Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a lot of respect for rab Florence and john walker right now. Gaming journalism is in desperate need of a wake up call.

They need to understand what they are doing and the power they hold. People spending their hard earned money on a terrible game is pretty bad.
 
The problem comes in that Harmonix are having a really hard time right now and are laying people off their friends, so it makes it super shady that theyre not reviewing the game as they possibly don't want to put the well deserved deathknell in.
You're saying not reviewing a game because of a conflict of interest represents a lack of integrity? The fuck?
 
Honestly reminds me a bit of Jonathan Ross in the film world. Jonathan Ross hosted a film television show on the BBC, talked a lot about films, was a prominent figure I guess in the British cinema media coverage. But he's just a personality, you'd never really look to him for the cutting insights, the harsh reviews, because the BBC also had (and still has) Mark Kermode. Dunno who the gaming world's Mark Kermode is though.
Campbell's a little *too* vitriolic, but other than that he'd be a good fit. I've not read any recent Julian Rignall pieces (and - showing my age - I still want to call him "Jaz"!) but that'd do too. Or, as a left-field suggestion, Aleks Krotoski.
 
Just because you pretend GiantBomb are your "friends over the internet" doesn't mean you have to white knight them. What they do is shady and disgusting. It works for them but it is.



Please, do continue. Your commitment to faux rage is endearing. I await the 'yo momma so fat' insults with baited breath.
 

Oldschoolgamer

The physical form of blasphemy
Because, as I think has been mentioned before, he wasn't name dropping these two people as corporate shills. Refer to my last post for a more full explanation. He didn't namedrop anyone like that. That wasn't the point of the article. It wasn't an attack on Geoff, Cook, or Wainwright.
I fully understand the point, and grasped it when I first read the article, which is why I asked what I did. Irregardless of intention, the minute you sit down and type someones name in an article involving something questionable, it can plant a seed of doubt in the reader (rightfully so here). So again, my question is, if you're comfortable using names in an opinion piece like this, why the hell are you protecting the people that you actually know are doing wrong?
 
It just makes it inconsistent. If she wanted to settle the matter away from the public she wouldn't go forth with legal action that would expose her even more to the public. That is what we know (if you believe me that she wrote that tweet. You can believe me.). You can argue that that direct message exchange could go sour and that resulted in a subsequent threat of legal action on Eurogamer. But that is an uncertainty until Rab or Lauren say that much publicly.
I saw the tweet, too. I also saw her mention libel.
 

Archaix

Drunky McMurder
The problem comes in that Harmonix are having a really hard time right now and are laying people off their friends, so it makes it super shady that theyre not reviewing the game as they possibly don't want to put the well deserved deathknell in.

It could be a bad sign, but I get the feeling that you would have been more upset with them if they made a decision similar to the Fable review, giving it a higher score than it might deserve because some people could have better luck than Jeff did (Which would have been consistent with their previous reviews, but more suspicious because of their ties to Harmonix). It's a hard decision to make but until we see how they proceed I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If more reviews for other broken Kinect games start popping up and Dance Central 3 is the suspicious omission, then maybe a more cynical look would be warranted.
 
And when it happens in any field of journalism, the people involved either abstain themselves or make a full disclosure about it. Why is the first one bad?
Because like Vice says they've only shown the positive so far, reviewing the other two highly favorably but then all of a sudden once their friends company is in trouble and the game they put out isn't that good they "won't review it because no one cares what we think"? Get out. If DC3 was a 5 star game you bet your ass there would've been a review.
 
Considering the age of the review, I'd be inclined to say this is IncGamers blacklisting her. Certainly, I doubt she'll be able to request a takedown.
If you follow IncGamers links from 2010, most of them get redirected.

http://kotaku.com/5575883/mafia-ii-originally-had-four-endings
http://n4g.com/news/592214/incgamers-mafia-ii-review
http://n4g.com/news/607287/incgamers-lucha-fury-first-look

It's simply a case of them revamping their site, thereby breaking old links. Happens all the time.
 
From the list at Storify

The Writers who Tweeted for the Free Ps3 and the Sites they work for:

Martin Gaston: Videogamer.com

James Orry: Videogamer.com

Simon Munk: Thesundaytimes.com

Dave Cook: VG247 (Giving his to Charity)

Steve Boxer: Guardian.co.uk (Already owns 3 apparently)

Matthew Nellis: Videogamer.com

Mark Beckford: Stickwiddlers.com

Neon Kelly: Videogamer.com (Starting to see a trend?)

John Robertson: Incgamers.com

David Scammell: Videogamer.com

Sam Bandah: Games TM Magazine (Also wrote an article for gamespot some time ago)

Trey Douglas: Nerfed.co.uk

Martin Mathers: Nintendo.co.uk (No big deal, just found it ironic.)

Darran Jones: RetroGamer.net (Tweeted it twice)

Dan Griliopoulos: PCgamer.com

Jason Wiltshire: Attentionseekers.tv

Calvin Robinson: Godisageek.com

Nick Silversides: Theaveragegamer.com

Samuel Roberts: Retrogamer.net


A lot of them were musicians and PR people for various companies. I did not include them in this list. Some where difficult to find either the identity of, or if they even worked for a gaming site/mag.

Not that many, really. But it is awful funny that PR people were invited to this thing.
 
Because like Vice says they've only shown the positive so far, reviewing the other two highly favorably but then all of a sudden once their friends company is in trouble and the game they put out isn't that good they "won't review it because no one cares what we think"? Get out. If DC3 was a 5 star game you bet your ass there would've been a review.
Wow. You are the reason shitty reviews actually have power with consumers.
 
Because like Vice says they've only shown the positive so far, reviewing the other two highly favorably but then all of a sudden once their friends company is in trouble and the game they put out isn't that good they "won't review it because no one cares what we think"? Get out. If DC3 was a 5 star game you bet your ass there would've been a review.
The reason it was not reviewed was already stated above. Not everything is a conspiracy.

I'm sorry I stand for high morals in my journalistic integrity. That's why I exclusively read IGN.
So you think the writers at IGN don't have friends in the industry? Or know the other major journos in the space? The community is very small.


Back to the original post, I could give a rats ass if Geoff had to do a pitch piece for MD/Doritos. Bills need to get paid and, as we all know, everything on the internet must be free, right? What I care about is if his final review is truthful. Geoff has done a great job over the years of being a well respected representative for the games industry.
 
The problem comes in that Harmonix are having a really hard time right now and are laying people off their friends, so it makes it super shady that theyre not reviewing the game as they possibly don't want to put the well deserved deathknell in.
Wrong. Jeff even said that he meant to review it but got tied up with other things. He discussed a possibility of a review, but decided that it wouldn't be relevant now. He spoke negatively about the game several times on the bombcasts either way.

I'm sorry I stand for high morals in my journalistic integrity. That's why I exclusively read IGN.
Oh, you're trolling.
 
I can't honestly say Geoff has done ANYTHING for this industry other than infect it with the mountain dew-filled tumor that is the Spike Video Game awards.

If he's done anything else notable, please let me know.
 
I consider Giantbomb to be an entertainment outlet, not critics, not journalists. They have certainly entertained me enough for me to sign up for a premium account back when they needed it. I love listening to their opinions because they are dudes like me, but in no way do I go there for a bastion of neutrality and hard hitting stories
 
So is the problem that this Laura Wainwright character is a shill, or that someone called her out for being a shill?
- Someone wrote people could be misled into believing she's a shill based on some tweets (while stating they did not believe she is one),
- She or her employers allegedly threatened to sue,
- Turns out she lists Square-Enix as current employer,
- "But I've never reviewed their shit!!" (paraphrase)
- But she has.

I don't think they denied threatening Eurogamer with a lawsuit, however.
Someone did. Jeez do keep up people!! 8D
 
I can't honestly say Geoff has done ANYTHING for this industry other than infect it with the mountain dew-filled tumor that is the Spike Video Game awards.

If he's done anything else notable, please let me know.
He worked as Quality Assurance Tester for the greatest RTS ever called Homeworld back in 1998. :)
 
The reason it was not reviewed was already stated above. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Yes but no journalisty as evident by this Lauren bird will come out and say "HEY GUYS I DIDNT REVIEW IT CUZ I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WORK THERE AND I DONT WANT TO GET THEM POSSIBLY FIRED" instead they'll lie and use a excuse, it's called "backroom politice"
 
Yes but no journalisty as evident by this Lauren bird will come out and say "HEY GUYS I DIDNT REVIEW IT CUZ I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WORK THERE AND I DONT WANT TO GET THEM POSSIBLY FIRED" instead they'll lie and use a excuse, it's called "backroom politice"
You are wrong. It's ok, but you are just soooo wrong.
 
I fully understand the point, and grasped it when I first read the article, which is why I asked what I did. Irregardless of intention, the minute you sit down and type someones name in an article involving something questionable, it can plant a seed of doubt in the reader (rightfully so here). So again, my question is, if you're comfortable using names in an opinion piece like this, why the hell are you protecting the people that you actually know are doing wrong?
Ah I'm sorry. Do still think it is because that wasn't the point of the article. The names he named were used as examples, not of corruption, but what could be viewed as it, and had been accepted as normal acts for game journalists. As in, them being named wasn't a point of the editorial, but a way to highlight the point of the article. Naming names he thought were defiantly on the PR take also wasn't the point, and would have turned this into a completely different story.

That is just this man's understanding of it. Sure, it is unfortunate for the people who's names that got used, but nothing said was an untruth. One (Cook) responded with admitting that things could be seen that way, and made sure to show he was donating the free gift he got, another didn't comment at all, and the last is who the current subject of discussion is.
 
The image really, truly is hilarious, and very telling. Rab Florence wrote a solid article but nothing even necessarily had to be written about it. The image completely speaks for itself.

Why does he need 4 Mountain Dews? I mean even if he plans to eat the entire bag of Doritos, 4 Mountain Dews is too much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.