David vs Goliath: GenerationAmiga responds to Hookshot Media’s criticism

GenerationAmiga uses AI-assisted tools in its content production. We do not hide from that choice—but neither should it be used to misrepresent our reporting or the developers we cover. On July 22, GenerationAmiga reported on an important milestone for Black Knight Recompiled, the native PC recompilation of Sonic and the Black Knight. The article covered a publicly shared development update indicating that the work-in-progress PC version was running and that its main systems were functional, allowing development to move toward further improvements. Today, Damien McFerran of Time Extension published an article focusing on comments from the developer, Besky, who clarified that he had no connection to GenerationAmiga, did not support generative AI, and had not used generative AI or AI-assisted coding to create the project. We respect that clarification. What we do not accept is the attempt to turn one developer’s personal position into a broad attack on our publication, our methods and our right to use modern editorial tools, by a very big media company.

We use AI-assisted tools

Let us be completely clear: GenerationAmiga uses AI-assisted tools in parts of its content production. We do not believe that this fact should be treated as a scandal. AI is a tool. Like translation software, spelling correction, image-editing software, search engines, content-management systems and other digital technologies, it can be used well or badly. Its value depends on how it is applied, reviewed and presented.

Using AI does not automatically mean that an article is false, stolen or produced without human involvement. It also does not mean that the people or projects covered by an article endorse those tools. GenerationAmiga remains responsible for what it publishes. That responsibility does not disappear because software assists with drafting, editing, research, formatting or illustration.

We believe publishers have the freedom to decide which lawful tools they use in their own editorial process. Readers are equally free to approve, disagree, criticise or choose other publications. That freedom should apply to both sides.

A developer has every right to reject generative AI in his own work. A publication also has the right to use AI-assisted tools in its own workflow. These positions can exist at the same time without either party being falsely associated with the other.

We respect the developer’s position

GenerationAmiga has no commercial, editorial or official relationship with Besky or his projects. We never claimed otherwise. Our coverage of a publicly announced project did not represent an endorsement of our website by its developer. Reporting on a game, fan project, company or developer does not create an official association between that subject and the publication covering it. We also accept Besky’s statement that Black Knight Recompiled never used AI in its development.

Nothing in our original article claimed that his project used AI. Nothing suggested that Besky approved of our production methods. Nothing presented the developer as being involved with the creation of our article or its accompanying imagery. Reporting on someone’s publicly shared work is not the same as claiming that person supports the publication reporting it.

Who is Hookshot Media? The numbers tell the story

Hookshot Media isn’t a one-person retro blog. It’s a UK-based publisher running five gaming websites: Nintendo Life, Push Square, Pure Xbox, Time Extension, and Steam Hype. That’s a very different operation from GenerationAmiga. Hookshot was incorporated in 2010. It began working commercially with Gamer Network in 2011, and after Ziff Davis acquired Gamer Network in 2024, Hookshot became an IGN Entertainment partner.

Hookshot’s own website gives a clear picture of its current reach. The company reports:

• More than 15 million monthly unique visitors
• More than 25 million monthly page views
• More than 950,000 YouTube subscribers
• More than 1.2 million social-media followers

Those aren’t small numbers. Either way, the scale is obvious.

We’re not talking about a small independent publication operating on the same level as GenerationAmiga. We’re talking about an established media company reaching more than 15 million individual visitors each month, backed by a large publishing network and a combined audience of millions across YouTube and social media.

Nintendo Life alone says it has reviewed more than 7,000 games, published almost 75,000 articles, and created 25,000 game profiles since launching in 2005. Its YouTube archive contains more than 4,000 videos and has around 774,000 subscribers.

Push Square tells a similar story. It has published more than 4,000 reviews and around 65,000 articles, while describing its readership as millions of PlayStation players. Pure Xbox also has a substantial audience. Its website displays a following of 136,921 people. The network didn’t appear overnight.

Push Square launched in 2009 and joined Hookshot in 2011. Pure Xbox began in 2010, expanded into a broader Xbox publication in 2013, went into hibernation in 2016, and returned in 2020. Time Extension followed in 2022.

GenerationAmiga isn’t responding to a lone writer with a similar platform. We’re responding to criticism published through a media network that attracts more than 15 million monthly visitors, generates more than 25 million monthly page views, has over 950,000 YouTube subscribers, and reaches more than 1.2 million social-media followers.

That gives Hookshot and its publications considerable visibility. Their stories can travel further, rank higher in search results, and shape how readers view a much smaller publication. Hookshot Media and Time Extension have every right to criticise our reporting. They can also question our use of AI-assisted tools. We don’t object to criticism itself. But reach changes the stakes.

When criticism crosses the line

The way Time Extension responds on X doesn’t come across as professional either. Instead of addressing the criticism calmly and sticking to the facts, the replies feel defensive, dismissive and needlessly confrontational. And that’s where the discussion falls apart. You can’t call us thieves, clankers or parasitic, then suggest we deserve to be bullied. That isn’t a serious discussion. It’s an attack.

Responding like this only makes the situation worse. A professional outlet should be able to explain its position, present its evidence and know when to step back. It shouldn’t turn disagreement into hostility.

AI use is not evidence of inaccurate reporting

Time Extension’s article moved quickly from the developer’s clarification to a wider condemnation of GenerationAmiga. Rather than identifying a detailed list of factual errors in our Sonic coverage, the article focused heavily on assumptions about how our publication creates content. It characterised the site in sweeping terms and encouraged readers to avoid it. That approach avoids the most important question.

If an article reports a public development milestone correctly, links readers to the relevant project and distinguishes between confirmed information and commentary, then the use of AI-assisted tools does not automatically make that reporting invalid.

A publication should be judged on the accuracy, transparency and value of what it publishes—not simply on whether software was involved somewhere in the production process. Human-written journalism can contain misinformation, plagiarism, poor sourcing and misleading headlines.

AI-assisted journalism can also contain those problems. The proper standard is therefore not “AI or no AI.” The proper standard is whether the final published work is accurate, responsibly reviewed and corrected when necessary.

We support greater transparency

Defending the right to use AI does not mean rejecting transparency. Where an image is AI-generated or substantially AI-assisted, clearer labelling can help readers understand what they are viewing. Where AI has materially contributed to an article, publishers should consider how best to explain their process. GenerationAmiga can improve in this area, and we are prepared to do so.

But transparency must not be confused with shame. We will not pretend that we do not use AI merely because some publications or readers oppose it. We would rather discuss our methods honestly and improve them than participate in a culture where tools are used quietly while public criticism is directed only at those who admit it.

AI-assisted production is already part of the wider digital-media environment. GenerationAmiga is certainly not the only publication experimenting with these technologies, and it will not be the last. The debate should focus on standards, disclosure and accountability—not on pretending that the technology can simply be wished away.

A clarification became a site-wide attack

Time Extension was entitled to report the developer’s comments. It was entitled to criticise our use of AI, our presentation and our editorial decisions. However, criticism should remain proportionate and specific.

After discussing one article, Time Extension expanded the issue into a broad judgement of GenerationAmiga as a whole. It made assumptions about our complete publishing process and used language that appeared designed to damage our reputation rather than simply clarify the developer’s position.

No detailed audit of our reporting was presented. No comprehensive examination of our sourcing was provided. No clear evidence was offered that the Sonic article falsely claimed AI was used in the development of the project.

The disputed image, our editorial workflow and the developer’s own production methods are three separate subjects. Combining them creates the misleading impression that Besky had somehow been associated with our use of AI. He was not.

Established media outlets carry greater responsibility

Time Extension is part of Hookshot Media, the publisher behind established gaming websites including Nintendo Life, Push Square and Pure Xbox. There is nothing wrong with a larger media company criticising a smaller independent publication. Size does not make criticism illegitimate. However, greater reach brings greater responsibility.

When an established network uses its platform to describe a smaller publication in dismissive or hostile terms, the resulting reputational impact can be significant. Such claims should be based on detailed evidence, direct engagement and careful distinctions. Criticising our use of AI is fair.

Suggesting that our reporting is automatically worthless because AI-assisted tools were involved is not. Reporting the developer’s clarification is fair. Using that clarification as the basis for a general campaign against our publication is disproportionate.

Editorial freedom must work both ways

GenerationAmiga supports the freedom of creators to reject AI entirely. Developers may prohibit AI-generated assets from their projects. Artists may refuse to work with AI-assisted publications. Readers may decide that they prefer entirely human-written media. Those are legitimate choices.

GenerationAmiga also has the freedom to use lawful tools that support its publishing work. Editorial independence includes the ability to choose how research is organised, how drafts are prepared, how language is edited and how illustrations are created. That freedom comes with a corresponding obligation to review the results and accept responsibility for mistakes.

It does not require every publication to use identical methods. A disagreement over tools should not become an excuse to distort what an article said or to imply relationships that never existed.

Independent media should be allowed to evolve

Retro-gaming media has always been shaped by changing technology. Websites replaced printed fanzines. Digital photography replaced scanned magazine images. Content-management systems replaced hand-coded pages. Social media changed how news is discovered and distributed. AI-assisted tools are another major technological change, and their arrival raises real ethical, creative and economic questions. Those questions deserve serious discussion.

But serious discussion requires more than insults and labels. It requires evidence, transparency and recognition that different creators and publishers will make different choices. GenerationAmiga respects Besky’s work and his right to reject generative AI. We stand by our right to report on publicly shared retro-gaming developments.

We also stand by our right to use AI-assisted editorial tools, provided that we remain accountable for the final result. We will continue improving our transparency, correcting genuine mistakes and covering the projects that keep classic gaming alive. Readers may judge our work for themselves. Criticism is welcome. Corrections are welcome. Different opinions about AI are welcome. Misrepresentation and slandering by a big media group is not.