Support NeoGAF

[Ravielsk]

Its a solid article for anyone who is not familiar with GG but I get the impression that it focuses a bit too much on the minutia around GG and not on the core cause(although it does touch upon it). GG was the product of years of tension between the consumers and the video game industry. Its roots go as far back as 2007 when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from gamespot for (allegedly) giving Kane and Lynch too low of a score, similar situation occurred over Assassins Creed not getting atleast a "8/10". This sort of blatant manipulation and lying on the part of the industry at the expense of the consumers only ramped up from there but since internet communities were a thing now all this BS did not end up in a memory hole and keep bumbling and stewing under the surface.

It sort of reached its peak with Mass Effect 3 when the marketing promised an ending to the trilogy and delivered... well at best shitty fan-fiction. But instead of at least admitting a mistake(or difference of opinion) the game industry opted for calling gamer a bunch of entitled A-holes for demanding what was marketed to them(note that in any other industry not doing that is straight up illegal). Even the patch that sort of fixed some of the mess was delivered with a maximum level of snark and disdain for its audience(on top of being essentially just a shitty a slide show).

From that point on Zoey Q. and Sarkessian were just the sparks needed to light this barrel of dissatisfaction. And the rest is outlined in the article. Core point being GG was a long time in the making and Quin and Sarkessian were just the straw that broke the camels back, not the whole source of the movement.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yeah, though to be fair, they have to deal with unreasonable parts of their audience as well. Internet allowed people to speak unfunnelled, impulsively and with impunity. A lot of the gaming audience can be as unreasonable and authoritarian in facing criticism as gaming journalists can be. And the fact that the interaction between games media and their audience generally favored controversy as means of earning clicks.
Like now and then sites like Kotaku and Polygon put out some well researched and interesting articles, that are a joy to read and give you perspective on history and the game, but likely they don't have the pull factor to get enough attention. Probably a lot of work to minimal benefit. I believe Jason Schreier has mentioned this once as well, how journalism doesn't tend to pay out, though I imagine that a lot of his investigative journalism has at least somewhat paid out in terms of clicks.
That's at least my theory on how the current relationship between games media and their audience developed.

I guess a lot of it is just human nature facing a very inhuman thing like the internet. We care more about the bad, than the good. We care more about affirming ourselves, than trying to understand the other. Globalization through the internet has shortened the distance to speak, but not the distance between hearts, not the distance to listen.

MAN! You aren't lying here!

Its a solid article for anyone who is not familiar with GG but I get the impression that it focuses a bit too much on the minutia around GG and not on the core cause(although it does touch upon it). GG was the product of years of tension between the consumers and the video game industry. Its roots go as far back as 2007 when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from gamespot for (allegedly) giving Kane and Lynch too low of a score, similar situation occurred over Assassins Creed not getting atleast a "8/10". This sort of blatant manipulation and lying on the part of the industry at the expense of the consumers only ramped up from there but since internet communities were a thing now all this BS did not end up in a memory hole and keep bumbling and stewing under the surface.

It sort of reached its peak with Mass Effect 3 when the marketing promised an ending to the trilogy and delivered... well at best shitty fan-fiction. But instead of at least admitting a mistake(or difference of opinion) the game industry opted for calling gamer a bunch of entitled A-holes for demanding what was marketed to them(note that in any other industry not doing that is straight up illegal). Even the patch that sort of fixed some of the mess was delivered with a maximum level of snark and disdain for its audience(on top of being essentially just a shitty a slide show).

From that point on Zoey Q. and Sarkessian were just the sparks needed to light this barrel of dissatisfaction. And the rest is outlined in the article. Core point being GG was a long time in the making and Quin and Sarkessian were just the straw that broke the camels back, not the whole source of the movement.

The funny thing is it was Colin Moriety that started the "entitled gamers" tagline. And ironically look how his career went when he started asking gamers to fund his career after the break from Kinda Funny and their podcasts. I've never forgiven Colin for that since (even though I think he's a decent guy).

 

[MrCunningham]

I still know almost nothing about GamerGate, so OP's statement is untrue.

 

[Kadayi]

I still know almost nothing about GamerGate, so OP's statement is untrue.

What statement? It's a link to an article. Are you trying to be needlessly edgy?

 

[RokkanStoned]

The funny thing is it was Colin Moriety that started the "entitled gamers" tagline. And ironically look how his career went when he started asking gamers to fund his career after the break from Kinda Funny and their podcasts. I've never forgiven Colin for that since (even though I think he's a decent guy).

I don't know if Colin started the "entitled gamers" tagline, but he certainly used it himself in regards to the ME3 debacle. I certainly thought he was acting childish, going so hard into trying to use the libertarian/conservative "entitlements" shtick and going way hard in on the consumers. Saying that it wouldn't be ideal to put too much social pressure on a creative work, would've been one thing, but he went even further and attacked the critics themselves. That's beside the fact that the ending itself certainly seemed rushed and unfinished, which makes the creative argument seem weaker. One thing would be if consumers demanded a specific ending, but just wanting a better ending should be reasonable feedback in that context.

But Colin wasn't the guy who gave most of the fun in the Beyond! podcast, that was Greg Miller. Colin was more the grumpy and skeptical guy, and it played off really well. It's why I can't watch Kinda Funny, because Greg Miller plays a different role and the dynamics he had with Colin just isn't there. I miss how Beyond! was. Colin's thing with Chris Ray Gun isn't as good either, doesn't really have the same great vibe as Colin and Greg had.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I didn't get involved in the GG movement because it was almost as cringey as the SJW censorship shit. I thought it was dead and only nu Sony was censoring things now. But now that some washed out whore made a man suicide we have gone full circle.

Gaming and Journalism LOL.

There are no gaming Journalists, they are paid shills to advertise giant corporations money boxes. Now go back to eating your Doritos drinking your Dew and giving Rockstar games 10/10's.

I like these but my stomach hurts when I eat them and my poop turns red.

 

[MrCunningham]

What statement? It's a link to an article. Are you trying to be needlessly edgy?

Nah. I was just responding to the thread title, which I just realized is also the name of the article.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Hopefully I'm not doing a bad by bumping this and legit scared a bit to even talk about this subject here especially since any mention of GG in a positive light got you banned here a few years back.

I followed GG since September of 2014. My opinion of it is I think the whole thing should have been about bad industry practices i.e. required day one patches, releasing unfinished or broken games, drm, lootboxes, etc.

At the end of the day I found the whole idea of "ethics in games journalism" silly (albeit there is good arguments to be had about ethical journalism) and it really was just about fighting SJWs or the woke crowd or whatever you want to call them.

To make matters worse, it hosted some truly bad seeds like Milo Yabbadabbadupolous.

All in all I felt Gamergate made things worse by giving sjw types the spotlight and fueling fires and adding ammo, which is why things are more "woke" in the entertainment industry in general.

I would have loved a big serious movement fighting for better practices in the gaming industry imo.

 

[FranXico]

I would have loved a big serious movement fighting for better practices in the gaming industry imo.

You never needed a hashtag (that's basically what GG was) to fight against the wrongdoings of the gaming industry.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

You never needed a hashtag (that's basically what GG was) to fight against the wrongdoings of the gaming industry.

Yeah. I guess I'm just saying it would have been nice to see a very devoted organized movement against bad industry practices.

Gamergate didn't need a hashtag either tbh and they were anything but organized. Devoted, they were, however.

Edit: it's so bizarre now to see positive or at least neutral posts about GG. Just so much as saying anything remotely positive about it got you banned and a lot of hate here. This place really changed. Heh.

 

[teacupcopter]

It sucks that GG became what it did. Games journalism is trash. I’m not saying it needs to be high art but I love watching gaming channels that talk about gaming as an industry and as game theory (game makers toolkit for example is brilliant) or documentary style (noclip comes to mind- I loved their FFXIV videos)

reviewers come in all shapes and sizes. Like film reviews some are just gonna give good scores to whatever trash walks through the door (I mean look at the MCU- even Thor 2 has an above average review rating) and that’s ok. Some are more serious and critical and that’s ok too. Not everyone has to agree and I think gamer culture is quite pathetic in this sense, what with calling out reviewers who praise or bash the “wrong” game.

but game reviewing clearly is more commercialised and bought off than film or other reviews. I mean look at say- Pokémon sword and shield. How that has a positive score anywhere I don’t know. But you criticise reviewers- not for their opinion mind you- but for lying about facts or omitting factual information- and you are GG part of the problem! You criticise the developers- toxic internet fandom!!!

Sadly though the alt right kek cuck warriors co opted it and cunts like milo got on board. And then- actually it doesn’t matter about what it’s meant to be about. Because image is 9/10ths of what any movement is about, and if the image is a bunch of angry alt right incels raging at that dumb slut who said something mean!!! ... well most normal folk don’t want to associate with it.

so while this article is great and not really wrongeither- it simply doesnt matter. The damage is done. Just like social identity politics (see resetera right now for examples) now even if you want to respect some of it you are lumped in with the crazies who go full insane with it. So it doesn’t matter that you are normal- your movement has been fucked by the idiots.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

It sucks that GG became what it did. Games journalism is trash. I’m not saying it needs to be high art but I love watching gaming channels that talk about gaming as an industry and as game theory (game makers toolkit for example is brilliant) or documentary style (noclip comes to mind- I loved their FFXIV videos)

reviewers come in all shapes and sizes. Like film reviews some are just gonna give good scores to whatever trash walks through the door (I mean look at the MCU- even Thor 2 has an above average review rating) and that’s ok. Some are more serious and critical and that’s ok too. Not everyone has to agree and I think gamer culture is quite pathetic in this sense, what with calling out reviewers who praise or bash the “wrong” game.

but game reviewing clearly is more commercialised and bought off than film or other reviews. I mean look at say- Pokémon sword and shield. How that has a positive score anywhere I don’t know. But you criticise reviewers- not for their opinion mind you- but for lying about facts or omitting factual information- and you are GG part of the problem! You criticise the developers- toxic internet fandom!!!

Sadly though the alt right kek cuck warriors co opted it and cunts like milo got on board. And then- actually it doesn’t matter about what it’s meant to be about. Because image is 9/10ths of what any movement is about, and if the image is a bunch of angry alt right incels raging at that dumb slut who said something mean!!! ... well most normal folk don’t want to associate with it.

so while this article is great and not really wrongeither- it simply doesnt matter. The damage is done. Just like social identity politics (see resetera right now for examples) now even if you want to respect some of it you are lumped in with the crazies who go full insane with it. So it doesn’t matter that you are normal- your movement has been fucked by the idiots.

Yeah this so much.

I was a supporter of GG for the first year or two and while there was definitely a lot of lies about it by people against it, there was definitely an element if harassment and too a small amount, bigotry. And shit bags like Milo and others didn't help.