My conclusion: there is little to no evidence of the kind of collusion that was alleged by gamergate. Indeed, most of the corruption that was (and still is) out there was big name publishers inviting reviewers to lavish review events or blacklisting reviewers that give unfavorable scores - something gamergate seemed to care little about. Not an indie developer sleeping his/her way to the top.
Gamergate also seemed to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose and form of games criticism - frequently demanding "objective" reviews. As if that's something that's possible or even desirable in an artistic medium.
Finally, at some point the whole movement was co-opted by reactionary and conservative commentators whose agenda had nothing to do with gaming and everything to do with pushing traditional gender roles and anti-SJW mania. Basically the "PC police" complaints from 15 years ago transplanted into a new host community that was ripe for it.
Which is the majority of what I saw only weeks after the initial episode. Although it took the movement a few months before realizing that mainstream media outlets were going to lock step with the media outlets being criticized instead of independently researching at all. It's easier for me to cite a source that cites its sources than simply parrot them here [0] [1]. The blacklisting/censoring reviewers is also mentioned quite frequently ,on Twitter, at least. Not sure about on Deepfreeze.
>Gamergate also seemed to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose and form of games criticism - frequently demanding "objective" reviews. As if that's something that's possible or even desirable in an artistic medium.
There is a place for critics, who develop their palettes of tastes, and review games based on that. You can find a critic you tend to agree with and hold their opinions with more weight. The problem surfaces when the critics all have the same (social) biases and aren't reviewing the game itself so much as they are reviewing the game as a form of media from a social commentary slant. Especially when the community doesn't give a shit about the social commentary slant and wants to know about the game. (Which is why Gamergate quickly devolved into a culture war - which is when I stopped following the movement as closely.)
But I disagree with your second point. You can create an objectively bad and poorly designed game. Riddled with bugs with little to no thought of how game mechanics should interact with one another. Throw in a jarring, repetitive soundtrack and poorly written dialogue/story full of typos. If you were able to picture what would be considered a completely trash game with no redeeming factors - you're certainly capable of doing the opposite.
This will be my last post on HN regarding this thread. If you'd like to continue discussion (although discussion around #GG tends to be quite fruitless as anyone with an opinion on it has long since chosen their side) you're free to email me or contact me through any other means I list on my website, found on my profile.
The GameJournosPro mailing list and multiple articles with nearly identical spin coming out on the same day are pretty good evidence of collusion.
I strongly encourage anyone still interested in the topic to watch some of Christina Hoff Sommers videos about it. She demonstrates that it is possible to discuss the actual issues without demonizing one's opponents.
Cites needed. The only results claiming BLM-related arsons and riots are online zines known to be fronts for white nationalist movements.
Edit: As a followup, a number of white supremacists set fires and framed the BLM for those fires, but were subsequently caught and are in various stages of the criminal justice process.
If you want any sort of unbiased responses on this topic you can't look at it from afar or from responses (including mine) - it will actually require some independent research and a willingness to read both sides.