Father_Brain
Banned
That's what I thought you meant when you cited that anecdote about a recent AAA game, which seemed to be contradicted by the part of the post I quoted. But glad to hear that that's not typical.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
That's what I thought you meant when you cited that anecdote about a recent AAA game, which seemed to be contradicted by the part of the post I quoted. But glad to hear that that's not typical.
Big Takeover
Member
I guess we can add Stockholm syndrome to the many ways this thread has delivered. Weird.
Yes. If there is a valid reason (eg real or perceived conflict of interest) then any EIC worth his or her salt would not only be cool with it, they would thank you for bringing it up.
No reputable editor would *ever* have an issue with a staff writer or freelancer who told them they couldn't cover something due to a potential CoI.
my point was, we are legally liable in accounting to report facts because the public is reliant on our opinion for trust, and to know what is a bad investment. When there is no standard, and no reason to provide transparency, the public will lose that trust. Especially with all the bs going on - as noted in this thread.
sorry for the derail.
Are we learning anything new here, or is this belated face-saving? From where I'm standing, nothing of import seems to have been learnt by the offending party, and we're just hearing hazy explanations/justifications for things people already have the facts about and have already discussed at length and made up their minds on. I'm actually puzzled as to the purpose of chiming in so long after the fact.
Ragingbegal
Member
This, exactly.
Don't get it twisted. She's done. No one in their right mind is going to hire her to do any type of subjective writing for games. That ship has sailed. Her only chance in the industry is working on a project where she can have input to sell an individual product. That's it. She'll forever--if ever--be in the background, behind the scenes doing what is asked of her to sell something.
McBradders
NeoGAF: my new HOME
Nevermind.
On the issue of boss demands, employers, despite their barking, don't actually expect you to behave like a robot. Your true task as an employee is to improve the value of a company more than your expense subtracts from it. This can happen in a variety of obvious ways but the most important is by adding ingredients it wouldn't otherwise have both physically and intellectually. This also applies to ideas about what the company is and how it operates.
Bringing innovative ideas to the table on how to improve PR or how to avoid conflict-of-interest mistakes that if brought to the light of day would hurt the company are some of the ways you can add real value. It's actually in everyone's interest and is really your job to speak up! If it turns out your boss is too dense to recognize this value then you've learned something in the process and can plan your career accordingly.
If this true value is ignored for too long..well history has shown the public light has a habit of eventually shining on things. In the corner of the eye anything that scurries after the light turns on looks like a roach. To atheistium, I think this instinctual gut reaction is why you've taken such a public beating and unfortunately you also failed to show the appropriate level courage or wisdom to deal with this at that time. Despite the delay I also wanted to commend you on the decision to participate in this thread. Despite rumors to the contrary wisdom isn't automatically granted with age and even if it ends badly it demonstrates you've grown in courage. The very ingredient everyone in this thread wishes all writers had.
As for your career? Even if it is well and truly nuked from orbit I feel redemption is still possible and perhaps it even lies in writing as much as you can on the topic. If you did it no holds bared and named names you would have no issue with credibility and who knows, it might become a magnum opus! To add credibility write it like a biography on what's required when breaking into the industry as a writer and what constant lapses in judgment you personally made or witnessed in order to "play the game" in its current state? I would read that with interest, and maybe even believe it if you choose to be honest enough.
As for the internet's response, it giveth and it taketh away but please keep in mind there are no doubt new people right now going through whatever career path you went through and potentially making the same mistakes you now regret. With any luck some of them may read it too and in time thank you for the effort.
Bringing innovative ideas to the table on how to improve PR or how to avoid conflict-of-interest mistakes that if brought to the light of day would hurt the company are some of the ways you can add real value. It's actually in everyone's interest and is really your job to speak up! If it turns out your boss is too dense to recognize this value then you've learned something in the process and can plan your career accordingly.
If this true value is ignored for too long..well history has shown the public light has a habit of eventually shining on things. In the corner of the eye anything that scurries after the light turns on looks like a roach. To atheistium, I think this instinctual gut reaction is why you've taken such a public beating and unfortunately you also failed to show the appropriate level courage or wisdom to deal with this at that time. Despite the delay I also wanted to commend you on the decision to participate in this thread. Despite rumors to the contrary wisdom isn't automatically granted with age and even if it ends badly it demonstrates you've grown in courage. The very ingredient everyone in this thread wishes all writers had.
As for your career? Even if it is well and truly nuked from orbit I feel redemption is still possible and perhaps it even lies in writing as much as you can on the topic. If you did it no holds bared and named names you would have no issue with credibility and who knows, it might become a magnum opus! To add credibility write it like a biography on what's required when breaking into the industry as a writer and what constant lapses in judgment you personally made or witnessed in order to "play the game" in its current state? I would read that with interest, and maybe even believe it if you choose to be honest enough.
As for the internet's response, it giveth and it taketh away but please keep in mind there are no doubt new people right now going through whatever career path you went through and potentially making the same mistakes you now regret. With any luck some of them may read it too and in time thank you for the effort.
Yeah, i just don't get the point of appearing in this two month (!) old discussion, long after the party, so-to-speak, has ended. It's too late. What is there to achieve?
atheistium
Member
This is the key thing here. I've come here to be honest and say things from my point of view people will still choose to think it's bullshitting. And to be honest, even if I did do some big expose with names named and all that jazz, a lot of people will choose not to believe it.
I've not come here to be brave. I've come here because people have asked for me to speak out. Yes it's taken a while but hopefully you can understand my wishing to avoid the subject the abuse while it was still constant. Not that it's stopped mind you. Also it's good to sit back, read complaints and go from there.
Gaming age just wants its pound of flesh and will get it whether you show or not. The best thing you can do is own up to your mistake, disable your gaming age account, and move on.
You'll still be a target and a pariah, but at least you'll get out with a little dignity intact.
My approach in preview coverage is to state my issues contextualized by the development state of the game. I don't want to make anything resembling a final judgment on a game that isn't reviewable. But I'm at the point where I'm hesitant to give super detailed feedback about mechanical decisions in a game, because that's not my job. And there's a fuzzy area in giving advice to a developer/publisher as someone who may review that game down the line.
Trust is earned. That doesn't just mean you must do things to ear it, it also means you can do things to earn it. I was just pointing out telling the truth is always a choice, that's why we value it so much when people choose to do so.
One requires the other, consider it a twofer.
Unfortunately nobody has the power to make everyone believe them, however it's easy to forget minds are plastic. All you can do is try. Heck, even statistically you're bound to convince some people with each effort. Which audience would you rather cater to? Here's another secret. People actually enjoy the act of forgiveness, it makes them feel better about themselves. I suggest you just give them as many opportunities to as possible.
Puppet Shadow
Member
One of two things can happen:
1: You convince a few people to see things from your point of view, but everyone else just gets pissed off all over again and your name continues to get dragged through the mud.
2: You fail to convince anyone from seeing your point of view, everyone just gets pissed off all over again and your name continues to get dragged through the mud.
3: You offer a sincere apology and bow out of the thread. Honestly, this is your best move.
Do you have any special allegiance to your friend Korina Abbott who worked at Square Enix at the time? Do you think there could even possibly be some kind of conflict of interest with your relationship with her? You have written in the past about you getting free games from her because of her position and you got your start writing about games from this, do you think there are any potential problems of PR people bringing in their friends into the industry to become game reviewers?
Secondly, you say "EG shouldn't have ever felt threatened by me" do you not feel tweeting about your media law studies finally coming in handy speaks of your intent?
Thirdly you're happily sidestepping the original GMA issue by saying "lol I never entered" but your boyfriend did and you were clearly defending his actions. Are you still standing by his actions and saying there is nothing wrong with advertising a game for a free ps3 or are you admitting it was a shady thing to do?
CartridgeBlower
Member
All 3 are great questions. Hope they get answered...
Hi Lauren, thanks for stopping by.
Do you genuinely believe what you said above? I have a hard time understanding how someone who writes (or wants to write) for a living could have such basic reading comprehension problems.
Same goes for internet idiots, they apparently can't read for shit, according to your account of events.
However, an alleged lack of reading comprehension on your part (if you actually read it wrong, which is baffling) hardly justifies threats of legal action.
It did not. Rab explicitly stated that he believed you weren't, which is the opposite of what you are trying to make it out to be.
Do you genuinely believe what you said above? I have a hard time understanding how someone who writes (or wants to write) for a living could have such basic reading comprehension problems.
His statement was unambiguous. If you read it as implying corruption, that's not a different "interpretation." It's you not understanding the words written.
Same goes for internet idiots, they apparently can't read for shit, according to your account of events.
However, an alleged lack of reading comprehension on your part (if you actually read it wrong, which is baffling) hardly justifies threats of legal action.
But if they asked you to write about a game published by former employers of yours, that's obviously totally OK.
Posting in some forums can be a great way to learn things about oneself, and one's opinon's if the person is mature, thoughtful, and not ruled by emotions. Also, it helps to be able to ignore some people and not conflate one's online personality with their real self (i.e. not taking things personally). The only caveat is that posting without anonymity is worrisome.
I applaud LW for stopping by though, considering that this kerffuffel cost her a job/career. But in all honesty, working in games media is shit. Games PR is better ($ + benefits), but it isn't particularly fulfilling. So in the long run, this situation was probably a good thing for her.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/03/14/cable-news-fox-news-most-profitable-edging-cnn-headline-news-combined-far-ahead-of-msnbc/44944/
Fox news is the most profitable news organization in America. Integrity and objectivity do not sell.
To show that LW is an actual person and not an abstracted paragon of media shillery?
Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
To be honest, if this had gone to court, I don't think Rab/Eurogamer would have had an easy time of it, and as has already been stated quite a few times I believe, if Eurogamer or their counsel disagreed, they likely wouldn't have altered the article in the first place.
Non-brits may not realize just how fucked up UK libel laws are. English libel law is becoming a global disgrace
Just some food for thought for atheistium. Feel free to agree, argue, take on board or ignore as seems fit.
1. Good on you for coming in to discuss the matter now. Hopefully in a more thoughtful environment for discussion you might get more ideas than presumably insults etc that you got during the drama last year.
2. My original reading of the original article (before the edited version replaced it and the backlash began) did not cast you in a bad light by my reading. As far as I'm concerned, it explicitly said you were not doing naughty things, merely that some other people might assume something like that. I guess the thing is you can't control what people think, which is what the original article was getting at among other things.
3. Some (many) people will hopefully appreciate an acknowledgement or something of what happened and where things might have gone wrong. I dont think you are the sole person here who could elucidate events - but with any luck if you are forthright and honest about it, then ideally you can start to build trust with potential audiences in the future. Personally, I'd be much more likely to trust someone who admits their faults rather than someone who argues til the cows come home that their work is beyond reproach.
4. Irrespective of whether you made mistakes on a professional level, criticism should only be on that level. If you got any particularly nasty messages, which I believe you mentioned - consider taking them to the police. No-one should have to put up with that.
1. Good on you for coming in to discuss the matter now. Hopefully in a more thoughtful environment for discussion you might get more ideas than presumably insults etc that you got during the drama last year.
2. My original reading of the original article (before the edited version replaced it and the backlash began) did not cast you in a bad light by my reading. As far as I'm concerned, it explicitly said you were not doing naughty things, merely that some other people might assume something like that. I guess the thing is you can't control what people think, which is what the original article was getting at among other things.
3. Some (many) people will hopefully appreciate an acknowledgement or something of what happened and where things might have gone wrong. I dont think you are the sole person here who could elucidate events - but with any luck if you are forthright and honest about it, then ideally you can start to build trust with potential audiences in the future. Personally, I'd be much more likely to trust someone who admits their faults rather than someone who argues til the cows come home that their work is beyond reproach.
4. Irrespective of whether you made mistakes on a professional level, criticism should only be on that level. If you got any particularly nasty messages, which I believe you mentioned - consider taking them to the police. No-one should have to put up with that.
atheistium
Member
Look, I produced two mock reviews for Square Enix. I've been honest about that from the beginning (part of what led to this was from being open about it in the first place), I've learned from it, I've apologised for causing any sense of mistrust, and I've clearly suffered the consequences.
To those questioning why I'm discussing this now rather than two or three months ago, I spoke to Kotaku at the time, but that didn't seem to be taken into consideration by many. I've also explained my reasons for contacting Eurogamer here. If there wasn't a legitimate reason for the offending comments to be removed, they wouldn't have been removed.
But I'm here admitting to my mistakes, adding my point of view and taking part in the conversation. That's the best I can do right now.
When she was at SE she worked in the marketing department which meant I never had to talk to her for work. I don't know why I'd ever need to speak to marketing for review/critic purposes.
There's no allegiance there. She's my friend of ten years. Her job doesn't define her and it's not our point of conversation or the basis of our friendship.
I was not "brought in" by her though and I'm insulted by the idea. I've been blogging about games since I was 13. It just so happened we both ended up in the industry but it was never intentional. She helped me out in the old days by signing me up to the press news letter and sending me 3 games for review. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly indebted to her.
I've already spoken about regretting that stuff.
I was playfully replying to a joke comment. I wouldn't say that's sidestepping.
At the time I was more defending the idea that the hashtag most likely wouldn't have made sense to anyone who didn't attend the event and therefore was a stretch at being considered an advert.
If I wasn't at that event then the tag GMADEFIANCE would not have struck me about being about a game but more about a feeling that was happening there or some kind of joke that was going on.
I've since changed my mind and - again - have regretted those tweets.
The above was why it took so long to get here and talk to you guys. My mobile number and address was leaked out on two very large sites who used it to harass me. As you can imagine it was a very sensitive time in my life. I think the outcry and following witch hunt was disgusting and undeserved.
Thanks for your comments though. I'm here to learn.
I'd like to reply to this with a quote from an article.
Sorry it's a bit long but here's a pasted extract from it.
To those questioning why I'm discussing this now rather than two or three months ago, I spoke to Kotaku at the time, but that didn't seem to be taken into consideration by many. I've also explained my reasons for contacting Eurogamer here. If there wasn't a legitimate reason for the offending comments to be removed, they wouldn't have been removed.
But I'm here admitting to my mistakes, adding my point of view and taking part in the conversation. That's the best I can do right now.
When she was at SE she worked in the marketing department which meant I never had to talk to her for work. I don't know why I'd ever need to speak to marketing for review/critic purposes.
There's no allegiance there. She's my friend of ten years. Her job doesn't define her and it's not our point of conversation or the basis of our friendship.
I was not "brought in" by her though and I'm insulted by the idea. I've been blogging about games since I was 13. It just so happened we both ended up in the industry but it was never intentional. She helped me out in the old days by signing me up to the press news letter and sending me 3 games for review. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly indebted to her.
I've already spoken about regretting that stuff.
I was playfully replying to a joke comment. I wouldn't say that's sidestepping.
At the time I was more defending the idea that the hashtag most likely wouldn't have made sense to anyone who didn't attend the event and therefore was a stretch at being considered an advert.
If I wasn't at that event then the tag GMADEFIANCE would not have struck me about being about a game but more about a feeling that was happening there or some kind of joke that was going on.
I've since changed my mind and - again - have regretted those tweets.
The above was why it took so long to get here and talk to you guys. My mobile number and address was leaked out on two very large sites who used it to harass me. As you can imagine it was a very sensitive time in my life. I think the outcry and following witch hunt was disgusting and undeserved.
Thanks for your comments though. I'm here to learn.
I'd like to reply to this with a quote from an article.
Sorry it's a bit long but here's a pasted extract from it.
Wolves Evolve
Member
But the trust should be removed shouldn't it? Truth is still a defence.
Finally caught up with this thread, people have said most of what I would say so I'll try to just cover that which is new.
I really don't think anyone (who's been paying attention) would be shocked. In fact is this not the source of the general feeling in the readership that games journalism is a 'corrupt'* mess that journos like to dismiss so easily, that it is in fact a a 'corrupt' mess for various reasons.
* Not necessarily as in bribery, but certainly in conflict of interest and low journalistic standards.
That's what you say now, but at the time it was unclear how involved you were with them, and scurrying around removing references to them could only give the opposite impression.
Of everything you did, I feel that was your biggest mistake, if you had simply been open and honest at the start and stated your actual involvement, things would have been a lot smoother I think, by fueling the fire with your actions and refusing to comment, all that left was speculation, and people (especially on the net) will always assume the worst.
Then that is a matter for the police (have you contacted them BTW?). If the (imagined) accusations were indeed untrue then there is nothing to be gained by calling the lawyers and reaching for censorship of a colleague, how would that help curb the reactions of internet sub-normals?
I really don't think anyone (who's been paying attention) would be shocked. In fact is this not the source of the general feeling in the readership that games journalism is a 'corrupt'* mess that journos like to dismiss so easily, that it is in fact a a 'corrupt' mess for various reasons.
* Not necessarily as in bribery, but certainly in conflict of interest and low journalistic standards.
That's what you say now, but at the time it was unclear how involved you were with them, and scurrying around removing references to them could only give the opposite impression.
Of everything you did, I feel that was your biggest mistake, if you had simply been open and honest at the start and stated your actual involvement, things would have been a lot smoother I think, by fueling the fire with your actions and refusing to comment, all that left was speculation, and people (especially on the net) will always assume the worst.
Then that is a matter for the police (have you contacted them BTW?). If the (imagined) accusations were indeed untrue then there is nothing to be gained by calling the lawyers and reaching for censorship of a colleague, how would that help curb the reactions of internet sub-normals?
That's gross and the situation never came close to calling for that level of idiocy. It never would. As much as I have my opinions on this whole thing, some people would do well to have a bit of perspective.
Hmmm, 'legitimate' does not equal 'morally correct', it may have been prudent to remove it as UK libel is a nonsense and legal battles are expensive, but it doesn't follow that it was the just course of action as far as freedom of speech and journalistic integrity goes.
And thanks for posting in this thread by the way, it's this kind of honest and open discussion about issues that builds trust on both sides. I assume you now see that your threat of legal action was the exact opposite of this and consequently had the opposite effect.
Thanks for the reply, but you haven't answered the question; do you genuinely believe Florence did heavily imply you were corrupt?
The quote you posted is wide off the mark. Florence did not write you had been bought out. Neither did he finish with an open ended question on the level of "or is she?" Instead, he stated he did not believe you were on the take.
Nice strawman though. If Rab Florence actually was Eric Cartman, maybe you'd have a point.
these statements do not gel with your previous statements on the matter.
even if you dont deliberately intend to "make it up to her" in the form of positive coverage of her companies games the fact is you yourself have claimed to be indebted to her on top of being friends, if you cant see that relationship is a confilct of interest you're beyond any help.
But Rab never went "Wainwright is corrupt. Or is she?" He never made a statement of your corruption followed by a question, just pointed out how there is an appearance that is likely incorrect. Unlike the Cartman example, there is nothing open-ended about Rab's writing. It wasn't even an article about you. It used you as an example of a systemic problem with games journalism as an industry. The article you link misses the point that no blame is ever once suggested in Rab's writing.
Someone might tell someone else, "You might want to stop doing x, or people might think y." Friends do to friends, parents to children, bosses to employees. It's not accusation or suggestion of y, just explaining that there is potential for y.
In this case, 'corruption' or 'being on the take' is y. y is never suggested as fact or insinuation.
face-saving and deflecting. Selective responses give it away.
You keep saying it but it seems more like an insincere buzzword you think will help rehabilitate you in the public's eyes.
No you're not. You're doing your best to deflect any wrong-doing. You don't even seem to understand the concept that you can ask your editor to recuse yourself from a simple product review due to a conflict of interest.
Question dodged again.
Way to miss the point. Or is it wilful ignorance?
Rab's point is perfectly clear in his original article.
Rab said:
Please stop pussyfooting around and explain in your own words how that is defamatory.
Because you seem to be counting on people not being to remember all the lurid details so as to help aid your mea culpa:
https://twitter.com/britishgaming/statuses/261461657790869505
http://www.laurenwainwright.com/?attachment_id=2518
http://n4g.com/news/592765/incgamers-lara-croft-and-the-guardian-of-light-review
And you seem to have the lowest standards of integrity so let's remind you of what your peers think:
http://botherer.org/2012/10/25/an-utter-disgrace/
Integrity - do you get it? You may not consider yourself a full-fledged journalist but even product reviewers should have some basic standards.
And spare us repeating the "but I geo some really nasty things tweeted at me" defense. No one here did it, no one here condones it and it sure as hell doesn't excuse any of your actions.
Lauren said:
https://twitter.com/britishgaming/statuses/261461657790869505
http://www.laurenwainwright.com/?attachment_id=2518
http://n4g.com/news/592765/incgamers-lara-croft-and-the-guardian-of-light-review
And you seem to have the lowest standards of integrity so let's remind you of what your peers think:
http://botherer.org/2012/10/25/an-utter-disgrace/
Integrity - do you get it? You may not consider yourself a full-fledged journalist but even product reviewers should have some basic standards.
And spare us repeating the "but I geo some really nasty things tweeted at me" defense. No one here did it, no one here condones it and it sure as hell doesn't excuse any of your actions.
atheistium
Member
That tweet meant I've never reviewed the products I did mock reviews on. Plus linking a bunch of reviews, interviews and content I did prior to any connection with SE doesn't back your argument up.
Also in regards to "Square Enix employee Lauren Wainwright" - I'm not an employee. I've never been.
Also in regards to "Square Enix employee Lauren Wainwright" - I'm not an employee. I've never been.
I see you're as selective as ever in what you choose to answer.
How about this then, have you written or contributed to articles other than reviews about the products which you have been paid to write mock reviews for?
atheistium
Member
No. I've already said what products those were here as well.
Incidentally, I know of one person in particular who used to write about a company they subsequently went on to work for in PR in the gaming industry. I'm not going to name them or the company but I would safely assume that most of GAF wouldn't care if they knew details (ironically their reaction over this drama was quite spectacular in its outrage). But even though there might be people who would doubt their writing output in hindsight, it also happened years ago - to the point of near irrelevancy. Because I know them though, I might not be the best judge of this.
The point I'm getting at is simply that working in PR/journalism and then the other is not necessarily proof of an unhealthy relationship. Most other industries have potential for conflicts of interests - real or perceived - and mitigating the chance for bad reputation (or worse, like lawsuits or criminal charges) for the company and employees is the reason most places under scrutiny have these regulations in place.
I think the games industry in general is unlikely to be a place with these regulations hard coded in, be it in the writing, PR or publishing sectors. It's not an environment that appears to be conducive to having these regulations in place in a preventative nature - so when instances like this Tomb Raider business crop up, you are only ever going to see a reactionary process.
Further, due to the relatively young age of people in the industry, I'm going to hazard a guess that a lot of writers simply have not worked in fields where conflict of interest is a major consideration in everyday work. Many might not be aware of the difference between real or perceived CoI, for example.
I don't think this constitutes an excuse for anything - I'm not trying to excuse anyone, nor do I need to. But as a consumer I do have an interest in making sure the people who would be writing for me are people I can trust. I would like to think that over time, those people writing the reviews will not only be writing for the customers, but seen to be as well. Maybe then the publishers will stop forcing their influence on what is an immature and developing industry.
The best thing I could hope to see would be game critics with the kind of maturity and diligence as seen in places like Retro Gamer or At the Movies (Australian film critics).
I personally will be interested to see which outlets learn from this series of events, and which ones carry on as if nothing happened. I already note one outlet is refusing to lay down arms and insists nothing is wrong (note: I'm not talking about Lauren or Eurogamer here).
The point I'm getting at is simply that working in PR/journalism and then the other is not necessarily proof of an unhealthy relationship. Most other industries have potential for conflicts of interests - real or perceived - and mitigating the chance for bad reputation (or worse, like lawsuits or criminal charges) for the company and employees is the reason most places under scrutiny have these regulations in place.
I think the games industry in general is unlikely to be a place with these regulations hard coded in, be it in the writing, PR or publishing sectors. It's not an environment that appears to be conducive to having these regulations in place in a preventative nature - so when instances like this Tomb Raider business crop up, you are only ever going to see a reactionary process.
Further, due to the relatively young age of people in the industry, I'm going to hazard a guess that a lot of writers simply have not worked in fields where conflict of interest is a major consideration in everyday work. Many might not be aware of the difference between real or perceived CoI, for example.
I don't think this constitutes an excuse for anything - I'm not trying to excuse anyone, nor do I need to. But as a consumer I do have an interest in making sure the people who would be writing for me are people I can trust. I would like to think that over time, those people writing the reviews will not only be writing for the customers, but seen to be as well. Maybe then the publishers will stop forcing their influence on what is an immature and developing industry.
The best thing I could hope to see would be game critics with the kind of maturity and diligence as seen in places like Retro Gamer or At the Movies (Australian film critics).
I personally will be interested to see which outlets learn from this series of events, and which ones carry on as if nothing happened. I already note one outlet is refusing to lay down arms and insists nothing is wrong (note: I'm not talking about Lauren or Eurogamer here).
More Fun To Compute
Member
I doubt we can convince Lauren that what she sees as pragmatic career decisions are something she should feel bad about. The overall quality of games writing is an abstract thing and it's not clear she cares about adding a great deal to it.
Sorry, Lauran, but the way you were hyping any Lara croft game seems a bit over the top which, is in actual fact a point of conflict since you do review games. Freelancer or not is irrelevant. I do seem to remember the way you had your Twitter page full of Art work of various Lara Croft games in which you seem to comment on them, how awesome they were. I do get it that you are fan, but as subjectivity goes, that belittles your critique towards gaming and, above all, will seem a bit suspicious, given the fact that you did appear to advertise yourself in that very twitter page that you have worked for Square Enix in the past.
Oh goody, selective responses again. Dodge those questions! It only makes you look worse.
But we only have your word on that seeing as you deleted everything. That quote seems pretty concise.
Prior to any connection? You wrote a 3 page advertorial for Hitman Absolution weeks before this all blew up.
Shame we can't link to scans. People could choke on all the hyperbole you put into it.
You're right, I could have sworn it was listed on your employment history but now it's not there.
You think that's bad? From today:
But we only have your word on that seeing as you deleted everything. That quote seems pretty concise.
Prior to any connection? You wrote a 3 page advertorial for Hitman Absolution weeks before this all blew up.
Lauren said:
Shame we can't link to scans. People could choke on all the hyperbole you put into it.
You're right, I could have sworn it was listed on your employment history but now it's not there.
BEFORE:
AFTER:
You think that's bad? From today:
Lauren said:
NintendoGal
Member
Why push the status quo when you're just trying to swim and survive? (Honest question, not completely related to simply just your question, but in general).
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Apart from when you desperately tried to remove all reference of your work for them from the internet( if you aren't going to be honest in here, what is the point?).
Unless you did those mock reviews for free, you worked for SE(regardless of whether you were paid via a 3rd party), so I fail to see how you can have an issue with people calling you that. Also as you didn't answer it before did you ever inform any of your editors about your relationships with publishers?
This is true, but it isn't an excuse any more. These accusations have been floating around for nearly 2 decades(if not longer), I fail to see how anyone could work in that industry without knowing the terrible reputation it has.
She wrote for the S** & MCV, I think it is pretty clear that quality of writing is of no concern to those outlets.
You think that's bad? From today:
Bloody Hell. Lauran, Do you work at Square again? or are you ''advertising'' Lara Croft things just because you are fan?
atheistium
Member
Ugh.. seriously? I'm still a gamer at the end of the day. Am I not allowed to talk about my hobby? I'm a fan of tomb raider and I also buy art books. I've got a bunch of art books for all different games. I tweet about it. It's quite clearly not an advert.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
stop using twitter, solves a lot of your problems.
First of all, thats a nice logo you got there Cerebral Assassin
Second Lauren. Let me put it this way:
A member of the Sony PR team,working at freelance, writes for IGN how awesome the PS3 is. The Lara Croft fan in you would atleast partly agree on this, because you can play Lara Croft games on it, but wouldn´t the journalist in you say " Wait a minute, there is something wrong about that this guy is writing about it?"
Second Lauren. Let me put it this way:
A member of the Sony PR team,working at freelance, writes for IGN how awesome the PS3 is. The Lara Croft fan in you would atleast partly agree on this, because you can play Lara Croft games on it, but wouldn´t the journalist in you say " Wait a minute, there is something wrong about that this guy is writing about it?"
atheistium
Member
I tweet about things I'm passionate about. I love Tomb Raider. Yes I'm overly enthusiastic. Yes I'm passionate. Yes I have a specific style about me but thats just me. That's how I write. That's my thing. Everyone has a style and you don't read it if you don't like that style. You have the choice. There are people I don't read because I don't like their style and that's my choice.
Why is it not okay to tweet a picture of a very old Tomb Raider book that's no longer in print and I bought second hand online?
If the new Tomb Raider is shit then you'll hear about it from me. If it's good I'll say it is. I'm honest on that. I'm being called out on reviews/previews for games that have generally been well regarded. People liked Sleeping Dogs but I'm being questioned on how I pointed out it's good in a preview? It is good. There's a whole thread on Neogaf about Sleeping Dogs and how much fun a lot of you are having with it.
And the Hitman piece in MCV? That's been explained in an earlier post. Though I'm not sure what this three-page advertorial piece is? I wrote about 500 words on Hitman's marketing plans and some tidbits on the franchise in a magazine for retailers. It isn't a review and isn't ment to influence consumer buying decisions. It also sold better than the last game so as advice for retail it was sound. Hitman was a loved franchise, I'm not mistaken in pointing that out.
atheistium
Member
First of all, thats a nice logo you got there Cerebral Assassin
Second Lauren. Let me put it this way:
A member of the Sony PR team,working at freelance, writes for IGN how awesome the PS3 is. The Lara Croft fan in you would atleast partly agree on this, because you can play Lara Croft games on it, but wouldn´t the journalist in you say " Wait a minute, there is something wrong about that this guy is writing about it?
Of course.
There's a different. I'm not a member of the SE PR team. I've not created PR plans or written advertorial. I've written two reviews on non-Tomb Raider products.
Yes my twitter page was over the top and I've addressed that. But I see lots of people have backgrounds and icons and all sorts for games they like.
- Status