It's really appropiate now:
*grabs popcorn*
you're avatar makes everything funnier!
It's really appropiate now:
*grabs popcorn*
all of a sudden, i want to buy whatever it is ACKKStudios makes
This just means that more than one site is guilty of asking loaded questions or atleast have a guilty conscience of doing it.
No, you couldn't, because they obviously aren't.You could easily spin her own questions into "fishing for negatives" too even though they obviously aren't.
I also strongly believe that it's not exactly the classiest way to basically shift focus away from the original issue by publicly calling out rookie mistakes. Kotaku could've reached out to NES just as easily and asked them to take the article down or to clarify things since they were a) not publicly named and b) will walk away from this undamaged while both the developers and NES' rep will take a hit in certain circles.
Not very nice.
edit: Apparently the original article wasn't even about Kotaku. Kinda makes it even less nice, Mr. Schreier.
I don't think she necessarily knows. The can't mentioned could be because she wasn't actually told (unless I missed a bit where she says otherwise). I don't think it would be bad for an indie game to get the spotlight in times of high traffic due to big articles either, depending on how you handle that. It's not like they're competing for money on a shelf here and so should avoid crowded dates.I'm also disappointed that the author of this article didn't reach out to get my side of this story. Reporters should not treat other reporters this way.
Like all the negative Nintendo stories spawning from such baiting attitudes have any more proof. They transferred what they were told, that's it, and their source is as legit as you can get, whether Kotaku publishes an edited piece or not after the fact.Protip: Don't post such articles untill you have evidence/checked your sources and you're sure you won't harm the reputation of someone. (in this case also the studio)
Re-reading the thread, I feel this is a fair point that's been overlooked. Kotaku isn't all squeaky clean as some are making them out to be.
It's hilarious. No one guesses Polygon, CVG, Edge, GameInformer.com, JoyStiq.
Everyone jumped on it being Kotaku.
I mean what does that say about Kotaku? Not a very good reputation.
I guessed Polygon.It's hilarious. No one guesses Polygon, CVG, Edge, GameInformer.com, JoyStiq.
Everyone jumped on it being Kotaku.
I mean what does that say about Kotaku? Not a very good reputation.
WAIT NM I'M BACK IN THIS IS TOO GOOD
DAT RUN ON SENTENCE
Wow! It's not every day you get anonymously accused of this sort of thing. This is about me and Kotaku, yes.
I'm disappointed that the developers of that game chose to bash me to another reporter instead of asking me why my story hasn't gone up. If they had asked me, I would have happily told them that the story was pushed back because I didn't want it to get lost among the influx of Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Wii U, holiday gift guides, and all the other big stories we've been covering over the past few weeks. I would have told them that their story is not particularly timely, so I wanted to hold it for a time when they could get more attention.
I would have also happily told them how excited I am about the Wii U and how psyched I am to hear that indie developers are doing well on it. I said as much in a podcast recorded yesterday, coincidentally (which you can check out Wednesday over at GameTrailers TV).
Anyone who follows me on Twitter, reads my work on Kotaku, or saw my thoughts on BBC last week knows that I am very high on this system.
I'm also disappointed that the author of this article didn't reach out to get my side of this story. Reporters should not treat other reporters this way.
It's always weird when stuff like this goes public. I still intend to run this story, but now I guess there's more to the story than what I was originally going to run.
But. It IS Kotaku.
I'm sorry, but the author immediately running to defend himself is an admission of guilt. Shame it was exposed so ham fisted, but hey, games journalism.
I'm on it being Kotaku but she's trying to pretend it wasn't in some attempt to cover her ass.
I feel like we read different first pages.It's hilarious. No one guesses Polygon, CVG, Edge, GameInformer.com, JoyStiq.
Everyone jumped on it being Kotaku.
I mean what does that say about Kotaku? Not a very good reputation.
I cannot take any site seriously that has an article online wich asks me wich Animal Crossing character i would bone.
Sorry.
Link? Need to get my vote in.
We can only assume it is Kotaku because Kotaku has said it was them. Of course Kotaku only assumed it was them because apparently the shoe of "outlet that tells leading questions that bash Nintendo" fits them perfectly. So they jumped in to tell NES off for not talking with them, even though Kotaku apparently didn't talk to NES to confirm who the mysterious outlet was. So Kotaku basically being Kotaku then. Maybe this is what the song Razzle Dazzle was all about.But. It IS Kotaku.
I'm sorry, but the author immediately running to defend himself is an admission of guilt. Shame it was exposed so ham fisted, but hey, games journalism.
Did you bone Tangy?I cannot take any site seriously that has an article online wich asks me wich Animal Crossing character i would bone.
Sorry.
http://kotaku.com/5807682/if-you-could-bone-one-animal-crossing-character-who-would-it-be
My brain cannot comprehent thos kind of... "Article".
all of a sudden, i want to buy whatever it is ACKKStudios makes
If you don't name names, and publicly shame them then what's the point of writing this article? It's pretty obvious just by looking at this forum that negative stories sell more than positive ones.
All according to Kotaku.
Do you only read headlines?
Kotaku is probably happy this happened.
Now when the interview is posted, it'll get a shit load of hits.
Emily Rogers lying? what a shocking and unexpected turn of events that would be!
But. It IS Kotaku.
I'm sorry, but the author immediately running to defend himself is an admission of guilt. Shame it was exposed so ham fisted, but hey, games journalism.
Kotaku never even interviewed ACKStudios
Lol, did you even read what he said? They will publish the article later on, how could they do that if they didn't interviewed them?
Interview them today?
They already did?Wow! It's not every day you get anonymously accused of this sort of thing. This is about me and Kotaku, yes.
I'm disappointed that the developers of that game chose to bash me to another reporter instead of asking me why my story hasn't gone up. If they had asked me, I would have happily told them that the story was pushed back because I didn't want it to get lost among the influx of Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Wii U, holiday gift guides, and all the other big stories we've been covering over the past few weeks. I would have told them that their story is not particularly timely, so I wanted to hold it for a time when they could get more attention.
I would have also happily told them how excited I am about the Wii U and how psyched I am to hear that indie developers are doing well on it. I said as much in a podcast recorded yesterday, coincidentally (which you can check out Wednesday over at GameTrailers TV).
Anyone who follows me on Twitter, reads my work on Kotaku, or saw my thoughts on BBC last week knows that I am very high on this system.
I'm also disappointed that the author of this article didn't reach out to get my side of this story. Reporters should not treat other reporters this way.
It's always weird when stuff like this goes public. I still intend to run this story, but now I guess there's more to the story than what I was originally going to run.
You think after this article that the questions will still come across as Nintendo-bashing - if they originally were posed in this way?Use your own brain when the interview goes live.
Yea, let's keep bashing on the little guys ...
*smh*
They already did?
This just means that more than one site is guilty of asking loaded questions or atleast have a guilty conscience of doing it.
who tf is this Emily Rogers gal?. she seems like a weirdo.
what a bizarre turn of events.