A 'GamerGate' Post-Mortem

I may have abstained from offering an opinion on last month's 'GamerGate' debacle at the time, but I did keep a close eye on events as they unfolded. It was like watching a car crash in slow motion, as complete strangers waged truly scathing wars of words on each other, spiraling rapidly downwards into unjustifiable obscenity. The actions of certain individuals; real-life threats, pedaling misogynist nonsense and spewing pointless bile onto forums and comments sections, were abhorrent.

But what started as a bitter argument surrounding an individual's alleged moral shortcomings quickly changed tack, pitting 'gamers' against journalists on the subject of industry ethics. I stayed out of it because I considered the entire premise of the argument to be flawed. Here's a few words on why. 

Firstly, I think the idea that 'gamers' can be identified as a single, gestalt entity is absurd. You can't throw casual onlookers who play an hour's FIFA a week in with mulit-platform veterans who live and breathe the culture, such as myself, notwithstanding the near-infinite shades of grey in between. Indeed, what we saw wasn't a coherent, identifiable community venting its spleen over years of perceived injustice, but keyboard warrior mob mentality, and en mass seduction by fashionable leftism. 

Secondly, the games industry is not, and never has been, the purely philanthropic enterprise some seem to think it should be. Yes, I've often lamented the fact that there's too much money in it now, but the fact is that we're walking down a one way street. The industry is not going to crash, shrink or regress back to more humble origins, but rather continue to grow for the foreseeable future The relationships between those who make, write about and sell games are as laced with avarice as they've always been. It's not ideal, or always in consumers best interests, but its the way things are. Furthermore, journalists and writers covering the work of developers with which they have a prior relationship will sometimes create a conflict of interests, but to presume that is always the case, or that repeated instances of doing so are part of some far-reaching conspiracy is, for lack of a better word, moronic.

My advice if you're concerned that your gaming media outlets of choice are not being forthright with you for the sake of maintaining good relations with contacts, or worse - direct financial gain, is to shop around. Take a meta approach; read around upcoming titles from a broad range of sources in print and online, including public forums - don't just stick to the IGNs and Gamespots of this world. YouTube channels such as The Cynical Brit or PewDiePie are excellent sources of impartial opinions, as are blogs, since we amatuers have nothing to lose by calling things as we see them.

As I predicted, now, a month or so later, we've returned to business as usual. Whether you choose to believe that's because there was no real case to answer in the first place, or if what maybe was initially a valid point got lost in the white noise of the ensuing unpleasantness, is up to you.