[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by Vastardikai How many journalists have been doxed for reasons other than bitching about Gamergate?

I dunno.

Show me the big action you guys have planned against Game Informer, the video game review magazine run by a video game store.

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.

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.

Discuss a conflict of interest in video game journalism, besides Dorito-Gate, that has really eaten at you.

Me personally?

- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- A cultural gulf between how IGN and Game Informer explores Western games versus Eastern games.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.

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 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.

Anyway yeah, that's my beef with game journalists - if you meant me personally.