I'll be honest, I don't care about most of this. When I try games, is off of the recommendations of friends, and I don't give a shit about anyone's private life.

I do care about journalist integrity. Why is that on my short read through of this debat, I've heard Zoe Quinn's name a hundred times and yet I know next to nothing "the Journalist" who compromised his credibility for some sex?

 

That's what GG wants, most are pretty sure by this point that it's not going to happen. They've settled for contacting sponsors and digging up as many skeletons as possible. Also, screen capping the fuck out of every little incident to keep it documented, also general boycotting of the sights in question. Last I checked a few sponsors have dropped and Starbuck's return emails were encouraging.

Because, for some reason, everybody decided that they wanted to argue over whether or not Zoe Quinn is a slut. I've been posting anything I can find that gives a bigger picture, but I don't know how many people are actually listening to the live streams and reading the articles and screen caps of abuse and doxx threatening.

 

Okay, full stop. Full warning, long-ass post ahead, but needs to be said anyhow.

Jesus Christ, when I discover that the conversation surrounding video game journalism is worse than that of music criticism and all the disgusting shenanigans that surrounds my bottom rung of journalism, there's a problem. So let's forget Zoe Quinn, Sarkeesian, and the rest of the tabloid, high school trash (which, btw, is the reason no gaming journalists really covered it because they aren't fucking TMZ) - because at this point, the only people who still care about it and only it have nothing substantial to actually contribute to the conversation surrounding 'corruption in games journalism'.

So let's flip the script and discuss a real issue in games journalism: the Metacritic issue.

This came up when I was watching Radio Dead Air last night and it got me thinking, because it does show a legitimate problem in games criticism, specifically surrounding scores. If you haven't noticed or read reviews in-depth, you'll notice that several game sites that write reviews for triple-A titles don't always tend to reflect the scores that are given. Example right off the top of my head is Destiny - mechanically sound and generally pretty (although from what I've seen and played a bit it's not stellar), but there are issues with the loot system, the story is near nonexistent (to be added by DLC later), and the replay value seems pretty slim outside of multiplayer. Many critics have highlighted these issues... and yet Metacritic is still sitting around an 78. Now for me, this seems a little high for a game with notable problems in this vein, especially when the scores don't reflect the reviews.

And there's a reason for that, because Metacritic is used by the triple-AAA games industry to determine bonuses for developers and executives beyond sales numbers, because they know most consumers will simply go to the Metacritic, check to see if its good, read a review or two, and then buy from there. So if a site slags a triple-AAA title for being absolute garbage, not only do they face phone calls and emails from the studios, they also run into the risk of losing advertising - because surprise surprise, most game studios advertise on game journalism websites. And that's not counting the critics who get blackballed by certain companies because they gave negative scores and thus don't get early release copies or are barred from press events. It's why one of the few critics I continue to respect is Yahtzee because it'd be a cold day in hell if he sells out, and it's also why so many studios have courted high profile YouTubers for exclusives - because being functionally independent and able to reach a wide audience, they aren't as likely to feel threatened by video game companies unless there's Content ID bullshit being pulled.

And here's the other factor - executives also tend to use high-charting Metacritic scores to prepare their next projects for the studio, which is the reason why we get so many franchises that should have died years ago. That's why studios churn out WoW or CoD clones. It's all based around trend hopping, but it also means game journalists can feel increasingly stifled. They end up playing all of the shitty CoD or WoW clones and yet are forced to give marginally positive scores (unless the site has freedom from the studio's advertisers or doesn't care about the developers in any fashion or the game is so mind-bogglingly horrendous that the critics ram the attack through anyway), which in turn means more shitty clones get made.

Now here's a legit problem with games criticism. It's the same problem afflicting country music at the moment - the industry looks at sales numbers and critical scores, and when you get certain outlets loving everything regardless of quality, you stop becoming critics and you become advertisers. And this has been an issue for years - Jeff Gerstmann got fired from Gamespot seven years ago, and this shit is still happening.

And yet you don't really hear GamerGate discussing this sort of thing, do you? Why not? EA wins Worst Company In America multiple years for making garbage that still manages to claw together a 70 for The Sims 4, and GamerGate is focused on a group of indie devs who are making art game titles that will sell less than 5% of that? For as much as GamerGate claims to be 'about gamers', there's no consumer advocacy taking place on a larger scale, and that's the reason nobody in triple-AAA development has said shit on this.

And yeah, I get why people are angry at some games journalism for favoring socially-leaning indie titles over the triple-AAA titles (although I'd counter it's the same reason why film critics love art films over middlebrow romantic comedy schlock, or why music critics like myself would prefer to listen to Swans, Perfect Pussy, and The War On Drugs over Chris Brown, Katy Perry, and Luke Bryan). And I completely get why people are pissed with some indie developers - the recent problems with Double-Fine and Tim Schafer's inability to manage a budget are part of that. And I get the backlash at the clique relationships that seem to build between the indie dev scene and critics who like it - it's a thin line, it can get crossed, and some devs need to remember that indie game development is game development, not a lifestyle.

But let's put things in perspective here - if GamerGate wanted to make a difference in advocating for gamers, there are bigger and more relevant targets. If game studios and the industry were held accountable for bad business practices, project management, and peddling garbage, they'd be forced to make more innovative titles to get those stronger Metacritic scores. Sure, you'd get your big selling franchises that don't do well critically like in any other form of art, but gaming studios would be forced to earn that score with quality and creativity. And the critics would inevitably enjoy playing a more diverse selection of games which consumers would probably appreciate as well, and gaming can continue to grow as one of the biggest cultural forces in the world.

Or we can get what we're currently seeing: a gaming industry ossifying creatively because they let trend-following executives dictate projects instead of creative directors, a critical press that's pressured into being an advertising wing, and a bunch of angry gamers who want to feel like their opinions are being heard and are getting guided by some truly awful people to direct their rage at indie devs who barely matter in the bigger picture.

And I thought the music criticism scene was bad...

 

No one is arguing that she isn't a slut, everyone is arguing whether or not it's alright to call her that. Several people have outright admitted it while saying "but that doesn't matter because peer pressure/informal social control is bullshit." and tried to say that her cheating doesn't matter since she didn't cheat on us, or other comments.

 

I feel like you need a better example than Destiny. I have my own problems with that game, but it's still fun as hell for someone who likes loot-driven RPGs. Anything between 60-75 sounds about right.

Metacritic is a problem though. Reviews are personal unless you keep it strictly about resolution and frame rate. You can't be objective. It's pretty understandable to get a wide variety of scores and the average really tells us nothing.

It's even worse that some site's reviews carry more weight in that system than others.

You can't say it's harming creativity on a wider scale though. Maybe it is within EA and Activision (cancellation of Blizz's Titan may be indicative of that), but we're getting loads of unique gaming experiences outside of that.

The biggest game for years has been Minecraft. No Man's Sky is my most eagerly anticipated game. My mind explodes just thinking about it.

These big wigs are held accountable for shoveling shit down our throats though. Look at Colonial Marines - I'm struggling to think of another proper shit AAA title here...

Basically, you've got a point with metacritic, but people vote with their wallets, and while at one point I may have despaired that the success of CoD may impair creativity, we still get these gems.

Mostly from Sony though

#consolewars

 

well. Swans is pretty good. A lot of these indie titles really arent.

I get a lot of it is up to opinion, but I personally get really skeptical when John Walker says he thinks Gone Home was a masterpiece and Myst was shit. That kind of makes me feel like he cannot differentiate a bad game from a good one. It does feel like its more to do with its "indie" nature than anything. And film and music have long since gotten over their indie love affair (well maybe not music, where they are all indie now, and indie is a name for a genre genre of rock).

 

While thise articles raised some great points, both, and the second specially were pretty fucking pedantic. The second guy seems to think:

Mainstream movie: Made by Hollywood with a $150 million budget. Arthouse: Everything outside of Hollywood that tries to be smart, and fuck European movies, they're all indie and such.

Metacritic is a shitty sistem, but I have to save my hate for mega sites like IGN and Gamescore, that gives reviews from 7,5-10, while praising the most inane things, and glossing over lots of pretty heavy shit, oh, and always 'falling' (and feeding) almost every hyped game.

 

Here's one more reason for you to hate metacritic. When Obsidian made Fallout New Vegas they were given a lump sum for it. With a bonus clause, that required them to get a score of 85 on metacritic.

Fallout NV is currently sitting on 84.

 

Fallout 3 being rated higher than New Vegas under any criteria or circumstance is such a ridiculous notion, but there it is.

 

Really, numeric reviews in general are an inherently flawed system. How much numeric weight one puts on all the issues being evaluated in a game is entirely subjective. I've seen plenty of game reviews where it was clear that the issue wasn't even the game itself so much as the reviewer hating/not understanding the genre. That 5/10 might be because they got the guy who only likes Command and Conquer style games to review a 4x game, because they both fall under the broad category of strategy, even though gameplay is almost completely different.

Not to mention the vast bulk of reviews are evaluating the game as it is on release. Which I suppose is useful for people who buy on day one, but my game shopping usually defaults so "I'll grab it when it's 75% off on Steam." In my case, I don't care if the game had problems on release, I care if it still has those problems after six months of patches.

 

and now, with this whole Rantic thing we can see the situation extends beyond games media.

Online Journalism is not Journalism. It is reblogging for clicks. Simple investigative work is only done by forums.

edit: I mean, we're talking mainstream news sites here
https://archive.today/KiXpg
https://archive.today/VMa3f

totally ate this hoax, hook line sinker. Despite being obviously false (the icloud images had been hacked some time ago, and had no relation to Watsons Feminism) and the site being registered to a marketing firm, even the BBC apparently bought it. No journalism.

 

No time to fact-check, the Internet waits for no one, gotta get those clicks while the cash is still flowing.

 

Today I learned that the BBC doesn't know what either a troll, a hacker or 4chan is. Media in general is about getting more attention, not only on the internet. Old news is old.

Also:

Unlike video games that has a huge variety and it's still firming it self as an art and as something mainstream, action movies made by Hollywood is a very narrow genre, that has been consolidated for the last 30 years minimum, whose market, by far, is compsode by young males. You can't shove down their throat something they won't buy just because it has a big visibilty. It would be like someone complained about men being underrepresented See, complaining about that isn't feminism or constructive, is bitching to get attention in Sex and the City. And that's all I have to say about that.

 

In fairness, there's an argument to be made that having women in prominent equal roles in action/adventure movies wouldn't hurt sales at all. I personally have no objection to seeing women kick ass, so long as its competently execute.

The problem is, Hollywood looked at how badly a couple prominent examples that bombed hard, like the Catwoman movie, and concluded "Action movies with a female lead won't make money." As opposed to the more likely "Shit movies won't make money, regardless of the lead's gender." Which means that on the rare occasion when a woman does snag a leading role, it's usually at a low budget to minimize the financial risk. And Hollywood action films need their big budgets to pay for big setpieces with lots of 'splosions and CGI (And CGI 'splosions).

It probably also doesn't help that Hollywood is very into adaptations and remakes these days. When you're adapting stories that were originally written in a time when the idea of a woman who wasn't barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen was considered shockingly progressive, it's hard to make something that'll give women equal time.

 

Except for the Underworld series. Which is still going strong even though it shouldn't be at this point.

 

TIL that series was still being produced.

You can argue anything, but is there evidence to back it up?

I can think of a few, such as the wildly popular Hunger Games (not sure how that was received among men though TBH), but I'm not much interested in any show with a female lead, so I'm a very much biased source.

Though I agree with the statement that obviously action movies are a baised catagory to pick from. That'd be expecting a chase scene or explosions in a romance movie.

 

This is a very good article on the issue that neatly dodges the bias endemic to both sides.

 

Just going to leave this here:http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/ga...ing&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter