I'd like to preface this by saying I've been a fan of GiantBomb since around 2011, but regrettably haven't interacted with their community or forum very much at all. As a new poster I'll try and word this in the best way possible, with a clear understanding of the rules. I'm fairly sure that the post I'm making should be fine, even though it may not be well written.
I'm obviously writing this post in response to the ongoing social media campaign (if that's a good term) of #GamerGate and I'd like to say that I'm definitely in support of the ideas behind it, such as the distinction between friendship and positive press, as well as criticizing the failing to do so. Like all social media, it can be a huge mess, with quite a bit of misinformation of all types, and many people with varying beliefs using it.
More than that though, I care a lot about Giantbomb. They've provided some of the best videos of games I could find since the 3 years I've known the site. One of the most unique things about this site is both their universal and open criticisms of games in things like the Bombcast and Quick Looks, and their close relations to developers like DoubleFine, Harmonix, Iron Galaxy and many more.
Two things we can be sure exist:
- Giantbomb members have fun and are friends with developers in videos.
- Giantbomb often gives these developers good press (in the form of positive reviews, quick look EX's, or discussion.)
I, as an experienced viewer, may understand the complex relationship that exists between Giantbomb and developers. However, any random person on the internet may be skeptical.
I think the most important thing in this is cause and effect. Giantbomb doesn't give them positive press because they are friends, but because they make fun games. It turns out people who make fun games can be pretty fun to be around, who knew?
In fact, Giantbomb staff are often the most critical journalists I end up seeing, especially so with people they typically consider friends. It's not uncommon for them to actually bring up a game's faults and shortcomings when discussing a game they enjoyed a lot.
I understand they have a strong distinction between a work relationship, and a personal one. This is ultimately a difficult thing to show, but they do a good job of it. I've seen many other sites not understand this concept nearly as much, and so I don't like to browse them. This concept is what I like to think is a core principle behind the #GamerGate movement.
Now, I'd like to talk about the part of Giantbomb I dislike the most, which is most of Patrick's articles. Hold on, hold on, I'm not going to start incoherently yelling now. For one, I don't dislike change, I love Dan and Jason for instance. The reason I think this dislike is for, is because Patrick seems to have the weakest distinction between work and friendship. He will often write very opinionated articles and promote games and developers that he becomes friends with. Simply put, I don't trust him to provide as objective and honest coverage as the rest of the crew.
That's not to say he's totally a bad journalist. He has the nickname "Scoops" for a reason. He's very great at verifying sources, and is one of the first people willing to "blow the lid" on a story. I doubt he would ever release a story that's very critical of his friends for any reason though.
Giantbomb started as a break between Jeff being fired from Gamespot for giving critical coverage of a game he disliked, but was supporting Gamespot through ad money. I would like to call this "Corporate Objectivity" because it's specifically about advertising money, and the relations between the larger companies of Square Enix and Gamespot. I can trust all facets of Giantbomb to have this. It's a long standing issue, and I don't think many gaming publications now would be giving positive reviews specifically because they were given money to do so. This is understanding the difference between getting money for promoting a game through ads, and giving the game its own criticism in press and reviews.
I took the name for this post from thepunishert's excerpt from the Bombcast in 2012 discussing the ethics in having Corporate Objectivity in games journalism, specifically about mock reviews and distancing journalism from monetary support and marketing.
It's my understanding that #GamerGate is not about Corporate Objectivity, they're not going at war with Geoff Keighley having co-marketing deals with Mountain Dew and Doritos. The movement is about something similar, but of a different scope.
The scandals that happened are on a much smaller level. Between "Blogger-Journalists" and small indie developers. It's much more difficult to see where the line of giving a game good press because you're interested and enjoy it, and giving a game good press because you want that developer to succeed on a personal level. That's why I like to call this more of an issue in "Personal Objectivity".
It's hard to tell intent when some people are saying "This game is great!", while simultaneously backing the developer on Patreon and being buddies with them on social media. It definitely gives the feel that the person in an incredibly untrustworthy source for information, because we don't know if their intent is to give a good game worthy praise, or "support one of their own". Possibly, some combination of the two. It's an unconscious and natural thing to want friends of yours to succeed, but I don't know how much that desire extends between some people in journalism and the legality of the issue.
Now, on this relating more to Giantbomb again. This site appears to have a very strong (although unwritten) ethics policy when relating to both corporate, and personal objectivity. Even going so far as the staff hesitating to cover or back Kickstarter projects. I need to commend the site for their efforts in this way, even if it's not completely visible all the time.
I also want to take the time and discuss a separate, but similarly related issue. This is about harassment, hate speech, and the overall volatility of the internet. Giantbomb does have a very specific policy on this for the users. This is of course common forum practice, to limit the amount of "flaming, trolling or disruptive activity" and give people as nice an experience that they can.
I've seen a lot of moderation on Giantbomb to remove harassment and other such behaviors, which is definitely good. However, it's rare for people to be so inflammatory without a reason. I support direct removal of things like threats and harassment, but not to the point of limiting rational discussion by removing dissenting opinions of course.
I've seen a lot of people discuss #GamerGate as an incomprehensible mess, full of vitriol and unwanted harassment. It's true people on the internet get unwarrantedly angry, but there's often a very clear reason for that anger, but because they can't communicate what they mean it comes out only as insults. This is especially apparent for younger people, and quite often "gamers" are generalized as such.
On Giantbomb this is lessened, but on youtube and other anonymous outlets you could quite often see very negative criticisms brought up more often there more freely, and because they can come off as "unwanted arguments" and are avoided in more controlled spaces.
I don't think #GamerGate is about harassment and hate, but it may be blamed as being those things quite often. That's because the people I've seen use the hashtag care about games a lot, and are very passionate about them. I've seen this movement bring up numerous questions as to what's a reasonable expectation for a games journalist to keep. This is because at the core, I think people don't want games being about corporate or personal politics, and just to see good games getting worthy praise. That's why I saw a lot of people hating Gone Home. Not because it's "not a game", but because they thought it didn't deserve all of the amazing praise and press it ended up getting. They thought their voices and opinions were not being heard at all and they were very upset with that. I believe being "Upset about not being heard or represented" is also a central idea that the movement in involved with.
I'm not going to name any specific examples, but I personally would hate to see a sub-par game get positive reviews and awards because the developer was paying for it, or because the developer was good friends with them and asking for favours. Conversely, I would dislike seeing a game I enjoy get wrongly criticized with cherry picked and sensationalist arguments, whatever those may be.
I would love to see games I enjoy getting praised, and games I disliked get criticism. Of course my opinion of a game you like can very well be different than your opinion on a game I like. That's why it's common to bring up arguments of preference, especially on this site about some things like Yoshi's Island or Dota 2. What games a person enjoys is definitely a very subjective thing.
There's no clear cut end to these discussions of ethics and journalistic intent, it's a difficult issue both morally and legally. I don't think I want all of these unanswered and fair questions to be dismissed too easily for any reason.
Whether you agree with what I've expressed or not, I want to thank you for reading my long and rambling thoughts on the matter. I just wanted to try and express my views of the whole thing, especially it relating to Giantbomb. I'm sorry I won't be posting in it this discussion too much more than this initial post due to the limits for new users.
Log in to comment