-
Introducing NeoGAF Gold
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- 13927
- Status
I'm an expert
Formerly worldrevolution. The only reason I am nice to anyone else is to avoid being banned.
- Nov 26, 2008
- 13,783
- 4
- 800
I'm an expert
Formerly worldrevolution. The only reason I am nice to anyone else is to avoid being banned.
- Nov 26, 2008
- 13,783
- 4
- 800
I don't care for GB either and am skeptical of Polygon. My larger point was, there are alternative publications popping up that do not operate within the traditional enthusiast framework and are not as beholden to it as the big sites, so if your argument was that that's what needs to happen to improve the field, I'm pretty sure we all agree that more of it needs to happen, I'm just not sure why you think that was an especially contrarian view to take.
I'll cop to misperceiving your post as stronger and more directed than it was. However, it's still the case that no one actually made a prediction that things would change. The closest that came to that is "This doesn't feel like the 100 other times this story has come out to me, this feels like a tipping point." It may be semantics, but that's not a prediction, it's a gut feeling. Even if I shared the feeling, I certainly wouldn't bet $500 on it.
I'll cop to misperceiving your post as stronger and more directed than it was. However, it's still the case that no one actually made a prediction that things would change. The closest that came to that is "This doesn't feel like the 100 other times this story has come out to me, this feels like a tipping point." It may be semantics, but that's not a prediction, it's a gut feeling. Even if I shared the feeling, I certainly wouldn't bet $500 on it.
What is she going to say if she thought there was nothing wrong with what she was doing in the first place? She felt attacked and exposed, now she just feels persecuted instead, so there's no real reason to come out and say anything.
Hopefully there's some soul searching going on on her part, and the fact that she tried to remove the evidence of her connection to SE might be an indication that she is starting to catch up to the fact that what she did might've been highly unethical. On the other hand, hopefully her current and future employers begin to realize she's burn out too.
Hopefully there's some soul searching going on on her part, and the fact that she tried to remove the evidence of her connection to SE might be an indication that she is starting to catch up to the fact that what she did might've been highly unethical. On the other hand, hopefully her current and future employers begin to realize she's burn out too.
What you can do is separate the news from the criticism. Get criticism from amateur sites and get news from forums or major sites, keeping in mind PR and news are often the same thing.
You get reviews later this way, but it's obviously preferable to shitting where you eat. Later reviews are better anyway, since reviewers have time to play the game at their own pace and let their thoughts settle.
You get reviews later this way, but it's obviously preferable to shitting where you eat. Later reviews are better anyway, since reviewers have time to play the game at their own pace and let their thoughts settle.
I think the point is that ALL gaming news sources refuse to play ball with the publishers. Do you think pubs don't want coverage for their games? They'd have to drop their bullshit and respect the ethical codes of the journalists.
Of course that would never happen since the monetary reward from breaking rank and play ball would be too great for everyone to remain ethical.
I also doesn't help that a big part of their readership doesn't give a shit about all this and just want their bullshots early.
Of course that would never happen since the monetary reward from breaking rank and play ball would be too great for everyone to remain ethical.
I also doesn't help that a big part of their readership doesn't give a shit about all this and just want their bullshots early.
What could she say? The damage has been done. Either she comes out and tries to defend her actions, which she's probably smart enough to know will reignite the controversy and re-direct the storm directly back at her, or she offers an apology which probably won't be well-received and won't actually fix anything.
Plus, I'm not saying we should feel sorry for her, but I imagine that getting the entirety of the Internet rage machine digging into your entire history and career and trying to dig up any remotely unsavory evidence is probably likely to make a person want to shut down and stay away. It may not be good PR but most people are bad at PR. That's why we have PR people.
Plus, I'm not saying we should feel sorry for her, but I imagine that getting the entirety of the Internet rage machine digging into your entire history and career and trying to dig up any remotely unsavory evidence is probably likely to make a person want to shut down and stay away. It may not be good PR but most people are bad at PR. That's why we have PR people.
I'll have to listen to that when they put those two guys' segments up, but I'm not surprised. The subject matter is likely something Gerstmann is sick to the back teeth of by this point, and he's always come across as an actions-before-words guy.
I'm looking forward to the Bombcast, I want to get Brad and Vinny's take on this, if they have one. edit: Although Vinny's probably got a million other things to care about, especially when this basically has nothing to do with him
I'm looking forward to the Bombcast, I want to get Brad and Vinny's take on this, if they have one. edit: Although Vinny's probably got a million other things to care about, especially when this basically has nothing to do with him
His worth reading article from 10/26. It's mostly reasonable on it's own, I suppose, but taken in light of so many sites echoing the same sentiment it becomes tiresome to hear. Yes this happens all the time, yes we know you have to walk a very thin line, but if you're going to bother to talk about the issue at all, at least give it the context it's due and don't treat us like it isn't our concern. How he finished that piece, "Now, let's move on." struck me as horribly arrogant. This whole thing exposes the amount of stink you all have on your hands. Now let's not move on with business as usual, let's see what we can do to fix this shit or at least cut out the cancer.
Did I say that my view was contrarian? I just expressed my view (which I thought might be unpopular, though I wasn't sure), and some people agreed with me some people didn't.
My view is that:
(a) the system that is in place cannot be reformed into a legitimate form of critical media, and
(b) it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect 'more' from the current system (given the types of people and entities involved), and
(c) if we wanted 'more', we'd have to pursue a fundamentally distinct system (rather than reform of the current system), and
(d) I personally don't care whether we ever get 'more'.
Notice that those points are taken directly, word-for-word, from a number of pages back. I've been quite clear about my position. Is it contrarian? I have no idea. It's just what I think!
Sorry, but how's that a point against me in some way? A guy gave his 'feeling' about things changing, and then, as an aside, in a single sentence, I said (in effect) that I was very confident that things wouldn't change. And then some people agreed with me and some people disagreed with me. What's the meta-problem you're having?
My view is that:
(a) the system that is in place cannot be reformed into a legitimate form of critical media, and
(b) it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect 'more' from the current system (given the types of people and entities involved), and
(c) if we wanted 'more', we'd have to pursue a fundamentally distinct system (rather than reform of the current system), and
(d) I personally don't care whether we ever get 'more'.
Notice that those points are taken directly, word-for-word, from a number of pages back. I've been quite clear about my position. Is it contrarian? I have no idea. It's just what I think!
Sorry, but how's that a point against me in some way? A guy gave his 'feeling' about things changing, and then, as an aside, in a single sentence, I said (in effect) that I was very confident that things wouldn't change. And then some people agreed with me and some people disagreed with me. What's the meta-problem you're having?
There are abundant examples of how marketing teams co-opt irony. Commercials and advertising are filled with "ironic" winks to the audience about how they know they're being crassly commercial, and then commercials about how we know that they know, and how they know that we know that they know. That's nothing new (if, in fact, that's what this pic is showing).
From a company's perspective, if they get a laugh and some space in any internet conversation (like this one), they see it as a win. That's as good an encapsulation of the bind that many game journalists are in, as well. How do you talk about a "product" without also selling it?
Also, I hate Doritos and Mountain Dew. Always have.
From a company's perspective, if they get a laugh and some space in any internet conversation (like this one), they see it as a win. That's as good an encapsulation of the bind that many game journalists are in, as well. How do you talk about a "product" without also selling it?
Also, I hate Doritos and Mountain Dew. Always have.
Great question. And "titty funbag stress reliever" made me LOL. So I think that means I need to suggest that for the next E3, yeah. Maybe zombie titty funbags?
To answer for real: In fact, I would not have to do that. For one, I have input/authority/responsibility for PopCap events. So I could just flat out veto that and it's likely it wouldn't happen in the first place. Second, EA has been pretty great so far about "letting PopCap be PopCap", so the likelihood of us being forced to develop Hooters Roadtrip 2 are slim at best, unless maybe it was a Match 3 game. (Which seems kind of anatomically disturbing.) Third, yeah, I do kind of have the freedom - at least so far - to just say, "Yeah, I don't think I'm gonna do that or cover that," and I'm left alone. I'm fortunate. They want me to be "me," and know that if my integrity - well, such as it is, for a shill - is compromised, well, that's really all I have to offer in the first place anyway. Also, I'd quit! So there's that.
To answer for real: In fact, I would not have to do that. For one, I have input/authority/responsibility for PopCap events. So I could just flat out veto that and it's likely it wouldn't happen in the first place. Second, EA has been pretty great so far about "letting PopCap be PopCap", so the likelihood of us being forced to develop Hooters Roadtrip 2 are slim at best, unless maybe it was a Match 3 game. (Which seems kind of anatomically disturbing.) Third, yeah, I do kind of have the freedom - at least so far - to just say, "Yeah, I don't think I'm gonna do that or cover that," and I'm left alone. I'm fortunate. They want me to be "me," and know that if my integrity - well, such as it is, for a shill - is compromised, well, that's really all I have to offer in the first place anyway. Also, I'd quit! So there's that.
There was a bit on The Colbert Report recently where Tom Hanks was the guest. The entire 6-minute segment was about how blatantly Hanks was promoting Cloud Atlas. "Hey, go see CLOUD ATLAS CLOUD ATLAS CLOUD ATLAS!"
Get it? He's promoting, but being obvious about it. It's ironic!
My Facebook feed reposted the YouTube link several times and thought it was hilarious. I thought it was a painful, unfunny segment and exactly what you're talking about.
Get it? He's promoting, but being obvious about it. It's ironic!
My Facebook feed reposted the YouTube link several times and thought it was hilarious. I thought it was a painful, unfunny segment and exactly what you're talking about.
I listened to CAG on this and could not of felt more different.
I don't know if its because they didn't know all the facts or that Wombat really values his PR relationships and is a massive hound for freebies.
I'm really hoping for some big discussion around this to come up, it's all very muted and he said she said from what has been mentioned.
I don't know if its because they didn't know all the facts or that Wombat really values his PR relationships and is a massive hound for freebies.
I'm really hoping for some big discussion around this to come up, it's all very muted and he said she said from what has been mentioned.
if this whole shebang serves to educate some, that's a good thing. otherwise, personally, this. i am not 'outraged'. yes, it's all pathetic, & inherently destructive (gotta give out those 6-7-8s to everyone else to further promote/distinguish the 9-10s), but the 'industry' is dead determined to do business in this way, & it'd appear that a helluva lotta people, both shepherds & sheep, are just fine with it. it's all very unfortunate, but, as a wise man once said: 'this is why we can't have nice things' 
...
ignore the industry. it's something that's managed to 'insert itself' between the 2 things gaming's always really been about: imaginative/talented designers/developers, & you. enjoy the games you enjoy (while you still can )...
... ignore the industry. it's something that's managed to 'insert itself' between the 2 things gaming's always really been about: imaginative/talented designers/developers, & you. enjoy the games you enjoy (while you still can
)...The journos reacting defensively aren't doing so because they like their "free stuff" or love having their "PR teats to suckle on." It's because they feel attacked, plain and simple. They feel like they're being called dishonest and corrupt.
This couldn't be further from the truth. The trolls calling them corrupt liars are the same people who've always been calling them corrupt liars. The difference is that this time there's a whole new crop of readers who are coming into this conversation and questioning the ethics of having close ties to pubs and PR people. But those of us in this "new" crowd aren't calling them "corrupt" or "liars." Unfortunately, journalists are responding to these new voices the same way they've responded to the typical trolls.
These journalists simply aren't hearing us. Instead, they're choosing to relegate our complaints to the same pile as those other loud, unreasonable voices. It's become reflex at this point for them to respond like this because they've gotten used to doing exactly that for the past decade. But these new complaints aren't like the previous ones. It makes it easy for them to dismiss these new voices by just treating us the same way they've treated the everyday trolls they're used to dealing with (and dismissing). From their perspective that's all this looks like: the usual internet trolling and loud, anonymous naysaying and insults to credibility. I understand. I've been on the receiving end of this myself. It's very easy to ignore and dismiss.
Thankfully, it sounds like some journalists are listening and have been able to separate the wheat from the chaff in this discussion.
This couldn't be further from the truth. The trolls calling them corrupt liars are the same people who've always been calling them corrupt liars. The difference is that this time there's a whole new crop of readers who are coming into this conversation and questioning the ethics of having close ties to pubs and PR people. But those of us in this "new" crowd aren't calling them "corrupt" or "liars." Unfortunately, journalists are responding to these new voices the same way they've responded to the typical trolls.
These journalists simply aren't hearing us. Instead, they're choosing to relegate our complaints to the same pile as those other loud, unreasonable voices. It's become reflex at this point for them to respond like this because they've gotten used to doing exactly that for the past decade. But these new complaints aren't like the previous ones. It makes it easy for them to dismiss these new voices by just treating us the same way they've treated the everyday trolls they're used to dealing with (and dismissing). From their perspective that's all this looks like: the usual internet trolling and loud, anonymous naysaying and insults to credibility. I understand. I've been on the receiving end of this myself. It's very easy to ignore and dismiss.
Thankfully, it sounds like some journalists are listening and have been able to separate the wheat from the chaff in this discussion.
Yeah, and they're interesting things, but how would you host a small, independent games website? Surely GAF, for instance, isn't making enough money to support a small staff of writers, and it's not exactly a small website to begin with.
I've been blogging for a long while now, but I'm not getting paid to do it, which means I can't post all that regularly; besides, it's not like I have an audience to begin with. So yeah, even if I'm a great writer (and I've no idea if I am; but people generally respond positively to the things I post), I could post without connections, forgo early reviews, and do all of that other stuff... but what's the point? I love writing about games, but I'm also attending school full time (and after our department fell apart, my program became essentially worthless, so I'll be graduating without any employable skills), working a crappy minimum wage job, and dealing with a bunch of other real-life issues. If I want to do some sort of serious games journalism stuff... I need to be paid. It can't be just a hobby. How do I, or anyone else, make that work?
I've been blogging for a long while now, but I'm not getting paid to do it, which means I can't post all that regularly; besides, it's not like I have an audience to begin with. So yeah, even if I'm a great writer (and I've no idea if I am; but people generally respond positively to the things I post), I could post without connections, forgo early reviews, and do all of that other stuff... but what's the point? I love writing about games, but I'm also attending school full time (and after our department fell apart, my program became essentially worthless, so I'll be graduating without any employable skills), working a crappy minimum wage job, and dealing with a bunch of other real-life issues. If I want to do some sort of serious games journalism stuff... I need to be paid. It can't be just a hobby. How do I, or anyone else, make that work?
I'd be down with late reviews. Hell, I'd prefer them.
I'd know the critic spent as much time with the game as he/she needed to. I'd know they didn't just rush through a game on easy mode, and I'd know they spent time getting to know and understand a game's details and environments.
I know Metacritic is the key to getting a site on people's radar, and that having an early review is key to getting seen on Metacritic, but there are a good handful of sites that don't even give scores. What's the difference? Give the reviews a week to percolate. You'd get to be the "final word" even. While everyone else is rushing to get their reviews out, you'd get to be the one absorbing it all, not dealing with launch-week issues, and saying something definitive about a game.
You could even build the site on exactly that premise. Polygon is trying to play this game by having flexible scores and reviews, but they'll still be rushing to get through games to have reviews up by embargo days. It colors not only your evaluation of a game, but it colors your entire experience of a game. I've been there. I know what it's like. I had to complete and review GTA4 in two days. Not at all reflective of how most people experience a game like that (and BTW I got slammed by readers for giving a less-than-perfect score).
Seems to me there's room for that kind of a site. Hell, if I didn't have another gig in another industry, I might even do it myself. A lot of blogs do this already. But none seem to foreground that approach.
I'd know the critic spent as much time with the game as he/she needed to. I'd know they didn't just rush through a game on easy mode, and I'd know they spent time getting to know and understand a game's details and environments.
I know Metacritic is the key to getting a site on people's radar, and that having an early review is key to getting seen on Metacritic, but there are a good handful of sites that don't even give scores. What's the difference? Give the reviews a week to percolate. You'd get to be the "final word" even. While everyone else is rushing to get their reviews out, you'd get to be the one absorbing it all, not dealing with launch-week issues, and saying something definitive about a game.
You could even build the site on exactly that premise. Polygon is trying to play this game by having flexible scores and reviews, but they'll still be rushing to get through games to have reviews up by embargo days. It colors not only your evaluation of a game, but it colors your entire experience of a game. I've been there. I know what it's like. I had to complete and review GTA4 in two days. Not at all reflective of how most people experience a game like that (and BTW I got slammed by readers for giving a less-than-perfect score).
Seems to me there's room for that kind of a site. Hell, if I didn't have another gig in another industry, I might even do it myself. A lot of blogs do this already. But none seem to foreground that approach.
- Status