We believe objectivity to be antithetical to good games coverage...
September 17, 2014 7:30 AM   Subscribe

Yes, we could more easily aim toward something considered more “objective” at this point, simply listing the facts as presented by the developer/publisher. But oh my goodness, what now? See – see where this notion of objectivity has so quickly taken us? Objectivity is now demanding that we parrot information given to us by the creator/publisher of the game, and not apply our own critical faculties – our own subjective expertise – to this.
-Some Subjective Thoughts On Objectivity [in Games Criticism]
posted by griphus (133 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite
 
I feel like somehow objective shifted its meaning as an adjective at some point and I never noticed it, because they certainly have an interesting definition of what it involves.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 7:47 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]


Obligatory counterpoint.
posted by Artw at 7:47 AM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]


An attempt to offer objective, balanced reporting leads to a deceptive, imbalanced understanding for the receiver of that news. Immediately, then, objectivity is compromised.

While I wholeheartedly agree that criticism doesn't have to be objective to be valuable, conflating objectivity with indifference towards the truth is not helpful.

A couple of years ago, Fox News reported that the game Bulletstorm was going to cause players to commit rapes. They based these claims on the words of a self-styled expert, and then backed this up with quotes from other experts in the field. Were RPS to have approached this story with an aim of being “objective”, we’d have reported what was being claimed, and perhaps presented the view of someone else who believed otherwise, giving equal weighting to each. Which would have been preposterous.

Well, they could have reported it attempting to be objective, not "objective". Which is what they likely did.

All this, and we’ve not even mentioned the rather overwhelming fact that at RPS, we’re critics. A vast proportion of our job is to critically appraise gaming, and report our personal views.

And here we get to the meat of the matter. Objectivity ends where opinion begins.
posted by hat_eater at 7:49 AM on September 17, 2014


From the wilds of 2005, RPS contributor Keiron Gillen: The New Games Journalism
posted by Artw at 7:50 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]


There are other methods that games journalism and criticism can use beyond the false dichotomy of "objectivity" vs a purely individual "subjectivity." One can tap into fairly well-studied aesthetic criteria such as the idea that works should be reasonably consistent and not arbitrarily dissonant, look at quality-of-production ideas such as obvious asset or map reuse, or tap into some of the game-specific ideas such as flow, discovery, and mode-switching.

Which is the kind of language that critics of cinema, television, animation, photography, and other "new art" have chosen to develop rather than try to make it all about their feels and opinions. One can, like Ebert, develop that language by testing it out against hundreds of works over the same media.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:51 AM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


The GamerGater demand for "objectivity" is just childish inanity. Their demands demonstrate how completely unserious it is.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:07 AM on September 17, 2014 [14 favorites]


I always figured "objective reporting" had less to do with opinions vs. facts (it's a fricking review, how are facts going to help? A factual review is a "description" - I'll go to wikipedia if I want to read descriptions) and more to do with game "reviewers" getting paid to write positive reviews.
posted by rebent at 8:13 AM on September 17, 2014


...Or, y'know, game reciewers could just stop being massive shills, which is what most people actually mean when they pine for objectivity.
posted by Toby Dammit X at 8:13 AM on September 17, 2014 [8 favorites]


There's only one objective measurement of game quality that matters. Start To Crate Time.
Games can be rated and compared based on the shortest amount of time it takes a player to reach the first crate, which represents the point where the developers ran out of ideas. This number is measured in seconds and is called "Start to Crate" or "StC". The smaller the StC, the worse the game.
posted by mhoye at 8:16 AM on September 17, 2014 [18 favorites]


If there were any justice in the world, StC would be printed on the box right next to the ESRB rating.
posted by griphus at 8:18 AM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


Their demands demonstrate how completely unserious it is.

I've seen fewer demands going into mutli-billion dollar regulatory hearings with riots going on outside.
posted by bonehead at 8:24 AM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]


There's only one objective measurement of game quality that matters. Start To Crate Time.

I remember hearing that Erik Wolpaw had been hired by Valve and thinking "Yeah, that sounds right."
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:34 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


I have been following the GamerGate thing with sick fascination. Gamers wanted games to be taken seriously and widely adopted, and now are under threat that they are, and are subject to criticism and adaptation like other art forms. It is fascinating to see revolution and counterrevolution play out in something as seemingly benign as video games. Also, the problems of organizing social movements over Twitter, with no clear identities or leaders.

You haven't even hit the other crazy demands that have been posted

The funny thing is, that, outside of the misogyny, death threats, and everything else, there is a problem with the gaming press, it just isn't the people that GamerGate are targeting, as David Hill said:
On our side, a lot of journalists hate the nepotism, and most importantly, they hate the relationship the industry has with journalism. Because a while back ago, "games journalism" was essentially coopted as a marketing arm for certain AAA publishers. At that point, AAA publishers became gatekeepers for success in games journalism. It's awful, because we want to be talking critically. We want to be looking at games in different lights. We want to approach these works of art as works of art, and not just as the next success or flop. But that can't happen on any large scale, because of that corruption, because of the commercialism of it all.

The way a lot of the Gamergate stuff looks to us really looks like some strange bizarro world where the games industry works completely different than it really does.

The biggest targets of Gamergate have been people who are frankly powerless in the games industry. People like Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish, they are not gatekeepers. They are not able to enact any real, significant influence on the industry.

The people being targeted the most are small names, on the fringe of the industry. Even if these people all pat each other on the proverbial backs and promote each other into the ground with the corruption of a thousand watergates, their games will NEVER be as successful as even moderately popular indie games like Castle Crashers. We're talking about games that won't pay a single basic salary if successful. To these games, success doesn't look a lot different than failure.
Seriously, the trainwreck would be laughable, if it wasn't hurting people. Zoe Quinn is pretty amazing for dealing with the horror produced by the internet. Read her Cracked piece.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:36 AM on September 17, 2014 [12 favorites]


There's only one objective measurement of game quality that matters. Start To Crate Time.

Should really be updated to Start to Chest High Wall Time.
posted by selfnoise at 8:41 AM on September 17, 2014 [7 favorites]


GamerGate was such obvious bullshit cover for hate because it whined about indy games. Indy game coverage as a target for upset? When no big-price tentpole gets below a B+ in the review press? Please. If you are bothered by sleaze in the review industry you care about that. Whining about some theoretical relationship between a developer and one outlet isn't about corruption, it's (poor) cover for misogyny.
posted by phearlez at 8:42 AM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]


The obvious next step would be for one of "them" to set up a site that follows the proposed rules scrupulously. I eagerly await the conspiracy theories about why it fails.
posted by ctmf at 8:47 AM on September 17, 2014


That demand for completely unmoderated comments is still, among a bonkers list of insane demands, the most galling to me. What does being forced to facilitate a little mini version of 4chan on your own website after every single article have to do with journalistic ethics? I'm surprised they didn't include a requirement that review writers are forced to read all comments, eyes held open, unable to look away, Clockwork-Orange style.
posted by almostmanda at 8:48 AM on September 17, 2014 [6 favorites]


...Or, y'know, game reciewers could just stop being massive shills, which is what most people actually mean when they pine for objectivity.

You'd be suprised.
posted by Artw at 8:49 AM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


Surprisingly, there is a very good essay at Objective Game Reviews (which always seemed like a joke site) about this topic.

The obvious next step would be for one of "them" to set up a site that follows the proposed rules scrupulously. I eagerly await the conspiracy theories about why it fails.

Oh they have. Based on unpaid volunteer reviews: Goodgamer.us
posted by blahblahblah at 8:54 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


The GamerGater demand for "objectivity" is just childish inanity.

Objectivity does not mean "report what everyone is saying without fact checking." The sooner we remember that, the better reporting becomes.

Just because He said or She said means shit. Find the facts, not what people are saying are the facts.

From the demands.

The Audience has Equal Rights.

When the audience is paying for the web server, then we'll start to talk about equal rights between the audience and the creator. As the audience, you have the right to not pay for it and walk away. And that's it.

My mail server has one rule. Anybody I don't want to email me doesn't get to. Don't like it? Toughest of the tough shits. You can run your own email server, but fuck if I'm setting up an account there.

Don't like it? Tough. Don't like moderated comments? Tough shit. Don't like a website? Tough shit with sparkles, don't visit it. Think you can change my mail server or my website? Toughest Shit in the Universe with Poison Coated Spikes. You can't.

And that, my friends, is exactly what these websites should be saying to them. Don't like it, don't read it. Come in making demands, and tell you exactly which off to fuck to.
posted by eriko at 8:56 AM on September 17, 2014 [15 favorites]


Oh they have. Based on unpaid volunteer reviews: Goodgamer.us
Nintendo of Japan’s YouTube channel released a gameplay trailer of Fatal Frame 5. The gameplay uses the Wii U gamepad as the camera while the TV shows the player from a third person perspective.

The creepy and dark ambiance really show off what the Wii U can do. The trailer promises a horror game that promises to be full of scares (this author even jumped at one point watching the trailer). The game’s theme appears to be water, although since it is in Japanese this may have been misinterpreted. The game appears to have multiple characters that are playable, although to what extent is still unknown.

While there is no announcement for any country outside of Japan to receive the game, the series’ international popularity will hopefully change that.

The YouTube channel also has two television advertisements.
You get what you pay for I guess.
posted by griphus at 8:59 AM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]


It's like watching people raised in a controlled mental experiment where their only texts were works by Ayn Rand except modified so all mentions of 'creator' were replaced with 'consumer'.
posted by whittaker at 9:01 AM on September 17, 2014 [6 favorites]


HEY, I DIDN'T JUMP AT THAT TRAILER, GOODGAMER.US IS SUBJECTIVE BIAS AND CORRUPT.
posted by whittaker at 9:02 AM on September 17, 2014 [7 favorites]


I'm surprised they didn't include a requirement that review writers are forced to read all comments, eyes held open, unable to look away, Clockwork-Orange style.

I thought they essentially did: wasn't one of the demands something like "writers must read and respond to comments"?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:09 AM on September 17, 2014


h: authors CAN disagree with what I have to say
but they MUST defend to the death my right to say it.
posted by almostmanda at 9:21 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]


What does being forced to facilitate a little mini version of 4chan on your own website after every single article have to do with journalistic ethics

It doesn't, really. But it does dovetail quite nicely with the rise of angry populism, the belittling of professionals, and the attitude that the opinions of "regular people" are equal (or even superior) in weight and validity to those of professionals (in whatever profession you care to think of) See also: Parents knowing better than teachers what/how to teach.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:33 AM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]


Basically what these people want is not the existence of reviews of a particular type, but the destruction of any other type of review. Mandatory troll zones would be a measure to help them enforce that.
posted by Artw at 9:36 AM on September 17, 2014 [7 favorites]


This slam poetry review of Destiny is sheer brilliance. Choice quotes:

"The problem with Destiny is that nobody is listening to me."

"The problem with Destiny is that it pares gaming down to its essential loop, giving me immediate access to shooting and the loot cycle, and suddenly I’m having an existential crisis because I’ve realised that all mainstream video games are essentially the same experiences implemented to varying degrees of quality and wrapped in different aesthetics."

Love, love, LOVE everything about this piece.
posted by Ryvar at 10:13 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


Given that an objective game review must first start out objectively demonstrating that the product in question does qualify as a "game", otherwise it's already inherently flawed by being based on a subjective foundation to start, I'm not sure how useful they'll ever be.

Then if they actually try and declare what genre the game falls into... the sheer amount of words that would need to be dedicated to establishing objective criteria to define those genres, and showing that the game in fact does meet those criteria but not those of any other genre, well, should leave most people in a daze.
posted by evilangela at 10:18 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


I have no love for the GamerGate people and their hateful cauldron of ridiculousness, but actually some of those demands are reasonable. I'll reproduce them here in text (actually I'm copy pasting them from this tumblr):
a) authors can befriend or give and receive financial support to and from devs, but they must make this information readily available to the public.

b) authors can publish pieces about these devs and their games, but they must explicitly state their relation at the beginning of the published piece, in clearly visible bold lettering and unambiguous wording.

c) authors should consider recusing themselves from that subject, and they must publicly state their reasons for doing so.

d) authors can publish opinion pieces, but these must be explicitly differentiated as such from facts and news reports. In clearly visible bold lettering and unambiguous wording.

e) authors must accompany any claims made each with appropriate proof, citations and sources.

f) the audience has equal rights to voice their opinion, in agreement, dissent or otherwise, and an avenue for dialogue must be provided, and cannot be denied be it by banning, blocking, censoring, deleting or otherwise; only behavior that directly endangers someone or is otherwise illegal should be restricted, and reported to law enforcement authorities, regardless of the party responsible for it.

g) reviews describing the mechanics, presentation, and performance or such of a game or other product must be kept separate from analyses and other opinion pieces, authors should consider ensuring to have already provided the first before tackling the latter.
Some of these, like f and g, we can dismiss out of hand. f is a non-starter because sites can and should be regulating their comment sections. g is just ridiculous nonsense which we can file away under "I don't care about this, so nobody should read or write about it."

e is just elementary journalism. GamerGate clearly intends to use this as a cudgel against reviewers citing, for example, depictions of women in games, but assuming that one is able to distinguish analysis and critique of an artwork from purely factual claims, there's nothing wrong with requiring factual claims to be sourced.

a by itself is not really necessary, since the public doesn't have any need to know about who a journalist is friends with or donates money to. However, b and c are straightforward journalistic ethics. Games journalists should not be covering games they have kickstarted. That might be a bummer for journalists, who are often games enthusiasts as well, but that's life as a journalist. Honestly, I'm uncomfortable with people with a financial stake in a game reporting on it at all, but if they must, full disclosure is the minimum acceptable solution.

The requirement in c that journalists state the reasons they are recusing themselves from covering something is silly, and again, nobody's business if it doesn't result in any actual journalism.

d is also pretty straightforward journalism practice, much as you would see in an actual newspaper. The distinction between news and editorial is lost on a lot of news consumers, but it is an important one and newspapers are very careful to keep them separate and mark them clearly.

Again, with d GamerGate intends to keep analysis out of video game reviews (which, that's stupid, but OK), but the actual guideline of maintaining a clear distinction between opinion pieces - including reviews - and factual reportage is a good one.

I think we can also dispense with the stuff about bold lettering, because, c'mon, we're not all idiots here and it's OK for a journalism outlet to respect it's audience's intelligence.
posted by whir at 10:27 AM on September 17, 2014


Or you know, they can ignore the whiney children and publish what they want, the way they want to. You don't have to read it.
posted by empath at 10:35 AM on September 17, 2014 [16 favorites]


argh, "its audience's"
posted by whir at 10:35 AM on September 17, 2014


Honestly, I'm uncomfortable with people with a financial stake in a game reporting on it at all, but if they must, full disclosure is the minimum acceptable solution.

Kickstarters and Patreons are not financial stakes.
posted by kmz at 10:35 AM on September 17, 2014 [10 favorites]


Can games journalists cover games they have purchased? Where is the line between kickstarting a project and preordering one? I don't see the issue with someone saying "I backed the kickstarter; here is my review", because I don't see that you have a financial stake in something you have backed for $20 for a DRM-free version or whatever.
posted by jeather at 10:35 AM on September 17, 2014


I don't understand the rule about not covering games you've supported on Kickstarter. If you've bought the game to review, how do you benefit from it doing well? Wouldn't someone getting a free review copy be getting a financial benefit that's more suspect?

Also the focus on indie games is strange considering all the really good games journalism corruption is in AAA titles where the money is:

"Two weeks before the game's launch, I was flown from San Francisco to LAX; from there, I was driven to Santa Monica airport where I was given a flight helmet customized with my gamertag," Tae Kim wrote about his experience reviewing the game. "I was then put into a helicopter and flown to Ojai, California, a small town about two hours north of Los Angeles. After landing in a field, I was driven to the Ojai Valley Inn and Spa, where I was given a posh suite to stay in for three days." The suite had a 360, a copy of the game, and a nice 3D television hooked up to a surround-sound system.

There was a separate area with 30 stations set up so reviewers could try the multiplayer portion of the game. "I was also given a Mad Catz Call of Duty Black Ops branded headset," Kim wrote. "At the end of the trip, I was allowed to keep the flight helmet and the Mad Catz headset. All travel and accommodations, including food, were covered by Activision."
posted by Peccable at 10:38 AM on September 17, 2014 [6 favorites]


Kickstarters and Patreons are not financial stakes.

Yeah, that seems to be a huge point of confusion and contention. Kickstarter and Patreon are not investments in the way one traditionally invests in a company for a return. Crowdfunding payments are almost exclusively either donations (maybe with a gift involved in the same way PBS or NPR send you a tote bag in exchange for $50) or pre-orders. No one who donates to a crowdfunding site sees a financial return on the money they're handing over.
posted by griphus at 10:45 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


d is also pretty straightforward journalism practice, much as you would see in an actual newspaper. The distinction between news and editorial is lost on a lot of news consumers, but it is an important one and newspapers are very careful to keep them separate and mark them clearly.

The problem is when you try to apply this high a journalistic standard to what are essentially high-traffic blogs run by several different people. RPS is not a newspaper--it doesn't actually need this separation to maintain its integrity and reputation the way a newspaper might. It's assumed that all news is going to be filtered through their lens. They're not claiming to be bringing you some sort of unbiased truth.
posted by almostmanda at 10:56 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


Also the focus on indie games is strange considering all the really good games journalism corruption is in AAA titles where the money is:

But they don't hate corruption, they hate women.
posted by howfar at 10:57 AM on September 17, 2014 [17 favorites]


...Or, y'know, game reciewers could just stop being massive shills, which is what most people actually mean when they pine for objectivity.

I think a much better word for this is honesty, not objectivity.

If a writer at IGN honestly thinks Call of Duty is the best game ever and tells me why, that's a good review. I can decide whether the things he likes are things I care about and I can compare it to his other honestly-written reviews and see if we agree about subjective things like what kinds of games are "beautiful" or "too hard" or have "floaty" controls.

A writer who had trouble enjoying GTA V because of the gross way it treats women, and doesn't mention this fact out of some misguided ideas about objectivity, is being dishonest just as much as the person who lies about how much they enjoyed GTA V because Rockstar gives their site lots of ad $$$.
posted by straight at 10:57 AM on September 17, 2014 [6 favorites]


Kickstarters and Patreons are not financial stakes.

Completely, and there is also a bit of a misunderstanding about bias. Being predisposed to liking something doesn't mean you should recuse yourself, liking an authors work does not mean you need to recuse yourself, etc. Critics presumably like the work of some directors (say, Coppola) and hate others (say, Michael Bay) - that doesn't mean that they can't review Coppola. Furthermore, critics and directors may also serve on industry committees together, may talk on panels, or may even be friends. These are small industries, after all, and people tend to know each other well.

Disclosure of these ties makes sense in some cases (though I am not entirely sure that it is needed), but it certainly doesn't preclude you from being a good critic - look at how Ebert handled Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, which he co-wrote. The attack on indie game creators and reviewers when there is obvious corruption and score-buying in AAA titles reveals more about the goals of GamerGate than their statements.
posted by blahblahblah at 11:04 AM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


The only significant problem is the payola/quid pro quo, which games journalism is regularly guilty of and vulnerable to. Early access for favourable reviews, that sort of thing. Everything else can be dismissed as entitled whining.
posted by bonehead at 11:07 AM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


Also the focus on indie games is strange considering all the really good games journalism corruption is in AAA titles where the money is:

That's because the focus here is actually to target indie games and independent games journalism, in favor of shills for AA games. The goal is to reduce games journalism to reviews if AA games that say nothing but "Incredible graphics and gameplay. Best game ever. 10/10"
posted by happyroach at 11:23 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]


I think what a lot of the gamergaters actually want is:

1. MetaCritic should only include scores from reviewers who like the same things I like.
posted by straight at 11:36 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]


I find Eurogamer's Digital Foundry articles interesting from a computer science perspective--which talk about the graphics technology used in games and compare different release platforms' performance. But something tells me that's essentially these guy's secret ideal for what a videogame review should be.

"This game runs at this resolution and this framerate and uses this kind of culling.

[insert paragraph making the consumer king feel good and empowered over his decision to buy the game. Hype!]"
posted by whittaker at 11:42 AM on September 17, 2014


actually some of those demands are reasonable [...] assuming that one is able to distinguish analysis and critique of an artwork from purely factual claims

Yes, the CANs and MUSTs are a mix of ridiculousness and superficially reasonable points, albeit in a weirdly naive way resembling teenagers reinventing the wheels of century-old professions; but there's still really no need to dignify this stuff with serious discussion when it's transparently not the real point but a mess of post-hoc rationalization serving as a convenient smokescreen. Just taking (e) as one of many examples, why should we assume the level of grownup aesthetic literacy you're conceding them, when the actual #GamerGaters have so vocally and constantly demonstrated the opposite? Trying to teach a bunch of angry manchildren (and/or actual children) about the nature of journalistic ethics and what it means to do serious art criticism is just missing the real point, which is the rearguard-right war they're waging for gaming culture.
posted by RogerB at 11:44 AM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]


d) authors can publish opinion pieces, but these must be explicitly differentiated as such from facts and news reports. In clearly visible bold lettering and unambiguous wording.

Bah. The View from Nowhere isn't universally loved in journalism and the idea of a bright line between opinion and news is wrong. I'd go so far as to say that this concept that these are two mutually exclusive things is outright harmful; it's why you see news outlets assert that the columns from their oped writers don't have to be factually accurate, or make plain and unashamed statements that they don't fact-check oped pieces.

If nothing else it's important to remember that every act of published journalism starts from an inherent position of bias: the decision that this story is worth telling & sharing.

The problem with biases isn't that exist. Or if it is, it's an unsolvable problem. The problem is when they're not acknowledged and disclosed. Simply creating two buckets isn't transparency, it's abdication.
posted by phearlez at 11:56 AM on September 17, 2014 [4 favorites]


See also: Parents knowing better than teachers what/how to teach.

Also:
"Concerned parents" versus "medical knowledge on vaccines"
"Climate sceptics" versus "most scientists"
posted by Theta States at 12:22 PM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


Trying to teach a bunch of angry manchildren (and/or actual children) about the nature of journalistic ethics and what it means to do serious art criticism is just missing the real point, which is the rearguard-right war they're waging for gaming culture.

I mean, I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure the best alternative is just to throw up one's hands in disgust and give up. There are a lot of ethical problems with gaming journalism right now, and although GamerGate got the target of its complaints disastrously wrong, maybe a wider examination of elements like the junkets that AAA publishers routinely arrange for the gaming press is a positive outcome that can emerge from this otherwise depressing fiasco.

Getting back to the disclosure thing, by the way, I guess I can be convinced that reviewers could review a game they have kickstarted, as long as they disclose that. But reviewing a game made by a developer to whom they have given money on Patreon and so on? That seems like a pretty straightforward violation of journalistic ethics, as I understand them. It doesn't really pass the smell test.
posted by whir at 12:47 PM on September 17, 2014


Honestly, this has about as much to do with honesty in games journalism as the Tulsa face doors did to community development.
posted by happyroach at 12:57 PM on September 17, 2014


That should be "Tulsa race riots". DAMN Swype.
posted by happyroach at 1:09 PM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


But reviewing a game made by a developer to whom they have given money on Patreon and so on? That seems like a pretty straightforward violation of journalistic ethics, as I understand them.

How is that substantially different from donating to PBS and writing a review of their programming? The reviewer doesn't get compensated if the game does well.
posted by griphus at 1:10 PM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]


I always thought PBS was more akin to a publisher than a studio, to put it in game development terms. But as an analogy which doesn't seem too far off, if a personal friend of a film critic had asked for and received a $500 loan in order to make a movie, and then the critic then gave that movie a positive review, wouldn't that seem improper, even though the critic did not receive any sort of financial reward for his loan?
posted by whir at 1:18 PM on September 17, 2014


That's a loan, not a donation, though.

Technically that's a similar reward set to liking a film and hoping it does well. Wouldn't, under that logic, all film critics who really like a movie be recused from reviewing it?
posted by whittaker at 1:20 PM on September 17, 2014


I guess what I'm getting at is that in reviews there is at least an implicit premise that the reviewer will be impartial, and judge a work on its own merits, irrespective of any relationship with the work's creators. Having a financial relationship could damage that impartiality, and certainly damages the appearance of impartiality.
posted by whir at 1:20 PM on September 17, 2014


I think the "personal friend" part is grounds for conflict long before the "$500" part, and even then it supposes that the critic is somehow inherently unable to judge a work on its own merits.

Plus, if the movie bombs, there's a good chance that critic isn't getting his $500 back.
posted by griphus at 1:21 PM on September 17, 2014


But reviewing a game made by a developer to whom they have given money on Patreon and so on? That seems like a pretty straightforward violation of journalistic ethics, as I understand them.

Yeah, I don't think this can be right. I give a pound a month to Richard Herring because I think it's good that he carries on making podcasts. In return for this, I got a cheap badge that says "I paid a pound! (A month)". Are you really saying I should "declare my interest" if I ever write a review of anything he ever does?

I wonder if there is an element to this that reflects some unconscious mingling of the two senses of "interest". The fact that something interests me does not mean that I am a party interested in its promotion. I think people are aware of the distinction consciously, but I'm not sure there isn't a bit of bleed-through somewhere.
posted by howfar at 1:24 PM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]


Also, I'm not entirely sure a review coming from a place of "I paid money and got this crap in return?" is any more/less likely to happen than "I paid money and you made crap, but I'm going to cover your ass and put my career and integrity at stake with my review because we're friends." Because even if the latter is going to happen, it'll happen regardless of whether Patreon or whatever is in the picture or not.
posted by griphus at 1:27 PM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


Are you really saying I should "declare my interest" if I ever write a review of anything he ever does?

Uh... yes? It doesn't seem that onerous, and it would help the reader of your review evaluate your position.
posted by whir at 1:34 PM on September 17, 2014


Having a financial relationship could damage that impartiality, and certainly damages the appearance of impartiality.

So which is the least impartial:
  • reviewing something you prepaid for, a la kickstarter
  • reviewing something you just plain preordered
  • reviewing something you bought
  • reviewing something you were given for free in exchange for a review
Because I'd think that the last is clearly the least impartial.
posted by jeather at 1:36 PM on September 17, 2014 [7 favorites]


I agree that whichever it is, you should say how you got the game (I don't know about video game reviewers, but book reviewers tend to do this) and that if you donate in some other way you should say you have done so, but that shouldn't restrict you from writing a review.
posted by jeather at 1:39 PM on September 17, 2014


...especially since you will stop receiving free games from a publisher if you keep reviewing them negatively.
posted by whittaker at 1:41 PM on September 17, 2014


...it would help the reader of your review evaluate your position.

I'm not sure why the reader should by default be in doubt the reviewer is qualified to do their job and/or compromised by pre-existing relationships.

When I read Anthony Lane's movie reviews in the New Yorker, I have no idea what his relationship to the movie is, but I know for a fact the dude's been working in the film industry for decades and very likely knows at least a couple of people involved in the creation of the movie. But I also trust the editors of the publication to make sure he's not full of shit.

It seems like a lot of people demanding accountability are either not entirely sure how it is a review makes it to the page of a prominent website (i.e. past at least one editor) or have an inherent distrust of the publication in which they're reading reviews, in which case why even bother?
posted by griphus at 1:44 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


I'm definitely not arguing in favor of publishers giving free stuff to game reviewers. The solution for most consumer reviews, say laptops or cars, is that the reviewer is given something to review, he or she uses it for a few days or a week or whatever, and then gives it back. The publisher pays for the item under consideration (or is provided it by the manufacturer) and the reviewer does not get to keep it in the end. This seems like a workable model for game reviews.
posted by whir at 1:44 PM on September 17, 2014


That's not to say that payola, etc. isn't a huge problem, but stuff like giving $5 a month to some indie dev is barely the same sport, never mind the same league.
posted by griphus at 1:45 PM on September 17, 2014


Wow, apparently as of today "The Crisis of Infinite Fandoms" (in the words of Arthur Chu) started as Richard Dawkins weighed in in support of an American Enterprise Institute criticism of feminism and games. This is after Baldwin (the Firefly guy), Wikileaks, and Breitbart have already supported GamerGate folks in Twitter.
posted by blahblahblah at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2014


you should say how you got the game (I don't know about video game reviewers, but book reviewers tend to do this)

What? No we don't. No one, ever, cries "payola" or insists on disclosure about ARCs in the real world. It feels ridiculous to even type that out. "Disclosure about ARCs." Heh. I've published a tiny handful of reviews and if I wanted to I could probably get enough ARCs to build a house out of within a month or so. The people I know who publish regular reviews could fill a recycling bin with unsolicited ARCs practically every day. This is not a live ethical issue to literally anyone.

This whole discussion is really revealing of the ways the Internet doesn't understand the tacit culture of the institutional worlds of journalism and criticism. Like, it begins to seem that the guy on Twitter who cried bullshit on the idea that The New Yorker had fact-checking was actually not an outlier at all.
posted by RogerB at 1:52 PM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


When I read Anthony Lane's movie reviews in the New Yorker, I have no idea what his relationship to the movie is, but I know for a fact the dude's been working in the film industry for decades and very likely knows at least a couple of people involved in the creation of the movie. But I also trust the editors of the publication to make sure he's not full of shit.

I have a pretty high level of trust in the editors of the New Yorker. The editors of Kotaku, slightly less so. Nonetheless, if I read a review laudatory review by Mr Lane of some obscure documentary, and then later came to discover that he had donated $1000 to get the movie made, and had not disclosed that in the review, I'd feel somewhat upset.

I agree that $5 per month to an indie game developer is small potatoes, but the principle is the same and I honestly don't see how a simple disclaimer in an article is a burdensome restriction to place on a reviewer.
posted by whir at 1:54 PM on September 17, 2014


I honestly don't see how a simple disclaimer in an article is a burdensome restriction to place on a reviewer.

Because if you, the editor of a publication, believe there's an existing conflict of interest between the individual reviewer and the content they are reviewing, then you give the review to someone else. As a reader, I shouldn't be expected to do the editor's job for them by evaluating whether the person the publication paid to fairly rate the game is capable of doing so. Stamping a disclaimer on it may as well be saying "this review may potentially be compromised because the editor didn't do their job."
posted by griphus at 2:03 PM on September 17, 2014


Also: "c'mon, it's not that big a deal" isn't really convincing me I should jump through the nonsensical hoops demanded of the most hilariously rickety smokescreen for a group's toxic behaviour.
posted by whittaker at 2:12 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


Also: "c'mon, it's not that big a deal" isn't really convincing me I should jump through the nonsensical hoops demanded of the most hilariously rickety smokescreen for a group's toxic behaviour.

I'm not saying you should, nor do I endorse GamerGate's poorly considered list of demands. I guess I'm a bit surprised that the disclosure of a direct financial contribution from a reviewer to the author of something he's reviewing seems so controversial.
posted by whir at 2:18 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


Richard Dawkins coming out in favour of a bunch of rapey misogynists who feverentry claim that actually they are actually pro-women and their misogyny was about something else would actually not be very surprising in the slightest.
posted by Artw at 2:18 PM on September 17, 2014 [11 favorites]


I think a suitable metaphor would be buying chicken at the grocery store. There is no situation that calls for a sign that says "the chicken may or may not contain salmonella, please evaluate it yourself." First, no one with a sense of self-preservation is going to buy that chicken so even putting it out there is a pointless waste of time. Second, why the hell am I shopping in a store where management is so incapable that they can't tell me if their chicken has salmonella or not? At that point, nothing in the store can be considered safe.
posted by griphus at 2:19 PM on September 17, 2014


reviewing something you were given for free in exchange for a review

In my (admittedly limited) experience, free copies, tickets, and press passes were standard practice on the entertainment desk, whose fax machine and mailbox overflowed with press kits and releases. It was pretty much a level playing field because it was standard across the board, except for a few blockbusters that were cagey about what information got out. Unless you're a big syndicated name, writing reviews pays shit, and comping tickets is a trivial perk that elevates the task over something like data entry, which often pays better. So it wouldn't bother me one bit if a site had a slush pile of "for your consideration" DVDs in their closet.

Now flying your reviewer cross-country for a wine-and-dine weekend including a guided tour of the studio and closed beta is something else entirely, which is something that one review I read lately actually admitted.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:22 PM on September 17, 2014


Are you really saying I should "declare my interest" if I ever write a review of anything he ever does?

Uh... yes? It doesn't seem that onerous, and it would help the reader of your review evaluate your position.


That's a very different point to the one you were making. Journalistic ethics does not mean the same thing as "being the kind of journalist I or any other reader would like you to be". You might prefer such declarations, but representing them as ethical necessities seems unsupported.

But how about if I bought one of his podcasts? At that point I've actually invested money in the product. Should I declare that? "Reader, I like this product, and I need to tell you that, in case you wonder why I like it. The fact that I like this is connected to the fact that this is the sort of thing I like". It seems pretty pointless to me, and surely not an ethical requirement.

And is the implication of your position that the only thing that doesn't need to be declared is the freebie review copy? Y'know, where the content creator has actually given me something of value. Hm.
posted by howfar at 2:24 PM on September 17, 2014


If we're going to talk about corporate interference, we should be looking at things like, "kill this story or we kill our advertising contract," or "here's a plane ticket so that we can show you our product under our conditions," not "here's an evaluation copy, the value of which still wouldn't raise the task of writing a review above minimum wage."
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:31 PM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]


Ghost Breitbart has "proof" of secret gaming elite and their conspiratorial mailing list. (donotlink link to story)
posted by ndfine at 2:38 PM on September 17, 2014


I guess I'm a bit surprised that the disclosure of a direct financial contribution from a reviewer to the author of something he's reviewing seems so controversial.

There's a school of thought that says that every reviewer should pay for their own copy of a book, meal in a restaurant, even game, to maintain their perspective of objectivity. In that light, paying to Patreon or Kickstarter for early access isn't a significant financial interest, it's simply the reviewer doing their job.

It's the other way around that is the concern. A dev paying or overcompensating for reviews, payola, or, perhaps worse, denying access to early game materials because of past history of less than laudatory reviews, a quid pro quo.
posted by bonehead at 2:44 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


Ghost Breitbart has "proof" of secret gaming elite and their conspiratorial mailing list. (donotlink link to story)

I'm guessing that's going to be about 80% how to scam booze.
posted by Artw at 3:19 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


I guess I'm a bit surprised that the disclosure of a direct financial contribution from a reviewer to the author of something he's reviewing seems so controversial.

It's not "controversial". It's 100% ass-backwards.

If a game company pays a reviewer's way to fly around the world and drive actual race cars before reviewing their latest racing game (which is a thing that has actually happened), I want to know that up front. I want to know that because that reviewer has a financial stake in saying the nicest things possible, so that next year, when Racing Game 2015 comes out, maybe they get to do it again.

However, if a reviewer buys a game for themselves to review it, or gives money to fund the creation of the game, that is literally the furthest possible thing from a conflict of interest. There is zero financial interest in them pulling any punches. They were not given access that anyone else did not have, they were not given travel, amazing experiences, etc. They have literally set themselves up in a position where nothing the publisher could do in reaction to their review could impact them.

The only reason gamergaters are demanding that journalists "disclose" this type of situation is because they literally do not understand (nor care to understand) how corruption works. Any such declarations give the reader zero information, but they give the gamergaters a completely stupid (yet mystifyingly effective) rallying cry to use when declaring yet another reviewer "biased".

For that reason alone, nobody should be seriously considering this.
posted by tocts at 3:22 PM on September 17, 2014 [15 favorites]


The only reason gamergaters are demanding that journalists "disclose" this type of situation is because they literally do not understand (nor care to understand) how corruption works.

To be fair, they don't understand how the entire adult world works, either. I'm reminded of comments Ken Hite and Robin Laws (when Talking About Stuff) have made about certain RPG fans not understanding that people who work in the same small industry usually know and like each other, even when they have differences of opinion, and that grown-ups are capable of doing both those things at once.
posted by howfar at 3:33 PM on September 17, 2014 [3 favorites]


Well, I don't want to turn this into me vs the thread, so I'll just say I disagree about whether disclosing Patreon investments is proper and leave it at that. I do agree that things like press junkets are far more troubling, but I remain unconvinced that the same editors who send their reporters away on them are the people whose final judgement we should be relying on about whether or not their reviewers are sufficiently impartial.
posted by whir at 4:08 PM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


Ghost Breitbart has "proof" of secret gaming elite and their conspiratorial mailing list.

"People who share a niche specialty know each other and stay in touch over email, Breitbart is prepared to reveal."

Great detective work, Mulder.
posted by mhoye at 4:16 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


Maybe the fact that journalism professionals keep in touch with one another is news to the Breitbart people because no real journalists want to interact with them.
posted by griphus at 4:43 PM on September 17, 2014 [9 favorites]


What? No we don't. No one, ever, cries "payola" or insists on disclosure about ARCs in the real world.

No one complains if they don't, but I generally see a "how I got this book" line on the book reviews I read. I'm not terribly concerned if I don't -- I'm not even slightly concerned -- but I still see it a lot, and figured I was not seeing an unrepresentative sample. (I'm thinking, for example, of the Book Smugglers.)

But there isn't a horrible history of payola in book reviews, either.

I don't think "I was given a copy of this game in order to review it" is out of line -- more reasonable than "never review a game you purchased via kickstarter".
posted by jeather at 5:29 PM on September 17, 2014


Since game reviews generally need (or at least want) to be written and published on or before launch day, the reviewers at major sites are pretty much always sent free review copies so that they have a couple weeks to play it in advance. Any game review on any game site that isn't just J. Random Dude's personal blog, you can safely assume they were given a free copy.

It would be more useful and surprising to occasionally see a footnote reading "I bought this game with my own money."
posted by rifflesby at 5:37 PM on September 17, 2014


I generally see a "how I got this book" line on the book reviews I read.

Then you're probably reading book blogs, not professional critics writing in traditional journalistic outlets. There are bloggers, based on an overcautious reading of the new FTC guidelines — which are guidelines for online consumer reviews of valuable products, not really for book reviews or criticism in general — who now add these ridiculous disclosures all over the place. (I just looked at the blog you mentioned, and indeed, they have a sidebar about just that.) It's almost a kind of cargo-cult signature of the Serious Online Reviewer at this point.

This is certainly one of the weird culture-clash factors in play here, where there's a largely Internet-educated audience now, often younger people without a lot of the media literacy that comes with traditional education/cultural capital; and to some fraction of these people, the behind-the-scenes institutional difference between a blog and The New Yorker isn't immediately apparent (like that Twitter #gamergate guy, all incredulous at the very concept of "fact-checking department"). The primarily-online-culture crowd has ended up with some ideas about the ethical standards and cultural norms of journalism and criticism that are, to put it mildly, quite insulated from the standards of the traditional media/grownup world.
posted by RogerB at 6:02 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


Well, I don't want to turn this into me vs the thread, so I'll just say I disagree about whether disclosing Patreon investments is proper and leave it at that.

While I respect that you don't want this to be you versus the world, I nonetheless feel the need to continue to dig into why you think this.

Look, here's the thing: fundamentally, #GamerGate is about misogyny. Full stop. There may be people who were sucked into it later that think it's not about that, but those people are wrong. The best, most charitable excuse I can give those people is that they're not bad people, they're just willing to accept very easily refuted arguments and hoaxes from misogynists without any critical thinking about the validity of said arguments and hoaxes. That's rather faint praise.

Gaming press has been shady for decades. I have been a gamer for 30+ years. Since around the time I was old enough to realize that Nintendo Power was almost entirely marketing material, it's also been clear that a huge number of reviews of AAA games are nothing more than advertising spots. This is absolutely and inarguably not news to anyone paying the tiniest bit of attention. It's the whole reason sites like Metacritic exist.

And to be clear: I'm all for improving that.

That's not what #GamerGate is about, though. If it was, their rallying cry would have been about payola, about press junkets, and about the all-too-cozy relationship between AAA developers and journalists. That's not how things actually went down, though. Instead, what we heard from the start was a lot of angst over the private life of a woman whose primary sin is that she dared assume that women are allowed to be involved in videogames.

To put it bluntly: all of the demands of #GamerGate have been ex post facto attempts to legitimize the illegitimate.

So, the reason I feel so strongly that "disclosing" things like Patreon support is absolutely unworkable is that the people who want this are not asking for it in the spirit of journalistic integrity. They are not going to see a review that starts with such a disclosure and say "oh ok, I'll factor that into how I interpret this review"*. They are going to see it and immediately say "AHA! SEE, I TOLD YOU! CORRUPTION!".

It is my firm belief that the ultimate goal of the people pushing this agenda is very simple: they want to conflate, in the public eye, evidence of a journalist having a personal taste in games as being evidence that the journalist is corrupt. That's it. And of course, they don't intend to apply that tactic to people they agree with, but all they're looking for is any evidence that a journalist once bought a game by Zoe Quinn or backed Anita Sarkeesian's Kickstarter so they can proclaim to the world that this review is null and void because the writer is a dreaded SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR.

Ultimately, I do not believe these kinds of demands are being made in good faith, and I do not believe that acceding to them will have any positive effect. The problems they claim this will solve are so tiny as to be theoretical. The only people who will benefit from these disclosures are the misogynists who are looking for any cover they can find to make their actions legitimate.

* And I honestly don't believe this disclosure tells you anything useful. It tells you the reviewer likes the developer's prior work, or is interested in their current work, both of which will come through loud in clear in almost any game review
posted by tocts at 6:55 PM on September 17, 2014 [23 favorites]


It is my firm belief that the ultimate goal of the people pushing this agenda is very simple: they want to conflate, in the public eye, evidence of a journalist having a personal taste in games as being evidence that the journalist is corrupt.

And IMNSHO, focusing on the journalist's "personal taste" is misunderstanding exactly what good art journalism is supposed to do. It's not about the journalist's "feels." I don't care. It's about providing a rich description of the qualities of the work and putting it in context and in dialogue with related work.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:57 PM on September 17, 2014


the reason I feel so strongly that "disclosing" things like Patreon support is absolutely unworkable is that the people who want this are not asking for it in the spirit of journalistic integrity.

Look, I'm absolutely not on the side of GamerGate, and I recognize that their arguments are a rear-guard action against the colossal missteps they've made in manufacturing their misguided, hateful little PR war. But I am also, independently, pretty fed up with the sorts of practices that are common in the gaming press, and honestly the whole enterprise could use a lot more rigor.

This is from the New York Times's ethics policy for its reviewers (on page 43 of this PDF):
135. Reporters, reviewers, critics and their editors in the Book Review, the Times Magazine and the cultural news, media news and styles departments, beyond abiding by the other provisions of this document, may not help others develop, market or promote artistic, literary or other creative endeavors.
Here's page 6 of the Guardian's ethics policy:
Commercial products No Guardian journalist or freelance primarily associated with GNM should endorse commercial products unless with the express permission of their head of department or managing editor.
Washington Post:
We accept no gifts from news sources. We accept no free trips. We neither seek nor accept preferential treatment that might be rendered because of the positions we hold. Exceptions to the no-gift rule are few and obvious – invitations to meals, for example. Free admissions to any event that is not free to the public are prohibited. The only exception is for seats not sold to the public, as in a press box. Whenever possible, arrangements will be made to pay for such seats.
LA Times:
Staff members may not enter into business or financial relationships with their sources. Similarly, staff members may not cover individuals or institutions with which they have a financial relationship.
Does Gamespot occupy such a central position in society that it needs to be held to the same level of scrutiny as the Times? Obviously not. Is there a distinction to be made between shoe-leather journalism and reviewing consumer products? Certainly. But those codes are in place for a reason, and if gaming really does want to be taken seriously as an art form as many of its devotees are always saying, it would behoove the gaming press to start taking issues like these seriously.

I'm not really concerned about somebody who is paid peanuts getting a free copy of Diablo 8: The Diabloing as a job perk. I support Patreon as a way to provide income to people who are trying to make art in a very difficult economy, and I've backed probably twenty or more game kickstarters myself. But if I were writing a review of a game from somebody I'd backed on Patreon, yes, I would feel obliged to disclose that, because a direct financial relationship could be perceived as a conflict of interest.

So there you have it, one person who is asking for disclosure in the name of journalistic integrity, in good faith. I'm not a misogynist boob or some 4chan idiot, but I do care about these things.
posted by whir at 9:04 PM on September 17, 2014


Frankly, if you can't find enough quality game reviews and articles by people who are obviously writing honestly and without the taint of payola, you aren't looking. Who cares whether Activision is leaning on IGN to boost their MetaCritic ratings? Why would you turn to IGN and/or MetaCritic to figure out whether to try a particular game? Surely you can find some reviewer or site that's more in tune with your taste in games than these big, generic game sites.
posted by straight at 9:10 PM on September 17, 2014


If you tip a busker and recommend his CD on your blog, do you need to disclose it?
posted by Strass at 10:16 PM on September 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


I should think not, but I also wouldn't need to run it by an editor, nor would I think of myself as practicing journalism when I did so.
posted by whir at 10:25 PM on September 17, 2014


Does Gamespot occupy such a central position in society that it needs to be held to the same level of scrutiny as the Times?

The GamerGate perpetrators have from the beginning reminded me of the Redditors who have so little perspective that they rant and rave about /r/ShitRedditSays controlling various elements of society, because in their tiny world, Reddit's super-important. Similarly, video games are so utterly central to the GamerGaters' lives that they legitimately think game reviewers disagreeing with them is a serious social issue. To somebody with the least bit of perspective in their life, that's immensely pathetic and sad, but from the very start it's been about that lack of perspective.


Why would you turn to IGN and/or MetaCritic to figure out whether to try a particular game?

MetaCritic's attracted some negative attention since it came out that Obsidian didn't get a bonus for Fallout: New Vegas because their MetaCritic score was one point too low. I don't remember anybody particularly caring before that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:27 PM on September 17, 2014 [5 favorites]


The Paranoid Style in Gaming Misogyny seems like a fairly accurate analysis of the Gamersgate movement.
posted by clockworkjoe at 11:42 PM on September 17, 2014 [6 favorites]


Linking it to The Paranoid Style in American Politics is a genius move.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:51 PM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


a direct financial relationship

Unless patreon has some kickback scheme I'm not aware of, how a reviewer spends their money (spends, not invests) is none of your business. The 'financial relationship' is not a loan, it is one way. If the patron gets beta versions of the game, consider it a preorder. Corruption implies that the reviewer is benefiting somehow.

The only exception is for seats not sold to the public, as in a press box. Whenever possible, arrangements will be made to pay for such seats.

I'm sure this covers press screenings of films which tend to occur before public release and are analogous to free copies of games for reviews.

You seem to also be confused by the idea of journalists "endorsing" commercial products. A positive review is not an endorsement when it is the journalists profession to review for the publication.
posted by crashlanding at 11:53 PM on September 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


But I am also, independently, pretty fed up with the sorts of practices that are common in the gaming press, and honestly the whole enterprise could use a lot more rigor.

You say this, but all of your arguments about disclosure of Patreon support are based around complete misreadings of the ethics policies of newspapers.

What you've quoted from the NYT's ethics policy has nothing to do with a model like Patreon. It is saying that journalists aren't supposed to help develop, market, or promote works. Giving money to an artist with no strings attached (and with no right to a return of any sort on that money) is not helping develop, market, or promote works, anymore than buying a band's t-shirt is helping develop, market, or promote their next album.

From the Guardian's ethics policy, you're quoting a line about endorsements. Endorsement implies that the journalist would be saying positive things about a product in return for money. A journalist giving no-strings-attached money to an artist is more or less the exact opposite of an endorsement.

From the Washington Post's ethics policy, you're quoting a line about the journalist accepting gifts. This is relevant to Patreon how?

Lastly, you're quoting the LA Times' ethics policy, with a line about entering into business relationships. To repeat myself, giving money to an artist with no strings attached (and with no return on that money) is not entering into a business relationship, anymore than buying a band's t-shirt is entering into a business relationship with a band.

I am willing to believe you that you are arguing in good faith, and that you actually care about ethics in journalism. If that's the case, though, why are none of the quotes you've put forth relevant to what you're claiming is such a big problem? Worse, why do you care so much about Patreon, yet you willfully admit that you don't care if reviewers are given a free copy of a big-budget game to review, despite that being an actual situation that could represent a conflict of interest?
posted by tocts at 5:15 AM on September 18, 2014 [5 favorites]


I've never read an album review where the reviewer feels the need to disclose that they attended a band's concert last year or bought a band's t-shirt. Most of these policies seem to be addressing money going in the other direction--when a journalist has a conflict of interest because they stand to benefit financially. I don't consider Patreon a "financial relationship" any more than buying a game outright is a financial relationship.

And, again, holding a group blog up to the standards of the Washington Post is overkill. It's understood that it isn't attempting to be unbiased. The reputation of RPS isn't in question because their Minecraft articles are a mix of information gathered from other publications and snarky reaction. I don't see how separating those two out would benefit the reader.
posted by almostmanda at 5:37 AM on September 18, 2014 [2 favorites]


To be fair, they don't understand how the entire adult world works, either.

This times a million. It is really important to remember that the vast majority of the #gamergate tag is made of kids, probably most below the game of 16.
It is an age population that skews heavily towards having minimal real life experience, and vastly underdeveloped senses of empathy,
posted by Theta States at 6:13 AM on September 18, 2014 [2 favorites]


I really don't think 16 is the upper limit on this sort of behavior. Consider MRA forums--there is no maximum age on hating women. I bet a lot of those dudes play video games and were happy to join this "movement" once they figured out what it was really about.
posted by almostmanda at 7:09 AM on September 18, 2014 [1 favorite]


It's teenagers and people who never stopped thinking and acting like teenagers.

Really there should be some kind of Gom Jabbar style test before you are allowed onto the real people internet.
posted by Artw at 7:17 AM on September 18, 2014 [4 favorites]


MetaCritic's attracted some negative attention since it came out that Obsidian didn't get a bonus for Fallout: New Vegas because their MetaCritic score was one point too low.

Which is dumb, but the reason publishers do that is because so many people go and look at the MetaCritic score and think that's a good way of deciding whether or not to buy a game.

I'm saying, don't do that. There are far better ways available of figuring out whether a game is something you would enjoy than trying to average the opinions of every game reviewer.

The whole problem here, why the gamergaters are so upset about SJW's giving games scores using criteria they don't like ("bias"), is that they want to take for granted that the gaming press is like them and reflects their values. They want that MetaCritic score to be an average of reviewers who write for them and what they like in games.

But games are bigger and more diverse now, it's not just about them anymore. And that would be fine if we didn't have sites like MetaCritic creating these beauty contests in which every game is compared to every other game. They're not upset that Gone Home exists, they're upset that Gone Home is getting high scores and that it might win the beauty contest with Call of Duty.

But I don't care what a Call of Duty fan thinks of Gone Home any more than they care about the SJW's "biased" opinions. We'd all be happier without MetaCritic trying to mush all that diversity into one stupid number.
posted by straight at 8:30 AM on September 18, 2014 [1 favorite]


My evil SJW edict to fuck over GakerGate types would be a ban on all scores whatsoever.
posted by Artw at 8:44 AM on September 18, 2014


I just checked the hashtag and:
1) it seems that even 4chan and moot have had enough. All of the gamergate warriors are furious and are now plotting and predicting the downfall of 4chan.
2) In response to the tabloid non-scandal article up at breitbart, Ars Technica has responded with meh, really? Really, you guys? Seriously? Uggh.
3) more and more professional conservative talking heads are attaching their wagon to this cart.
posted by Theta States at 9:51 AM on September 18, 2014 [3 favorites]


#Gamerghazi
posted by almostmanda at 9:53 AM on September 18, 2014 [4 favorites]


Why might the culture of video games have been a particularly fertile soil for a misogynist strain of the paranoid style to take root?

I think it's mostly children being manipulated by older men with a political agenda, and it's about as creepy as it sounds.
posted by empath at 9:55 AM on September 18, 2014 [9 favorites]


And if you were doubting the effectiveness this kind of organized culture-war campaign, that Ars piece is a great case in point. Here you've got a journalist issuing mea culpas for having an opinion about the politics of the field he covers, meekly retracting his opinions and submitting to a ludicrously narrow definition of his "proper role":
In the heat of the moment, I suggested that gaming journalists organize a "public letter of support" for Quinn. Later in the discussion thread, cooler heads prevailed and made me realize that this would be overstepping our primary role as reporters and observers [...]

However, suggesting that Quinn's work deserved extra attention because she had been attacked was, again, overstepping my proper role as a critic and journalist. It was an emotional reaction. No one else in the group took this suggestion seriously
He's conceded essentially everything that #gamergate's antifeminist culture-war puppet masters could want here: the idea that any of this has jack shit to do with journalistic ethics in the first place, the idea that it's improper for a journalist to take sides between a harassment campaign and its victim, the idea that a political harassment campaign couldn't justify paying attention to its victim's work.

This is how they win. It's sad, but this is a great example of the way this kind of organized culture-war campaign works, as it's designed to work: nothing to do with good-faith grownup ethical debate, and everything to do with the power to control the terms of the discourse. The shit-slinging's result is predictable, not surprising, and it really ought to remind you of, say, Chomsky's account of media politics: the working journalists learn to internalize the right-wing flak and pushback rather than provoke it, and out of aversion to having shit slung at them, they quickly begin to self-censor and self-police themselves into the right's desired ideological role.
posted by RogerB at 10:14 AM on September 18, 2014 [5 favorites]


1) it seems that even 4chan and moot have had enough. All of the gamergate warriors are furious and are now plotting and predicting the downfall of 4chan.

Got a link about this?
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:21 AM on September 18, 2014


Got a link about this?

Unsure if there's been an article written, and I won't google 4chan at work. :)
But it is all over the hastag. Twitter search gamergate and 4chan.

And now apparently the gamergate kids are being egged on and encouraged by both a Breitbart guy and Adam Baldwin. What's an Adam Baldwin?
posted by Theta States at 12:14 PM on September 18, 2014


I agree with you completely, RogerB. That conciliatory Ars piece leaves me feeling really disappointed in both Ars and Kyle Orland.
posted by Corinth at 12:19 PM on September 18, 2014 [1 favorite]


If you want an example of that lack of perspective I was talking about, this reddit thread is full of people talking about how "SJWs got to moot" and so on. Their world is so small that moot telling them to fuck off is a momentous occasion and proof of a world-spanning conspiracy!
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:44 PM on September 18, 2014 [4 favorites]




The first time a toddler get a papercut, it's the worst thing to ever happen to him.
posted by bonehead at 3:01 PM on September 18, 2014 [2 favorites]


Wait, 4chan *isn't* about continually organizing raids and coordinating trolling?
posted by Artw at 3:09 PM on September 18, 2014


Jesus Christ that reddit thread is sad on so many levels.
posted by empath at 4:31 PM on September 18, 2014 [2 favorites]


Imagine the hours these fuckers sink into this shit...
posted by Artw at 4:42 PM on September 18, 2014 [2 favorites]


The way "financial relationship" is being defined is just...ugh.

So if you Patreon or Kickstart a game, which is basically preordering a game, you have a "financial relationship", and therefore should ideally not review it. If you purchase a game, you are likewise giving the publisher money, and therefore you have a "financial relationship", and should ideally not review it. If you get a game for free from a publisher, you are being given a good which is worth money by the publisher for free, and therefore you have a "financial relationship", and therefore should ideally not review it. So the only way that games should be reviewed is by reviewing...pirated copies? But that would also be unethical, so...games should not be reviewed by anyone?
posted by Bugbread at 7:41 AM on September 19, 2014 [2 favorites]


This isn't about money, really. This about identifying which team someone is on.

If a reviewer "donates" money to a developer, that's a marker that they are a supporter of that person, just like a sports fan, a music fan, or, indeed, a game fan.

This is all about picking sides and making sure that those sides are clear.

Excluded middles are the major problem here. Similarly, critical analysis isn't allowed in a world of "facts" and "opinion".
posted by bonehead at 8:07 AM on September 19, 2014 [2 favorites]


With crowdfunding singled out in particular because that tends to be how you support the "wrong" kind of game...
posted by Artw at 9:53 AM on September 19, 2014 [3 favorites]


Everyone who supported Sarkeesian's kickstarter, is therefore 100% in agreement with everything she says or does, and thus can be made the enemy because of this one little thing.

Nitpicking becomes a way of othering (and so ignoring) arguments you don't like.
posted by bonehead at 10:04 AM on September 19, 2014


The wikipedia article has a great summary of events. The capitalization variant article is also awesome too.
posted by Theta States at 10:07 AM on September 19, 2014


Do not look at the talk page if you want to retain sanity.
posted by Artw at 10:15 AM on September 19, 2014


Or the history... Looks like efforts have begun in earnest to edit it into a pro-GG propagander peice.
posted by Artw at 10:28 AM on September 19, 2014


Do not look at the talk page if you want to retain sanity.

One of the first lines in the Talk article: "If anyone bothered to look at this twitter tag, you'd see that there are lots of females outraged by the lack of journalistic integrity. Which means there is no trace of sexism."


Oh and I love how they try to "rewrite the introduction to remove the bias":
""#GamerGate is a controversy that erupted over allegations of improper relationships between gaming journalists and game developers that was seen by media as a cover for a misogynistic harassment campaign against female voices in the industry."

and then again with...
#GamerGate is an ongoing controversy in video game culture about journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, particularly long-standing issues of conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers, disrespect for the core gaming audience by gaming journalists and games developers, a reaction to a perceived change in the "gamer" identity, and the coverage of social issues in gaming media.[1][2][3][4][5] The controversy became high-profile on social media in August 2014 after the removal of posts about the controversy on Reddit, 4Chan, and other online message boards resulted in the Streisand Effect.[1] A number of people involved in the controversy were harassed; several journalists and game developers received death threats from angry gamers and advocates for social justice, and personal information about a number of people involved in the controversy was leaked online.[6][1][7] Targets of the campaign and some members of the press and video game developers have described the campaign as misogynistic in nature, an attempt to drive women and social justice advocates out of the gaming industry, while supporters of the campaign say their goal is to uncover corruption in the media and that claims of misogyny are a straw man attempt to deflect criticism.[6][1][7]
Sorry kiddos, this all started with attacking Quinn. Quit trying to bury what went down.
posted by Theta States at 10:30 AM on September 19, 2014


I like the one guy getting all huffy about Breitbart not being treated as a reliable source.
posted by Artw at 10:31 AM on September 19, 2014 [2 favorites]


Come on! They blew that ACORN corruption case wide open!
posted by Theta States at 10:33 AM on September 19, 2014


#GamersGate: A one-drop test for sexism.
posted by bonehead at 10:44 AM on September 19, 2014


That breitbart dude is on twitter coaching gamergate kids on the idea that feminists are people whom make up false sexual assault claims.
posted by Theta States at 11:12 AM on September 19, 2014


From @Nero: "Let's pray games journalists aren't learning phony abuse claim strategies from their friends in feminism. #GamerGate"
posted by Theta States at 11:17 AM on September 19, 2014


I had to make sure that @Nero wasn't the twitter of the UK electronic music trio. It is not. It is That Breitbart Dude.
posted by Corinth at 11:46 AM on September 19, 2014 [2 favorites]


If you have a crappy game, then giving me your crappy game for free is a crappy bribe. And if it's a good enough game to be a good bribe, you didn't need to bribe me to get a good review. :)

The early access is a bigger deal. Being able to write about The New Latest Thing instead of What Was The Latest Thing Three Weeks Ago can make a big difference in how many eyeballs read your articles.

But then I would argue doling out early access via Kickstarter or Patreon is a less problematic method than some of the alternatives. You shell out 20$ or whatever, and you get the latest updates before the general public. The alternatives are what?
  1. Indie game developers abandon early access as a reward for Kickstarter and Patreon, and just hope they still get as much money as before.
  2. Games journalists swear off early access out of concern for their objectivity, while hundreds of non-journalists who Kickstarted the game are talking about it and by the time the journalists get access to it, it's old news.
  3. The developers release the early access to everyone for free.
  4. The developers maintain their own list of journalists who can get early access for free.
The fourth is the one with the greatest potential for misuse; if you don't play ball, maybe the developer forgets to put you on the list next time.

The first three all require someone to act against their own interests for the sake of an ethical principle. Which is fine in theory, sometimes that's what ethics requires, but then you have to have a really solid case for why this is an ethical problem.

And like bonehead and Artw say, what it's really really about is they're trying to categorize you by team allegiance. If I Patreon someone for 10$ a month that works out to 120$ a year. How many games from Rockstar or Bungie or EA do I have to buy to add up to 120$? Except, of course, there are no public sites they can trawl to find out what games I've bought from them. So if I'm being generous, it's like the old joke where you look for your keys under the streetlamp because that's where the light is. If I'm being less generous, they want an excuse to put indie developers under a level of scrutiny they aren't willing to apply to AAA developers.



There were a couple connections in their conspiracy graph that were the other way around. Game developers that gave to Patreons for freelance writers. That at least has money flowing in the right direction. The game developers were probably just thinking, "hey, they are writing the kind of game journalism we need more of, here's a couple bucks," but I can at least see how the gamergaters could be suspicious that will slide into "I like the kind of game journalism that writes about my games." I think when the dev gives money to the writer that could justify one of those full disclosures when the writer writes about them. Of course, to be completely fair we would need something like, "Kotaku has received a total of $___,___ in ad revenue from Activision" every time they have an article about Activision but again the big developers have the clout to stop their laundry from being aired.


But getting back the the OP, the RPS article says that the loudest demands for objectivity come when they write about "sexism, misogyny, marginalisation of any perceived minority, and similar." Not any of these financial situations. They get criticized for having the wrong ideology.
posted by RobotHero at 12:30 PM on September 19, 2014 [3 favorites]


I can't lie, I loved that Wikipedia talk page. Just instance after instance of gamergate sockpuppets getting smacked right the fuck down.
posted by valrus at 6:04 PM on September 19, 2014 [1 favorite]


WHAT ABOUT THE MENS???!?
posted by Artw at 7:49 PM on September 22, 2014 [1 favorite]


« Older Geopolitical duct tape and costly disasters.   |   I AM GROOT. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments