• 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.

The Games Journalism Thread: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

ShinMaruku

Member
Another thing I view as something problematic with calling them journalism is I think they give people too much credit. Just like how some economists truly believe the bullshit of personal responsibility and individuality as the true things that can build wealth when it's much more complex than that.

You want to have this discussions and extol the industry when somebody just wants to know if a game with worth $60 (Which is no small sum in this age of depressed wages and what not)

Also you have to be mindful of the appearance of impropriety. It's more important how it appears than how it is in fact because the media and the consumer has lost trust.
 

Syriel

Member
Another thing I view as something problematic with calling them journalism is I think they give people too much credit. Just like how some economists truly believe the bullshit of personal responsibility and individuality as the true things that can build wealth when it's much more complex than that.

You want to have this discussions and extol the industry when somebody just wants to know if a game with worth $60 (Which is no small sum in this age of depressed wages and what not)

Also you have to be mindful of the appearance of impropriety. It's more important how it appears than how it is in fact because the media and the consumer has lost trust.

This is something that my journalism professor constantly told his students back in the day.

It was true then and it is true now.
 

televator

Member
Last time I linked something to criticize, I was informed privately that I had made enemies by calling out specific people. I'd rather not sabotage what little space I've carved out for myself by making people feel bad, if I can help it?

If linking stuff is absolutely, completely mandatory, then I'll simply exit the thread instead.

EDIT: I will link positive stuff tho. Gimme a bit.

Sounds a lot like the Fox News effect. Anchors and writers on other major new sources wont call out, investigate, or question the practices and claims of Fox News because it limits, diminishes, or terminates their opportunities. It's no surprise that its like that for gaming news since its pretty much owned by a lot of the same companies.
 

PillarEN

Member
Question: Are we considering channels like Errant Signal, Super Bunnyhop, MathewMatosis (sp?) journalism? Because I don't think they technically count even if I enjoy their output.
Also, a big thanks to the links in the 2nd and 3rd post in this thread.

Last time I linked something to criticize, I was informed privately that I had made enemies by calling out specific people. I'd rather not sabotage what little space I've carved out for myself by making people feel bad, if I can help it?

If linking stuff is absolutely, completely mandatory, then I'll simply exit the thread instead.

EDIT: I will link positive stuff tho. Gimme a bit.
You got the chilling effect here on GAF?
 

PtM

Banned
I have some easy ugly: Gerstmann getting the boot from Gamespot.

I used to read Tim Rogers on Kotaku (nowadays mostly news on MCV and NintendoLife).
 

BLunted

Banned
I have never acknowledged the games media as "Journalism", and never will. Probably why I never get bent out of shape when they pull their bullshit. I have always taken it with a grain of salt.
 
Sounds a lot like the Fox News effect. Anchors and writers on other major new sources wont call out, investigate, or question the practices and claims of Fox News because it limits, diminishes, or terminates their opportunities. It's no surprise that its like that for gaming news since its pretty much owned by a lot of the same companies.

It's not just about limiting their own opportunities. Professionalism and prudence may be reasons not to slag the competition. Calling out other people on their shortcomings (especially when there's room for disagreement on whether or not those shortcomings crossed some sort of line) can make you look petty. It also invites other people to examine your own history (and that of your employers) for evidence of similar shortcomings, because everyone online loves a good "gotcha."
 

Shy

Member
Question: Are we considering channels like Errant Signal, Super Bunnyhop, MathewMatosis (sp?) journalism? Because I don't think they technically count even if I enjoy their output.
Also, a big thanks to the links in the 2nd and 3rd post in this thread.
I think that's good question.
As a couple of peeps said you can put criticism in the larger circle of journalism. but i was unsure myself, which is why edited my post a couple of times, taking journalism out and putting it back in again.

And out of those three i'd be more inclined to call George (bunnyhop) a games journalist, because he actually has a degree in journalism, even if he hasn't done any investigative pieces yet.
 

Aesnath

Member
I just feel like we have a need for our discussion about games to move onto something bigger, better, and more complete. Rather than games journalism we need something akin to games criticism or games analysis. Basically, I'm the games-as-art (potentially) camp, but I feel like we are not going to get there if there is no viable outlet to take notice of risk-takers and envelope-pushers.

There is a need to know what games are coming out, whether or not one should buy them, and to get info in general. However, games, as a medium, are bigger than that, and there needs to be a place for those discussions to exist.

I understand that the gaming public at large may not be interested in such things, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Now that I think about it, I suppose I want an academic journal. Games aren't going anywhere, and they are becoming an increasingly prevalent part of people's lives. They should be treated as more than just an "industry."
 

ShinMaruku

Member
I suspect part of the difference is that most of today's game writers didn't study journalism in college.

I suspect they are either English majors or something else. If it's not people studying such a subject that's really damaging to the medium when you have them calling themselves that AND the consumer calling them that too. It's why I always say Patrick Klepek and the other Kotaku dude journalists and everybody else just media people.
 

DocSeuss

Member
Question: Are we considering channels like Errant Signal, Super Bunnyhop, MathewMatosis (sp?) journalism? Because I don't think they technically count even if I enjoy their output.
Also, a big thanks to the links in the 2nd and 3rd post in this thread.


You got the chilling effect here on GAF?

Not on GAF, but because of something I said on GAF.
 
I just feel like we have a need for our discussion about games to move onto something bigger, better, and more complete. Rather than games journalism we need something akin to games criticism or games analysis. Basically, I'm the games-as-art (potentially) camp, but I feel like we are not going to get there if there is no viable outlet to take notice of risk-takers and envelope-pushers.

There is a need to know what games are coming out, whether or not one should buy them, and to get info in general. However, games, as a medium, are bigger than that, and there needs to be a place for those discussions to exist.

I understand that the gaming public at large may not be interested in such things, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Now that I think about it, I suppose I want an academic journal. Games aren't going anywhere, and they are becoming an increasingly prevalent part of people's lives. They should be treated as more than just an "industry."
I agree with you on that. One of the reasons I like Gamasutra so much because the articles there delve into how and why games work, similar to how movie critics might analyze how editing and camera work can tell a story onscreen. That stuff fascinates me and I wish more sites and articles analyzed games rather than just providing news and reviews.
 
I just feel like we have a need for our discussion about games to move onto something bigger, better, and more complete. Rather than games journalism we need something akin to games criticism or games analysis. Basically, I'm the games-as-art (potentially) camp, but I feel like we are not going to get there if there is no viable outlet to take notice of risk-takers and envelope-pushers.

There is a need to know what games are coming out, whether or not one should buy them, and to get info in general. However, games, as a medium, are bigger than that, and there needs to be a place for those discussions to exist.

I understand that the gaming public at large may not be interested in such things, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Now that I think about it, I suppose I want an academic journal. Games aren't going anywhere, and they are becoming an increasingly prevalent part of people's lives. They should be treated as more than just an "industry."

gamecrit.jpg
 

jschreier

Member
Such is the beast in media-based coverage. I think why we see such a gulf between editorial/commentary work and journalism is that this industry has a knack for playing things real tight to the chest for whatever reason, and that the relationships there between them and outlets is a bit more separated than what it is in say the film industry and those that cover them.

I'm sure Jason has touched on this in the past, so he likely already has some comments for this. Could be mistaken, so sorry if I'm putting him on the spot :p
Most people working professionally in games media tend to do a little bit of everything -- news, editorials, reviews, whatever -- so it's not so strange that everyone conflates them all into the general "journalism."
 

ShinMaruku

Member
Most people working professionally in games media tend to do a little bit of everything -- news, editorials, reviews, whatever -- so it's not so strange that everyone conflates them all into the general "journalism."

I find when people conflate this into journalism it is a good part of the strike that exists.

And those in the media must be aware of the appearance of impropriety.
 
...amazing.
I even mentioned it a page before!

What I think's lacking are specific histories of groups of games, developers, and cultures related to gaming. So while Console War deals with its broad subject very well, I'm not seeing much focusing on late-1990s online game communities and things like that. Anna Anthropy did a history and personal analysis of ZZT for Boss Fight Books a while back; writing this involved a kind of investigative journalism in regard to collecting primary sources. The book has both critique and factual illumination of a specific culture, rendered in detail uncommon for most video game literature. I could try and do the same with a history of Nihon Falcom, synthesizing PR, first-hand accounts, and critique of their ludography and relationship with fans to form a history.

Jimmy Maher does a lot of the above on his site The Digital Antiquarian, and Matt Barton assumes some of these qualities when doing his Matt Chat interviews with developers.
 

FlyinJ

Douchebag. Yes, me.
Rob Zacny's piece on Kaos Studios and the crazy story behind Homefront is a piece of more traditional journalism that I think the (games journalism) industry can be more proud of than most. Wish we had more articles like this, but the games industry plays everything so close to their vest.

You only get to hear the real story behind a game's development if the studio that created it goes out of business. Some of the stories behind games by studios that are still around are just as, if not more, compelling. They are all unfortunately locked behind the impenetrable iron gate of the PR department.
 

Markitron

Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
I think this qualifies as both bad and ugly games journalsim:

ibfFPdC8I92cTj.gif
 

Par Score

Member
And those in the media must be aware of the appearance of impropriety.

I'm not sure what you find improper about a single person doing news, editorials, reviews, etc. and calling it journalism.

There are absolutely games journalists, just as there are games reviewers, games critics, games writers, games academics and games entertainment reporters. It's a thriving and vibrant media space, there should be no surprised that it attracts as much press as the film or music industry.
 
I think this qualifies as both bad and ugly games journalsim:

ibfFPdC8I92cTj.gif

Yeah....that's pretty bad.

1.Dont say something like this unless you have science to back you up. (Like digital foundry)

2.They have an obvious affection for the Xbox brand (and every journalist/gamer loves either PS/Xbox/Nintendo/Steam) but you have to be unbiased when you are writing articles or on camera.
 
I'm really struggling to find great games criticism. I'm almost convinced it doesn't exist, except, perhaps, on YouTube. I do my best, but I'm just one dude. :\

See, I feel like already this an issue that needs clarity - is this a thread about games criticism or games journalism? To me those are two distinct fields that ideally shouldn't be conflated under one topic. I don't think discussion of the publishing industry is the same as literary criticism. Each are important and valuable, but are their own thing.
 
One big issue that really started rearing its ugly head in the last 5 years or so is broken games. However, video game reviews alot of times will not warn you of these issues before launch. (Because you dont know how multiplayer will perform before the servers get hit by the players).

We should see more reviewers do "review in progress" for multiplayer games. I'm not a huge IGN fan but i have to give them props for doing this.

Gametrailers didn't release their review for The Club until like 2 months after launch, i really respect that.
 

Markitron

Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
One big issue that really started rearing its ugly head in the last 5 years or so is broken games. However, video game reviews alot of times will not warn you of these issues before launch. (Because you dont know how multiplayer will perform before the servers get hit by the players).

We should see more reviewers do "review in progress" for multiplayer games. I'm not a huge IGN fan but i have to give them props for doing this.

Gametrailers didn't release their review for The Club until like 2 months after launch, i really respect that.

I think this is thankfully becoming more and more common, particularly after what happened with Battlefield 4 and it's review events. Both Destiny and Bloodborne had their reviews held by a few major sites until they could be tested on public servers IIRC.
 
One big issue that really started rearing its ugly head in the last 5 years or so is broken games. However, video game reviews alot of times will not warn you of these issues before launch. (Because you dont know how multiplayer will perform before the servers get hit by the players).

We should see more reviewers do "review in progress" for multiplayer games. I'm not a huge IGN fan but i have to give them props for doing this.

Gametrailers didn't release their review for The Club until like 2 months after launch, i really respect that.

I imagine publishers would love it if all reviews were delayed for a week after release. It would be their dream scenario where the game's day one sales solely come from marketing and nothing else.

No matter when a review comes out, the consumers are going to end up getting fucked at some end (depending on what's broken and why). I think the best way to do it is to have those provisional reviews most places do now that just say "This sucks, they say they'll patch it, but we're moving forward with the assumption that they won't."

But then we also have to stop being a culture obsessed with scores and teams, because right now, we don't pay attention to provisional reviews because they don't affect the metacritic score yet and we are more likely to ignore what they say if they make assumptions about how something we're hyped for may or may not work at release.
 

Fantastapotamus

Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
One big issue that really started rearing its ugly head in the last 5 years or so is broken games. However, video game reviews alot of times will not warn you of these issues before launch. (Because you dont know how multiplayer will perform before the servers get hit by the players).

We should see more reviewers do "review in progress" for multiplayer games. I'm not a huge IGN fan but i have to give them props for doing this.

Gametrailers didn't release their review for The Club until like 2 months after launch, i really respect that.

I feel like we can thank EA for the emergence of late reviews. Sim City was a shit show and both SC and Battlefield 4 were broken for MONTHS yet received very high scores.
I think Polygon initially gave SimCity a 9.5, 3 days later it changed it to a 4.
That's bad.

RockPaperShotgun's coverage of SimCity was excellent though.
 

pakkit

Banned
I love the emergence of critical discussion and literary analysis in video games. Errant Signal and Kill Screen Daily both do a tremendous job in discussing games outside of pure merit, by finding identifying an argument or central philosophy in its game design.
 

DocSeuss

Member
See, I feel like already this an issue that needs clarity - is this a thread about games criticism or games journalism? To me those are two distinct fields that ideally shouldn't be conflated under one topic. I don't think discussion of the publishing industry is the same as literary criticism. Each are important and valuable, but are their own thing.

I think there's an overlap. Ebert was a critic, working for a newspaper, ergo, a journalist.
 

PtM

Banned
I imagine publishers would love it if all reviews were delayed for a week after release. It would be their dream scenario where the game's day one sales solely come from marketing and nothing else.

No matter when a review comes out, the consumers are going to end up getting fucked at some end (depending on what's broken and why). I think the best way to do it is to have those provisional reviews most places do now that just say "This sucks, they say they'll patch it, but we're moving forward with the assumption that they won't."
Eh, peeps who don't wait for reviews would have bought it anyway.
 
I did a thread on it back when it was published, but I want to highlight the article in question again because damn it, it's the best article I've ever read. Not the best games article I've ever read, the best 'article' article I've ever read.

Eurogamer's Christian Donlan, who for the sake of personal disclosure is someone I consider a friend of mine in the games industry, wrote a piece last year on Spelunky, XCOM and how it helped him to prepare to deal with multiple scoliosis.

Read it here, it's highly recommended.

When Donlan's piece was published, although I can't ever begin to imagine what he is going through in regards to his MS, I could relate in at least a small part to the article in that games helped me through a massively scary time in my life. Something very recent too at the time of its publication in that a few weeks earlier, my mum died. And like I said, in some small part, his piece related to me.

Chris is one of the best writers we have in the industry right now, if not the best. Hopefully a lot more people will speak a lot more of him now we have this thread.
 
I guess I'll jump in with something that always bothered me about game reviews, especially for certain genres/games. That is, I feel for many genres, game reviewers simply aren't competent enough to be reviewing said game in a genre. Think for example, DMC, Ninja Gaiden or Bayonetta. Hell, anything with sufficient complexity. Now, I'm not saying this applies to all reviewers, but I'd say it does to the vast majority of them.

Reviews for said game almost always come off as focusing on "superficial" elements. Maybe that's not the right word but for example, I don't think many would look to the review of a fighting game in regards to how much depth it has or how complex it is. Said review would probably be focused on presentation/story mode/arcade/content. The actual basis for what makes said game "solid" is kind of ignored. I think you could apply this to any fighting game coming out. Street Fighter V could be utterly devoid of any depth and I doubt you'd really hear about that until the game's out and is in the communities hands. Which to me, utterly defeats the purpose of reviews for said title.
 

ShinMaruku

Member
I guess I'll jump in with something that always bothered me about game reviews, especially for certain genres/games. That is, I feel for many genres, game reviewers simply aren't competent enough to be reviewing said game in a genre. Think for example, DMC, Ninja Gaiden or Bayonetta. Hell, anything with sufficient complexity. Now, I'm not saying this applies to all reviewers, but I'd say it does to the vast majority of them.

Reviews for said game almost always come off as focusing on "superficial" elements. Maybe that's not the right word but for example, I don't think many would look to the review of a fighting game in regards to how much depth it has or how complex it is. Said review would probably be focused on presentation/story mode/arcade/content. The actual basis for what makes said game "solid" is kind of ignored. I think you could apply this to any fighting game coming out. Street Fighter V could be utterly devoid of any depth and I doubt you'd really hear about that until the game's out and is in the communities hands. Which to me, utterly defeats the purpose of reviews for said title.

For games like those I think a specialist reviewer from the community should work with the reviewer to help break down the review. Such collaboration could be fruitful for the more complex games.
 

MC Safety

Member
I think there's an overlap. Ebert was a critic, working for a newspaper, ergo, a journalist.

It's not tough to understand. The editorial columnist is a journalist. The photographer is a journalist. The arts critic is a journalist. The copy-editor is a journalist.

Lots of different jobs fall under the grand category of journalism. This means reporting, editing, fact-checking, photography, and commentary/criticism.
 
I think this qualifies as both bad and ugly games journalsim:

ibfFPdC8I92cTj.gif

I don't think this is even an example of journalism. Podcasts like this are more like people having a conversation.

I also don't think their central thesis is wrong, even if they're expressing it really poorly. Most people can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 at a reasonable sitting distance. Most people I think are probably not even aware of what these concepts are but that's another topic.
 
I think Youtube channels and videos should be included under the journalism umbrella here for the purpose of discussion. One, because Youtube has become just as important, if not more so, than sites for coverage. But mainly because of channel/publisher connections, limiting review copies, contracts stating how a game must be presented in videos, and all those points of discussion related to game coverage
 

ShinMaruku

Member
I'm not sure what you find improper about a single person doing news, editorials, reviews, etc. and calling it journalism.

There are absolutely games journalists, just as there are games reviewers, games critics, games writers, games academics and games entertainment reporters. It's a thriving and vibrant media space, there should be no surprised that it attracts as much press as the film or music industry.
I am not talking what I find improper about them, I don't ascribe any value to them more than what they provide. But other people see and smell money hats and things like that. Then they see the game journos pro thing with "Let's give a gift to a developer" People will see that and say "You wot mate?"!
 

Maximo

Member
Awesome to see this thread come back -- it's nice to have someplace to read/discuss actual ethical issues in game journalism.
Yep really glad this Thead is back. Haven't always agreed with you in the past but lately I have been loving your work and have much respect for you coming and interacting with GAF as it can be....a difficult place at times. Glad alot of the *Shall Not Be Named* Topics have gone by and the nitty gritty can be brought back.
 

KirbyKid

Member
sup GAF,

Games criticism is one of my favorite subjects. I've maintained a blog for about 5 years, done a few talks, and launched a few experiments in games criticism.

I'm always curious to know what sources GAFers regularly consume, what you think of the critical games conversation overall, and what drives you to keep reading/searching/sharing.
 
I'm not going to call on anyone specifically, but I'd like to air some grievances things I've seen and experienced in my brief time trying to get into game journalism.

I am currently trying to get my foot in the door when it comes to games journalism. I hate using the term though because I'm clearly not a journalist, as I haven't been trained in or studied writing aside from the gen creds needed for my eventual graduation from the local university.

My first experience as a gaming enthusiast writer was a short entry I wrote on the GamesBeat community site almost a year ago, in an effort to win a Nintendo eShop card. The article was about maturing into Wind Waker. Mission successful, it was the sweetest ten bucks I ever received. Since then, I've tried blogging and was invited to write for several small sites as a volunteer contributor.

That was when I started to learn that people can be real shady and dicks when it comes to writing about video games. It feels like small sites in particular are keen to chew people up and spit them out. The website gamejournalismjobs for example is like the game journo equivalent of a puppy mill, as I learned through firsthand experience.

Just a few of the things I've experienced in less than a year of trying to make my way to anything significant:

People will invite you to write for them, offering a review copy of a game and/or a few dollars in exchange for writing articles that will get them views, but throw you under the bus to avoid too much backlash.

Sometimes this is up front and feels like you're being given a job as a pro wrestling heel, others they just try to strong arm you into changes. For example, I received a copy of Alien Isolation for review. I was told I couldn't disclose I received a copy, and then I saw they made some substantial edits...

They changed my review score by 4 points and removed many of the positives I listed while keeping all of the negatives. Luckily, I saw this before it was published and raised a fuss. I returned the whopping 5 dollars I was paid and sent back the review copy.

The "Volunteer Contributor" role can be awesome or it can be awful. I currently write for a web site as a volunteer contributor. I feel like I'm learning a lot, it varies depending on the editor. I also get review copies and can get press passes.

That said, some places will treat you like crap. I once told the head of another website that I was a full time college student with a job and could only contribute about 2-3 times per week. He told me that would be fine. Less than two weeks later I was given an ultimatum to write 4 more articles per week or leave because I was dead weight,

Can anybody explain to me how someone voluntarily contributing to a small website could be dead weight, barring articles that would damage the website by how bad they were?

Turnover can be crazy, and purposefully so. Some sites will pay for featured positions on gamejournalismjobs and just pull in as many people as possible. They get a few articles from each, then cut them. I guess if you can't pull in tons of views with well written articles you can just spam articles and make ad revenue that way?

It's extra shady when the site keeps telling mew members to buy their merch too. They get free ad revenue from the work these new recruits do, then squeeze out some more money by convincing them to buy a dumb shirt or mug with their logo on it before they get the boot.

That really turns my damn stomach.

I imagine that's the kind of crap you only have to put up with when dealing with low tier garbage sites as opposed to the bigger ones. Oh man, please tell me crap like this doesn't happen if you end up writing for larger sites. That might be the final straw for me.



On another note, I'm glad to see other people feel the same as me on the critic topic.

Metacritic is completely useless on the individual consumer level. People should learn how to pick a handful of critics to follow instead of looking at aggregate scores. Find critics with similar tastes to you, and weigh their opinions when considering whether or not a game is worth your time.

I don't share similar tastes with Dan Stapleton, thus his opinion means virtually nothing to me. Why would I want to see an average score from dozens of other people who also may not share my tastes? I don't ask vegans about steaks.

Movie critics and fans of the original source material hated the Bay's Transformers, but I went in expecting a big dumb movie with fighting robots and explosions. It scratched my itch. The same idea goes for critics in every field.
 
I am currently trying to get my foot in the door when it comes to games journalism...

etc.

This is a very typical experience for folks starting out in the N4G/Gamejournalismjobs scene, which I recommend new writers stay away from. I came up as a writer in that environment, and I can comfortably say that the successes I've had were largely in spite of it--not a product of it. On-the-job training is either not there, or encourages poor practices. It's rife with sites that profit off of volunteer contributors without offering meaningful compensation (and review copies of games and press passes are not compensation--they're tools of the trade). It's bad for learning how to write, it's bad for learning what kind of payment a writer should expect, and it's bad for game journalism at large.

To some degree, these are problems that diminish as you go up the tiers of game journalism, but never entirely disappear. It's still very much a scene where many of the old gatekeepers just sort of fell into their positions, and where there's little-to-nothing in the way of professional organization, education, or regulation. That makes it an easy scene to break into--particularly if you have a natural talent--but it also makes it easy to be taken advantage of, and where it's easy to misapply your efforts.

Mods: If this violates the thread policy for self promotion feel free to delete. I'm operating under the assumption that it's kosher because it's not for my benefit and kinda apropos:

I run a little pro bono shoppe called Tutorial Mission in my spare time that provides editing and feedback services for amateur game journalists and critics. It's like the writing service center you find in a lot of universities--something for new writers to use to improve their craft and get the sort of educational feedback that's almost always lacking for people coming up in the scene. I definitely encourage anyone to give it a look and submit a piece of writing when I open it up for submissions again (sometime in the next two weeks).
 

dannyodwyer

Neo Member
The Bad:

GameSpot read the article on Kotaku, copied the substance of the whole thing, and added nothing new to the story. No insight, no further details, not even a new request for comment, and existing details are even in the same order. Kotaku did all the work, but GameSpot reaps the benefit since there's now no point for a reader to check out the original article on Kotaku. Maybe not unethical, but supremely lazy and kind of rude. Poor form.

Just to clarify, we linked to the original story in the first line of the story and this type of reporting-on-reporting is par-for-the-course in the media. When we break news, Kotaku pick it up too - and (sometimes) do us the same courtesy.
 

Ralemont

not me
I'm not sure if it counts as game journalism but MrBTongue does a great job providing an interesting analysis of different video game related topics. My favorite video is his look at choice and consequences in gaming.

His is one of the only Mass Effect 3 ending critiques that I find to be on point from start to finish: insightful without being over-the-top. On the other hand, I didn't like that C&C video, and feel he wrongly identifies - or too far limits in scope - what the point of choice in games are. I nevertheless agree that he does good work and generally has interesting angles on game topics.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
Just to clarify, we linked to the original story in the first line of the story and this type of reporting-on-reporting is par-for-the-course in the media. When we break news, Kotaku pick it up too - and (sometimes) do us the same courtesy.
Do you have examples when Kotaku did the same to you?

Under the gamespot tag kotaku doesn't really have much, so I did a google search and just an example when they linked the No Man's Sky video it was done this way:

9UFLXiy.png

(Two second gif)
http://kotaku.com/a-new-no-mans-sky-video-at-gamespot-has-a-few-new-detai-1601842805

This is not comprehensive and just the most recent thing I found on the first page of google but if this is a regular back and forth it should be noted in the thread so no false perception is perpetuated.
 
Top Bottom