrano]

Having thought on it a bit, I think the bigger problem with videogame media right now is actually not the divergence but the convergence of its culture. Videogame media is too compressed right now, and as a result we can't comfortably separate any of these aspects in a manner that allows for clearer, cleaner lines to be drawn.

There needs to be some strong lines drawn between those in the press, those in the critical sphere, and those whose interests are more research-oriented. Right now I feel like the current setup we have largely eliminates those lines, where the press is also frequently the reviewers and critics of the culture, which is not explicitly any of their goals. It creates a setup where you have a lot of fairly average coverage of all of these, but relatively little in-depth coverage, especially when it comes to things that need press, like issues of working conditions, industry interests and sex. There is certainly a depth available, but it's not a depth that has been invited into the mainstream and at the moment, seems like people are actively attempting to push deeper analysis out of the media.

 

[Vice]

Those relationships were well known and you were free to disparage Giant Bomb for putting Bastion on its game of the year list if you really felt they only did it because Kasavin was their buddy.

Yes, but it's still an ethics issue. If you ignore the bombcast from the games pre-release time period it is entirely possible to not know that their relationship. If people are demanding ethics then avoiding a perceived conflict of interest would be one of the things people would want.

 

[CambriaRising]

Yes and no. I hold professional reviewers to a higher standard then the average person sitting in front of a keyboard. These people are paid to review games, and while opinion does hold some merit, there also needs to be a look at things objectively and not reactionary.

Games Journalists and Reviewers are very reactionary, they have a hard time with the objectivity part.

Well I certainly don't hold myself in the same regard as someone who does this full time. And I am not a game journalist, only a critic. I may only be speaking for myself but I don't think purely reactionary opinions on a game are valuable without being verified. I also don't feel like its on purpose, if that's the way it comes off. We are all gamers (whether you like being called that or not) and like the audience, we all have differing tastes. You even see it here in OTs where there are always a few people who think what they are playing is the best game ever, and that's fine. Somewhere someone does think Dragon Age 2 is a 9/10. I certainly don't, but hey.

Reviewing a game objectively is almost useless unless its about the tech, it will always be someone's personal feelings on a game. People might disagree, and that's fine, but we are all the same in that respect.

 

[Jarate]

Yes, but it's still an ethics issue. If you ignore the bombcast from the games pre-release time period it is entirely possible to not know that their relationship. If people are demanding ethics then avoiding a perceived conflict of interest would be one of the things people would want.

^^^^^^

These guys should be called out

 

[marrec]

Yes. Yes, it is.

VERY SPECIFICALLY they decided to not officially review Bastion based on their closeness to the devs.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=406311

Though they weren't shy about their effusive praise.

 

[silentQ]

Im not sure, as I dont really read game reviews anymore other then for games I was already previously interested in. But, that would be a way to make reviews better. The number scale still applies in most game reviews, i doubt that you can remove that, especially with the importance that devs give metacritic scores.

What I see it as not only a way to inform me the reader what I would probably like but also a way to inform me of games I may never have tried or known about because of that reviewing system. The other thing this would do in the age of the internet and tagging is it would create an easy way to search for games based on tastes. Wouldn't be nice if on that review site I could search a game a liked and a bunch of other similar titles came up all based on the reviews from the past. I have never really seen a similar search feature that seemed to work the way I wanted it to doing reviews like this going forward could provide that.

 

[APF]

So? They haven't concealed these relationships. They are totally open that these guys are their friends and the audience is free to let that fact affect how they view GB's opinions. Isn't this the disclosure that GamerGate wants?

The thing is that both Kotaku and Polygon have enhanced their participation and disclosure policies, yet are still being attacked over concerns of nepotism. And if you're not 100% on point as a fan (of GB) you'll miss a lot of this stuff.

 

[Sylas]

This is an interesting way to look at it and one that I never considered. Luckily I was never bullied when I was younger for being a gamer as I was surrounded by friends and family who were also gamers so I never thought that it could be real, physical harassment that people feared.

It's a fair thing to forget about, I think. It really depends a lot on your environment. I will say this much. I live in the Seattle area -- a place that you could argue is a "mecca" for being a gamer. During job interviews, if I felt like it was appropriate, I'd slide in the fact that I play videogames.

Now? I'm not so eager to identify with that "title" because of the potential backlash; that i'm a loser, a nerd. Someone that only has negative phrases associated with something I enjoy, simply because someone on the internet that has an arguably influential sway says so.

 

[marrec]

The thing is that both Kotaku and Polygon have enhanced their participation and disclosure policies, yet are still being attacked over concerns of nepotism.

And Rock Paper Shotgun has always been very open about the relationships the writers have to the developers of the games they're talking about... but a lot of people who're criticizing RPS don't actually read RPS sooo...

Also, John Walker is a notorious SJW. D:

 

[Tetsuo9]

But there were some correct? I believe his game even showed up on game of the year lists from former co-workers and websites while they continued to cover his games with many previews. If what Quinn is said to do is bad then he should be treated in the same way. It is, whether inherent or not, a pre-existing relationship that could form large amounts of bias in coverage.



Then, that is a mistake. They are just regular people who happen to play a lot of games. In the same way most mainstream film critics are just people writing up a few hundred words about why Transformer 4 sucked or how awesome Guardians of the Galaxy was in a very nice way. To try to review somethign objectively is to miss the point of reviewing a work of art. There is no way to do it without a review becoming a list of features with no input from the writer.

But they should be hold to a higher stance than enthusiast at least nowadays because of the influence of metacritic. I hate metacritic, but we know it's a metric for the industry that influences the rise and fall of studios.

Personally, I don't care if Jeff reviewed Transistor or Danielle reviewed gone home because they are good reviewers that make compelling arguments, but I can understand lack of trust from other people when there is so much money at stake in the score of a game.

 

[Croyles]

Yes, but it's still an ethics issue. If you ignore the bombcast from the games pre-release time period it is entirely possible to not know that their relationship. If people are demanding ethics then avoiding a perceived conflict of interest would be one of the things people would want.

I guess what's missing is a big "open letter" on their website explaining exactly who they are, what they do and how they do it in this industry.

Most of the people visiting GB know going in that they have close personal connections with people in the industry, that it is impossible to avoid and it is up to you to decide how to view their opinions. They are more open about it than any other website in the industry. The only way they could be more transparent about it is if they released a front page open letter explaining their philosophy in regards to games "journalism" or "reporting" or whatever you want to call it.

Ethically, they are pretty sound. Not perfect, but very good.

I mean, their origin story is born out of Jeff Gerstmann being fired for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review even though Gamespot was at the time being heavily sponsored by the publisher.

 

[APF]

And Rock Paper Shotgun has always been very open about the relationships the writers have to the developers of the games they're talking about... but a lot of people who're criticizing RPS doesn't actually read RPS sooo...

Also, John Walker is a notorious SJW. D:

Which comes back to why a lot of us are casting a majorly-skeptical eye towards all of this gamergate stuff.

 

[unbias]

I guess what's missing is a big "open letter" on their website explaining exactly who they are, what they do and how they do it in this industry.

Most of the people visiting GB know going in that they have close personal connections with people in the industry, that it is impossible to avoid and it is up to you to decide how to view their opinions. They are more open about it than any other website in the industry. The only way they could be more transparent about it is if they released a front page open letter explaining their philosophy in regards to games "journalism" or "reporting" or whatever you want to call it.

Ethically, they are pretty sound.

They are pretty sound, but if you want to be completely sound, I do think them removing reviews, completely, would be the most ethical approach.

 

[Shinta]

They are pretty sound, but if you want to be completely sound, I do think them removing reviews, completely, would be the most ethical approach.

I'd have a problem with people putting friends' games on GOTY lists without explicitly disclosing it, as well.

Which comes back to why a lot of us are casting a majorly-skeptical eye towards all of this gamergate stuff.

I think there really is concern over ethics. But everyone has their sacred cows, and it takes time to let criticism sink in sometimes. Pointing out stuff like this is healthy, and I think it will resonate.

 

[Karkador]

I think the difference is that they aren't really journalists. Think of them like you do talkshow hosts. They get people to come on, shoot the shit. Show something off for a little bit. Giantbomb is rarely trying to tell you about the product. They are either showing it to you with color commentary on top or they're chit-chatting with the developer. They are, effectively, game enthusiasts with connections.

Effectively, there isn't much of a difference between the two, though. "Showing something off" works towards the same end as a journalist 'covering a game'.

So? They haven't concealed these relationships. They are totally open that these guys are their friends and the audience is free to let that fact affect how they view GB's opinions. Isn't this the disclosure that GamerGate wants?

I presume that the point of wanting the disclosure is because they aren't supposed to mix (the complaints being about nepotism, and so-and-so get these articles written about them, winning awards, the indie clique, etc). It doesn't seem to matter if it's disclosed or not, if Giant Bomb is any indication, because it's the same roster of 'friends of the site' that show up time and time again. Do those people deserve that much more exposure than others because they are friends of the site?

 

[The Adder]

They aren't passing judgement on a community. This is where we will continually not be able to understand each other. I do not identify with the community that they are passing judgement on. I can't.

Let's take a look at the original article as it:

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.

Literally passes judgement on the community.

I'm a gamer though. I will always call myself one and proudly at that. Twitter slap fights are incidental to my identification and enjoyment of games and the people who write about them. This isn't a campaign of harassment lol) or bullying, this is a campaign of self-discovery within the gaming community.

I simply cannot understand how people can be insulted by Alexanders article unless those people are themselves the stereotypical knuckle-dragging gamer. Obviously you and other in this thread aren't that... so I'm experiencing genuine confusion as to why there's been such a vitriolic reaction from otherwise reasonable gamers.

Of course, people will always point to Twitter to say "see! Gamers are being picked on!" but I can point right back to Twitter to say "See! Developers are being picked on!" this cannot become a game of metooism because that misses the point.

On tge subject of missing the god damned point, you seem to be entirely unable to see mine, because you have not once addressed it in the entirety of our exchanges.

It's not a matter of pointing to Twitter and saying "gamers are being picked on."

It's a matter of people who have no idea of any context to this conversation pointing to Twitter and saying

"See, even the people who write for them say they're all awful people. Must be true."

"Ew, you're one of those misogynist assholes?"

"I thought you were smarter than to be a part of that"

Because no one professional writing in the public space (whether professionally or on Twitter) is making any distinction.

What would you, The Adder, specifically like to see come of #GamerGate? Do you have a target in mind?

Fucking nothing. I didn't ask for this shit storm. It shouldn't have happened in the first fucking place because people should have more fucking respect for each other. But since that isn't ever going to happen, I would at least expect the people who write for my hobby, whose side on social issues I am constantly and consistently fighting on (despite how rare it is for them to be on mine. O can't remember the last time I saw an article about the portrayal of black characters, especially black males, in gaming not written by a black writer. Or the extreme lack of black female leads.) to leave me out of the shit flinging competition.

But lo and fucking behold, here I am up to my knees in human waste.

 

[Sylas]

They are pretty sound, but if you want to be completely sound, I do think them removing reviews, completely, would be the most ethical approach.

I can see them removing reviews for a lot of reasons. The idea of a scored review is outdated and something that Jeff mentions frequently. But really, the nitty-gritty of Giantbomb might not be the best thing for this specific thread, but maybe a bigger discussion is necessary.

What separates a "Games Journalist" from a "Games Enthusiast"?

 

[APF]

If they removed reviews, previews, interviews, news reporting, and stuck to trailers, quick looks, and fridays, then they'd be fine. But the rest puts them in very sketchy waters at times, even if "it is known."

 

[Croyles]

They are pretty sound, but if you want to be completely sound, I do think them removing reviews, completely, would be the most ethical approach.

Why? If they are transparent about who they are and what they do, the rest is up to you. Why should they hinder their content at that point?

The problem people are having is about non-transparency imo.

 

[Shinta]

What separates a "Games Journalist" from a "Games Enthusiast"?

They get press badges at conventions and do interviews so it's pretty murky.

 

[Mully]

VERY SPECIFICALLY they decided to not officially review Bastion based on their closeness to the devs.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=406311

Though they weren't shy about their effusive praise.

Their praise was warranted based on what I saw (never played Bastion). Although hindsight says that they never really cared for reviews and their praise likely pushed sales from the GB audience. GB's quicklooks are small reviews. The audience that views them takes their word for Jeff's, Dan's, Brad's, etc impressions.

The same thing goes for the stuff they say on their podcast.

It'd be interesting to see how GB handles content with friends going forward. They've done a decent job at handling it, but they to update based on the environment they've created via quicklooks and impressions on their podcast going forward.

 

[Vice]

I guess what's missing is a big "open letter" on their website explaining exactly who they are, what they do and how they do it in this industry.

Most of the people visiting GB know going in that they have close personal connections with people in the industry, that it is impossible to avoid and it is up to you to decide how to view their opinions. They are more open about it than any other website in the industry. The only way they could be more transparent about it is if they released a front page open letter explaining their philosophy in regards to games "journalism" or "reporting" or whatever you want to call it.

Ethically, they are pretty sound. Not perfect, but very good.

I mean, their origin story is born out of Jeff Gerstmann being fired for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review even though Gamespot was at the time being heavily sponsored by the publisher.

Even with disclosure it should still be getting ire from people seeking higher ethical standards. Not reviewing a game but giving it four game of the year awards sends a mixed message.

If the rest of the field is perceived as bad then being better than most isn't much to be proud of or cheer for.

 

[marrec]

They get press badges at conventions and do interviews so it's pretty murky.

I do interviews and reviews and news but I most assuredly wouldn't describe myself as press or a 'journalist'.

It's such a weird distinction. It's easy for me to point at Patrick Klepek and say "Yes, that's a journalist" but John Walker? Leigh Alexander? Hell, Stephen Totilo? I dunno...

 

[Sylas]

If they removed reviews, previews, interviews, news reporting, and stuck to trailers, quick looks, and fridays, then they'd be fine. But the rest puts them in very sketchy waters at times, even if "it is known."

I'll happily agree with removing reviews and even previews, to an extent (mostly because I can't formulate an argument on why they aren't a problem from an ethics standpoint). However, removing interviews and news reporting is silly.

News Reporting is literally going, "Hey this is what's happening." Something anyone can do. GAF does it all the time without making an ethical disclosure on how you may have obtained that information.

Interviews, by their nature, can't be held to the same ethical standards as a written piece. You will not, in most cases, get an interview out of someone without having some kind of personal rapport with them. They have to trust that you won't take something out of context. In fact, the best interviews tend to be when a few friends get together and just shoot the shit.

 

[Cyrano]

I can see them removing reviews for a lot of reasons. The idea of a scored review is outdated and something that Jeff mentions frequently. But really, the nitty-gritty of Giantbomb might not be the best thing for this specific thread, but maybe a bigger discussion is necessary.

What separates a "Games Journalist" from a "Games Enthusiast"?

Assuming that the general idea is that of most journalists, it would more likely be that the journalist covers politically charged issues as well as the business side of the market, while the "enthusiast" blogs about game events (such as Persona 5 being announced for the PS4).

Ideally, I think the game journalist would spend time covering a lot of the human rights abuses occurring in the game industry, which are myriad and well-known, but rarely discussed.

 

[Sylas]

They get press badges at conventions and do interviews so it's pretty murky.

Getting a press badge is pretty easy. The term "press badge" is outdated for this industry, as you can have a popular blog and get one. I'm pretty sure PewDiePie can get a press badge.

 

[Tetsuo9]

If they removed reviews, previews, interviews, news reporting, and stuck to trailers, quick looks, and fridays, then they'd be fine. But the rest puts them in very sketchy waters at times, even if "it is known."

This is an interesting stat to consider:

 

[unbias]

And Rock Paper Shotgun has always been very open about the relationships the writers have to the developers of the games they're talking about... but a lot of people who're criticizing RPS don't actually read RPS sooo...

Also, John Walker is a notorious SJW. D:

All of this is because of twitter. Seriously. 99% of it stems from twitter. That should be a big massive sign, almost everyone, where the problem lies. If you can consistently point to a single site, where bitterness, bile, backbiting, insults, and inflammatory remarks come from, you have a problem.

 

[Vice]

I'll happily agree with removing reviews and even previews, to an extent (mostly because I can't formulate an argument on why they aren't a problem from an ethics standpoint). However, removing interviews and news reporting is silly.

News Reporting is literally going, "Hey this is what's happening." Something anyone can do. GAF does it all the time without making an ethical disclosure on how you may have obtained that information.

Interviews, by their nature, can't be held to the same ethical standards as a written piece. You will not, in most cases, get an interview out of someone without having some kind of personal rapport with them. They have to trust that you won't take something out of context. In fact, the best interviews tend to be when a few friends get together and just shoot the shit.

Video journalism can be held to the same, or similar, ethical standards as written journalism. Having a relationship with the source does not mean you have to be friends with them and not being friends doesn't mean you can't get a good interview.

 

[Shinta]

This is an interesting stat to consider:

Doesn't matter if everything is on average lower than their friends' games.

Not saying that's the case, but the average won't matter.

 

[marrec]

Literally passes judgement on the community.

True, but what community? Certainly not "gaming as a whole". That's passing judgement based on something that absolutely has happened and is separate from disparaging all gamers.

On tge subject of missing the god damned point, you seem to be entirely unable to see mine, because you have not once addressed it in the entirety of our exchanges.

It's not a matter of pointing to Twitter and saying "gamers are being picked on."

It's a matter of people who have no idea of any context to this conversation pointing to Twitter and saying

"See, even the people who write for them say they're all awful people. Must be true."

"Ew, you're one of those misogynist assholes?"

"I thought you were smarter than to be a part of that"

Because no one professional writing in the public space (whether professionally or on Twitter) is making any distinction.

Why should anyone be out there fighting the fires of false impressions that have been being built based on the very real marketing around gaming for the last 2 decades? You're policing their tone when they've been inside gaming and writing about it for years but you're not asking the minority of gamers they were targeting to stop shitting all over themselves?

Well, not you specifically. You in a more general sense.

Fucking nothing. I didn't ask for this shit storm. It shouldn't have happened in the first fucking place because people should have more fucking respect for each other. But since that isn't ever going to happen, I would at least expect the people who write for my hobby, whose side on social issues I am constantly and consistently fighting on to leave me out of the shit flinging competition.

But lo and fucking behold, here I am up to my knees in human waste.

Hmm... good to know I suppose. I'm not sure what you're fighting for or against though if you're not seeking any specific recompense from anyone.

 

[APF]

I'll happily agree with removing reviews and even previews, to an extent (mostly because I can't formulate an argument on why they aren't a problem from an ethics standpoint). However, removing interviews and news reporting is silly.

The funny thing is that I'd almost say the exact opposite. You can review things and not really be doing journalism. But once you start reporting the news (more specifically, doing original reporting and not just pointing to external outlets, and interviews are a part of this) then you are doing journalism and I consider you--as an outlet or a member of an outlet--subject to concerns about possible conflicts.

 

[Vice]

This is an interesting stat to consider:

And IGN's stats are similar and Gamespots are even harsher. in many ways.

 

[Corpekata]

Why? If they are transparent about who they are and what they do, the rest is up to you. Why should they hinder their content at that point?

The problem people are having is about non-transparency imo.

But they aren't very transparent, unless you're like a superfan. How am I supposed to know they're friendly with Phil Fish by looking at the Fez review, for instance? It calls into question just how much the "movement" really is about transparency when it freely ignores one of the biggest and most popular offenders.

Not that I agree that these sites are doing anything heinous. I more doubt the movement than disparage the writers or staff. It's similar to how you'll see those image macros with "Don't go to this site, don't buy these guy's games." And it's filled with the typical liberals. But they won't put like, Joss Whedon or Neil Druckmann on it, despite their recent support of Feminist Frequency. They'll just stick with putting the guy that made Thomas was Alone on it, because god forbid their "morals" get in the way of the next Naughty Dog game.

 

[Das Mookid]

The sooner people just get over the fact gaming 'journalism' is nothing more than outsourced marketing the better, lol.

This is just as true in the greased up hipster back rooms of indie game shows and review rags - where hipster cool kids bump uglies to be in the cool clique - as it is at the corporate review camps where the money laden AAA corporate titans wine and dine the review corps they fly out to 'cover' their latest rehashed, biannual travesty's release.

I really struggle to understand the gravitas that some attach to these issues in gaming versus far more important and socially relevant issues. Currently in the US, our real News journalism is in a state of utter crisis in the quality and integrity of reporting. In comparison, the plight of a bunch of disillusioned, creative writing majors being called out on their lack of 'professionalism' incredibly trivial.

 

[Intheflorsh]

I do sometimes get annoyed with Giant Bomb. I think they're smart (and ethical) enough not to inflate their review scores for their friends in indie development, but they do tend to give a lot more coverage to developers they know in the SF area. It doesn't seem like a very level playing field.

And IGN's stats are similar and Gamespots are even harsher.

Double check that. IGN and GS are both significantly less negative than GB.

 

[Sylas]

The funny thing is that I'd almost say the exact opposite. You can review things and not really be doing journalism. But once you start reporting the news (more specifically, doing original reporting and not just pointing to external outlets, and interviews are a part of this) then you are doing journalism and I consider you--as an outlet or a member of an outlet--subject to concerns about possible conflicts.

See, that's where the bigger conversation absolutely needs to take place. I don't consider news reporting to be subject to the same ethical standards because, well. It's fact. This is what happened. If you put your own spin on that fact in an attempt to sway the public opinion on what happened? Sure.

The ethics for just stating the "news" are not the same as the ethics of writing something that is subject to an opinion and meant to change the opinion of others.

 

[MHWilliams]

I don't understand your argument that Japanese developers should not be attacked for producing games with content like the above picture. Your thesis seems to be that since the game is up-front about its intended audience, disinterested parties shouldn't take offense. Whether or not the developer is marketing its game to an intended demographic "honestly" is irrelevant. The attacks, or criticism, on the game's portrayal of women is for the sake of the medium as a whole. Whether or not you're interested in this game doesn't matter - you still stand to benefit from an industry that takes itself more seriously, and doesn't green light infantile images like the above. What's at stake is not necessarily the way a game is marketed, or whether or not it is "honest" in its representation, but rather the quality of its content. In this case, that content is a grotesque over-sexualization of its characters. It's trash, plain and simple, and deserves to be criticized for it.

It is not disrespectful or disingenuous to any artist to criticize their work. That's part of producing any content that is made available publicly. Furthermore, arguing that the characters in Dragon's Crown are over-sexualized to the point of absurdity is hardly a "political" stance. They look ridiculous to the point that it detracts from the game.

Personally, if I put the game on the TV with the Sorceress as my character, my girlfriend walks out of the room. The sight of it disgusts her. I thank any game critic for pointing that out, because I do not want to buy a video game as unfit for public consumption as this one.

Attack is a bit strong , as you should never attack a developer or creator. With such content, criticism seeks to ask questions: Why is that character drawn that way? Who is the intended audience? Should that be the intended audience? How do games handle sexual content?

Stating that you don't find a content or feature good/relevant/etc, providing your reasons, and asking for changes is entertainment working as intended. Nothing is above criticism and feedback.

Part of the problem is people in any entertainment identify with content and in turn internalize any criticism of that content. "You don't like A, I love A, therefore you're attacking my identity."

But you have to understand that japanese culture is much different then our culture and how it views sex. American and western culture have an incredibly angry stance towards anything that may happen to have "sexiness" and such and make it out to be a bigger deal then it is. Japan might not have this culture towards sexiness, and might more embrace it.

And even then, you have to ask why does it detract from the game, what is so wrong about it? Are you embarrassed, then why are you embarrassed? How do large breasts in a video game detract from the experience? Does the Avengers get points detracted because it might feature a butt of thor, or him without a top on acting sexily. Sexiness isn't inherently bad, drawing sexualized characters isn't inherently wrong. Sex is not bad. There's a difference between it not appealing to you and it being bad.

Japan is more open about sex in that it tends to keep that stuff behind closed doors. Open repression of many of those sexual aspects, but celebration of them (and more extreme stuff) in private.

Sex is not necessarily bad, again it's about "Why" something is being done. If the answer is simple "because the creator wants to", is that good enough? Where's the line there? Outright racist work? Graphic depictions of rape? Violence against children? These are questions and idea to be explored.

In the case of frequently sexualized artwork, the larger questions are "what kind of community does this create?" and "what mindsets are fostered in those communities?". Google image search League of Legends and see the most popular images. Now do the same with Dota 2. Note the differences and ask why that's the case?

Essentially, let's not just consume the games we play.