Disclosure of Kickstarter and Patreon backings.

Journalists and people in the games press should do what they want. As other have said, disclosure is important. Be upfront about if you're actively contributing your money to a product or person and then let the audience decide if they still want to value your opinion on that subject.

Personally, I think if I was employed as a games writer, I wouldn't ever contribute to game related Kickstarter or Patreon but that's just me.

@truthtellah: And here's some more of that good old confusion about who does and doesn't count as a journalist these days, and who therefore doesn't have any kind of standards to live up to. Fortunately I doubt anyone at giant bomb has the be worried about being mistaken for a professional, especially when the main thrust of their content seems to be "What if we get everyone in a room and just murder our brain cells with alcohol for a while?"

The whole journalism side of things is so fucked up and entangled that taking any of them seriously is idiotic at this point. You can't even talk about actual stories around here anymore.

But the average joe posting on this message board seems to claim they know a thing or two about ethics making wild claims about what is in violation and what not. Which I actually don't care about but when they turn around and do the very thing they wail and wring their hands over so what does that mean? Should they do as these guys say not as they do? Hmm, okay. Or do they really want Kuchera or other journalists held to higher standard? I can support that but that also doesn't seem likely due to multiple reasons outlined in multiple other posts by others in the thread. Was Kuchera hiding something or was it something that no one bothered asking until "now"? On the other hand I suspect they instead not like what he is talking about and want to tear him down with a pseudo logical thing that makes them feel they have cover for saying what they feel.

Set aside Zoe Quinn for a moment. Can anyone do reporting on Phil Fish? He has met and talked with a lot of journalists before Fez. How about Johnathan Blow? Even bigger names like Tim Schafer have no particular qualms about letting himself come into contact with journalists. Can any of them write a story about Broken Age and how that came to be because they have a semi-professional relationship or contributed to Double Fine Kickstarter projects or does that automatically disqualify them because they "broke the public trust"? I think they can where I expect them to work with editorial and work out what is relevant and what isn't. Disclosing is always good for transparency but believing they need to dump everything is too intrusive where neither the reporter nor the subject can have private personal connections. You, the GB crew, me, everyone have connections and personal information about video game people and industry that are wholly irrelevant to any particular discussion and do not need to be disclosed before or after discussing or reporting on a topic.

As for the other threads, their purpose appeared to be trying to tearing down Quinn instead of some other discussion. At this point I still don't see what the point of bringing up what is going on surrounding her since it seems inappropriate for most forums and sites. There probably needs to be a story of the whole but so far too many are interested in salacious details instead of recording an event where each reposting of "Hey look at what Zoe Quinn did according to..." is not helping.

I think the very fact that you presuppose that people are incapable of having such a discussion becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The way to have these discussions is to proceed assuming that those who engage will be civil. The problem of Patreon is you are directly financially supporting someone and their endeavors, which could potentially lead to bias which, if undisclosed, creates a real or perceived conflict of interest. I also think you make the mistake of assuming that people interested in talking about this issue are deliberately ignoring other areas of potential corruption or conflict of interest. I don't see a lot of people out there saying they want more disclosure only from smaller outlets. The desire for disclosure is industry wide.

@truthtellah: I think Jeff and a lot of other people might be missing the whole point. Patreon isn't about buying a game or any other product. It is basically a donation to a person, with no real liability on their part to produce anything in return. What I'm saying is that supporting a game/product is different to supporting a person. If a journalist is prepared to give a developer money directly in this way, how can we trust them to cover that same developer without bias? They obviously have a desire to see that developer succeed. Disclosure is needed, but the best solution is to just disallow it entirely as company policy, just as Kotaku have now done and as Joystiq have been doing for some time.

@extomar: Let's use a different analogy so maybe you might understand the pov of some of us: should a journalist that covers politics be able to donate to some candidate campaign? And if he was, should he disclose the fact that he did or hide it? Would you trust said journalist to report news/write editorials without biases?

@n1nj4d00m:

Well they deleted everything posted about the topic for more than a week, but I suppose once it's all over the internet the cat is already out of the bag.

@president_barackbar: I think the conversation can happen, I just think it begins to happen and someone hijacks the issue. I do resuppose that there is a group of people on the internet who don't care to, or want to, have a deeper conversation. It's why you see people saying "I don't want to be called a 'gamer' anymore", the user base can be so toxic that it's frightening developers and players away.

All of this is incredibly important, but it's incredibly unlikely anyone will actually address it. It's far more likely that bringing this up at all will be considered derailing the topic and get it deleted, locked, or both. That said, this needs to be thrown in everyone's faces as much as possible until an answer is given, because as it stands the silence in the face of these claims says a hell of a lot.

Don't most people who write and comment about games have a desire to see developers succeed?

It's not like in Politics where you're picking some kind of side. In general, we're all gamers reporting and commenting on what's going on in gaming; so, we're automatically on the side of hoping developers will make more cool games. I agree with outlets discouraging investment in Patreon while someone is reporting on them, but I do think we shouldn't mistake gaming as something it's not.

People writing about art generally want to see more of it and desire most artists to succeed. That's different from writing about governments or stories of murder. Obviously, someone writing about games probably wants everyone in gaming to succeed, because one succeeding isn't to the detriment of others. I want every developer out there to make great games, and I naturally have an enthusiasm for games simply by the fact that I am here talking about them.

Disclosure of support with something like Patreon or even Kickstarter can help, because it's additional information for people to better understand a story. But I think we should be careful to not try to prevent or discourage gaming news writers and entertainers from being gamers like we all are. In the end, we're all interested in having fun with games, and being an active part of the gaming community goes hand in hand with that.

This. A lot of silly stuff has happened in the game industry for awhile. Pretend the last month didn't even happen and this still stands. Reviewers or game personalities/journalists/whatevers going on about how even though they got a trip and a bunch of swag and went to a party where they got to play the game but it totally didn't matter when they wrote the review. Maybe not, but can you imagine if, say, Leslie Stahl was wined and dined by company X and then did a story about how that company was doing good work?

Even if everything in the review was legitimate and objective you should still recuse or disclose because there is the POTENTIAL of PERCEPTION of bias.

There's a definite difference between the two in my opinion. Kickstarters are at least geared towards specific projects but Patreon basically goes directly to funding a persons lifestyle and that makes it much more personal and weird to me. If transparency and objectivity are what you are aiming for then I could see that being an issue. I feel like the guiding principles of Giant Bomb have always been more focused on personality and personal opinion more than anything so I wouldn't say those concerns apply as much here but I do think transparency is always an important thing regardless.

@truthtellah said:

I think the problem is about what the media are choosing to cover and why. It's a question of if they're serving the interests of their audience or their own interests and that of their friends. The reason this is an issue at the moment is because there is a perception that the developer around which this whole crapfest started receives disproportionate coverage in the media when compared to her actual output as a game developer. There is a large segment of the of the audience that feels that certain developers and games are being pushed on them by the media, and that other developers and their games are just ignored, regardless of quality.

I agree, it's not really about taking sides, but that doesn't mean their can not be hidden agendas.

But how much of the gaming community is genuinely toxic, and why are they being used to generalize the rest of us? How is that any different that what racists do with minorities? Clearly being mistrusted because of your race is a far more serious matter than being mistrusted because of your hobby, but they're both still hateful generalizations. How is any of this even remotely acceptable?

Why do *I* have to feel some level of shame for the worst behavior of the people on "my side" of various issues, and why is this only a one way street? When Phil Fish was hacked, game journalists claimed that "the community" should be ashamed of their toxic behavior. When the Fine Young Capitalists indie go go campaign was hacked, were any moderate social justice advocates made to feel shame for the toxic behavior of the worst in their community? Of course not. It's not even being reported.

Either it's a scam charity that is STILL taking money from people, or it's a good charity that has been repeatedly stabbed in the back, and deserves to be promoted, but no journalist will have anything to do with the story because of who it involves. That is ridiculous.

No, this is a good example, Its also why I choose not to read most of those articles, which I can do, and i hope he takes no offence. Patrick writes a lot of opinion pieces, if Patrick, or anyone, was doing a whole campaign about a single game, a single studio, or something, then thats when Integrety is needed.

But you should realize that Patrick might post an article, or Vinny may post a Video, or Jeff might post a Podcast, realize that the site as a whole is aken to a newspaper, and the videos and podcasts are its articles. You have to take them as a whole. I know what Jeff likes, and I know what Brad likes (DOTA) and I can listen intently, or dismiss it whole hardheartedly. Its one of the reasons I like Giantbomb, they speak frankly.

I have rarely seen a better crafted "concern troll", congratulations. The message is the journalism itself, and if it is biased then the message is essentially worthless. This site wouldn't even exist if Jeff hadn't had to learn that message in a very painful way.

If people want to post their biased opinions, sure, fine. That's different from journalism, by definition, and they should be disclosed as such.

Games that gaming news writers and commenters like or find interesting naturally receive more coverage, and games that can afford a lot of promotion tend to get more coverage, as well, simply by the sheer amount of content they put out about a game.

Popular games, either by size or interest have always gotten more exposure. Unfortunately, there is a perception amongst some gamers that games they don't like or games that are made by people they don't like shouldn't get as much coverage as games they do like. That difference in preference causes some to feel like the club they were once a part of isn't quite as aligned with them as they might prefer. As those who write and comment about games reveal more and more about themselves and their own preferences, many are finding that they are more different from them than they thought.

I've enjoyed it as gaming news writers and commenters have been more open in recent times, in part because I share many concerns and perspectives a lot of them have, but it makes sense to me that it might distress some who see how they are not as represented by them in some areas of games coverage and commentary.

Most of us share similar feelings on loving games in general, but when social and personal perspectives come in, it makes sense that our differences might be even more divergent than our console and genre preferences. How we strike a good balance between greater personal openness and traditional reporting will continue to be a big part of managing coverage and commentary going forward.

Journalists who report on politics generally aren't allowed to contribute to campaigns at all, but that is not at all an analogous situation. An indie developer successfully releasing a game and a politician attaining public office have waaaaaaay different implications.

Meh. Disclosing conflict of interest would be nice, but I don't feel it's all that terrible to back someone from the industry you enjoy.

The real problem to me is acting like a close knit gang that attacks anyone who disagrees with their opinions or actions. You can support each other all you want, but don't use your connections to disparage or destroy the work of other people (I think there was an example of someone shutting down a "competing" game jam). We get it, you're all friendly and hang in the same circles. Doesn't mean outsiders are evil.

Also this behavior is harmful to the entire indie scene, because anyone who isn't one of them will not get coverage, meaning they might actually spend money on marketing, and be at a disadvantage.

How about when a bias is preventing journalists from reporting on whether a game jam / charity drive is or isn't a scam, due to the one of the people involved in the situation? Is that important enough? Either they're screwing over a good cause, or allowing a scam to continue. That seems important to me.

It's absolutely fine for people in the games media to focus on on what interests them. However, they should be disclosing their bias.. If someone likes a game so much that they want to cover it multiple times, then that's fine given the assumption that they're clearly showing a bias that they're in to the game. If they like the developer so much that they decide to pay that developer a monthly sum, not for their game, but just to support them, then the audience has a right to know because it provides important context.

"Popular games" is an interesting notion. The media has the ability to build hype and interest around a game and make it popular. This happens all the time. TotalBiscuit just put up a great video about this, and I thoroughly recommend it. Popularity, of course, is not always an indicator of quality.

As I said, I can totally understand giving people more info on things like Patreon backing or even Kickstarter funding. More understanding is always good. Though, I don't think any of them have to justify them giving some games more coverage because they like them. If the only stake they have in a game is that they think it looks cool, it's natural for them to cover it as they will.

Some people seem to hate the idea of games they don't like getting more coverage than they think they deserve, but that's mistaken. Obviously people writing about games will talk more about the games they are interested in and less about things they aren't. We're on Giant Bomb, and we should be more aware of that reality than most. We may not always or even often feel the same way about what games are and aren't worth the time of day, but that does not invalidate people's coverage or commentary on such games.

Plenty of people in gaming like different games than I do and even get different things out of gaming, and that's okay. Not everyone has to feel the same way as I do about every part of games, and as time goes on, I know I'm going to see even more instances of people with different perspectives from my own covering and commenting on gaming.

@truthtellah said:

I agree. As I said, I have no problem with anyone covering games they like as much as they like. I just want to be confident that they are doing so because they feel the actual game is worthwhile of the coverage. And if they are covering it more because they want to support the developer because they find him/her/them to be interesting for some reason then that is fine too, so long as it's made absolutely clear what they are actually endorsing and why.

@exfate: More clarity is always good, and hopefully most people can appreciate what they clarify. ;)

I believe many people will never be satisfied until someone only writes stories they like, but outlets can certainly continue to do more to assuage some of the reasonable concerns. Here, here!

Not sure if it's been posted, but Stephen Totilo from Kotaku put up a piece on all of this.

He's has acknowledged that while there are many steps in place to keep a barrier up between "potential undue influence of corporate gaming on games reporting" that the same was not done for "the pitfalls of cliquishness in the indie dev scene and among the reporters who cover it". He goes on to say that they've learned a lesson from this and that from now on if there's ever a questionable link between the reporter and the subject that it'll be put out in the open and that Patreon funding by his staff to devs they cover is not allowed.

Finally he points out that while they have learned from the criticism they've received, it doesn't excuse the abuse that people like Zoe and his staff are getting.

I completely agree with everything he's said here. I'm glad that he's accepting the criticism and hope that they do indeed learn from it. And I do agree that the shitehawks who are doing things like abusing his staff and the developers in question are shitehawks and they've no excuses for their actions. While many people are quick to lump me into the same category as them because of their actions, I'd just like to say again that I do not agree with their actions at all, even though I do agree with some of their views on current games journalism. They are the rioters to my peaceful protest who are giving the protester a bad name.

Good, but arguably not good enough. Although it is very nice to see them taking a step in the right direction, in the past Stephen Totilo has specifically said that reporters who are in any way close to developers should not report on them AT ALL. And apparently, this has been going on for a long time. Here is a great example.

Also, rioters vs protesters is a very fitting analogy. Thank you for that. I shouldn't have to be conflated with assholes spewing hateful personal attacks when I respectfully argue for proper ethical standards in game coverage, nor should I feel obligated to decry the harmful actions of those assholes before making a post that concerns the topic.

If you take a glance over at Twitter its pretty safe to say most game "journalists" not only don't want to have a discussion about following the same journalistic guidelines every other industry does but they also go about it in the least professional , snarky and overall mean spirited way possible.

Stephen Totilo, a man with a masters in journalism, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into shaping up. What hope is there that people with far less of a pedigree could be persuaded to give up on the free ride of all the credentials and none of the responsibility? Games journalism has never not been broken and I think this site has shown another route, mostly, with its format. The format that is essentially a more polished version of Youtube enthusiast journalism. Its all podcasts and lets plays from here on out and we're probably all better off because of it.

I don't think the question should be of backing, but of actively promoting.

Like no one really needs to disclose whether or not they have bought a copy of the game they are covering, so I don't see why this is different.

Maybe if it's on the level of one of those people that have thrown thousands at Star Citizen I can see an argument being made, but otherwise it just seems like a waste of time to discuss something that, more often than not, is the equivalent of a purchase.

@spaceinsomniac:

You need a hint: No one cares what you think of Zoe Quinn. No one should care what I think either. And it is frankly off topic for this site if not others. Maybe your obsession is why I am ignoring your ranting. Or maybe I'm part of the conspiracy but it doesn't matter because I have a feeling you are going to continue due to your crusade and the stalwart belief that THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.

Back to Giantbomb, what some are advocating means that Giantbomb (and others) couldn't do features like "Unfinished" or a bunch of "Lets Play" style content. I don't think Giantbomb staff are up to anything nefarious but the suggestion that they need to disclose every relationship to some game they found is absurd and irrelevant. People find things they consider neat and want to share. Are they violating some "trust" by doing so? It doesn't seem like where to have an ethics violation would require ulterior motives and evidence.

This is from Steven Totilo, which can be found at the link about the new update. He posted this in the comments.

A user asked a question about one of his writers having lived with a developer then writing stories about them, Steven Totilo's response:

"I'm not sure which sources you're looking at, but questions about Patricia's articles about Anna Anthropy's and Christine Love's games were part of what I was reacting to.

A couple of summers ago—for about two months—Patricia was housemates with the developer Anna Anthropy and a mutual friend. I've seen this wildly misrepresented as Patricia and Anna being in a long-term romantic relationship. Not at all. Following that, Patricia wrote a handful of mostly short posts about Anna's games—nothing that in retrospect strikes me as untoward given that I think Anna is a pretty interesting developer. I've written about her book, for example. Nevertheless, Patricia realizes now she should have mentioned that they had been housemates.She has also written about the games of one of her friends, Christine Love, a few times. She mentioned that they were friends in one of her pieces, didn't in two others. Again, Love's work is interesting and in my view well worth writing about. The lack of mention that they're friends was, in my view, an innocent oversight that's been corrected. Others may view it more negatively.

What's most important to me is how we proceed from this and any other sense that games reporters and indie devs are writing about each other without being clear enough about how they know each other. Many, many times the connections are probably harmless, but as many know, it's not impropriety that's solely a problem but even the appearance of it. If it's easy to say, hey, I'm friends with that person, then the reporter might as well do it, you know?

I've been spending time with every Kotaku writer over the last couple of days to talk through the kind of feedback we've getting, to self-scrutinize. When I said we've absorbed the feedback, I mean it. Everyone on the team has talked about this and wants to do what they can to be as clear as can be and maintain or earn the trust of their readers."

Even people who don't see any issues with Patreon and Kickstarter backing should see very real and valid concerns that merits people being skeptical of journalists/writers/critics in the industry.

I think people have it backwards in their heads...what else is new.

If a game comes out and the publisher does not send it, many sites buy it for review - how is that different than a Kickstarter? The current system where games are sent to game reviewers seems like far more questionable if looked at from the outside wiuthout context. Yet, that is in-fact how the review process works and likely should work. Movie reviewers get free pre-screenings, Road & Track does not buy that Corvette to review, and game critics do not have to buy games unless they are really low tier.

Paying for a KS is pretty much like buying a game for review. And, certainly its no some sort of deep dark secrete hole where bad things are happening. The way things should work and how the mostly do is that how the game was received should be a blurb: Publisher sent review copy; Purchased on release day by this site; or Purchased via Kickstarter, Indiegogo, etc

Most of the big game sites are fairly transparent despite what people think with these off-the-wall fits of rage. I think GB is especially transparent about how they obtain things that occur outside of they normal channel. Jeff and everyone else seem very cognizant that transparency is the goal and that it is the standard they try to uphold. In fact I like how when things given by publishers show up at GB Jeff says, "Wow this is super dumb..." most of the time. Really, you have to hand it to GB in that some of the stuff they get is shown being given on camera...but because it is from John Vignocchi or Dave Lang they make fun of it.

1) Steven previously has said that journalists who are in any way close to developers shouldn't write about them at all.

2) It doesn't matter if they weren't in a long-term romantic relationship, they were LIVING TOGETHER. I'd call that close.

3) More than one article written by Patricia concluded with a link to where Anna's games could be purchased.

It's really sad to see Totilo defending this along with talking about how serious he takes it all. For crying out loud, his journalist was essentially using his website to advertise games made by her roommate! What exactly did he have in mind when he said "reporters who are in any way close to the people they might report on should recuse themselves?"

Stepping in to remind everyone to be kind to one another. I understand you may get heated but that could be a sign to step away for a moment and think about your words.

If you really believe this conversation should continue to happen, then don't be a jerk to one another.

It seems like Totilo is taking some really positive steps here, but I wonder if its enough. I feel the Patreon contributions by Kirk Hamilton were inappropriate, but I never saw him write up a story on that person, and now he's personally addressed the matter. Patricia Hernandez was actively promoting her roommates on Kotaku, which I find pretty unethical. Seems like there should be a reprimand or perhaps something more severe in that situation. Perhaps I'm a bit biased on her though as I've found her work to be intentionally inflammatory, especially the piece on Max Temkin.

@tomtomthepirate said:

This is one of my major issues at the moment. Threads like this, and so many others, prove that there is a very large group of people out there have have genuine, legitimate, and level-headed critiques of the games press and their practices. No one here is telling Jeff to go kill himself. No one here is calling for Patrick's head on a pike. No one here is threatening Brad's loved ones. And obviously, some of the criticism overall has made it through the noise, causing sites like Polygon and Kotaku to openly revise their own approach to ethics policies and disclosures.

Yet, if you want a good example of how it's not just the audience of the games industry that causes the whole sector to be seen as immature, look no further than some of their Twitter accounts to see how childishly they react to issues like gaining the trust of their audience, maintaining transparency and good ethics, and generally field the most mild-mannered of criticism. Many of the people in the press are not treated like professionals because they don't act like it.

Here's a tip for those of you here looking to break into covering video games: Treat your audience with respect. Don't try to bully and mock them into agreeing with you, and most of them will not bully and mock you in return.

Can someone explain to me why backing a Patreon is a conflict of interest? The journalist doesn't benefit in any discernible way.

a "conflict of interest" is a defined legal thing, not just a vague idea. it works both ways, if there is a financial relationship in either direction, it should be disclosed.

again, it's fine if people don't want to follow base standards that actual journalists would get fired for in an instant -- they just shouldn't call themselves journalists in that situation.

Receiving free review copies isn't the same kind of thing, especially because if you just say "Hey, we got this copy for free for review" you have disclosed the entirety of that relationship, whereas things like Patreon have ongoing financial entanglements. I don't seriously think that a game journalist getting a free Steam code to continue playing a game is a big deal, since (a) it's easily disclosed, and (b) seriously, like they're not going to be sick of the game by the time they're done reviewing it.

@august said:

It is not necessarily a conflict of interest, but it is a potential conflict of interest that should be disclosed to the reader. Not everyone who supports a developer personally does not necessarily lack the ability to separate their personal support of that developer from their work, but some might, and that is information that the reader should know.

I don't personally think Kickstarters are really all that worth getting upset about, depending on how much exactly is being donated (if it's the minimum to get the game, it's no different than buying a game, which I think ideally all critics and journalists should do), but again, it's information I would like to know as a reader if I was reading coverage of that Kickstarter game. Donating to a Patreon is more equivalent to donations to politicians from news reporters, which is plenty restricted for the same reason. Credibility and trust with your audience is paramount as a member of the press. If the writer is giving the subject of their coverage cash on the regular, I'm going to want to know.

I agree, I gave credit to Totilo for acknowledging some of the complaints but to still believe there's no conflict of interest in this exact case is either dishonest or incredibly naive of him. I presented this just to show a very clear area where this exact thing is happening (and from an editor himself so people other media members can't just call it a "conspiracy theory") and I believe people have good reason to be skeptical of writers/journalists/critics. A simple disclosure and this would have been a non-story.

I said this before, and while I do still stand by that line of thought, I wanted to quote this tweet from Alex on the topic of being fine with journalists using kickstarter and not fine with them using patreon, and elaborate a bit.

Jason Schreier ‏@jasonschreier 8h

@CaseyMalone as for "just Patreon" there's a difference in my mind between supporting product vs supporting individual person

A Colossal Bummer ‏@alex_navarro 8h

@jasonschreier @CaseyMalone Isn't it? You're drawing a line between directly supporting a creator and supporting them via buying products.

Personally, I'm drawing a line between obtaining a copy of a game, and supporting the developer without being given anything in return. One is a purchase of sorts, and the other is a donation. How many kickstarters do you think would succeed if every level of donation came with nothing in return?

Most donations to kickstarter are essentially pre-orders of a product that might not get made, and I would never say that a game reviewer pre-ordering a personal copy of a game that they're going to cover is unethical. However, patreon is essentially a charity drive, and if you care about someone enough to give them your money without asking anything in return, I personally think you're probably too close to them to ethically cover their products as a journalist.

The especially subjective part in all of this is where do you draw the line with kickstarter? Do you feel that it would be ONLY ethical for a journalist to pay the bare minimum required for a copy of the game? What if the next level up includes a really cool poster that they genuinely want, and it's only a couple dollars more? What if there is an amazing set of rewards at the 200 dollar level? Should a journalist really be punished, and have to choose between getting a cool kickstarter promotional item or ethically promoting a game?

I would say yes, but where that ethical line should be drawn is an interesting question. Ultimately, I'm glad gaming journalists are finally having this conversation.

Whatever your role when making a review, commentary, or other editorial piece should always include a disclosure of any relevant relation to the subject of your work. This is pretty much common in journalism and a requirement in many areas of it.

Of course, disclosure only lets you know that you should think critically of what you are about to read and that there could be some degree of bias involved. Disclosure doesn't in any way perform some sort of cleansing of the relation such that your content suddenly becomes devoid of such things.

On the other hand, you should think critically and not take things at face value whether there are disclosures or not.

Also, most people do disclose their backing of crowdfunded projects when discussing them - especially on GiantBomb.

@dudeglove: This is kind of coming off as a similar argument to "if you can't draw, you shouldn't criticize other peoples' drawings," which is a fallacy. Nobody here needs to be in the media for a living to know what journalistic standards are.