Let me say this. In my general definition of journalism, I include critics just as I include opinion columnists. If you are going to write full time about a topic, I consider you similar to a journalist. Especially when the topic in question is reviews. Was Roger Ebert a journalist? I see his role as very similar to Anita's. As a critic, one certainly has a role as media. You can play the word game all you want, but its deceptive to paint GG as bigoted by claiming criticism of Anita is contrary to the goal of ethics in journalism. Maybe the better term should be ethics in media, but at the time, the principals all fit in the smaller category of journalists.

As to what HTown wants it a review, I completely disagree. I don't want reviewed filled with any propaganda and bias the author wishes to convey just for the sake of entertainment. You keep bringing up ethical standards but seriously. How do you defend writing reviews of your roommate's game? How do you defend extra-positive comments and highlighting your friend's game (and future lover if not already)?

The problem most people have is this: We see these reviews of games like Depression Quest, gushing over it, claiming its great, the next wave of gaming. Awesome story, cute pictures, the whole nine yards...and I can accept much of this if you actually believe this, but then where is the mention the game lasts 10 minutes top? Where is the mentions that the game is really an ABCDE choose your own adventure?

This is what I want out of "objective". The reviewer, using one's own perspective to honestly review the games. The part where I find the ethics lacking is in the "honesty" part, the "objective" part. It pretty easy to see in many of these reviews how they appear to intentionally gloss over the negatives in favour of the positives. How they nitpicks over every little thing that might be considered good about a game, yet somehow inexplicably omit the very obvious flaws.

I read very well-done Christian movie reviews. These reviews describe the movie from a Christian perspective. Gives the goods, the bads, etc. It is a much different review than a normal critic, yet it can also be considered "objective" or "honest". The problem with many of these game reviews is that they don't come off as honest. The writers come off as shills for the developers, ad-men in a sense. Why not let the developers write their own reviews, if you are going to let their close friends write one for them? It would be almost as bad if say the Boston Globe were to let Brianna Wu write her own article about her own harassment. Oh wait, my mistake, that did happen. Journalistic ethics anyone?

1.Yes
2.As long as there is no intention of wrongdoing on the journalists' part.
3.They needn't; and they can choose not to. But most gaming journalists also do critical content.
4.As long as the journalist is making money off the audience; he /she MUST respect them. That is a given in the code of ethics as such: '' Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage''. This point comes naturally anyway. A journalist who does not respect their audience will soon have none.
5.As long as it is mentioned that it is a separate part independent of the critique. A review is meant to be objective; or at least free from pollutants. It should be a mix of what the critic feels about the game and how objectively good a game's measurable facets are (ie; graphics, framerate, voice acting, writing). When it crosses the line into something where there is no correct answer; and the critic writes his/her version of the answer; there must be disclosure as such. A few clips from the ethics code :
1.Label advocacy and commentary
2.Never deliberately distort facts or context (not talking about Sarkeesian)
3.Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant
4.Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do
5.Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
6.Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
7.Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
8.Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
9.Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
10.Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility

Isn't it amazing how one can actually have profound ethical disagreements, yet discuss them rationally - well... mostly ;) - without condescension, and insincerity. Respect is such a magic sauce...

This is what I've always noticed from KiA, but never from the organized opposition. I remember way back when Anita said "If you care about ethics in journalism, get out of GG", yet NEVER was there any discussion about the topic. If you try and bring it up, even divorced from GG, you will be laughed at. Really worries me, especially because one of my professors is teaching a gaming journalism class next semester, and he seems to be very far down the hole of "Blaming GG for all the problems the gaming industry has".

I have honestly learned a lot from reading threads and seeing how people tackle points. That's what GG means to me. An understanding of ethical behavior, the nature of censorship, and those who are far too emotionally inclined to be talking about either.

Wait, stop, in what way is feminism and inclusivity anti-capitalist?
An equal opportunity but completely capitalist society, even more than our own, isn't hard to imagine - Ayn Rand was a woman after all!

Also sexualisation and objectification are not the same thing either, going back to what I was saying a couple of pages back - I actually wonder how much strife could be avoided if people on both sides knew the difference and were clear about how they felt about both things, separately...

Actually Feminism and being PC are LIBERAL political stances, to an American like you, you probably think that 'Liberal' and 'Left' are the same thing because you have 2 parties and your liberal party is to the left of your conservative party but that's a skewed viewpoint because you have no SOCIALIST party over there - in the true political spectrum of the world, liberals are right slap bang in the middle and are in no way anti-capitalist

Note I called myself a 'leftie' before - I, personally am a bit to the left of liberals, I'm not a full on communist or anything, I'm a floating voter between our liberal and socialist parties over here (saying that our socialist party - 'Labour' have come so far into the middle since Blair that they're virtually the same thing anyway)

I always read about objectification.

1. Video game characters are objects. Period.

2. Which is better?:

A) Traditional female fictional characters:
Being objectified as a valuable trophy for which someone needs to prove his worthiness and which does not have to make it's hands dirty in any kinds of fight and therefore does not have to spoil its innocense

or

B) Traditional male fictional characters:
Being objectified as either dispensable trash for which nobody cares if it and all it's siblings die over and over again in various ways or the hero having to taint his innocence by fighting those in order to prove himself worthy of the innocent trophy which just has to wait and gets everything served.

I wonder....

That's very debatable, care to elaborate how you got to this conclusion?
I'd actually say that rather the opposite is the case.
Maybe I'm playing different games, but for decades now, female characters in role playing games, point'n'click adventures and even first person shooters have just as much personality as the male ones, in adventures usually even more, just look at Guybrush and Elaine or (dickbrain)-Larry and his girls, Nina and Max from Secret Files 1+2, George and Nicole in Broken Sword etc... the males are usually either bland templates or deliberately ridiculous while the females have personalities.
And look at Deponia, Rufus is a weak selfish coward and nothing else (just like Guybrush, Larry, Max, etc...) while his ex is a bit more and Goal even gets 3 personalities (spoiler, sorry).

while it is true that fleshed out male chars are more prominent than female, this probably has something to do with the hardcore market still being about 7/1 gender ratio. And fleshed out is not always strengthening. Many fleshed out males are actually dark and grim.

and here's a kicker: guys like looking at girls in very little clothing and can still respect them as full human beings. Men are not all monstrous morons. Most can find something sexy and still respect it very well. Just like girls can look at dem abs and dat butt without degrading the observed male subject to nothing but a sexual object.

i can somewhat understand the irritation, but its not correct to asume that objectification=1/amount of clothing.

Yeah, I think you might be playing different games, yes!
Could it be that you're a cool and groovy guy with a cool and groovy taste in games who's reacting badly to being told that games aren't cool and groovy? That would be ironic!
No - I think we're mainly talking about the biggest, highest profile games that make the most money but also cost the most money to make, the 'AAA' games, who's protagonists are wall-to-wall shaving stubble white guys with brown hair - your CoDs and your Gears of War, GTA 5 has 3 protagonist and they're all male (while Saints Row let's you make your own char either gender or something in between) Hitman, Splinter Cell, Max Payne yadda yadda yadda!

Thanks, well maybe my horizon is a bit different than the average 16yo gamer who seems to be the target for the big companies.
People always forget, that the big companies are only making a small fraction of the games that are available and if they try to sell to a specific audience, it's their right to do this by appealing to them, there is enough choice elsewhere.

I really like Hitman 1+2, Max Payne 1+2 and played through Splinter Cell 1+2 and don't see any gender problems there.
Hitman is playing in a quite realistic mafia/corp business world that is mostly dominated by men, such circles are usually way behind the rest of the world when it comes to the important things.
Max Payne has a really tough female character in the game that is even superior to Max, making her playable instead of him would be cool, but since it's a linear comic-like story, it would be another game since they would have to alter so much that it would destroy the story. Maybe they'll make a game with this character at some point.
Splinter Cell lacks female victims because... well we all know what happens when you treat female foes the same way you treat male foes "Violence against women! This must be banned!" at least some hypocritical countries have this sexist problem. I'm looking at you, Australia!

Role playing games as well as hack'n'slash games usually treat all genders equally in every way, you can play and kill them just alike and it's only a matter of time when someone attacks Fallout for being able to blow off hundreds of female heads and stab them when they are already dead just the same as you can do with men in every other game. I'm sure some are offended by this although you can even do this as a virtual woman (that somehow doesn't have any menstruation at all, but I complained about this lack of realism elsewhere already).
Obviously, role playing games are too complex for the average 16yo anyway and are not as important, good for me.

As a rather small, muscular, bearded dude with incredibly long blonde hair, maybe I'm supposed to feel underrepresented in games but I never thought about this to be honest and don't see any reason to do so, maybe because the characters in my games are either low-res, inhuman or invisible (first person) anyway.

don't forget there is a lady killed perk you can get! (nevermind that there exist the same one for female characters for both men and women)

The fact that people can bash a game with a linear story because it doesn't have a female protagonist is ludicrous. Al linear story in a game means THE CHARACTER HAVE SET PERSONALITIES AND GENDERS. Its like making a Sherlock Holmes game and giving the player an option to choose between a male and female Holmes. And since the characters already have set personalities; there is equal detachment for everyone from the character because a persons' personality is more likely to resonate or not resonate than a stupid factor like gender. Here; a very sensitive and empathetic male player may find it more difficult to relate to Trevor than an non-empathetic female player. You are basically taking a part of what makes us who we are (taking ONE thing out of empathy; sympathy; world views; experiences; gender etc) and saying that one factor alone will ruin the experience for female players. This is ludicrous; as its implying females have nothing more to them than their gender.

GG started as a single issue gaming journalism ethics phenomenon, but as you have pointed out it (perhaps inadverently or by manipulation) has expanded its "constituency" to include other issues such as taking a stand against the attempts to deconstruct and destroy gaming and render gamers null and void. The fact that it is able to change while still maintaining it's original purpose (while many predicted it would not last) is testament to it's success. It is a shame about the name ... oh well!

pro-gaming pro-movies pro-tv anti-gaming anti-movies anti-tv

Perhaps you can start by telling me what you think they mean and we can take it from there?

Yeah, it's a nice change. Let's hope it lasts.

man you guys are really hardcore ab out this shit
is there a good idiots guide to #Gamergate for dummies to get hip to this scenario?