(02-15-2015, 03:47 PM)Val Wrote:(02-15-2015, 11:38 AM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Just because they say it, it doesn't make it true.
Doesn't this kind of go both ways?
Also, game developers have been sending reviewers and media swag for years. People getting pissed about it now is kind of.. well. Late, don't you think? And this would all be solved if a bunch of neckbeards would stop getting their jimmies rustled because someone's opinion differs from theirs. The consumers give the media their power. Instead of fussing about X outlet, why don't they instead just preach that they're ultimately opinions and shouldn't sway anyone?
Not to mention a lot of their motives are counterproductive. And honestly? This is video game reviews. If people are so seriously concerned about ethics, why don't they move to industries that matter and actually effect the world/economy/environment itself? A quick google search is all they need to get started.Â
I swear, if people were as adamant about protesting that as they are "ethical opinions" then maybe things would get done.
EDIT: As an example of how silly their argument is, I'll give my opinion. I hate Grand Theft Auto. I've never liked it. Well, I take that back. I did when I was in high school. Then I sort of grew up and decided that I didn't really like that kind of game. Strangely enough, I really enjoy Saint's Row. I think it's because Saint's Row is incredibly ridiculous and doesn't try to be this serious thing. GTA flips back and forth between being satire and serious, and that just doesn't mesh well with me. It could also be because I work retail in a gaming store and the type of people that come in to purchase it really annoy me, but hey. That's life.
So let's say I write a negative review about GTA VI on a gaming site (I used to do that, too), and let's say that people get pissed and try to get me fired because of said review. Childish, don't you think? In expressing my personal thoughts on a game that I feel is flawed in its execution, which is what a review is (they do that with food and cars and.. well, anything really, but you don't see ethical "activists" pissed about that), people suddenly want me to lose my job.
As silly as that sounds, let's say I write a positive review about a game that is largely hated. Let's say that, for some unknown reason, I REALLY liked The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct. I thought it was absolutely amazing. Let's say Activision/AMC decided to send me a bunch of stuff for it. I got seasons for free, I got some figures, whatever. This.. well. This happens lol. And really, it doesn't change anything from above. In the end, it's still my opinion.
Let's say I'm good friends with an indie developer and he's designing a game that I want to do well. I write a review painting it in a good light, even if I don't think it's really the BEST thing out there:
1.) There's still a ton of other sources out there. Like the news/any media, anyone that reads one thing online and takes it at face value is an idiot.
2.) Again, despite the stance on things, it's still an opinion. I don't read reviews and say "Hey, that guy liked it so it has to be good." I read reviews and pick out the points they say about the game, watch videos on Youtube, check out the developer, etc. If it's a dev I know and like, then I'll probably purchase from them (CD Projekt will pretty much always get my business). If not, then I won't.
For that matter, what about the developer docs? The people working on the game in the videos that state how amazing it is/going to be? If they're working on a game and realize it's horrid, are they not morally and ethically inclined to simply say "Hey, this game sucks lol sorry guys don't buy it." What about review embargos?
The industry has a lot going wrong with it, but targeting people giving opinions isn't going to solve anything and it makes people look like children. My boss once told me, when reviewing a bad game, "And to think, someone was sitting around a conference room and said 'Guys. This game is AMAZING.'" I laughed it off, but yeah. Someone, somewhere, probably did. And that's okay. It's even more okay for someone to write about it, and get paid for it if they feel that way, even if you don't like it.
"Also, game developers have been sending reviewers and media swag for years. People getting pissed about it now is kind of.. well. Late, don't you think?"
That's not why we're angry. We're angry because these sites have the audacity to call themselves legitimate journalists when they:
- Regularly engage in sensationalist reporting.
- Collude with themselves and developers/publishers to sell a product rather than review it and point out what's good and bad and dishonest.
- Insult and harass their own audience, saying that they're dead, they're over, or just saying that they're all sexist white men that need to leave. If you're a woman, you're obviously internalizing your misogyny. If you're not white, you're being used by white people.
"And this would all be solved if a bunch of neckbeards would stop getting their jimmies rustled because someone's opinion differs from theirs."
Nice strawman.Â
"The consumers give the media their power. Instead of fussing about X outlet, why don't they instead just preach that they're ultimately opinions and shouldn't sway anyone?"
So we shouldn't be angry that journalists aren't doing their jobs? We should just excuse the way they act like marketers instead of, y'know, journalists? We should just accept their "opinions" that anyone who questions this is a sexist neckbeard that shouldn't be here?
"If people are so seriously concerned about ethics, why don't they move to industries that matter and actually effect the world/economy/environment itself? A quick google search is all they need to get started.Â
I swear, if people were as adamant about protesting that as they are "ethical opinions" then maybe things would get done."
Nice appeal to worse problems fallacy. You obviously can't worry about anything else if you care about the ethics of journalism in your hobby.
"So let's say I write a negative review about GTA VI on a gaming site (I used to do that, too), and let's say that people get pissed and try to get me fired because of said review. Childish, don't you think? In expressing my personal thoughts on a game that I feel is flawed in its execution, which is what a review is (they do that with food and cars and.. well, anything really, but you don't see ethical "activists" pissed about that), people suddenly want me to lose my job."
And here's an example of the actual problem:
The review of GTA 5 on the escapist docked off three or so points because the reviewer thought the protagonists were unlikable criminals and the perceived sexist writing. He didn't dock those points because the gameplay was clunky or unfinished and buggy, he docked points because of a subjective reason.Â
Or the Bayonetta 2 review on Polygon, which docked off a point because the reviewer thought Bayonetta was too sexy.
But the real issue is stuff like Depression Quest and Gone Home, where the reviewer knew the developer personally. Those games were given near perfect scores. Hence, collusion. It's not about "hurr durr your opinion sucks get fired." It's about "YOU KNOW THE PERSON WHOSE PRODUCT YOU ARE REVIEWING! PLEASE STOP THAT."
"As silly as that sounds, let's say I write a positive review about a game that is largely hated. Let's say that, for some unknown reason, I REALLY liked The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct. I thought it was absolutely amazing. Let's say Activision/AMC decided to send me a bunch of stuff for it. I got seasons for free, I got some figures, whatever. This.. well. This happens lol. And really, it doesn't change anything from above. In the end, it's still my opinion."
You realize that it's the other way around, right? Journos are invited to trips that are paid for, given merch free of charge, then told to review the product of the people that did all of this. It DOES change your opinion. You'd feel liable to give the product a better score as a means to repay the favor. In some cases, reviewers have been fired because the publisher was unhappy with the score that they gave. This stuff doesn't "just happen" in movie reviews. Roger Ebert wasn't given merchandise related to the movies he reviewed.
"Let's say I'm good friends with an indie developer and he's designing a game that I want to do well. I write a review painting it in a good light, even if I don't think it's really the BEST thing out there:"
Congratulations, you're a dishonest reviewer.Â
"There's still a ton of other sources out there. Like the news/any media, anyone that reads one thing online and takes it at face value is an idiot."
So you're saying that it's okay to be dishonest, since you can just look at other, more honest sources? That does wonders for your credibility as a news source.
"For that matter, what about the developer docs? The people working on the game in the videos that state how amazing it is/going to be? If they're working on a game and realize it's horrid, are they not morally and ethically inclined to simply say "Hey, this game sucks lol sorry guys don't buy it..""
Work for anyone and badmouth their product where the public can easily hear you. See how long you keep your job. That's why reviewers exist. They won't get fired for being honest about a product. Eeeexcept in games journalism, where you're expected to give the newest Call of Duty a 10 or risk losing your job when Activision decides that those gifts they gave you wasn't enough to sway your opinion.
"The industry has a lot going wrong with it, but targeting people giving opinions isn't going to solve anything and it makes people look like children."
Aside from the fact that Gamergate does more than just target people with opinions. Gamergate targets people whose opinions are "gamers are dead" and "you want to question what I do? Piss off." People who use their professional twitter accounts to say stuff like this.
http://i.imgur.com/eNvSPhE.png
"It's even more okay for someone to write about it, and get paid for it if they feel that way, even if you don't like it."
Any journalist has an obligation to the consumer to give them an unbiased, objective review of a product. That's what separates professional reviewers from random people on forums. Game journalists have proven time and time again that they don't care about their audience, and that they would rather use their job as a platform for their personal beliefs and for their own benefit. Any journalist needs to have standards, something that game journalists lack. That's what Gamergate wants to change.Â
And it has accomplished a few goals. Sites have re-written their policies, and some of the more corrupt reviewers have lost their jobs.