There is one thing that all this crap about gamergate and the gaming press has enlightened me to. The gaming press does not speak for me. A great majority of people with more disposable income than sense do not speak for me. I remember on some forums how some people went on about how great Gone Home was. I don't feel it was worth the damn price they were asking. Same with a ton of other games. It was better to wait for a sale or a humble bundle than shell out for what they were offering.

Sure it's good for the developer, but it ain't worth the asking price. I'm so tempted to just start reviewing games on my own and telling people what they are worth in my own humble opinion. I've known review sites have been shit way back ever since a game was rated poorly because the reviewer used a GameShark with a PS1 game and encountered bugs due to said device. That certain games weren't worth while because 'you went through the game too fast' when the person behind the review used god mode cheats to get through it. Quite frankly even with the new branding they are something I wouldn't trust with my time let alone for a determination before making a purchase.

Sure some privileged people may make enough that some of these games may be worthwhile. But I feel that my money is far more precious than to just burn on something I'd only play for 2 hours at most. Game journalism sites have failed their audiences and they do not deserve a minute of attention more than you would to a face book post involving a picture of an animal and a few lines of text.

However the press aren't failures in terms of sexism. Sure some of it seems to be exaggerated for clicks for those self serving caucasian centric establishments. But some seem valid.

I'm trying to look for a middle ground here between the two but all I can think is to look at the both of them and whisper, "Die".