-
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.
Brash Games reviewer trashes site and EIC inside Pac Man 256 review - no one notices
- Thread starter RichyDevil
- Start date
Bobby Roberts
Banned
This thread did not play out like I thought it would after seeing the first few posts last night.
If "don't work for free" gets hammered home just a little bit harder, that's a good thing.
If "don't work for a site that is going to yank your byline once you leave" is a lesson someone learns, this is a good thing.
It's a little disconcerting that the enthusiast press has enthusiast watchdogs who are as confused as to how/what they're supposed to be doing as the people they're volunteering to evaluate, though.
If "don't work for free" gets hammered home just a little bit harder, that's a good thing.
If "don't work for a site that is going to yank your byline once you leave" is a lesson someone learns, this is a good thing.
It's a little disconcerting that the enthusiast press has enthusiast watchdogs who are as confused as to how/what they're supposed to be doing as the people they're volunteering to evaluate, though.
Found the reviewers twitter page. He's getting plenty of job offers since it went viral. So y'all saying it's "unprofessional" of him, to blow out shitty ass Brash games and their ethics, can eat crow. This is what happens when you don't lay on your back and let corporations/businesses fuck you over. Good for him, and I'm seeing quite a few twitter heads contacting OpenCritic about this investigator, myself included. Hope this story ends well for the reviewer.
His @ name is @gaysteelmill btw. If any of y'all wanna follow up on Twitter.
His @ name is @gaysteelmill btw. If any of y'all wanna follow up on Twitter.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
As far as I'm concerned, my value is ???, simply because I don't have any idea if my work is good. It's impossible to get feedback.
All I know is that I write a lot and can make deadlines.
Tbh i thought your first post was pretty well measured and rhetorically made it clear you wanted to dissuade a witch hunt.
Well said.
I used to do reviews for an online site from 01-05 and there was an editor that used to add in comparisons to "superior" Nintendo games after reviews were submitted and also adjust the scores that we gave. The publishers also gave out these awesome review kits for us but he kept all of them and just sent us some shitty review disc in an envelope. He even told one reviewer if he flew to LA for E3 he would be reimbursed for his travel and accommodation. He wasn't.
I've been following him before this, so to see this go down was enlightening. I'm just happy that eyes are being open to dodgy practices within the games and journalism industries. It's also alarming that some journalists are actually defending Ryan and the way he runs Brash Games.
But they gave Rain World 10/10
You need to write to build a portfolio and to practice. So as long as the person you're writing for isn't taking the piss, why does it matter?
Write for a small site and don't get paid, or just write for yourself, either way you need to write before you get paid.
Again, you'll need to be doing this work anyway to build a portfolio. Working to deadlines is good practice, and helps prove your work ethic to potential employers.
Either way you need to write because you need a portfolio, but it being on your own site or another person's won't make a difference if you're working hard and the writing is good quality.
Your site: you prove your initiative.
Some one else's site: you gain experience working as a team to deadlines.
Honestly, it seems both are good ideas.
It's fully up to /you/ to know where to draw the line and not let people take advantage.
Without meaning to be rude, this is the obvious route people will be taking (as in shopping your work about to try to score freelance positions for paid work, or prodbing for in roads by showing potential employers examples). It's the same for any freelance positions However, while you're waiting to hear back from these places you should be practicing your skill, so saying it offers no benefit to "work" for an unknown site isn't true (although in this particular case the site in question seems shady).
Be it writing for your own blog or working for free for another site, the more you write the better you get and you do need to build that portfolio.
As long as you don't let people take the piss, I don't see why it's a problem. As you said yourself, it doesn't matter where they are as long as they're good.
Decency and civility for the company thats making "significant strides" yet is still unilaterally changing review scores as of a week ago? (See tweets above)
Why bring the author's professionalism and hiring ability into the matter? Where was the decency and civility there?
If you have never worked in games journalism, why write a report on game journalism transparency / get upset when the author outs the shady practices?
Here's my theory and you can tell me I am way off base. It's definitely armchair psychology but it's the only story that actually makes all of your comments make sense to me:
You talked to the author as part of the investigation. You told the author the report was going up monday. The author knew he'd get outted (or site go under) and wanted a bit of revenge on the way out.
You saw the news and got pissed, not because of any ethical concerns (which seem to be ex post justifications), at least not really. But primarily because you have been working hard on this report, and the author beat you to the punch. Worse, the author is now the one defining (or perhaps twisting) the story that you worked weeks to uncover.
You saw this report as a sort of gateway for opencritic. The next step. Now opencritic wouldn't just be about aggregating reviews. It would be known for investigative reporting -- bringing transparency to the world behind the reviews. The site would be lauded for uncovering unprofessional behavior.
But the author snuck one in. That's the part that made you feel he was unprofessional -- because you had worked hard and your source "stole" the reporting you worked on. And also told only one side of the story, whereas you worked hard to uncover what you felt was the other side (as evidenced by your comments about Paul's "team" of 6).
You were bewildered that the author "betrayed" you like this. Because you had felt safe knowing that if the author HAD broken the story, they would be considered unhireable. This is why your original post reads as if you are shocked -- almost talking to yourself -- that the author felt saying these things publicly wouldn't hurt their job prospects. And why you called it "digital vandalism" because in your mind it was more like the author was a thief of your big scoop.
Leona Lewis
Banned
You may want to postpone or cancel your planned report for Monday because, unfortunately, after this episode any outcome other than bringing the hammer down on Brash Games will only reinforce the perception that you're trying to cover for them.
this will be my headcanon
Seriously?
People aren't being credited for their work and having it adjusted because the editor wants to. But it doesn't matter because it's about video games? Idiot.
You didn't need to trash the person who had been wronged to make this point, and that flies in the face of decency and civility really. You bent over backwards urging sympathy and understanding for the owner of the site yet not a shred of empathy for the writer and why he'd arrived at this point.
Also interesting how you use the same language of in over your head to explain it away as you did with the site owners' behaviour. That doesn't really cut it in either case,
Your sorry rings a bit hollow, and the amateur psychology above doesn't seem too off the mark.
Yeh. This is a shit post, Cday, as explained above.
Garbo post
"Hahaha you write about video games that means you don't deserve shit."
What's wrong with you?
Weltall Zero
Member
This is going to seem really harsh, but it hardly sounds like proper journalism if even the thought of harassment freaks you out into defending the party that is both clearly in power and clearly in the wrong, and lashing out against who is unambiguously the victim here. Frankly, this doesn't make me terribly hopeful about your investigation or it having any repercussions; hopefully I'm wrong and you pull no punches against those who deserve them.
About the people in your report, I could be wrong but I don't think they should have much to fear in terms of harassment. Unless they're women, of course, in which case you have every reason to worry.
You're a dick, get over yourself.
Off-Kilter
Banned
Lmao what the fuck is this post
You come to a forum based on video games and other nerdy shit, get over yourself.
I am also going to quote this post with disapproval.
Quote
Member
Yo what's your day job? Do you get paid for it?
I'm sure we can work out a deal where you work just as hard and I get the money? I'll make sure you don't get credit either when it's important for you.
I mean, you just ______ dude, get over yourself.
You don't need to give your work away for free.
That you don't get it is your problem. You won't understand why it's a problem, but rest assured there are plenty of people who are willing to devalue your labor and you have made it extremely easy for them to do so.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
You don't believe in volunteering then?
What Brash Games did is reprehensible (and OpenCritic is a whole thing) but that doesn't mean the review wasn't unprofessional. He might be getting offers but I wouldn't expect those outlets to be all that much different than Brash Games. I think it's a bit of poetic justice to turn the non-existent editing at Brash against itself, but if the reviewer sabotaged one outlet, what's to stop him from doing it again?
More_Badass
Member
Not changing review scores and whatnot? No reason to sabotage if the site is doing the right thing
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Will it stick though? Seems unlikely
He won't be able to to stuff like this because editors exist. They'll read his reviews and publish them.
The internet has thoroughly debunked the idea that any attention is good attention.
TylerDurden4321
Member
reading through this thread, never heard of Brash Games and probably will never again...
but never would have thought it would lead to me disliking OpenCritic so much. Thought they were the good guys compared to MetaCritic.
huh
but never would have thought it would lead to me disliking OpenCritic so much. Thought they were the good guys compared to MetaCritic.
huh
The outlet/editor actually reading the copy they publish and host, something they really should be doing anyway? Basic journalism: If you, as a site host/publisher, blindly publish stuff by a freelance without even reading it, even if you haven't paid for it and it's about computer games, you're eventually leaving yourself wide open to copyright/libel/etc claims. It's something I'd be doubly sure of with relatively new/amateur writers, not because they aren't penning good copy, but they might not be aware of relevant media law in the relevant countries and likelihood of action/consequences to the same extent that the editors of the site should be.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Would it be preferable if everyone just stopped writing for free?
Let`s say it happens overnight. Before long, a ton of websites shut down due to lack of content.
Because I see no other way out of this song and dance.
Oh, by all means Brash had this coming. But that doesn't mean other outlets should invite a loose cannon onto the masthead. Someone who's crossed that line once may well do it again.
Touche! Perhaps there's been an element of backfire all around here.
More_Badass
Member
A loose cannon or a whistleblower (or whatever the word would be in this situation)? A loose cannon implies there was no reason behind the action, that it was done impulsively
Finale Fireworker
Member
I feel like the "what about volunteering?" equation is a poor one. People volunteer because they find it fulfilling to do so. They do it to help others. They do it for people in need or causes they believe in. I volunteer an awful lot and expect nothing in return because I am volunteering for something I support or people less fortunate than me.
But I would never work for free.
I have lots of reasons for feeling this way. Some personal, some philosophical, some political. But the core of it is that I get a job and work that job with the expectation to be compensated. I volunteer with entirely different expectations. I go to work every day to benefit myself and my own well-being. This is the opposite of why I volunteer. I would never "volunteer" for Comcast or McDonalds or Dominos. But I would work for them.
A job that doesn't pay you is not volunteer work. It's like how all squares are rectangles but rectangles are not all squares. Volunteering may be unpaid labor, but it's not what most people would consider a job.
Unpaid labor is exclusively in the interest of employers. It makes businesses cheaper to operate and increases their profits. The notion that a company is generous for allowing you to work for free is foolish to me. Yes, you are gaining experience, but you would also still be gaining experience if they paid you. By not paying you, you get something you would have gotten anyway. Companies benefit from this arrangement. Workers do not.
This arrangement that Brash has with their writers benefits Paul Ryan alone. Nobody should be defending a company that is built on benefiting itself as the expense of its employees. This includes equating its unpaid employees to volunteers.
This is not employment. Nor is it volunteerism. It's exploitation.
But I would never work for free.
I have lots of reasons for feeling this way. Some personal, some philosophical, some political. But the core of it is that I get a job and work that job with the expectation to be compensated. I volunteer with entirely different expectations. I go to work every day to benefit myself and my own well-being. This is the opposite of why I volunteer. I would never "volunteer" for Comcast or McDonalds or Dominos. But I would work for them.
A job that doesn't pay you is not volunteer work. It's like how all squares are rectangles but rectangles are not all squares. Volunteering may be unpaid labor, but it's not what most people would consider a job.
Unpaid labor is exclusively in the interest of employers. It makes businesses cheaper to operate and increases their profits. The notion that a company is generous for allowing you to work for free is foolish to me. Yes, you are gaining experience, but you would also still be gaining experience if they paid you. By not paying you, you get something you would have gotten anyway. Companies benefit from this arrangement. Workers do not.
This arrangement that Brash has with their writers benefits Paul Ryan alone. Nobody should be defending a company that is built on benefiting itself as the expense of its employees. This includes equating its unpaid employees to volunteers.
This is not employment. Nor is it volunteerism. It's exploitation.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
It's possible to find "work" fulfilling without being paid too, you realize? And free articles do help others--the people looking for insight on what's being written.
The line between what you consider work and volunteering isn't nearly as thick as you seem to think
I wouldn't be where I am in my career if I hadn't volunteered my work, so to say it only benefits the company as a general rule is distinctly wrong. It was the stepping stone I need to get to where I am. I also wasn't exploited, unless you believe anyone who volunteers is unable to decide that for themselves...
Note: None of this excuses Paul Ryan for his specific actions. Dude sounds scummy as hell
The scenario you're painting is improbable.
1) Whether it's professional or not, is not the point. My original point was that people knocking on ol' dude, did so in jest; he's getting even more due to his review going viral.
2) This needed to be done, and he did it. He brought Brash's malpractice to light, revealed a nasty side of OpenCritic, and assisted fellow journalists in the same position. Going viral like he did may not have been 'professional', but that doesn't mean it wasn't necessary.
3) The fact that this happened in the first place, is what made him sabotage their image.
The only guilty party here, is Brash Games. If they operated like a normal business with morals, he would have never felt the need to sabotage their brand. Why would he sabotage other brands, when the chances of them being so incompetent, stupid, and arrogant as Brash, are just as improbable as this scenario you tried to paint?
It's quite the reach, honestly.
Petrae
Member
Then more YouTube channels spring up, starring people still chasing their dream to make it big in video games. Or writers retreat to their own blogs, working for themselves.
Websites shutting down because they can't (or refuse to) pay their staff members wouldn't be the worst thing. It would force change, one way or another. Gaming press wouldn't just vanish because working for "exposure"/for free happened to.
Good guys? Are there bad guys? Metacritic is a fucking score aggregation site. Jesus, you guys and your review scores are embarrassing. I still don't even understand the point of Opencritic beyond "please only show me review scores that support my preconceived notion of what a product I haven't played deserves. I am very fragile."
A loose cannon isn't someone who does things without cause, it's someone whose behaviour is unpredictable. No editor would invite this sort of behaviour. There are hundreds if not thousands of people looking for work in the industry, most of whom, one presumes, wouldn't torpedo the publication to make a point.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Obviously, based on all the job offers he's received, some editors disagree. Integrity is sometimes rewarded more than loyalty.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
..which would likely make it harder to get recognized due to the lack of an existing audience.