Quinn, published a blog post accusing Quinn of having an immoral relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson. This blog post was shared widely online using the hashtag #GamerGate, which led to a campaign of violent misogynistic harassment against Quinn - and all women who defended her. Perpetrators of the campaign argued they were promoting ethics in video game journalism. Yet in actuality, they were reacting against the influence of feminism and progressive social inclusion within video game culture – and using social media platforms to do so. This #GamerGate movement wouldn’t have gained such momentum


without social networks. As people became stuck inside social media echo chambers, it provided a breeding ground for virulent and destructive opinions of all kinds. For several industries, including video games, the destructive impact of this on everyone including players, creators, and developers, is colossal.


REVIEW BOMBING – A VEHICLE FOR CULTURAL CRITICISM? The use of online harassment in response to game launches has become increasingly common, and review pages have become a key vehicle for ferocious debates and open cultural criticism. For example, reviews of “Dragon Age: The Veilguard” released by


Bioware Studios in 2024, were dominated by an influential faction of players who rejected its inclusive approach to conversations around gender identity and sexual orientation. They posted a barrage of negative reviews on sites such as Metacritic.


By not requiring players to own or play the game before posting a review, Metacritic’s platform generated criticism grounded in cultural opinion, rather than gameplay experience. There are numerous 0/10 reviews from players featuring keywords aligned with this rhetoric: “woke”, “DEI” and “sexual ideology”, to name but a few. This technique, known as review bombing, dwarfs the presence of


professional gaming reviews with a massive influx of negative ratings based on a certain agenda – in this case, the criticism of LGBTQ+ inclusivity. So, what does this mean? While professional criticism was once the dominant form of critique,


this has been disrupted by the rise of influential online social media personalities. Often having audiences of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dedicated followers, they have become celebrities in their own right. But as independent creators led by their own agenda, they have no


duty towards journalistic ethics or unbiased reviews. Therefore, their influence when supported by a vocal community of followers can generate reviews entirely dominated by culture and ideology, rather than a balanced review based on a holistic assessment of a game’s quality. It’s a phenomenon that tends to undermine any game launch, and raises questions around the credibility of these judgements, which are often aggressive and unsubstantiated. Social media platforms, e.g. X, further encourage this polarisation


by creating algorithms that favour content which generates high engagement. Given more controversial posts are likely to drive higher


engagement, users are therefore motivated to post content that is as inflammatory or divisive as possible – adding fuel to the fire of an already toxic debate. The bottom line is


that if these people participate in a review bombing campaign, they have the power to inflict serious damage to a game’s launch. Given their influence online, these individuals arguably now have more swaying how a game is received than traditional, mainstream media.


BOYCOTTS AND BOMBARDMENT – AN INDUSTRY IN CRISIS The impact of cultural division within the video game industry should not be underestimated. Game developers not only have to consider profitability, safety and technical aspects – but now also the backlash and cultural criticism that they may receive at product launch and beyond. This is having a tangible effect on companies. For example, after mixed


sales results for “Dragon Age: The Veilguard” and intense criticism of the game, Bioware enacted a series of redundancies. The Korean producer of Stellar Blade released a corrective patch to slightly tone- down their heroine’s outfits and make them less provocative in response to widespread criticism from feminist activists. And in anticipation of negative reactions to the launch of Assassin’s Creed: Shadows, Ubisoft recommended that their employees did not publicise their place of work on social media to prevent cyberbullying and online hate. Clearly, the impact goes beyond just sales, instead determining all


aspects of a game’s development. Any cultural or societal backlash can not only damage a game’s financial success, but also negatively impact the reputation of a game’s developer, all while fundamentally damaging players’ perception, and enjoyment, of the game. In this context, many video game developers will ask themselves


whether integrating progressivism into their next game is worth it, or whether the economic risk is too great.


LOOKING FORWARD For now, the video games industry retains its identity as a forward- thinking leader in creative and technological ingenuity. But the bottom line is that cultural divisions will be, and already


are, slowing down progressiveness and inclusion within video games. There is a risk that companies will cease to experiment with progressive representation full stop if cultural backlash becomes too strong. In a world where cultural discussions are more likely to take the form


of a heated clash rather than a measured conversation, it’s unrealistic to hope the video games industry would remain unscathed. However, we cannot let vocal minorities inhibit progress – the video games industry must be allowed to flourish and continue to fulfil its promising potential for growth.


April/May 2025 MCV/DEVELOP | 39


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54