What exactly do you want from games journalism?

Ah, yes, YouTube. Where people literally take money from publishers to make videos about their games.

Clearly a shining bastion of integrity and objectivity. That's still what this is about, right? Integrity or something?

Just because there are no institutional standards doesn't mean that individuals on youtube cannot have them. I'd say Total Biscuit has very high standards and speaks very honestly about what they are. I don't think he is a very good place to start with how youtube doesn't have standards.

If people don't care about integrity in video game criticism, or see it as not existing anywhere, then that's their choice. I've got no problem with them preferring to follow youtubers rather than a mainstream outlet.

However, I believe that many go to youtube with the idea that the critics there are inherently more truthful, that they are less likely to be influenced by PR, and less likely to involved in payola, and that's the problem. Once Youtube critics develop that reputation, that's when PR outlets attempt to take advantage of that reputation, and start trying to interact with them in the same way they do with the mainstream gaming press.

Think of it as like how the Sundance Film Festival got tangled up with Hollywood, despite being about filmmakers who are not in Hollywood.

EDIT: To be clear, I have nothing against Total Biscuit. I was simply giving an example of the types of youtubers I am talking about. I barely watch TB's videos and have no real opinion either way. If you want, replace TB's name with any other guy on youtube, and you still have my point.

I don't think any of them are trust-worthy. But if I can one dude I don't trust just discussing a game and another dude I don't trust discussing how bad I am that "sexism" in gaming couldn't be less of a pressing concern for me that it is...you can guess who I'd prefer.

It must be hard being a conservative when reality has a liberal bias :(

Also I personally don't have a problem with IGN, mainly because I don't buy into the paid for reviews fallacy, but a lot of these people are now flocking to IGN because I guess taking money from AAA is better than being friends with indies and not writing reviews of their games?

Something something integrity yeah totes.

Edit: Should have made clear I'm saying a lot of the same people complaining about integrity in games journalism are the same people who were all over Doritos/Mountain Dew and Mass Effect 3 IGN review being bought and such.

@juno500 said:

How is the gaming section of The Guardian's website not gaming journalism?

Also, I find it ridiculous that the Guardian article is being attacked for lacking journalist integrity, when the whole point of the article is "Online harassment of women is real, and it's bad".

Really? Is that where we are at now? It's an ethical breach to condemn harassment, just because the author and the person being harassed have a financial relationship? I find this assertion to be very revealing of those making the argument. Asking somebody not to harass others IS NOT "taking a side".

@juno500: you have a point and I think most agree that youtube isn't the place for a uniformly high standard of integrity. But the choice is gaming journalism with near-zero integrity plus social agenda pushing plus a general distaste for their audience and the material they cover. Or, youtubers who may or may not be on the take but actually enjoy games and have common ground with their fellow gamers.

It's an easy choice.

According to the author the decision came from The Guardian's legal department.

Then take that choice. Go to Youtube. Just don't tell me that it's honest. That's all I ask.

Is evidence of this harassment ever presented?

@juno500 said:

The only interest their legal department might have had in that piece would have been to check for libelous material. Conflicts of interest such as those that have been brought up in this instance are not legal issues.

@juno500: you have a point and I think most agree that youtube isn't the place for a uniformly high standard of integrity. But the choice is gaming journalism with near-zero integrity plus social agenda pushing plus a general distaste for their audience and the material they cover. Or, youtubers who may or may not be on the take but actually enjoy games and have common ground with their fellow gamers.

? No one is trying to tell you youtubers are honest. They are just as honest as game bloggers. That's the whole point.

To stop expressing opinions I disagree with.

Well, the author said they did consider that issue despite it not being a legal issue, and that's all I know, so I have nothing to add. If you think she's lying or was mistaken, or I misunderstood her, I'd recommend you ask either the author (Jenn Frank) or the The Guardian itself whether their legal department was actually concerned about it. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and it was an issue of gaming journalism. All I'm doing is making conclusions based on the facts I have.

I disagree with your point because I don't think that people do go to youtube because they think the people are more truthful there. They go there because they can see more. You can see entire games on youtube before you make your purchase (at least before the glorious and "necessary" content ID). Traditional games media typically shows less actual gaming...until Quick Looks happened and they started catching up again.

I do agree with some of the sentiment though. Youtubers are just as susceptible to publisher bribery as the mainstream gaming press. Possibly more eager to accept since, I'd assume, most of them want to be able to show the newest games first. They know that publishers can silence someone instantly if they don't want their opinion getting out (because of the glorious and "necessary" content ID) so they want to stay on their good side.

YouTube isn't somehow a savior of integrity, but I will say that I find it relaxing to go to YouTube these days because very few of them have delusions of grandeur on a level like this, and those who do don't last long. When you're in the shit on a daily basis like you are with YouTube, you're sort of forced constantly into being checked by people who can throw feedback in your face on a regular basis; you can stay grounded. You sort of have to, your entire existence is predicated on serving your community rather than writing about how they're big misogynerds.

In addition, I tend learn way more about games on YouTube than pretty much anywhere else these days, with people who are specialists in what they like showing me exactly how games work on deeper mechanical levels that few of those in the press are equipped to show off, because they're off chasing hits. A group of self proclaimed "shit-tier e-celebs" are better informed from reading Gaf all day than most members of the press seem to be.

YouTube also doesn't really sanctify people. I probably grew up more attuned to "YouTube debate culture" than I was with "gamer" culture; watching the early days of YouTube unfold with the religious vs. non-religious debates of yesteryear was a learning experience for me. Seeing people make a statement, get a response, that gets a response, and so on, is how I grew to understand what debating and feedback is.

I think it was @oldirtybearon who once asked me what I find appealing about The Amazing Atheist; it's because he's flawed. I don't like people who let themselves be put on a pedestal, or put behind the social media pulpit like a modern day preacher. TAA knows he can be full of shit, he's challenged on a regular basis, and if I took one thing away from watching him grow since 2006 it's that you don't have to like a person who you agree with, or hate a person you disagree with. On his podcast he basically embodies nuance, and the sentiment of "if I'm wrong, show me the counter-argument, come on this show, I want to see it." That you can listen to a news story of someone you hate and still find agreement in one thing he said because the substance of the argument is what matters most. I see that nowhere but YouTube, these days, the desire for direct debate.

There is often very little direct feedback given to the games press of today, and many of the people who are criticized allow the wagons to be circled and construct an image that is then beyond reproach. Anita Sarkeesian, for example, is a sacred object because the actions of a few have allowed people to nearly deify her. Feedback is impossible because people have created a dogma. I don't like that. Even if I agreed entirely with Anita on all of her videos, I would still dislike the way she does not allow feedback, and legions of people come to her defense at the mildest of accusations; these things make my inner skeptic too uncomfortable. The way the modern games press is similarly so hermetically sealed that they don't recognize outside feedback or criticism, that they don't seem genuinely self critical, it pushes me away. YouTube isn't perfect in this regard either, but at least there I know more people will listen.

Certainly more than on Twitter, anyway, which is arguably one of the worst avenues for debate on the face of the planet.

@yukoasho's most recent post claimed exactly that, that they were honest. That was the post that sparked my original post about Youtubers.

Most of them don't have a journalism degree. Even the ones that do have one, don't see an issue with overlooking basic ethics.

Also, if people were wondering why the gaming press moved away from direct coverage of games, it's because the huge number of gaming outlets made cut-and-dry breakdowns of individual games basically worthless. Anybody can give a simple, fact-based overview of a game. How do you attract people to your website when you aren't offering readers anything unique? That's why Polygon started going with more opinion pieces- because if you want the opinion of a specific individual, you have to go to their site.

There's always a lot of talk about "objective reviews", but if every site started giving strictly fact-based accounts of games with no real analysis or commentary, then every review would start to sound very similar (not that they don't sound similar already, but even more so). The key to surviving in an industry that has a lot of competition is to stand out, and some of the ideas a lot of gamers have is contrary to that goal.

@marokai: Isn't the reliance on your audience an enduring challenge in news being able to address all kinds of stories?

In other words, when you rely on your audience for your existence and success, you're inherently deterred from covering stories the audience dislikes or ever being too critical of the audience. Old gaming magazines were far closer to current YouTube than modern gaming news writing on websites, and it's only natural some may be drawn more to them now. Because magazines and YouTube creators rely far more on niche support. Appeasing your select audience. That, in general, means not crossing them out of fear of losing them.

I think we can see a lot of that here and in cable news. With so many options to choose from, he big networks have leaned more and more into their niche, covering stories in a way that pleases their "side" of things. Their audience is more sacred. The views of their audience more gospel than the truth. If FOX News came out and tried to cover some of the racist elements in opposition to US President Obama, they'd probably have people knocking on their studio doors with pitchforks. If MSNBC did an expose on abuses by Unions around the nation, you'd have people tossing kale at them as they went to work. The more our audience is sacred, the more deterred people become from questioning them or crossing the views they may have.

The shift of gaming news to the Internet has allowed more room for actually covering things the traditional audience may not like. They've even been able to look at themselves and the audience and say, "Maybe we have problems. Maybe there's things we can do better." But some within that audience don't want to be challenged. They don't want news thinking about them as anything but beyond reproach. They are the audience, and they must be served. In a similar way as you put it, they want an outlet's entire existence to be predicated on serving them rather than writing anything they may disagree with.

Personally, I'm glad that many in recent years have been less afraid. More women have felt comfortable speaking up. More writers with opinions different from many gamers have been willing to share them despite fear of a backlash. Outlets still rely heavily on their audience, but a subsection of that audience is no longer their entire audience. They don't have to appease a niche or hardcore, as many magazines and Youtubers have. Instead, they can actually be open and cover a wider array of stories surrounding gaming. They can be open and express opinions about the community around them without fear of ruin. At worst, they face harassment, but many have decided that's a price worth paying for not being afraid of crossing a vocal section of their audience.

Even many developers have felt like that traditional subsection of gamers are not their only audience anymore, and that has opened them up to being able to explore more kinds of games. They've felt free to be critical of their own games and improve them. Social issues are no longer non-factors that can't be considered. Women are no longer a non-audience in the mind of many publishers. Countries outside the US have become viable markets to consider. Developers are beholden to their audience, but that audience is no longer just those people who think everything should stay as they are.

The commanding voice isn't just male gamers anymore, and they've seen how even male gamers are not so ubiquitous in their interests and views as was once thought. They can safely pursue a wider audience without fear of assured failure. There are still that subsection which loudly say developers would be fools to cross them and not only focus on them as they had in the past, but fortunately, there are plenty of other people who love games and are interested in supporting these developers.

I am glad that gaming news outlets have been more willing to challenge parts of their audience, because we are not sacred. I am glad that more developers have been willing to challenge themselves to do even better and expand their audience from the narrow range of fans many focused on. Gamers are a wider audience now, and a subsection of that audience is not all that matters. I matter, too. My friends and others who may be different from the normal image of a gamer are as much gamers as anyone else.

Gaming belongs to all of us, and I am glad more gaming news writers and game developers are increasingly willing to question parts of their audience, explore every aspect of gaming, and see the value in the ever more diverse audience which cares about games.

Most of them roll "this video was paid for the publisher and is basically an ad" videos before the videos themselves. Not sure what they're meant to do to be more honest than that. Maybe say exactly how much they're being paid?

The criticism comes up a lot with Youtubers and is always met with a calm, rational dialogue that everyone walks away from a lot more informed.

How does the "real press" meet the same criticism? Articles of "gamers are dead" (whatever that means), diversion, kneejerk insults against their fanbase, generalizations, and some of the most horrific "justified" bullying I've ever seen.

Honest? Only they can answer that, but in contrast with their traditional cousins who are frightfully clinging to their final waning shreds of relevance, the Youtube channels big enough to matter are saints.

I'd like to add that, if a popular Youtuber is caught taking bribes, the rest of Youtube's game channels will pitch a fit. The level of group-think in the mainstream games media is beyond disturbing. The sheer number of differing voices on Youtube and similar sites effectively makes that impossible. The games press (including Giant Bomb) are so cloistered, so confined in their cliques that they can't see anything outside. We're nothing to them. Nay, we are less than nothing; the hatred the games press has for its readership seems to grow by the day.

Have you considered that may actually just be how you and a subsection of the audience feel?

I personally don't see or feel a disdain toward me in the games press and entertainment. I've seen them actually connect with average gamers more and more over the last few years. The Internet has allowed them a more direct line to their audience, and that has brought both opportunity and trouble. I would say most of that trouble has been on their end, with a more direct avenue for lashing out at them. Yet, direct criticism and discussion has also been more possible, and I'm glad to see it endure despite many challenges.

I do see a frustration over bigoted and abusive people, but frankly, that isn't me. I'd assume that's not you either, but I guess that's up to you. When they point out issues amongst their wide audience, I see that as an opportunity to continue to improve our communities, not as some kind of attack on me. You're good people; I'm good people. Let's talk about how there may be problems and find a way to make things better.

Despite how some may feel, you and others may not represent all of the games press readership. And for those like myself who may be different from the subsection some have defined as the primary readership, I don't agree with there being some kind of war on me or anyone else. I definitely don't think they're too cloistered, and I'd say they've actually been going in the opposite direction over the years. I appreciate that YouTube and blogging has empowered a wider range of perspectives, and I credit that with allowing women and social issues to become a larger topic in gaming. The more inclosed gaming press of the past which was primarily men has had to open up more to keep up with the growing array of voices out there. There has been an opening to not just represent the interests of a small subsection that used to bogart most of the attention. They don't just have to appease that part of the audience anymore.

I personally feel closer to folks in the games press than ever, and I can appreciate that many of them may feel differently than I do on some things. I can consider their opinions and share my own. The variety of perspectives in gaming is wider than ever, and as a goofy, different fellow, I'm glad that's the case. Gaming is a place for all of us. The audience isn't as limited as it once was. Everyone has the right to play games, criticize games, and make games. Our diversity is an ever-growing strength of gaming, and I'm glad many are standing up for it more and more. :)

Of significance to this topic, over 600 game creators today have called for an end to the harassment and prejudice which still plagues some corners of gaming.

As they put it:

Open letter to the gaming community

We believe that everyone, no matter what gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion has the right to play games, criticize games and make games without getting harassed or threatened. It is the diversity of our community that allows games to flourish.

If you see threats of violence or harm in comments on Steam, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook or reddit, please take a minute to report them on the respective sites.

If you see hateful, harassing speech, take a public stand against it and make the gaming community a more enjoyable space to be in.

Thank you

[Link to Letter]

I appreciate that a wide variety of folks from places like Sony, Microsoft, Bungie, Ubisoft, Blizzard, Infinity Ward, and many more have signed onto it, and I think it's something most of us can support.

Isn't the reliance on your audience an enduring challenge in news being able to address all kinds of stories?

In other words, when you rely on your audience for your existence and success, you're inherently deterred from covering stories the audience dislikes or ever being too critical of the audience. Old gaming magazines were far closer to current YouTube than modern gaming news writing on websites, and it's only natural some may be drawn more to them now. Because magazines and YouTube creators rely far more on niche support. Appeasing your select audience. That, in general, means not crossing them out of fear of losing them.

@truthtellah Oh totally, which is why you have to be a smart viewer and try to find those who find the balance between questioning their audience and pandering to their audience, both of which are fine in the abstract but become tiresome and counter-productive in excess. It's absolutely a problem on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Personally, I'm glad that many in recent years have been less afraid. More women have felt comfortable speaking up. More writers with opinions different from many gamers have been willing to share them despite fear of a backlash. Outlets still rely heavily on their audience, but a subsection of that audience is no longer their entire audience. They don't have to appease a niche or hardcore, as many magazines and Youtubers have. Instead, they can actually be open and cover a wider array of stories surrounding gaming. They can be open and express opinions about the community around them without fear of ruin. At worst, they face harassment, but many have decided that's a price worth paying for not being afraid of crossing a vocal section of their audience.

I think this is a positive thing too, but I question whether or not every publication ever has to start falling in line with this exact same "making video games coverage serious" kind of stuff. I respect the existence of a place like Polygon, I respect the ideals of people like Leigh Alexander or Carolyn Petit even if their work has not been entirely great. I think it's a positive thing for this hobby to have a a more contemplative edge, I would just like it if instead of having one or two columnists that seem to just push people's buttons on nearly every gaming site/publication, there existed one or two sites where they all conglomerated and focused on doing their work better. I feel like if I'm not constantly talking about sexism, and constantly letting every topic become a battleground for a social issue, people are telling me what a horrible person I am. Why can't I enjoy that over there, and another thing over here? I want there to be everything for everybody somewhere, I just don't see why everything has to constantly intermingle.

I am glad that gaming news outlets have been more willing to challenge parts of their audience, because we are not sacred. I am glad that more developers have been willing to challenge themselves to do even better and expand their audience from the narrow range of fans many focused on. Gamers are a wider audience now, and a subsection of that audience is not all that matters. I matter, too. My friends and others who may be different from the normal image of a gamer are as much gamers as anyone else.

I would like if nothing was sacred. Questioning your audience can be a good thing, but picking and choosing who to question and who to berate is a whole other thing that I think a lot of the games press of today tends to do. One group being bad doesn't mean all other groups are good. A bunch of MRA creeps harass the staff of this site, and they'll go on endless twitter mocking sprees, but if feminists accuse the site of fostering a sexist boys club, it's radio silence because they don't want to offend.

One of the most important aspects of maturity is the ability to be self critical, or see things in perspectives other than "this thing is good, other thing is bad." In the current conversation, no one seems to be capable of being both good, and bad. It's impossible to denounce the bullying of a person while also maintaining that person probably isn't very nice themselves. Questioning the audience is a good thing, but repeatedly singling out a particular aspect of your audience and mocking them (and only them) is something else.

Gaming belongs to all of us, and I am glad more gaming news writers and game developers are increasingly willing to question parts of their audience, explore every aspect of gaming, and see the value in the ever more diverse audience which cares about games.

I agree with you. The audience should be questioned, as should the entertainers/informers themselves. Diversity of thought is incredibly important, too. Which is why I'd enjoy seeing Erik Kain, or Mark Ceb, or Totalbiscuit, or Jason Schreier, or someone like them show up on Bombin' in the AM to discuss some of the last week's events, as opposed to a likeminded individual who will simply repeat what I already hear from 95% of the press on Twitter. Discuss, debate, question. Everyone.

I agree with this and as a weird side note. The last time I was in the US, I went to gamestop and was stuck behind this lady that was trading in her son's stuff. While waiting, I got to watching the gamestop TV advertising thing they had. They were showing games coming out soon, and new releases. I thought to myself, this obvious advertisement inside a game store told me so much more about what samurai warrior 3 actually is than the entire game "journalist" horde combine. How the fuck did it come to this? That a person like myself, who follows the industry closely, worked in the industry for a time and game constantly, thought that an actual piece 1-2min of advertisement did a better job of telling me what a game/what to expect from it than the entirety of the gaming journalist combine.

I'm surprised a thread like this has not been locked down yet

I'm far too cynical to believe that this will put an end to some of the disturbing vitriol and bullying pouring from some of the "press" at the minute. They'll just link to it and say "See! They hate you too!"

I just want to say that I agree with all of this.

Aren't you basically talking about demarcating some views and topics to that section of the community over just being part of the community? The whole point of us all being together in this is not just placing people in their little corners. "You can have your own little club. Over there. Away from ours." While someone may prefer that only select sites were allowed to talk about one aspect of games, that isn't the same thing as diversity or openness. Outlets should be able to define themselves, not have you or anyone else tell them what they can talk about.

Personally, I don't think segregation is the answer. People should be able to intermingle everywhere if they want to. You can have specialty sites that only talk about certain things, but no sites or communities should be held to only being what they're allowed to be. We don't need a social issues ghetto. This also isn't a matter of every site having to be the same. I mean, we're talking on Giant Bomb, which is an inherently different beast from many other gaming sites. I think not all sites have to only discuss or say things you agree with. Enjoying that over there, and another thing over here is an option if people want that on their own sites. But I think that is mainly the desire of a subsection of the gaming audience, not the actual wider audience. Along with that, I think gaming news writers have already shown their opinion on what most of them want to be, and that does not involve segregating themselves.

Once again, this is that cable news idea that "Well, they have their thing, and we have our thing." Their community can have their thing and we can have ours. Messing with that might unsettle the status quo and cross part of the audience. It somewhat reminds me of those who hate gay pride parades, because in their words, "It's fine if they wanna be gay and all, but we don't need to see it." Unfortunately for a subsection of the gaming audience right now, they don't get to decide this for the gaming press or anyone else outside of themselves.

I'm as much a part of Giant Bomb as you are, and I am glad the gaming press and entertainment talk about social issues at times. I'm as much a part of the gaming community as you or anyone complaining lately, and I appreciate many in the gaming press's interest in expressing themselves about a wide array of topics. If all someone wants is to force outlets to include people that represent them or force some outlets to pander to them while others pander to different folks, that isn't their call. A section of gaming fans just don't have that kind of power anymore. Gaming doesn't just belong to them and people that agree with them anymore.

If your ultimate goal is simply further diversity in representation in the gaming press, you can make that argument the same way many have for women and minorities over the years. The same way many of us still are, and we'd love to have more sharing the cause. Encourage diversity and make a case for more decent folks like Total Biscuit or Jason Schreier getting their voice out there, as well. Though, Jason Schreier is already in the gaming press, and before now, was generally hated by many holding him up in this situation because he was willing in the past to criticize them and developers they like. Still, more good folks like that can get in the gaming press. Frankly, I'd say that's most of what we had in the gaming press for a long time, but obviously, there's still a demand for a more conservative stance in gaming.

I don't think an answer is in encouraging outlets to shut up about what they care about and segregate themselves to their own little corners or forcing outlets to bring people on that they aren't interested in bringing on, but championing diversity and encouraging people to consider positive change in the future is certainly something a wide audience of gamers can get behind. :)

Youtube debate is more of a straw man battle then an exchanging of ideas. A person who would look at infowars or young turks for the most parts already made up their mind, it is the same for a FOX "news"(confederate grandpa's network) lover or MSNBC, CNN, etc. A person who watches or are drawing to said views/ideas on the channel or podcast mainly because they have the same views or in some sick way have the need/want to practice their 1984 hour of hate by screaming at the video screen to build fuel and rage for the opposition to their deep rooted bias and the comments or "discourse" lacks the open mindedness & empathy that most exchanging of ideas have...

There is also even less check and balances for the youtubers to be honest with the audience, gaming companies of all sorts can throw money at them and they wouldn't have to disclose a thing..... Nice turtle beach headphones, yeti mic and steelseries gaming mouse and keyboard....... It could be a Lonelygirl15 work and fool a bunch of people into believing that this person really vlogging about their life or maybe PewDiePie makes money off the games he plays and he's upfront about I guess..... But the "angry gamer bastard" act that a good number of those youtubers do seem to be more shady than what a "mainstreamed" game site/press..... and the click bait is more rampant too in both cases.......

@truthtellah: I was not in any way suggesting we segregate gaming communities. What I was saying was that I'm a little tired of the implication that, whenever I just want to enjoy talking about video games as talking about video games, that's a bad thing. I participate in the deeper conversations around here all the time, but I can be as exasperated as anyone else when it comes to constantly talking about social politics. I welcome people to talk about touchy issues as they relate to video games, but I'm not here to make anyone feel bad for not wanting to, either, and if people desire sites that cover those things less than average, I don't want them to be judged as bad people.

You talk about "gaming not belonging to those people anymore" like we're trying to conquer something. This isn't a war or a campaign of some sort, to me. I don't want gaming to "belong" to anyone. All I meant by my post is that we don't get all Daisy Fitzroy on this, and turn from pushing everyone who wanted to talk about serious socioeconomic issues out of the community, to starting to push everything who doesn't agree with the constant talking of socioeconomic issues out of our community.

There are major voices in the games press right now that have taken "we should earnestly discuss issues of social diversity in gaming" to the point of just viciously mocking people and lambasting anyone who disagrees with them as basement-dwelling-neckbeard-virgin-misogynists. Like, something went wrong along the way and turned from "we should have more women in video games, that'd be nice!" to "I hope everything you loved about gaming culture is dead! MWAHAHAHAHA! How do you like it now, nerds?!" This is no longer an actual debate or conversation. This is people who won the battle and are now combing the battlefield for stragglers to torture just for funsies.

Everything you said is right, and fair, and ultimately.. well, platitudes 95% of us agree on. Very few people are fighting over "We should have more women in games!" or "We should report death threats!" or "Hey, gay people are alright!" Those conversations have been won. Anyone who was going to be convinced has been convinced. We're no longer fighting over the substance, because people agree on it. What people are now fighting over is when someone calls Persona 4 homophobic because a character wasn't the way she wanted, or that Akiba's Trip is transphobic because a character said a certain word, or that Spelunky is reinforcing harmful stereotypes by allowing the player character to save women (along with men and dogs) from ancient ruins.

We're fighting about over-analyzing and pure posturing and then people are blowing them up and mischaracterizing "the other side" when they run into disagreement. This apparent war is starting to look really weird and lopsided when even the people that are supposedly the villains openly agree with all of the foundational points.

I just want everyone to get along and respect each other :(

Social justice warriors (since that is what this thread is now discussing instead of games journalism) promote too much of an "us vs them" mentality that I find unhealthy. I don't see a lot of sympathy or compassion from them, just a lot of finger pointing without any constructive edge. It's all just "look at these scoundrels, this is a fucked up thing, wouldn't the world be better without these pieces of shit, please like and subscribe, pfffft". That gets no one anywhere. The people that are being harassed are then going to be harassed further and harder and the people that are harassing others aren't going to learn anything. You need to do more than just poke the bear to inspire real change.

In the end I just see it as an argument for a strictly regulated internet and I think that sucks. They just want 'bad gamers' to disappear, it doesn't matter if they still exist as long as they're shunned and silenced. I'll be the first to praise the folks who do inspire people to be more accepting of others but I honestly don't think most of the gaming press that aligns themselves as a social justice warrior deserves to label themselves with such a term. They just start Twitter fights.

Somebody needs to write about that IGF shit if true, this is some grimy ass stuff going on. Heads need to roll...

@marokai: I can understand some frustration about how discussion of social topics in gaming is more prominent now than it ever was. Though, imagine how frustrating it must have been for years and years for people to not feel like they could address those concerns at all. I can assure you this is as or more tiresome to have to deal with, but things are not just going to get better on their own.

This isn't about all sites having to talk about the same things; it's any sites being able to decide they want to talk about something if they want to. It's me or someone else being able to make a thread or blog post expressing an opinion on a game or story and not be told we should just stop talking about it because gaming is "supposed to be fun". A lot of people want everywhere within the gaming community to fit the mold it used to be in where their idea of "fun" was maintained at every level, and that's simply not the direction gaming is going. Our fun matters, too.

I think sites should be able to decide for themselves, and if you agree, then I don't see what the problem is. A lot of people seem mad that sites -have- decided for themselves, but their decisions haven't been to their liking. Once outlets realized they could actually address opinions and concerns that challenged gaming, a great deal of them have gone in that direction. By their choice. You can have your own site that doesn't talk about that part of gaming if you want, but no one can force the majority of sites to back down from being what they've chosen to be. Most gaming news and coverage is still around every possible thing but social topics, but those do pop up on occasion and get a lot of attention. That's not the end of the world as many act like it is.

As you said, this isn't a war; though, many as of late have acted as though they need a war to "take back our hobby". I think those people would be better served taking your advice. Support sites and communities they like and talk about what they want to talk about. Don't force gaming news writers and entertainers to back down from expressing their opinions about things. Don't imply that a gaming news writer is corrupt or evil just because they care about things you don't care as much about or feel ways you don't feel about the games you like. A lot of people seem okay with dismissive comments on topics like this, but once someone says they think there may be something to a concern, that's when someone is out of line and forcing their views on everyone.

Even just speaking of Giant Bomb, a relatively awesome place, there is still strong pushback for expressing that you may care about the treatment of women or social aspects of games. I know it's the only thing I've ever gotten death threats and harassment about here. And that's on Giant Bomb, not even just on some place like Twitter. I don't think the discussion is that diversity has already won and we're just cleaning up. It's that it's still hard to talk about these kinds of things anywhere without strong resistance. I'm a gamer and duder here, and I deserve to be able to talk about things I care about in gaming just as much as you. But because of my views being different, some people think it warrants attacking me or people like me.

Almost every time I've come out and talked about women in gaming or how we can make games even better, I've had someone reach out to me and say something like, "Thanks. I wish I didn't feel afraid to be open about this," or "The last time I piped up, people just insulted me and I don't want that again." And that hurts. That's the frame of reference I've had for the last few years, and I can tell you it's even worse elsewhere. No duder should have to feel like they aren't welcome just because of their sex, gender, race, religion, or nationality. This is the gaming community and a gaming site, and it should be possible for all of us to have fun.

Unfortunately, a forceful subsection of the gaming community continue to act like they own gaming, and developers and press should only do what they want them to do. Before the last few years, that subsection was most of what I saw in the gaming community. They were the subsection that companies pandered to, and they came to define what a "gamer" looked like. For years it seemed like I and others were only allowed as long as we did our best to fit in.

But then people started talking more. Concerns that many had were finally being shared. And oddly enough, some prominent people in the press even seemed to share those concerns. Now, it feels like we can actually express ourselves and talk about things. It's still not easy, as some people make sure discussions spiral out of control quickly or feel like such topics are grounds for treating others like crap. But it's something worth standing up for and continuing to work at. We can get it right and strike a good balance.

For all the gamers I've known and the gaming that I care so much about, I don't mind catching a little flack if it may mean more in the diverse audience of gaming fans can feel like they can be a part of it, too. I can't say all efforts to improve gaming and the community are perfect, but I'm glad many people are continuing to try to make gaming communities a better place for the wide variety of people who enjoy games.

won't happen. not in today's climate. To many video game bloggers are all about controlling the message.

@tourgen said:

It's funny that this stuff is just coming up now considering Edmund and Tommy from Team Meat have openly and candidly talked about how shite the IGF was for years. They say it's gotten/getting better and who knows if that's actually true, but considering the source I'm willing to believe them.

Some people are now suggesting that someone in the PAX Prime Game Industry Rumble is part of the conspiracy to destroy gaming?

I may agree that someone who once called Dave Lang "the greatest person in the history of the world" is probably a monster, but come on. This really is becoming like a pro wrestling storyline.

Dr. Tracksuit, please hear our call! Only you can save gaming!

Some game site needs to write about ANYTHINGwhich isn't hiding behind misogyny or calling their audience slurs. It's really bizarre. I talked to Kotaku writer on twitter yesterday and they had these twitlonger pieces which were pretty alright. So when I asked why the hell they didn't post that on Kotaku, they said cause they wrote it on a Saturday, and they don't work on Saturdays. What?

Ironically, this is what the SJWs that have infiltrated gaming journalism don't get. Most decent people agree that women, gays, racial minorities and people of all faiths should be treated fairly. What has happened now, as with the offline civil rights and feminist movements in recent years, is the the focus has shifted from "equality" to "special treatment." It's gotten to the point where it's safer not to have women or minorities in a game at all, because any one minor thing can turn into a massive shitstorm that affects PR. People complained that The Last of Us was sexist. The fucking Last of Us, by far one of the most respectful depictions of women in traditional games in years! When even that garners crap from people, why would anyone bother?

@truthtellah : You say that this isn't all the gaming audience, but who outside of the clique likes the broad brush being used to characterize us all? Is it healthy for the very worst element in a community to define us all, as has happened repeatedly? There's barely a peep about the various Extra Life campaigns that happen each year (unless they're talking about their own event), there's no mention of the Hellfirecomms' Zeldathon last year or their Sonic-a-thon this year, there's no mention of all the good that's done in this fucking community every god damned day, while a few fuckwads who talk shit because they're anonymous punks stroking their e-penis have become the face of the whole fucking community thanks to the gaming media. Back in my day, it was the politicians who used only the worst of gamers to paint us all as shit. Now it's our own damned press. Sorry if you don't think this matters to enough people to matter to you, but I personally am tired of being lumped in with the dickheads by the one group of people who should know better.

Maybe you don't mind, but I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.

I don't know what prompted me to look at this thread again, but I'm glad I did because I knew right away where the "shit-tier e-celebs" comment came from. If I could talk about the Two Best Friends/Best Friends/Super Best Friends stuff for a moment I think it would encapsulate how I feel about all this bullshit because they feel like an early Giant Bomb in an alternate universe.

It's probably really insulting to say this (Pat listens to the Bombcast, checks the GB site content, and probably reads the forums so sorry if you read this), but when I first started watching their stuff it felt like some off brand Giant Bomb quicklook content that wasn't being filtered through years of cynicism. Matt and Pat gushed over the stuff they loved and would regularly shit on the stuff they didn't like without worrying about who it might offend. Fast forward a year or two and we get the addition of Woolie and Liam for the complete foursome. They did their video stuff and eventually started their own podcast because people said they should do it. They recently had their 1 year podcast anniversary and it's amazing to see how their content feels like the early Giant Bomb stuff, except that their personalities seem to be more aligned with my own (probably due to their age and anime watching).

They had no prior experience with anything before they got their shit set up except for the fact that they loved playing games. They have no real sense of knowing when to pull their punches so some of their gaming discussions/arguments can seem really combative when they start to openly insult each other, but they've known each other a while and it kinda feels like the arguments I have with my own friends over stupid shit. Liam is super optimistic about games and their potential to be good while Pat is very pessimistic and quick to shit on things so their arguments are fun as long as you keep in mind that they aren't actually going to punch each other in the face.

With their appearance at several cons and a few panels under their belt people you might think that the "shit-tier e-celeb" fame would have gone to their head, but they regularly talk about being nobodies that just like games. I think Woolie was a bit blown away by the last con they went to because he was told that his voice/opinions were a bid deal as one of the few black dudes talking about video games with a large following. For him it simply wasn't a thing he'd think about as he just views himself as a dude that likes games.

I would really like it if "video game journalist" and video game websites would honestly talk about the stuff they love in games and the stuff that they hate. If they think X video game controversy is stupid as hell they should talk about how dumb it is and move on to the stuff that matters like Bloodborne and Persona 5. Dig deep into the games. Give more info about their development. Talk about why you really like a game with the kind of details that would only make sense to fans of that particular game and for gods sake get excited and hyped about stuff.

Have any of you guys who are pushing these conspiracy and "gamergate" angles stopped to consider that your aggressive messaging might actually be adversely affecting your intended outcome and that more people would be willing to take your side if you approached the topic with a different demeanor?

But don't get too excited or else you are schilling and unethical.

But don't be too dry and objective because then it is boring and you are cynical and jaded.

But be objective, you shouldn't bring bias into reviews.

lmao

you guys need a hobby, for real

This is probably going to rub a lot of people the wrong way, but they need to be how Brad is about Dota 2. I seriously don't give a shit about schilling or unethical bullshit. I want hype for games they are excited about and trashing games they don't like. Simple.