guess I focus too much on explaining why bad game journalism matters (because developers read reviews of their games to understand what they need to change and improve for the next game) and why GG tried so hard to take the moral high ground and prove they weren't evil (because if gamers are evil then it's morally justifiable to ban and censor certain content in games).
Oh. If that's what you want to focus on, ShortFatOtaku's Indie-fensible series goes in depth.
As for why bad games journalism matters (or mattered. They're irrelevant now.) I'd point to the money.
At the time, games were making more money than music and film combined. Games were huge business, and anyone with the creative vision and skill could had a shot at making it. Now development loans, visibility, sales, and by extension access to the industry were controlled by a small group of corrupt journos who gave preferential treatment to their friends and those they were fucking. Didn't suck dick? Don't expect any coverage. Journos or their "friends" dislike you for any reason, expect to have your game pulled from kickstarter and your name blacklisted in the industry.
Indie game awards were rigged, people who payed the entry fee never got a fair shake (the judges didn't even play their games). At a time where developer bonuses were based on Metacritic score, game journos were dropping the review scores of games for bullshit reasons. GTA for "misogyny", Pokemon for "too much water", and Breath of the Wild because the reviewer wanted to troll Nintendo fans.
People like to believe that games journalism was always corrupt. I disagree, but even if we accept that as true; there's a difference between a AAA game buying a better review score, and devs having their lives ruined because they're outside a lefty game journo clique.
