The point of the mailing list is that a group of people decides and dictates what will be covered by them. Either promoting a game/person or ignoring a game/person. At some point individuals stop thinking by themselves to figure out their own opinion. This is all very evident with the treatment Anita gets from the press. Nobody ever looks past her obvious faults.
Wilshere's forum posts
Y'know, when a large amount of people in a movement decide they need to donate to a charity in order to improve their public image and publicly gloat about it, donating to charity doesn't mean shit. They're not doing it out of benevolence, they're doing it as a PR stunt. Fuck GamerGate, seriously.
You can only prove your good intentions by acting on them. Otherwise its just words.
There is harassment on both sides. Its ugly is bad, it won't stop unless we all hide in a cave. But this shouldn't keep people from talking about the state of games media. People raise their hands in the air and say "i'm not touching that", this will solve nothing. There are a lot of bad practices between developers/publishers and reviewers/journalists. Remember that they work for us, we are trusting them to be our guide into the industry. Its not a good practice to have preview parties where the reviewers play the game in the best conditions possible that don't mimic the experience that the rest of the public will have. Prime example is SimCity, a game that came out broken but had great reviews. The other bad practice is having to rely on the publishers to get a review copy before the launch of the game. On one hand its great that the review can come out just in time for the launch of the game, but on the other hand there is a pressure to give a good score to the game so that the publisher doesn't pull the plug on the next game. Even though its not a perfect solution i think that games sites should buy the games on day 1, review them accordingly and not fear that the publisher will write them on a blacklist for the next game. Other bad practice is having a mailing list between all of the sites. Sure it may have a positive use, but within that group a narrative can be set to review on not review certain games, give them bad or good scores. Deciding who gets a favorable coverage and who doesn't. Whoever doesn't agree gets shouted down. Everyone should form their own opinion on a game, not have it handed down from other. Having personal or financial relationships with devs should be disclosed, otherwise its unfaithful to the customer.
60fps is just lovely. I like being immersed into the game and noticing dips in fps or just low fps is taking me out of it. Its a shame that devs go for 30fps so that they can have more eye candy on screen.
High fps complements the gameplay. So its always disappointing when devs choose to stick to 30fps.
Reviewers having an email list where they decide what will they say in their reviews and what will be covered/ignored.
Sorry, but no proof of that has been provided or you are grossly over exaggerating. And, as is the norm, its a bunch of conjecture by the GG people that they tout around as fact. The people that can't understand the practicality of a email list like the one you reference are being intentionally daft.
As much as the GGers say they want professionalism and ethics in the gaming media, they are disturbingly rabid consumers of yellow journalism. But really, that's not surprising at all, because there is absolutely zero internal consistency to this 'movement'.
The use of a mailing list within one company is understandable. The use of a mailing list between a vast number of different sites is very alarming.