[Vastardikai]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD I dunno.

Reason why I'm asking is because from what I've seen, going strictly off of what I've seen, most, if not all, of the people getting doxed have been either female developers or critics of GG.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Like the obviously bought and paid for IGN, they're relatively benign compared to the judgmental, inflammatory sites we've focused on. While they're totally under the publisher's heels, I think people rather that than being called 'sexist racist misogynerds' for enjoying Bayonetta.

It can go either way on Bayonetta. On one hand, she's a powerful character. On the other, couldn't she be a powerful character with a less revealing outfit? I'm not saying put her in a burqa, but it's kind of ridiculous looking.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD But if it makes you feel any better, paid for reviews are in fact something GG dudes have touched on, including unearthing letters for Shadows of Morder's publisher asking YouTubers to present their game favorably under bane of DMCAs. These things will be approached, I imagine, but priorities priorities.

If anything, I'd say that's a bigger issue than who is fucking who or who is saying mean things about who. If that's the case, then I'd argue that GG has its priorities fucked up.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD - Game journalist don't seem to know what they're talking about anymore. Many previews and reviews use increasingly vague language and simple observations discussing games.

Reasonable point. The thing is, that's not a problem plaguing just video game journalists. Journalists in general go with simplified observations and vague language on issues that actually matter.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD - On top of this, they circumvent their decreasing focus on gameplay by speaking more about shit besides the point of the game. While this isn't a GG thing per se - I find these 'game critics' problematic only because they're slowly replacing actual game inspection.

If anything, I'd say this is a matter of personal preference. It'd hard to do a review of "Let's Be Cops", for instance, without discussing the context of what was going on at the time the movie hit theaters. That's a mileage may vary kind of thing.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD - These journalists then get access to preview events (E3, TGS, etc) while YouTubers and smaller sites/blogs who know a thing or two wait to break press releases after the fact. - Deeper into some preview events; publishers treating journalists like kings and leaning their play experience (ref: 'Vertical Slice', I think it's called).

Fair points here. I certainly have problems with these items. Angry Joe has also gone on about these issues in the past. The thing is, if this was brought up, instead of some of the stupid shit your cause does in fact go after, they would easily get more people on board with them. And again, these two issues aren't just issues with Video Game Journalists. Look at the White House Correspondence Club Dinner (or whatever the hell it's called) for a similar circle jerk between the media and the people they're supposed to be covering.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD - A cultural gulf between how IGN and Game Informer explores Western games versus Eastern games.

Again, I can understand that. That would actually make for an interesting topic of conversation. It's not something I fully understand, but that would be a compelling story. Much more than someone posting concerns about how a cause is going, followed by the cause proving her right less than an hour later.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD - Flimsy game analysis when playing games that are similar to other competitors. Back in the day an article would be free to mention Rock Band in a Guitar Hero article and vice versa - but that has slowed to a very noticeable point. Why do you think that is? - Editors placing just any writer on any game like their personal preferences mean dick. Kotaku's Patricia Hernandez covered Advanced Warfare. Comedy of the year.

Maybe that was accident, maybe that's design. Comedy of the Year, however, would have been me trying to review it. It probably would have been along the lines of "See last year's review. Also, the Military should probably go through other means to find new recruits."

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD - Game journalists not educating themselves on how to talk to Japanese developers. Often the culture distinction leads to unintentional laughs, other times it's awkward, and a few times it's borderline rude.

This is one that I haven't seen in more mainstream outlets, but I can see that as being an issue. Something else specific that GG could get behind, if it didn't com off as bitching about "SJWs."

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD - Turning back to journalists not knowing a damn thing anymore; many preview videos (>>>IGN<<<) seem to go out of their way to get people who just barely care about the game they're covering. IGN's a strange beast here because they do have people who know their shit. IGN has an unusually large fighting game base within their writer's, for instance. I suppose they could vet future writers on game preference to have a varied experience base but I won't hold my breath. - More but I forget right now.

And again, that would be a valid complaint. Gamepro wasn't much better back in the day, as far as their writing staffs being heavy into fighting games. At least then there was more mainstream fighting games. (hell, it's likely the same cast of clowns.)

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Now I've heard before this false choice of game sites who shill games versus sites who shill their political agendas, but I believe there's degrees. They can both exist, with happy mediums filling the mainstream void. Lots of sites I never visited before stepped up, but they have some ways to go before they can get the kind of access the chief offenders can get.

I understand your sentiment, but let's be honest. The point of reviews, be it movie, music, or games, is ultimately to shill the product they are reviewing. Sometimes, the political agendas help shape that shilling.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD I would suggest publishers remove the middle man altogether and provide preview builds and demos to the public each time they do for journalists. This would lessen the public worship of game writers' opinions and build a more informed consumer base all at once. Publishers can also go Nintendo's 'Direct' route, which some companies are already doing. These are basically video power points, but the longer, in-depth nature is far better than 2min CGI trailers.

On one hand, I like the idea. On the other, this could start boxing out smaller developers further as this could very easily become financially unfeasible.

But thank you on answering my questions. At least you are a bit more intellectually honest than many of the folks who attach themselves to your cause.

However, when Ms. Sarkeesan starts throwing out frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit attacking games, then talk to me about how she's Jack Thompson.