To anyone other than those who know their IGNs from their Polygons and Giantbombs, Gamergate is a very hard thing to explain - even to the point where most of us who have been watching from the sidelines and occasionally getting stuck in have been consistently blown away by a lack of focus. It's starting to produce whiffs of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which although that started with vaguely relatable and somewhat attainable goals, over time as soon as any figures of worth and influence picked it apart, there wasn't much left to talk about. As that withered, faded away and died, it's highly likely that GamerGate will suffer a similar fate. Now we've discussed the movement a few times in the past - with this particular piece providing a more in-depth look at its origins. However if you want a speedier recap, what started as an accusatory finger pointed towards the way games journalists do business with publishers has provided the means for many long-silent people with very disgusting opinions to latch onto the furore, their endgame literally only being to demean others and stir the pot as much as possible. At the heart of the whole thing is supposed to be a discussion around why - in theory - bigger game websites tend to favour the titles they're given exclusive access to, along with the fact that many reviewers are friends with - or support financially - other games they may have to review in the future. Whether or not you believe that automatically makes said person unable to divorce their personal preferences from professional obligations is exactly what this debate was supposed to boil down to. However, amongst all the hate speech that has emerged towards certain prominent female figures in the industry because of it, it's made the entire movement's water so muddied it's impossible to address anything clearly.