Conflict of interest in game journalism.

[Dankk]

You know non-perfect 10 women do exist in the real world right? They're not all men in disguise.

You're right, but this particular person really is transgendered though. It's not a secret.

 

[surfsatwerk]

You're right, but this particular person really is transgendered though. It's not a secret.

pre or post op?

 

[DigDog]

"games journalism" is somewhat similar to "porcine maquillage";

i question the intelligence of people who heed advice from game journalism in the first place - can you not wait until release (necessary, since you can't actually play the game before it comes out) and google "GAMENAME gameplay HD".

Also, gross woman is gross. Only a coder would bone her.

 

[CakeMonster]

I guess those attitudes about gender are not just limited to the dark underbelly of "the internet", but are alive and well on AT too.

 

[Dankk]

pre or post op?

Pre, I guess. She changed herself into a woman before the controversey; before she released Depression Quest, before she had sex with all those game reviewers, etc, etc.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

You're right, but this particular person really is transgendered though. It's not a secret.

Whether he knew before making the comment or not and regardless of her being transgender (I could have probably guessed but I gave her the benefit of a doubt), it was offensive. You can criticize her for cheating, but she didn't put herself out there as a fashion model.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Pre, I guess. She changed herself into a woman before the controversey; before she released Depression Quest, before she had sex with all those game reviewers, etc, etc.

D:

 

[smackababy]

Pre, I guess. She changed herself into a woman before the controversey; before she released Depression Quest, before she had sex with all those game reviewers, etc, etc.

Wouldn't that be post then? Not that it really matters.

This. I'm so sure she was so personally worried about the reviews for the games that she sold her body for good reviews when AAA games have been getting automatic 9+ reviews for almost a decade and a half anyway. Rather than the much more reasonable explanation that she cheated with people she probably crossed paths with while traveling for industry business (which makes it very easy to do).

Why does she get all the blame in this and not the reviewers conspiring to get inside information like the dirty whores they are? Oh, then it wouldn't paint a woman in a bad light.

I think it is a 2 part problem. One, the industry standard is to get gifts for good reviews. That is complete BS, but nobody really cares. Internet apathy at it's best. The second, and most important for most of the male population, is a female was unfaithful to a male. That deflates the ego of the collective men, especially those who are already hard up on finding women willing to actually have sex with them.


I think the real issue is that she is perpetuating the idea, even if she doesn't mean to, that women must use their sexuality to get ahead. Anyone with a brain knows she doesn't have to, as a copy of the game and a $25 gift card to Chili's would do the trick, it still puts forward the idea she has a means to pay off reviewers due to her gender. She isn't helping women in the software development industry.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

D:

None of the game reviews had "too much penis" as the conclusion so it must not have been too bad.

 

[smackababy]

None of the game reviews had "too much penis" as the conclusion so it must not have been too bad.

If the studies I've seen are true, "too much penis" wouldn't be a complaint from anyone. Transexual porn is reported to be the most popular among straight males.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, I'm pretty sure if EA started sending reviewers hookers people would get pissed. Let's not pretend what the developer did is even remotely ok.

EDIT: and before you say "but developers give reviewers gifts/etc. all the time" yeah, and that's the reason game "critics" can't be taken seriously. Well one of the reasons, anyway.

I think Microsoft got caught doing exactly that (hiring prostitutes for journalists) a few years ago. (I might have the company wrong, it was at a media conference held in South America).
The point is, that this is nothing new in journalism. Journalists have always had to guard against the perception of bias, and in the case when it might be real to disclose it, and the people that are likely to be hurt by (or profit from) the stories that journalists write are going to try to manipulate those stories to their benefit.

This is why the most important aspect of a journalist is their ethics. Our very own Anand Lal Shimpi certainly knows this and guards Anandtech's reputation carefully, he does not trust the hardware producers to be ethical for him.

I guess those attitudes about gender are not just limited to the dark underbelly of "the internet", but are alive and well on AT too.

Yes, sad isn't it.

 

[smackababy]

This is why the most important aspect of a journalist is their ethics. Our very own Anand Lal Shimpi certainly knows this and guards Anandtech's reputation carefully, he does not trust the hardware producers to be ethical for him.

And this is why AT is one of the few sites I would actually trust for opinions on hardware other than just listing the technical specifications.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

If the studies I've seen are true, "too much penis" wouldn't be a complaint from anyone. Transexual porn is reported to be the most popular among straight males.

In my experience, actual straight men are VERY squeamish when there's too much penis in their sex Although maybe that's just straight men. Most people who look at my dating profiles (I make no attempt to hide being trans on those profiles) are oddly enough straight males; I suspect it has to do with the overwhelming majority of people on such sites being listed as straight men though...

 

[BrightCandle]

And this is why AT is one of the few sites I would actually trust for opinions on hardware other than just listing the technical specifications.

Except for the fact that he sold a big chunk of the website to AMD and since that happened there has been an AMD representative able to get his non information threads stickied in the appropriate forums and with comments disabled. Anand has the same problem all the other reviewers have, he is entirely dependent on the ad revenues from the products and companies he reviews. He carefully limits the amount of hand biting he does so that that doesn't get cut off. He shows no more ethics than anywhere else and there are plenty of examples of the text not matching the data or being biased in one direction, and often the direction from which he receives cash to fund the site.

All of these review sites that get stuff for free and before everyone else has a dilemma. If from the outset they operate ethically then the big companies cut them off and their little review site dies. Those that can be bought to an extent survive, keep getting prerelease stuff to test and gradually over time the big companies ask more of the reviewers. How many architecture previews have you seen, from Anandtech and everywhere else that contain the same text like they all copy and pasted it?! Only 1 of the sites is likely to ever break rank, call out AMD/Intel/Whoever for forcing text on them, that if they didn't print they couldn't review the item.

If its a big site today you should assume its corrupt and bought, nothing else can survive in the current system. Anandtech is certainly no exception.

 

[Craig234]

I'm more trusting of game media than most. The thing to know is that 'previews' is the marketing driven unreliable hype machine and reviews are better.

What I find is that people who disagree with a publication's review - and I usually agree with the review - will not discuss that, but accuse them of selling the score.

 

[cmdrdredd]

There's two things I know for sure.

1) Most reviews are compensated in some way if they are positive.
2) I was right to say that indie games often get overly praised when they are average.

 

[Craig234]

There's two things I know for sure.

1) Most reviews are compensated in some way if they are positive.
2) I was right to say that indie games often get overly praised when they are average.

How do you know #1 'for sure'? #2 is simply opinion.

 

[cmdrdredd]

How do you know #1 'for sure'? #2 is simply opinion.

It has been proven over and over again. How much more proof do you need? All those ads, previews, first looks, hands on vids and all the rest would not exist otherwise. The minute you start going legit and turn down the money, you lose your rep with the publishers and won't get all these things. You will just be any average Joe with a blog or YouTube page at that point.

#2 isn't just opinion. Many indie games live off a gimmick and the press eats it up. Think about it. A game gets rated down for poor graphics but "retro graphics" that look a kid made it on MS Paint is overlooked entirely. Indie games should be held to a standard too but often aren't. Guacamelee actually tried to make the game look decent. More than I can say for some others I have seen.

 

[smackababy]

It has been proven over and over again. How much more proof do you need? All those ads, previews, first looks, hands on vids and all the rest would not exist otherwise. The minute you start going legit and turn down the money, you lose your rep with the publishers and won't get all these things. You will just be any average Joe with a blog or YouTube page at that point.

Some guys have done pretty well doing that. Yahtzee generally holds little back when reviewing games. I would think publishers hate him, lol.

#2 isn't just opinion. Many indie games live off a gimmick and the press eats it up.

More often, I notice that reviewers (and advocates in general) are willing to ignore a lot of production value issues with indie games. They refuse to even acknowledge them, and when confronted, always go back to the excuse "indie game". As if, being independent means you have to not hire that extra artist so your animations don't look like generic crap...

 

[ArenCordial]

Except, the only problem with ME3 was that it didn't stroke your ego. You didn't save everyone, nor could you. You couldn't be the ultimate hero and died in 3 of the 4 outcomes. It was just a blow to gamer's fragile "I'm the best ever!" egos and people didn't like it. The ending was fine. Critics liked the ending, enough so they gave the game a high score. You are still suffering from "I didn't like it; therefore nobody should either!". Guess what? I don't like Pepsi, but that doesn't mean people who rate it above Coke are stupid or wrong(well, it does, but that is because Dr. Pepper is clearly superior).

The only thing ME3 did was prove that you can force developers to change their artistic integrity by whining.

I've heard that argument a lot and frankly I think its full of BS. You're throwing everyone in one group trying to label them, when there were a lot of reasons not to like the ME3 ending.

On my first playthrough I expected Shepard to die. I expected most of my crew to die. In fact I expected whole races to die. I wanted to see some of my decisions be punishing. It would have made me replay the series.

What pissed me off about the ending was

1.) Introducing a character last minute to tie up everything magically for you in a deus ex machina.

2.) Crap consequences to previous decisions. One or two no dialouge wheel ambiant quests in ME3 have a greater influence on your war score that the big decisions of the prior 2 games. One game of multiplayer had an even bigger impact.

3.) The ending choices were literally lifted from the Original Deus Ex and adapted (poorly) to Mass Effect. I have a hard time accepting artistic integrity when Starkid first told me my options and my first thought is 'those are straight from Deus Ex.'

4.) The choices themselves were beyond bad. Control was boneheaded considering you just spent the previous scene arguing with TIM that the Reapers can't be controlled. But hey guess what, you're Shepard you can do it. If anything that choice is the catering/ego stroking you claim people are pissed they didn't get. Synthesis was abhorant since it equivalently is a force alteration of every living beings genetic code. Essentially genetic rape, but hey its ok cuz then Joker and EDI aren't so weird <eye roll>. If someone sliced your DNA with a monkey without asking you'd find this acceptable? Destroy was the only thing that made sense imo.

5.) You can make ANY variation of all decisions in the previous games and get all the exact same choices. That was disappointing and gave you no reason to replay the series to see different endings. Literally you can reload your save 5 minutes from the end and watch them all.

6.) Sameness of presentation in your choice in the original cut. (EC improved this substantially).

7.) Some blatantly false statements like how the Reapers could win that was made AFTER the game was gold so they can't claim cut content. (To BW's credit they added this as an option in the EC).

Frankly ME3's ending just wasn't the same quality as the vast majority of the series.

Had I been behind ME3, I'd have released a statement that the people whining are morons. Stfu, nobody cares you didn't like the ending.

And nobody cares you like it or thought it was fine either so don't be a dick. Its feedback. If BW took your brilliant advice and issued a statement like that then they'd be the morons for making a sensitive situation worse and insulting customers. Great way to run a businesss.

If anything the whole uproar over it should tell BioWare 3 things. #1. You made people very passionate about the franchise so good job. #2. Be very clear about what you're including and don't overstate things and make sure employees aren't stating incorrect information. #3. People want big consequences that feel different in major decisions.

By how they've handled DAI so far I think they've learned #2, time will tell on #3.


-------
Anyway back on topic, this is a piece done by tasteful understated nerdrage that I though was pretty decent on the industry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRXEAGWynGA

He can get pretty longwinded but I think he's somewhat right.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Er, OP, I don't really think those links exactly do a good job of making this seem like anything more than some terrible Youtube discussions (I don't even know WTF is with that first one, you really think people should take a video like that seriously?) that only seems to be a big deal to the people that are making anything involving women in games have to devolve into pure idiocy. Mix in the usual silly melodrama and creepy social media stalkerism and you've got a snoozefest full of Twitter, Facebook, and message board captures that are damn near indecipherable (and insofar as the topic of game journalism is concerned not way too much of it is not even pertinent), where its less about what they claim to be outraged over (integrity of game journalism apparently?) and more about trashing some person (who may or may not deserve some or all of it, I'm not going to wade through the mess).

Game journalism (and a lot of journalism, but especially ones focused on specific markets seem to be even worse) has been a joke/sham forever. Hell the only reason we don't have the glut of platform specific content is that it cost too much money to prop up a sham magazine to sing the praises of your product these days.

There's two things I know for sure.

1) Most reviews are compensated in some way if they are positive.
2) I was right to say that indie games often get overly praised when they are average.

On your first point I'm not entirely with you, but it definitely seems to bring in an extra point or three, so games that are 6s, 7s, and 8s, end up 8s, 9s, and 10s. Its one reason why I used to really like EGMs multi-reviewer scoring. I'm sure it was still plenty manipulated but you'd get a wider variety of opinions. They still did some baffling things (like giving Castlevania 64 like 7s and 8s, IIRC it got a Silver which meant it averaged an 8-8.5, and then trashed it every time they mentioned it after that).

On the second point, definitely. I've noticed you can almost guaranteed tell how highly rated an indie game will be by how much the reviewer mentions (and generally effuses about) the music (and if they mention that the music was done by some indie DJ or something its almost guaranteed to get an 8+). But in general, I feel like indie games get a nod that isn't entirely deserved.

 

[cmdrdredd]

On your first point I'm not entirely with you, but it definitely seems to bring in an extra point or three, so games that are 6s, 7s, and 8s, end up 8s, 9s, and 10s. Its one reason why I used to really like EGMs multi-reviewer scoring. I'm sure it was still plenty manipulated but you'd get a wider variety of opinions. They still did some baffling things (like giving Castlevania 64 like 7s and 8s, IIRC it got a Silver which meant it averaged an 8-8.5, and then trashed it every time they mentioned it after that).

On the second point, definitely. I've noticed you can almost guaranteed tell how highly rated an indie game will be by how much the reviewer mentions (and generally effuses about) the music (and if they mention that the music was done by some indie DJ or something its almost guaranteed to get an 8+). But in general, I feel like indie games get a nod that isn't entirely deserved.

Game Informer still sometimes does a Second Opinion, where someone who also played it will weigh in for a few paragraphs. Often this doesn't match the main reviewer, but sometimes they feel similarly about a title. At least you get more than just one slant on a particular title.

I remember EGM and also remember some games that got a good initial review were talked about as if they were bad games later. I do remember specifically that the editor who did the review of Cel Damage was different than the editor who did an article later on and used it as an example of a title that missed the mark.

 

[Nebor]

A talentless woman used crusading white knights and thirsty nerds to try to get ahead in the gaming world. This is making huge news on the internet because it's the first time in recorded history that a woman has used lies, sex and manipulation to get what she wants.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Some guys have done pretty well doing that. Yahtzee generally holds little back when reviewing games. I would think publishers hate him, lol.


More often, I notice that reviewers (and advocates in general) are willing to ignore a lot of production value issues with indie games. They refuse to even acknowledge them, and when confronted, always go back to the excuse "indie game". As if, being independent means you have to not hire that extra artist so your animations don't look like generic crap...

Actually a lot of them are being compensated as well. Microsoft and Sony both very clearly had social media programs for promoting the PS4 and One, and that's just the stuff that's easy to tell. There's a lot of "stealth marketing" and a lot of companies are exploiting popular social media people for it. But no doubt we'll have to put up with bombshells as people figure out "wait, this Youtube/Twitch/etc person that had a lot of popular products that they just happened to gush about, they had been given those products in exchange for promoting them?!?"

Yahtzee is a character, and while he likely does feel that way about the games, he's kinda more in line with stuff like AVGN than he is with normal mainstream game media. I also actually think publishers don't mind, as he's still promoting their stuff even if he trashes it (and since he trashes 99% of the games on there, generally with a lot of the same opinions/arguments it doesn't hurt their fanbase, I mean, Call of Duty still sells like crazy).

 

[Nebor]

I will say that the censorship surrounding this story across the internet is staggering. Entire subreddits were banned, auto-moderation wiped out any mention of her all over reddit, 4chan attempted to delete threads about her before the mods were overwhelmed, and only ONE news site with a story about this situation is still up. The other was 403'ed because someone complained to their host and their host took the site offline until the article is removed.

White knights and Social Justice Warriors all just need a thorough beating so they can perhaps remember what real life and hardship is about. Losers.