Poll: Frokane's views on the current state of gaming (journalism included)

[Frokane]

Hey, I'm a gamer, and I'm seeing my beloved hobby being turned into this massive war of politics and ethics, so here's my frank veiws on the whole thing.

Are you Anti GG or GG?

I dont know and I dont care, Its too much to read, I got about 2 and half videos into the 'quinnspiracy' before just getting insanely bored, Ive played about 6 PC games and 4 indie games in my entire lifetime, so it was hard for me to get invested in the score of depression quest or whatever.

But you are missing the point its not just about zoe and anita its about game journalism as a whole, and how game reviews can be influenced by corrupt means...Thoughts?


My thoughts are that game journalism has been fucked for a while, remember colonial marines? that sure got hyped didnt it? I would say the journalism failed there, with zero input from quinn or any feminist input.
GTA 5? IGN and a few other sites gave it a 10/10 before even playing it because they 'knew it was going to be great' thats fair right?? feminist input? Zero
Donkey Konga's stupidly high score?
Halo 3 having a post 'hype' review about 5 months after it came out by xbox magazine
critics panning DMC reebot because of a protagonist's hair colour?
this has been going on for years, I take reviews with a pinch of salt, as should everybody.

So you have no issue with Anita Sarkeesian then?

Purely on her videos, I agree with some points about slightly old and worn out gender stereotypes and a slightly rigid mold for hero archetypes, I think gaming could use a bit of a fresh look when the next generation of games is made if done correctly.
and even without her input I'm getting sick of being told that 'cool' is having a gravelly voice, scars and mysterious past, usually with a rock/metal soundtrack and long coat included, I dont need a feminist to point that out.
Do I agree with everything she says? no, probably not even half of it, she doesn't research the games she reviews properly (bayonetta a single mother WTF?)And she doesnt seem to know the difference between a sex object and a sex worker. So like with anything else I take it all with a pinch of salt. Is she corrupt? probably, but it has little impact on me, she gets to talk shit about games I may like, but then so does 90% of this forum and I don't send death threats to yall.

So you are fine with the state of gaming as it is then?

No not all, state of gaming sucks, everything is COD, Forza and Assassins Creed, all the Triple A games since the new consoles came out have been disappointing to downright horrible. Nintendo isnt making enough games quick enough. JRPGS have been fewer and further between. The Meta community in competitive games are still as anal and salty as ever. I miss the PS1 days, the Gamecube days, the Sega Dreamcast days, hell I'm even starting to miss the PSP. The state of gaming has changed for the worst, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to give up on it jussst yet.
But none of that above has anything to do with feminism.


Just out of interest, are you a feminist?

I'm not sure, I mean I believe in equal rights for women, but I don't believe in positive discrimination. I.E. we should get the same opportunities but you can pay for your half of the dinner bill, and ask for my number and ask me out on a date once in a while etc....
In terms of gaming, like i said, a feminist attacking a game i love might be annoying but not as annoying as a homophobic government in Asia banning Mass Effect 1 because of 'Gay Sex', dont ban my games and we will be cool.

So what do you think gamers should do?

Focus on playing and supporting, well made interesting games, so we can have thing maybe just a little like we used to. I honestly think if we had better games then 50% of the people raging on twitter would have better things to do....like playing games.

*braces self*

 

[Jarek Mace]

Did you really just compare colonial marines hype not living up to expectations to sexual bribery within a supposedly professional industry?

... One was a case of good marketing for a bad game which everyone realised was a bad game upon release, the other was bad reviewers playing a bad game and being aware of it being bad but saying it was good because they ended up with a damp sausage at the end of it. In fact, many of the examples you listed aren't cases of corruption, anymore than they are a case of bad journalism.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I think a big problem with the gaming community is everyones too critical of everything. Theres so much negativity that it really gets you down sometimes, everyones shitting on CoD and AssCreed etc, without taking into account that on the whole, those games are actually pretty good. Everyone focuses on the bad without addressing the good side of things. Every year theres someone announcing how that year was the worst ever for gaming, or that gaming has officially died or some crap like that.

 

[cleric of the order]

Lad you said a lot of ...something but I know that feel.
in simple terms i just don't care about the AAA industry because ever since the last generation i switched to old pc and indie games.
I can however saythis.
Anita says nothing, from an academic prospective she is a liar, a plagiarist and shits on social sciences.
She also does not understand the unconscious mind, sexual dimorphism and is an ingenious con artist, got to give the woman that. she knows how to present herself. though her head writer mcintosh is a manic, jack Thompson is actually better then them.
I'll give you credit though op, positive discrimination is a type of idea i have no heard in a bit, along with benevolent racism and sexism, you've got a good head on your shouldars if you understand those terms.
But frankly I'm really sick if either your a feminist or you hate women.
Third wave has done a bunch of nothing.
On the game journos one i address gamers are over, those things are horrible.
I understand the board in the qiunncarcy but that doesn't really matter it was closer to black hand incident in ww1, we caught wind of someone doing some bad shit and all of the hate for games journos came tumbling down in it. also, fucking Streisand effect.
What capped everything off was the gamers are dead and then the shit storm moved on.
I suggest sargons why gamers had to die videos were he examines one of the most quoted academic papers on the subject.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Game journalism has been in the shitter for years. I don't even read any previews or reviews of games anymore. I have a few reviewers that I feel actually give an honest opinion, and I'll check out their reviews occasionally. I can almost always tell if I'll like a game from a full mission walkthrough where I get to see most (if not all) of the gameplay mechanics in play.

Just look at FFXIII Metacritic reviews for proof that professional game reviewers are all basically one hive mind and you get almost the same exact opinion from every reviewer. There's only ONE negative review for FFXIII and, of course, it's from Jim Sterling. I'm not saying FFXIII is a bad or good game but it is definitely a love it or hate it type game and there's only one negative review, something is very wrong with that. Or read Greg Tito's review of GTAV, it's obvious that he didn't enjoy the game much but still gives it a 7/10.

Just taking a peek at this Witcher thread on the Escapist [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.866889-What-do-you-have-against-The-Witcher-series], there seems to be many people who don't like the series for very valid reasons. Yet there's no negative reviews for Witcher 2 on Metacritic. I read a bit of the thread because I thinking I might try Witcher 3 even though I haven't played the others, but I don't think that I will from reading through the negatives of series. Plus, I'm so tired of medieval fantasy games anyways that the game has to be really, really good for me to enjoy that setting.

In any other medium, it's EXTREMELY rare that something scores an average of 9/10 or higher across critics, yet it happens much more frequently in video games. Hell, it's a great feat to have 90% of critics like a certain work. For example, Guardians of the Galaxy has a 90% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes but on overall score of just a 7.7/10. If Guardians was a game, it would be at like a 95/100 overall and the one 7/10 review would be getting hated on by gamers for being wrong and dismissed as just being there as click bait.

I'm in no way saying game reviewers are corrupt and being paid off; they may be but I really don't care. I do believe game reviewers have merged into one hive mind that I feel is mainly their own doing. I think game reviewers try to objectively rate games instead of subjectively. For example, if a gameplay mechanic works, then it's good to them regardless of whether they actually like or dislike said mechanic thus you see almost all games having reviews sharing basically the same exact opinion, +/-0.5 so your review seems unique.

 

[Atmos Duality]

OP: A reasonable take, much of which I agree with.

Spoiler: My Take, WARNING: LONG

This year was the year I really stopped giving a shit about what the gaming press ("journalists") had to say because of most of the issues you touch upon. When they aren't shilling for some big publisher, they're engaging in gender politics, and when they aren't doing that they're complaining about how "toxic" gaming has become, all while ironically ignoring their own major contributions to the same problem.

Actual game discussion largely doesn't take place now unless it's controversial (or appears controversial).
The biggest, most discussed stories are now more about figures and people making foolish statements in public than any statements about the games themselves. Which leads me to conclude that the news is now more about attention whoring than discourse or reporting, which sadly makes sense since their dime is turned on hits and exposure.

Small wonder that figures like Sarkeesian are on a hair-trigger to shout to the world about their latest bout of harassment or idle, anonymous threats made against them, and yet remain completely averse to the idea of refuting even the most basic criticism of what is supposedly their core work.
It demonstrates an attitude less concerned with the integrity of their work, and more about undermining the integrity of their opposition to make their work seem credible by comparison (the hallmark of cultural con-artists, or "politicians" as I call them).

There has been so much mudslinging, hypocrisy and genetic fallacy thrown around that nobody walked away clean; even if they didn't say or do anything to warrant it. Notice how quickly we went from "Gaming is art" and "Gaming is for everyone" to "Gamers are dead" (and its not-so-subtle subtext of "Gaming is for everyone ELSE now")?

I'm still stunned at the insane stupidity of "game journalists" complaining about "toxicity" even as they constructed a narrative of contempt aimed squarely at their own audiences; demonizing the most basic term of "gamer" by invoking EXTREMELY broad genetic fallacy.

Well, I wasn't alone in thinking that an act of supreme idiocy, because those wretched articles spawned an even -MORE- polarizing, controversial response in the form of GamerGate.

And the sick irony is: I can't even "discuss" GamerGate properly here, because more than ANY OTHER subject or "event" in gaming history, GamerGate is so toxic and polarizing that it just REFUSES to be "discussed". As a subject, GG is transcendent aether waiting to be shaped by will and whim alone. By that, I mean GamerGate seems to be "about" whatever the person talking claims GG is "about".

"It's a misogynistic harassment group!"
"It's about exposing corruption in games journalism!"
"It's a consumer walk-out!"

And that's truly awful because many legitimate problems surrounding GG SHOULD be discussed and addressed.
But no, it devolved into further toxic, political mudslinging and smears (I remember the not-at-all subtle "commentary" on GamerGate in mid-October); this was real "brother against brother" stuff, where issues surrounding GG could not be addressed without paradoxically trying to distance themselves from GamerGate. (wrap your head around that one)

It placed the phrase "echo chamber" into contention with "entitlement" for being one of the most tortuously overused and misused phrases this year. (not that entitlement needed any help; people have been shorthanding it to mean its own antonym since the ME3 controversy, and no, "evolution of language" is not a valid excuse for exactly that reason. Slang and lingo is one thing, but once you start undermining elementary definitions, well, that's just plain stupidity.)

Even looking broader, despite all the subtext of gaming being "for everyone", it's more stagnant than ever. Lowest common denominator productions continue to absolutely dominate AAA's offerings, but alas, the tragedy remains: by aiming to please everyone, AAA stagnates even further and pressures the market further away from nuance and niche; making it a paradox in practice.
Next-gen gaming's biggest and best offerings all had the flavor and excitement of starchy-paste; Watch Dogs, Titanfall, and Destiny all did well commercially, but good sales figures alone does not a great game make.

But hey, if all this gender politicking takes off, we can look forward to more politically correct versions of the same boring tripe, restricting game design even FURTHER! Hooray! More stagnation in the name of "diversity"!

... One was a case of good marketing for a bad game which everyone realised was a bad game upon release, the other was bad reviewers playing a bad game and being aware of it being bad but saying it was good because they ended up with a damp sausage at the end of it. In fact, many of the examples you listed aren't cases of corruption, anymore than they are a case of bad journalism.

Well, I suppose from the producer's perspective, "Bait-and-switch with clause" can be considered "Good marketing".

I'm not going to mince words here, A:CM's was blatant false advertising, and the only reason it didn't go to court is because we live in a world insane enough to accept bullshit disclaimers as a perfectly valid defense.

There's a very real difference between advertising that says "Here is our product, this is what it can do" and "Here is our product, this is what it MIGHT do if we actually give a damn."

Ultimately, it doesn't matter; exploiting consumer ignorance only works if they aren't aware of what they're missing and in A:CM's case, people fucking knew. They can only exploit consumer trust so much before they walk out.

 

[laggyteabag]

I love gaming, but I hate the gaming industry.

I was reading this article on PC Gamer earlier where it is talking about how Ian Livingstone said that "this is gaming's second golden age" and I burst out laughing. He pointed out that games are easier to make than ever, and they are easier to distribute than ever, and those points are both true, but that doesn't mean that they are both good.

Games are easier to make than ever, and that is great, but with the rise of services such as Steam and their early-access platform, it has just become so easy to make a bearbones game, make empty promises, and then throw it on Steam, charge £15 for it, and do nothing with it ever again. The same can also be said for shovelware from years ago that just gets dumped on Steam for little to no reason. Digital distribution can be a great thing though, and if it means that we no longer have to jumps through a retail shop's many hoops made up of loyalty cards and promotions just so that we can buy a game, then the industry becomes better off for it.

But the problem is much larger than just those two things. Gaming right now in terms of AAA is just a mess. We have games that are rushed out too early and then patched down the line, we have this silly pre-order culture where even if you go out and buy a copy of a game for full price, you aren't even getting the full game, we are getting sequels after sequels for game franchises that don't deserve them, and we are getting more and more re-releases for games that only came out a couple of years ago.

Then when we get to the journalism side of things. There are YouTube channels that are doing promotions of games, but aren't disclosing them well enough (I recognise that this isn't their fault), and even when it comes to coverage for games, companies can't even talk very much about their games at expos and conferences, NDAs are everywhere, and any information that we do get is hyped up and up by journalism sites that end up making the game impossible to meet expectations.

If this is a golden age, then what the hell are rough times?

 

[Haerthan]

Did you really just compare colonial marines hype not living up to expectations to sexual bribery within a supposedly professional industry?

... One was a case of good marketing for a bad game which everyone realised was a bad game upon release, the other was bad reviewers playing a bad game and being aware of it being bad but saying it was good because they ended up with a damp sausage at the end of it. In fact, many of the examples you listed aren't cases of corruption, anymore than they are a case of bad journalism.

Let me guess you also don't believe that publishers can't corrupt the gaming journalists.
So let me get this out of the way: THERE WAS NO REVIEW OR GOOD PRESS FOR ZOE QUINN OR HER GAME. The only thing that was even about her between Nathan Grayson or her was a MENTION IN AN ARTICLE about a failed Game Jam or something like that.

This is why most people won't take you seriously, because you keep parroting the same BS over and over. Especially new evidence came to light that completely contradicts you

PS: You in this case means in general GGers, not you personally.

Also the publishes have a FAR MORE HIGHER ABILITY to damage gaming. Let us see: pre-order culture up the wazoo, influencing Gaming journalists with gifts and ad revenue, REVIEW EMBARGOES. Indie developers have NOWHERE NEAR THE ability that publishers have when it comes to influencing gaming journalism. Everybody with a comprehensive look at the history of gaming can notice that.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Actually, SEGA did go to court over Aliens: Colonial Marines. Its still on-going, in fact. SEGA and Gearbox turned on each other back in September, throwing each other to the wolves.

http://kotaku.com/the-legal-battle-over-aliens-colonial-marines-just-got-1630197749

http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/3/6102035/sega-gearbox-lawsuit-aliens-colonial-marines

And here's a very nice timeline that Polygon set up regarding articles about the ongoing lawsuit:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/3/6103199/aliens-colonial-marines-lawsuit

Its a shame how long this is taking, but at the same time, I'm glad that the people remaining in the lawsuit are sticking to their guns. This is a way to send the message that this shit won't be tolerated.

[sub]Or at least it would, if enough people participated in the lawsuit to make SEGA and/or Gearbox feel the heat, but seeing as the game still managed to sell over a million copies by the end of April, even with the shittiness of the game being leaked days before release, I doubt that any real lesson will be learned here. Enough people were fine with being fed slop, it seems.[/sub]

I'm well aware of those lawsuits, but that's not quite what I meant.

-WE- (as consumers) have no real legal recourse when companies pull bait-and-switch like this, unless it comes from other big companies (case in point). We don't really have any chance in a court of law individually, class-action suits have been negated entirely now (for better AND worse, I know), so individual disputes are handled through arbitration now which will always favor the bigger dog.

This time around, we got lucky on a technicality and SEGA was at least smart enough to realize the horrific damage Gearbox did to the value of their Aliens License; so they actually bothered to take it to court. But even that might not hold up (as your own sources indicate; Gearbox was contracted and SEGA signed off on the final product).

The stars effectively had to align to even get that case into court; consumers (the people that really got fucked by the bait-and-switch) had no real say or power to go that far. All we did was complain. A LOT.

Though that's why I maintain that the only sensible option is to openly distrust companies' claims and wait (something I've maintained for years). I don't like it, but it's the best option we have.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I don't care about GamerGate. If I was forced to give an opinion at gunpoint, I'd call it an over-heated internet slap-fight that is ultimately inconsequential.

People who treat it as 'the most important thing in games journalism' sound incredibly naive too. If you ever doubt games reviews, then well done, you just solved yourself having to participate in that mess. If you don't, just take a look at the gamespot Kane & Lynch 1 review controversy, and you're golden.

I only ever trust a select few reviewers, all of whom are independent to one degree or another. This entire thing was a waste of time in my opinion, only elevated in importance because it has hurt the community at large.

As for the state of gaming, it doesn't take much to say why it is, as far as I'm concerned, great.
Why? Old-guard business practices are crumbling, AAA publishers are getting called out for manipulating audiences, we have enough games now to suit every palate out there, we are growing as a community, great games get released every year, and game prices are getting more and more competitive across platforms. More games are getting ported to PC, and a lot of Japanese ports are done really well. VR is on the horizon, more and more people are getting into gaming due to how abundant and accessible it has become, and now we have entire games funded by community donations.

Gaming's great. I don't know why people say otherwise.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

I don't care about GamerGate. If I was forced to give an opinion at gunpoint, I'd call it an over-heated internet slap-fight that is ultimately inconsequential.

People who treat it as 'the most important thing in games journalism' sound incredibly naive too. If you ever doubt games reviews, then well done, you just solved yourself having to participate in that mess. If you don't, just take a look at the gamespot Kane & Lynch 1 review controversy, and you're golden.

I only ever trust a select few reviewers, all of whom are independent to one degree or another. This entire thing was a waste of time in my opinion, only elevated in importance because it has hurt the community at large.

As for the state of gaming, it doesn't take much to say why it is in fact great.
Why? Old-guard business practices are crumbling, AAA publishers are getting called out for manipulating audiences, we have enough games now to suit every palate out there, we are growing as a community, great games get released every year, and game prices are getting more and more competitive across platforms. More games are getting ported to PC, and a lot of Japanese ports are done really well. VR is on the horizon, more and more people are getting into gaming due to how abundant and accessible it has become, and now we have entire games funded by community donations.

Gaming's great. I don't know why people say otherwise.

Yea. Good point.

I think what people really don't like is that people seem overly negative about everything. That can be funny, as with Yahtzee's skits, but when your like that with everything. Complaining, hating, criticizing everything, it can get really draining.

If people were more positive about games, then I think these kind of internet slap fights would slow down.

 

[Dizchu]

I'm neutral on Gamergate at the moment. I used to be in support of it but over time they just became harder and harder to take seriously. I sympathise with their legitimate concerns but they're really just raging against a machine that isn't really a machine and because they've dehumanised their opposition so much, they do come off as inconsiderate too often for me to feel comfortable with. Sure, they're not a "harassment campaign" but as a movement they're pretty clumsy, which is to be expected with a revolt that's so ill-defined and emotionally charged.

Games journalism has tons of problems but I think that Gamergate has made a botched job of addressing them.

Oh look, a video talking about ethics in games journalism! Lets see how many views it has!

> 30,000

Well, I'm sure it just has that few because its a new video. After all, with so many concerned about ethics in games journalism, there surely must be a demand for this type of discussion, right?

> Published on May 15, 2014

x.x

Well its all just relative to his general view count, right? I bet a video he made two weeks ago probably only has like five thousand views.

> Anti-War War Games, 36,000 views, published December 4th, 2014
only that actually happened, you might have a point.

I love Super Bunnyhop and I remember when this controversy was still starting, I hoped he wouldn't get dragged into this whole mess.

It turns out he actually made one of the best "Gamergate" videos (though it had nothing to do with Gamergate as a hashtag and everything to do with its supposed concerns). The fact that he interviewed an actual journalist while condemning the overreaction to Zoe Quinn shows that he takes this seriously. I love the guy and it sucks that he doesn't get as many views as he should. He clearly is more in-the-know about ethical issues than most other people, pro- or anti-Gamergate (or neutral/indifferent, an often overlooked group).

It does reassure me that he's getting noticed by at least some people though.

 

[Dizchu]

Do you know which video this is? I've looked through his entire video library on Youtube, but I can't see anything that seems to be along those lines.

Here you go. The title's a little vague but it covers the ground that I mentioned.

Yeah, even though I have a lot of different tastes than he does, his opinion is always something worth hearing. Also, his interviews are awesome. I particularly appreciated his interview with Mike Bithell, got me hyped for Volume.

I liked his interview with Steve Gaynor because I just find his thought process fascinating. I was at a talk with him in Nottingham and he really emphasised the minimalism that led to Gone Home. A game that frustratingly gets a lot of flack from GG because a few reviewers gave it glowing reviews.

 

[Redd the Sock]

It was pretty much that game "journalism" had always sucked that made the original Quinspiracy interesting to follow. I think they knew most of the rest of the issues, particularly about publisher control over reviews and promotion, so while they couldn't publicly stand against it, they never stopped the theories. Most of us are aware that they are more than anything, just bloggers with the great internet career of going "you want to know what I think" and did little to no interviews, research or anything else to improve accuracy in opinion pieces or tabloid level stories, so seeing how the press behaved was interesting. Sadly both side went overboard into trying to "win" gaming by making the other side seem 10x worse than Hitler, and the amusement factor to that has long passed. The issues persist and even have been made worse as biases are now proudly worn on sleeves with very little sense that we can share the playground.

And I can't say I didn't see it coming. Lines in the sand were drawn with Anita very quickly, and while it seems her "prom queen" shield is failing, we still can't discuss a thing she says because of death threats, like they provide automatic validity, or we don't earn rebuttal rights until we make every sociopath on the internet quit being a jerk. But more sadly is that I don't see upsetting the diversity balance improving the stagnant state of gaming. I can't say I'd have found Watch dogs any more appealing if the sex or color of Aidan Pierce changed. There's just so much focus on visuals of the cast we forget that all Female Link would mean is the same fetch quest with a slightly altered avatar because there isn't enough story to most Zelda's to say such a change would require changing any of it.

I've pretty much given up on game press as it stands. I get better ideas of games I'd like from youtube vids, and have come to accept commentary is based on the same level of quality of people that call talk radio. Getting the community to work is a bit rougher. I want everyone to be happy, but too many almost don't want to be happy because they want to ***** about things. Both sides do this, so instead of making indy developers not screwing us over, or making more diverse games into new gaming stars, we *****, we moan, we fight online, and we don't support what might make us happy because we want to popular games tailor made to our liking, not to find enjoyment in some $8 game from a studio we never heard of.

 

[Frokane]

I expected to be bashed and flamed a lot more then I actually did. I'm pleasantly suprised.

I honestly really am of the opinion that if current games were better and more interesting and varied we would have less pissed of gamers. We are in a crumbling castle and we need someone to blame.

 

[Rozalia1]

I love gaming, but I hate the gaming industry.

I was reading this article on PC Gamer earlier where it is talking about how Ian Livingstone said that "this is gaming's second golden age" and I burst out laughing. He pointed out that games are easier to make than ever, and they are easier to distribute than ever, and those points are both true, but that doesn't mean that they are both good.

Games are easier to make than ever, and that is great, but with the rise of services such as Steam and their early-access platform, it has just become so easy to make a bearbones game, make empty promises, and then throw it on Steam, charge £15 for it, and do nothing with it ever again. The same can also be said for shovelware from years ago that just gets dumped on Steam for little to no reason. Digital distribution can be a great thing though, and if it means that we no longer have to jumps through a retail shop's many hoops made up of loyalty cards and promotions just so that we can buy a game, then the industry becomes better off for it.

But the problem is much larger than just those two things. Gaming right now in terms of AAA is just a mess. We have games that are rushed out too early and then patched down the line, we have this silly pre-order culture where even if you go out and buy a copy of a game for full price, you aren't even getting the full game, we are getting sequels after sequels for game franchises that don't deserve them, and we are getting more and more re-releases for games that only came out a couple of years ago.

Then when we get to the journalism side of things. There are YouTube channels that are doing promotions of games, but aren't disclosing them well enough (I recognise that this isn't their fault), and even when it comes to coverage for games, companies can't even talk very much about their games at expos and conferences, NDAs are everywhere, and any information that we do get is hyped up and up by journalism sites that end up making the game impossible to meet expectations.

If this is a golden age, then what the hell are rough times?

Like a "Golden Age" requires good AAA games (though the issue there is overblown), and secondly Shovelware has always existed.
Just like with previous eras there have been plenty of notable landmark games that have caught the attention of people as truly great.

 

[Atmos Duality]

As for the state of gaming, it doesn't take much to say why it is in fact great.

Forgive my confrontational tone (it's not what I intend) but that's not "fact", that's "opinion".

Why? Old-guard business practices are crumbling, AAA publishers are getting called out for manipulating audiences,

Depends on the "old-guard" business practices in question.
Some of those that were beneficial, like selling feature complete games are crumbling.

Though I won't contest placing AAA under further scrutiny.
In my opinion, they had it FAR too easy for most of the last console generation, making them complacent and dull.

we have enough games now to suit every palate out there,

I honestly wish that was true.

Tell you what: Let me know when a legitimately good mech game comes out; one that isn't attached to some cancerous online-only model, and maybe I'll grant you that.

we are growing as a community,

Really? How?
Frankly, I see an awful lot more bickering now than ever before.

great games get released every year,

By sheer volume, yes, though that's just Sturgeon's Law at work.

and game prices are getting more and more competitive across platforms.

Not quite, or at least, not across ALL platforms (if that's what you meant; as it stands, it's nebulous)

Prices are going up on next gen consoles, either directly or via even higher proportions of price gouging DLC.
The only "platform" that's actually competing is PC.

More games are getting ported to PC, and a lot of Japanese ports are done really well.

That is true.

VR is on the horizon, more and more people are getting into gaming due to how abundant and accessible it has become,

True enough. I don't really consider the spike in say, mobile garbage to be a positive indicator of people getting into gaming like some industry watchers do. But I will grant that it is actually easier to get into gaming now than ever before.

As for VR, it remains to be seen if it will turn into the true new frontier of gaming, or if it will just become another gimmick like motion controls.

and now we have entire games funded by community donations.

We do, and I want to believe in its potential.

But the system is faulty, since many of those games end up being scams, stuck in perpetual betas (incomplete), or finish as outright garbage. It needs refinement.

Gaming's great. I don't know why people say otherwise.

I do, and it's because gaming isn't great. It's OK. Mediocre. Mostly just treading water.

There are a tiny handful of great games amidst a sea of clones and half-baked garbage, as always.

AAA is more homogenized than ever, even within their "new IP" prospects. Feature complete games are virtually a myth outside of indie devs and even THEY are getting in on the added price-gouging now.

If anything (especially indicated by this year's GDC), the main innovations seem to be more about how to offer gamers less for more than in tech, concept or genre.

It's fair to say that gaming is "Great in spite of those things", and there are individual efforts worth of praise.
But I don't think gaming is "great" on the whole; quite the opposite: I think gaming has some serious demons to excise before it can truly be "great".