In short it's a consumer revolt against many years of an unfit for purpose games media, asking for objectivity, ethical behaviour and integrity. In response twelve game journalism sites made a co-ordinated attack against all the millions (billions?) of folk who play game recreationally, of whatever race, gender or belief, accusing all of them of being sexist, mysoginistic, racist, terrorists and harassers etc. Obviously this was called out as being bullshit, but the corrupt media continue to demonise us and are now claiming that games affect real life behaviour and are dangerous, despite no study ever proving this in any way.
Even shorter a bunch of corrupt, bigoted arseholes who hate and fear consumers are attacking them for pointing out that they're not doing their jobs, and the consumers object to being demonised and insulted for things they're innocent of and for simply using their spare time on a certain method of recreation.
Even shorter a bunch of corrupt, bigoted arseholes who hate and fear consumers are attacking them for pointing out that they're not doing their jobs, and the consumers object to being demonised and insulted for things they're innocent of and for simply using their spare time on a certain method of recreation.
pretty much what Bloth wrote...
You extinguish fire when its starts, because later you can watch whole house burning down.
Last edited:
Well, I dunno. It's not like the ranting has any real relevance for gaming community in my country, for instance. As I see it, it's basically one facet of the social clash happening in the anglophonic parts of the world. While I do entertain myself by consuming their media (including gaming ones), it's not like I'm dependent on them for either entertainment or information, and it's not like I'm even a part in the whole social war. And I see no good reason to get involved
And stay like this as long as you want and can.... neutrality isn't a bad thing (says Pro GG person). You have your own mind and can make your own decisions. And that's what some parts of #GamerGate are fighting for. So let people fight for your right to ignore them....to be sure that nobody will try to hide the truth and facts from you in future.Well, I dunno. It's not like the ranting has any real relevance for gaming community in my country, for instance. As I see it, it's basically one facet of the social clash happening in the anglophonic parts of the world. While I do entertain myself by consuming their media (including gaming ones), it's not like I'm dependent on them for either entertainment or information, and it's not like I'm even a part in the whole social war. And I see no good reason to get involved
Last edited:
Heh don't be silly ;]... change "humanity" with "gaming media ethic policy".So you intend to change humanity?
[video=youtube;dC7-6o4LkPQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC7-6o4LkPQ[/video]
Still, people will be people, gaming media or not, and thus there will always be those wanting to 'hide truth and facts'
I believe better idea would be to simply take whatever someone's telling you with a grain of salt. Trust no one 
In a way Darcler is right, we should always be critical and hold caveat emptor as a wise precaution, but expecting games journalism (and journalism in general) to perform the function it was created for is not fucking unreasonable, it's the least we should expect.
In all honesty, I fear it would be wishful thinking. I might have joked in my earlier post, but in fact I do suggest having a reasonably skeptical approach to whatever one reads (not only game reviews).
Part of the problem, I think, is that there's the expectation that game reviews will be written by journalists, while it's not a journalistic job at all. A review is a critical work of deconstruction and analysis, and the person doing the work must be deeply intimate with all the aspects that make the final whole. Other, more established crafts, like film, music or literature, are criticized at a level vastly superior to what we have in games media. Still, since what general gamers public wants are essentially buyer guides, that will never change as long as there's no demand for more serious, in-depth works of critical thinking.
EDIT: @wichat exactly what I wanted to express above
Personally I don't think it's wishful thinking, I think it's the minimum standard we should accept, and thus if we must rely on our own scepticism, analysis and deconstruction then the present form of game journalism is not just unfit for purpose but simply not needed. Thus the reason we are asking for something better, hopefully with an ombudsman to ensure codes of conduct and a focus on consumer representation, rather than the endemic corruption we see now. As a multi billion dollar industry it needs this.In all honesty, I fear it would be wishful thinking. I might have joked in my earlier post, but in fact I do suggest having a reasonably skeptical approach to whatever one reads (not only game reviews).
Part of the problem, I think, is that there's the expectation that game reviews will be written by journalists, while it's not a journalistic job at all. A review is a critical work of deconstruction and analysis, and the person doing the work must be deeply intimate with all the aspects that make the final whole. Other, more established crafts, like film, music or literature, are criticized at a level vastly superior to what we have in games media. Still, since what general gamers public wants are essentially buyer guides, that will never change as long as there's no demand for more serious, in-depth works of critical thinking.
EDIT: @wichat exactly what I wanted to express above
Edit: To be honest Youtube and Twitch reviews, let's plays and WTF's are far superior as a buyers guide to anything that the traditional games journalism sites are producing, underscoring their uselessness.
Last edited:
The thing is... if it will stay like this, youtubers will kill off gaming media in next 5 years (If gaming media will be lucky enough). Not like I care about it so much, but I just wish they would not discredit themself so much at it.
Well, nobody is naive enough to live without critical thinking.
Now there's the difference between how we'd imagine the minimum standard should be and the chances it indeed would become so. That's why I believe it's wishful thinking; not disagreeing with the should-be standards, but not really believing that it will happen.
On a side note: I don't indeed put much value on game reviews. At worst they would be insincere, corporate-controlled line, at best - statement of someone's preferences. Both are rather useless to me.
But is it really that different with the 'proper' journalism? I'm not talking gaming media, but about media in general. You watch your evening news or read a respectable newspaper: can you honestly tell me that I can simply turn off my critical thinking just because I'm consuming a well established medium? That I don't have to analyze what I'm being told and just take it on face value? As far as I'm concerned, that's not the right way, and I'm not even talking about ulterior motives or journalistic incompetence, but about mundane things like scope or context, or even human error. The only thing protecting you from becoming an info-thrall is your own, painstakingly earned knowledge and honest, critical thinking. You can't escape that, games media or not.
