No, just no. It was about the world’s worst ex-boyfriend riling up a hate mob. The “ethics in journalism” pretext was adopted to deflect criticism but it was always a shameful disservice to anyone who legitimately cared about the issue. Among other things, note how the hate was focused on a few women who were not journalists and how frequently the attackers denied that harassment was even happening: if their concern was journalistic ethics, they’d have focused on actual journalists and been quick to condemn the attackers who were making their cause look bad. If you wanted to tackle the issues of reviewers being too friendly with the producers, you’d be looking at the major studios who produce most of the games - not an indie developer and someone who never reviewed her game.

All I know is, if the pitchforks and torches mob went after the gaming press for some indie title instead of decades of bending backwards for EA and the the rest of the AAA’s, it sounds like a pretty crummy misprioritized mob.

Exactly - it’s like finding some guy on the street corner ranting about executive compensation versus worker pay and then learn that he’s talking about the local coffee shop whose owner takes home $80k rather than, say, the Walmart down the road.

To make things worse, it wasn't even "80k".

Depression Quest was a free game.

Definitely - I was just trying to capture the staggering difference in scale where it affects one person in a tiny corner of the industry.

Agreed that the hate campaign against indie devs was harassment and uncalled for, and agreed that the movement was largely trash, but you're skimming over a few details that I think are relevant.

A minority of the voices there were criticisms being levelled against Kotaku and IGN across the whole affair, as well as the whole on-site review fiasco. However I tend to refer to that as "pre-gamergate" since this was out there before the Brianna Wu stuff iirc.

Also the responsibility to do good journalism lies with the journalist and their publication, not the game company (the game company cannot objectively cover their own game anyhow). That was a mistake the gamergaters made a lot, and further damaged their credibility.

> Also the responsibility to do good journalism lies with the journalist and their publication, not the game company (the game company cannot objectively cover their own game anyhow). That was a mistake the gamergaters made a lot, and further damaged their credibility.

There’s definitely room to blame both - just as it’s wrong to offer a bribe even if it’s not accepted - but I think it was quite telling how the mob just wasn’t interested in that. There’s probably an interesting story about power gradients and how large companies can manipulate reviews to their advantage by withholding access - similar to how the car review industry works - but it just wasn’t what people were there for.

Objectively the overwhelming majority was not "trash". However, the public at large involved in inventing that label, including you, are trash for categorizing a huge group of people that way without checking if it was true. Luckily, i checked.

>However, the public at large involved in inventing that label, including you, are trash for categorizing a huge group of people that way without checking if it was true

I watched the whole thing happen, on social media - what do you mean "without checking"? I didn't come into this late like you say you did.

If you're implying the ethics violations was the centre focus, then that's not true at all once the focus shifted. Everything related to Brianna Wu and related parties was completely out of pocket from the gamergaters.

>Luckily, i checked.

How? You're asserting I'm stating a falsehood and that you confirmed its a falsehood, but you provide no citations or links. That's shoddy journalism. ;)

That is incorrect and it is obvious you never actually bothered to look at the places you're making things up about. You and/or the articles the read those things from are straight up lies, and it's impossible for you to convince me otherwise because i was there, saw what was being discussed and written day in and day out constantly being completely contradicted by journalists straight up lying to cover their jobs. You read the articles, didn't check, and got taken for a ride.

I also saw it unfold and used that as the basis for my post. I’m not surely what meaning you hope to derive from continuing to pretend that story is true but I hope you find some greater meaning in life than defending an old lie.

I can say the exact same to you since you're just outright lying.