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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't focus on just one person, she's part of the problem, not the root of it.

A larger discussion can be had to address the problem of this whole industry.
This is true, but I have a feeling everyone will just wave their hands and say the things we want to hear until everything goes away. And the publishers crawl out and wisper "are they gone? hey I have this neat trip planned for you."

I don't want us to pile on one person but I think a good start would be going after that list of all the journalists that posted on their twitter for that promotion and still don't see the wrong. I know a lot of them have backtracked but it is really amazing that some are in one form or another saying that is just how it is in journalism.
 
All the defensive posturing and 'conspiracy theorist' labeling going on isn't exactly helping the game media's case here. It just shows the contempt they have for their audience, not to mention a serious lack of introspection. How about quelling people's concerns without talking down to them? If we can't have an open discussion about it, then what else are we to assume but that these concerns are in fact founded in reality?
 
Those are the occupations of the people joking around about that with N'gai.
Hmmm yes I wonder why we would think that someone who professionally reports about games is influenced by PR departments when all the people who respond to you're tweet happen to work in the industry in some way or another. The mind does boggle.
 
If you compare the media's reaction and coverage to this and 'Gerstmanngate', it's equal parts hilarious and sad.

One was a story of a veteran, respected editor who was "fighting the good fight" and "sticking it to the man!". Yes, it illuminated part of the publisher/publication symbiotic relationship that many would prefer not to talk about, but it painted the journalists in a good light; trying to do the right thing while being caught between their publication (with PR and ad sales breathing down their neck) and the audience's trust.

The other story exposes the many self-proclaimed 'journalists' who happily toe the PR line for the fringe benefits of an otherwise low paying job. A job which they don't see themselves wanting to do forever (or even currently...) so they need to prepare and build relationships for the eventual transition into community management, PR, consultancy or if they're very, very lucky (and stay friendly with the right people) production.

I'll let you guys figure out which got weeks of coverage in the mainstream gaming press and which was relegated to message boards, a few blog posts and some indie outlets.
 
Looked at their profiles, and what do you know, they are game press & PR people lol. It's like poetry how everything fits exactly what Rab said in the article.
It reminds me of that scene in Gangs of New York when all the rich people were having a party in their house in denial and mocking the poor people until the chairs came crashing through the windows.

I wish I could throw chairs through their windows right now.
 
Looked at their profiles, and what do you know, they are game press & PR people lol. It's like poetry how everything fits exactly what Rab said in the article.
Can someone keep a running list of all the writers joking and dismissing the signifcance of this.

I would be good to know whose writing *I* should dismiss in the future.
 

JeffGreen

97.5: The Brodeo
Does anyone really know how it all came to this? How did PR people get so much power and influence over the gaming industry? How did they manage to put all the bigger sites and the so called journalists in their pockets? When did this "journalists" decide that the perks and free stuff they were getting from these companies were more important than integrity and honesty? When did the gaming sites' owners decide to turn them into marketing fronts?
It's all about access. The magazines and sites want to cover the big games, the hyped games, because that's what brings in the readers/subscribers/viewers/hits/etc. The same goes for any part of the entertainment business, really. In order to GET this access, the press has to "play ball." Most game companies explicitly tell all their employees not to talk to the press under any circumstances. In many (most) cases, it's a fireable offense if they do. It's considered breaking an NDA, or violating confidentiality.

So, except for on rare occasions, when the rare enterprising reporter is able to contact the rare game company employee willing to speak (almost always off the record), the *only* way a press outlet is going to be able to get you those sweet, sweet Assassin's Creed screen shots is by dealing with the game companies' official spokespeople/representatives---i.e., by going through the PR departments. Piss off the PR departments, and say goodbye to your access. Believe me, I know. I had it happen to me multiple times at CGW. "Playing ball" can even include showing up at whatever stupid, contrived "media event" the PR department has organized as part of the marketing plan. Should a press outlet actually decide that, hey, they'd rather actually decide for themselves what's news, and maybe that event is some kind of horseshit thing they'd rather not attend, there can be repercussions for that too. Again, I had it happen to me personally. ("You don't want to attend? FINE! We'll give the next screens to your competitors!")

In short, if an outlet decides that part of their editorial mission is to provide you with the latest/greatest "sneak peeks", screens, "first looks", whateverthefuck, if they decide they'd rather you get it from THEM rather than their competition, then they better suck it up and play along. You wanna defy them? Good luck getting access. The game companies hold all the cards. (And again--this is no different from other entertainment fields--movies, music, TV, etc.)

Now, some companies are better, more open, less dickly than others. Some will let their designers speak a little more off the cuff (rather than following scripted bullet points). Some will provide a remarkable degree of candor, or a level of access normally not seen. But, for the most part, they have little incentive to do so. They've got the press by the proverbial short hairs.

But the press certainly has some choice, in some matters. You do NOT have to accept free shit. You do not have to tweet with the hashtags the companies tell you to. You do not have to take even one free drink or travel on their dime. You can play ball without compromising your own personal integrity. But you ALSO have to acknowledge that, to some extent, you ARE playing ball, and that it is not always going to look particularly noble or brave. That's why you have to try extra hard not to do dumb shit, not to LOOK like the shill you're desperately trying not to be. Because everyone else thinks you are. Including some of the companies you're covering. THEY see you as part of their marketing plan.

Others have said it better than I the last couple days, including Jim Sterling in his great piece. But this was just me helping to answer the "how it came to this" in the post quoted above.
 
All the defensive posturing and 'conspiracy theorist' labeling going on isn't exactly helping the game media's case here. It just shows the contempt they have for their audience, not to mention a serious lack of introspection. How about quelling people's concerns without talking down to them? If we can't have an open discussion about it, then what else are we to assume but that these concerns are in fact founded in reality?
I think what's interesting is what when you encounter them in real life they often turn out to be precisely what they deride their audience as being.
 
All the defensive posturing and 'conspiracy theorist' labeling going on isn't exactly helping the game media's case here. It just shows the contempt they have for their audience, not to mention a serious lack of introspection. How about quelling people's concerns without talking down to them? If we can't have an open discussion about it, then what else are we to assume but that these concerns are in fact founded in reality?
Exactly right. Either they're utterly contemptuous of their audience and customers (a distinct possibility), or they're so completely cynical and jaded that they just figure that this is "the way the world works" and we're all a bunch of idiots for believing it should/could be otherwise.
 
There's an equal lack of both.
Sure, although I'd like to think there are far more competent critics around currently than there are stellar journalists.

Keep in mind, I don't think PR is evil or anything; it's a necessary part of the publishing puzzle. I do think PR grossly oversteps its boundaries, though - actually, no, I think that too many games writers overstep what should be their ethical boundaries. Reaching out to PR for comment, general news, etc is fine - but it should always be noted that the source of whatever article comes of it is PR. Actual news needs to be more than that, though, and games journos shouldn't pat themselves on the back and call it a day after just talking to PR.
 
I don't think everybody believes positive reviews are bought out or payed for. A lot of discussion earlier was how people can be influenced on a subliminal level, and choose to say it's impossible such a thing can happen. Shawn Elliot posted something earlier in this thread citing some evidence for that.

No one is saying they just go around handing out great scores, but that the relationship between a Journalist and a PR should not be something as comfortable as it is now.
More on that note-

Originally Posted by Dawg:
"No, that's just overgeneralization. By your logic, it is impossible to write a negative review/article if the PR gifts/food/whatever was excellent? Because, we've had plenty negatieve reviews about bad games, even if the PR was good. I remember getting a very cool Brink PR package, but that game was awful. Thus it received an awful review. PR gift was cool, but that's it."


Not at all. It's interesting that your defense is to dismiss the notion that influence works in subtle ways that we aren't always aware of (as opposed to the popular notion of blatant bribery and "money hats") as generalization, and then use as your argument the assumption that any PR interaction at all would have to guarantee a good review if in fact the psychological research was right. That is gross generalization... or you just aren't getting the argument. I can't offer a crash course on the topic at the moment as I'm at work, so instead imagine it from the "appearance of impropriety" angle.

You're publishing a review. Pretend you're willing to include a sidebar with the subhead "Things that can have no influence at all on my perspective." In this sidebar are photos of you sharing single malt Scotch and haute cuisine with PR people. There are photos of the array of tchotchkes you received at the assorted press events for the title that you attended. There are also photos taken from your night out with your hosts. Despite your confidence in you being the rare exception to rules about human behavior, how likely is your audience to come to the same conclusion?

Apparently, judges' glucose levels affect their rulings: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/
And yet you expect your audience to regard you as a Randian ubermensch rational above your biology.
 
Can someone keep a running list of all the writers joking and dismissing the signifcance of this.

I would be good to know whose writing *I* should dismiss in the future.
We really should effing do this. Keep a running list of unofficial banned people and sites, and why they are on the list.

I like you John Drake, but you're part of the problem if you're going to treat this like a joke.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Make publishers do their own dirty work and stop relying on everyone else to financially support your PR machine. It's a silly system where publishers assume that game sites will clamor for any tidbits of information, when the fact of that matter is everyone gets the same info. And it ultimately costs those sites money to host that info. Why? Because publishers can cut their marketing budgets tremendously by relying on gaming sites to disseminate their publicity.

I understand that this junk brings readers. So stop wasting time doing write-ups for it. Host the images, trailers, and interviews, but don't waste time writing anything for it. Readers all know it's the same BS you can get anywhere. Devote your time to things that actually set you apart as a site and show what real work you can do.

So, yeah, there's a lot you can replace it with.

There'd be plenty to report on, but it might actually end up having to be actual *gulp* news. Reporters may have to do some actual work rather than just rewriting press releases or giving the same tired accounts of the same preview material or press interview content. Make publishers do the pre-release BS themselves. I mean, hell, Gametrailers is a site predicated--in the actual name of the website!!--on publisher PR handouts. It's a site built on trailers!
What big news are we missing out on?

There's news stories on every site right now if you look.

I mean do you want hard hitting 30 for 30 style stories? Is that what's missing?

Go browse any big gaming site right now.. I'd missing what's so wrong with them honestly right now?

Seriously, people building up straw men of lack of news.. but what is this news they so desperately want so badly?

Is it a story on bad work conditions? It's been written about... was it not harsh enough? Maybe.

I guess I just don't see what this utopia of gaming press would actually be minus the PR.
 
All the defensive posturing and 'conspiracy theorist' labeling going on isn't exactly helping the game media's case here. It just shows the contempt they have for their audience, not to mention a serious lack of introspection. How about quelling people's concerns without talking down to them? If we can't have an open discussion about it, then what else are we to assume but that these concerns are in fact founded in reality?
Because 90 % of them are manbabies who love their AAA gamer swag.

More serious response: I've grown accustomed to many of the people from the major sites to behave like they are teenagers with no critical thought, no self-awareness, and a general lack of understanding of complex issues with many nuances.

I no longer expect them (again, referring to the popular ones) to act like adults capable of engaging a fruitful discourse. And the ones who do usually never become game journalists (or quit soon after becoming one), because of the intrinsic culture embedded into the game industry machine.
 
Guy was always a joke that should have never been taken seriously by gamers. Glad to see people can finally see the truth.
That is absurd. I liked Ngai and he did have some good writing and interesting observations about games and frequently offered unique perspectives.

However, in this case he is guilty of the exact kind of psychological distancing Shawn Eliot was discussing. He now does counseling for game companies. Of course he would want to be able to dismiss this type of criticism.
 
More on that note-

Originally Posted by Dawg:
"No, that's just overgeneralization. By your logic, it is impossible to write a negative review/article if the PR gifts/food/whatever was excellent? Because, we've had plenty negatieve reviews about bad games, even if the PR was good. I remember getting a very cool Brink PR package, but that game was awful. Thus it received an awful review. PR gift was cool, but that's it."


Not at all. It's interesting that your defense is to dismiss the notion that influence works in subtle ways that we aren't always aware of (as opposed to the popular notion of blatant bribery and "money hats") as generalization, and then use as your argument the assumption that any PR interaction at all would have to guarantee a good review if in fact the psychological research was right. That is gross generalization... or you just aren't getting the argument. I can't offer a crash course on the topic at the moment as I'm at work, so instead imagine it from the "appearance of impropriety" angle.

You're publishing a review. Pretend you're willing to include a sidebar with the subhead "Things that can have no influence at all on my perspective." In this sidebar are photos of you sharing single malt Scotch and haute cuisine with PR people. There are photos of the array of tchotchkes you received at the assorted press events for the title that you attended. There are also photos taken from your night out with your hosts. Despite your confidence in you being the rare exception to rules about human behavior, how likely is your audience to come to the same conclusion?

Apparently, judges' glucose levels affect their rulings: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/
And yet you expect your audience to regard you as a Randian ubermensch rational above your biology.
You should be directing this toward N'Gai, not GAF.
 
That is absurd. I liked Ngai and he did have some good writing and interesting observations about games and frequently offered unique perspectives.

However, in this case he is guilty of the exact kind of psychological distancing Shawn Eliot was discussing. He now does counseling for game companies. Of course he would want to be able to dismiss this type of criticism.

I'm starting to wonder if most of the gaming media isn't talking about this because they simply don't want to burn bridges. It's a shame you guys can't see what actually goes on at a lot of these closed-door press events.
 
I guess I just don't see what this utopia of gaming press would actually be minus the PR.
There's a difference between reporting on new information coming from a publisher and simply hosting their PR materials (screenshots and trailers) with some cursory text of your own added.

Publishers should be releasing and hosting their own PR materials, not doling it out to game sites like some precious commodity. It's not about asking for some "utopian" ideal. It's about distinguishing yourself as a gaming site from being simply a branch of a publisher's publicity drive.
 
It's all about access. The magazines and sites want to cover the big games, the hyped games, because that's what brings in the readers/subscribers/viewers/hits/etc. The same goes for any part of the entertainment business, really. In order to GET this access, the press has to "play ball." Most game companies explicitly tell all their employees not to talk to the press under any circumstances. In many (most) cases, it's a fireable offense if they do. It's considered breaking an NDA, or violating confidentiality.

So, except for on rare occasions, when the rare enterprising reporter is able to contact the rare game company employee willing to speak (almost always off the record), the *only* way a press outlet is going to be able to get you those sweet, sweet Assassin's Creed screen shots is by dealing with the game companies' official spokespeople/representatives---i.e., by going through the PR departments. Piss off the PR departments, and say goodbye to your access. Believe me, I know. I had it happen to me multiple times at CGW. "Playing ball" can even include showing up at whatever stupid, contrived "media event" the PR department has organized as part of the marketing plan. Should a press outlet actually decide that, hey, they'd rather actually decide for themselves what's news, and maybe that event is some kind of horseshit thing they'd rather not attend, there can be repercussions for that too. Again, I had it happen to me personally. ("You don't want to attend? FINE! We'll give the next screens to your competitors!")

In short, if an outlet decides that part of their editorial mission is to provide you with the latest/greatest "sneak peeks", screens, "first looks", whateverthefuck, if they decide they'd rather you get it from THEM rather than their competition, then they better suck it up and play along. You wanna defy them? Good luck getting access. The game companies hold all the cards. (And again--this is no different from other entertainment fields--movies, music, TV, etc.)

Now, some companies are better, more open, less dickly than others. Some will let their designers speak a little more off the cuff (rather than following scripted bullet points). Some will provide a remarkable degree of candor, or a level of access normally not seen. But, for the most part, they have little incentive to do so. They've got the press by the proverbial short hairs.

But the press certainly has some choice, in some matters. You do NOT have to accept free shit. You do not have to tweet with the hashtags the companies tell you to. You do not have to take even one free drink or travel on their dime. You can play ball without compromising your own personal integrity. But you ALSO have to acknowledge that, to some extent, you ARE playing ball, and that it is not always going to look particularly noble or brave. That's why you have to try extra hard not to do dumb shit, not to LOOK like the shill you're desperately trying not to be. Because everyone else thinks you are. Including some of the companies you're covering. THEY see you as part of their marketing plan.

Others have said it better than I the last couple days, including Jim Sterling in his great piece. But this was just me helping to answer the "how it came to this" in the post quoted above.
Good and insightful post. Thanks for contributing!

I wonder though if the "might" of the PR departments couldn't be deterred in some way? Don't journalists hold some sort of power they could use when being strong-armed? If not individually, then at least collectively?

I'm starting to wonder if most of the gaming media isn't talking about this because they simply don't want to burn bridges. It's a shame you guys can't see what actually goes on at a lot of these closed-door press events.
Do you know what goes on behind these closed-doors, I wonder?
 
More on that note-

Originally Posted by Dawg:
"No, that's just overgeneralization. By your logic, it is impossible to write a negative review/article if the PR gifts/food/whatever was excellent? Because, we've had plenty negatieve reviews about bad games, even if the PR was good. I remember getting a very cool Brink PR package, but that game was awful. Thus it received an awful review. PR gift was cool, but that's it."


Not at all. It's interesting that your defense is to dismiss the notion that influence works in subtle ways that we aren't always aware of (as opposed to the popular notion of blatant bribery and "money hats") as generalization, and then use as your argument the assumption that any PR interaction at all would have to guarantee a good review if in fact the psychological research was right. That is gross generalization... or you just aren't getting the argument. I can't offer a crash course on the topic at the moment as I'm at work, so instead imagine it from the "appearance of impropriety" angle.

You're publishing a review. Pretend you're willing to include a sidebar with the subhead "Things that can have no influence at all on my perspective." In this sidebar are photos of you sharing single malt Scotch and haute cuisine with PR people. There are photos of the array of tchotchkes you received at the assorted press events for the title that you attended. There are also photos taken from your night out with your hosts. Despite your confidence in you being the rare exception to rules about human behavior, how likely is your audience to come to the same conclusion?

Apparently, judges' glucose levels affect their rulings: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/
And yet you expect your audience to regard you as a Randian ubermensch rational above your biology.
Good post, especially the penultimate paragraph.
 
I wonder though if the "might" of the PR departments couldn't be deterred in some way? Don't journalists hold some sort of power they could use when being strong-armed? If not individually, then at least collectively?
The bigger sites should and could. The smaller blogs and such, not so much. They wouldn't want to lose access to special events and free stuff.


Do you know what goes on behind these closed-doors, I wonder?
I did for about 4-6 years or so.
 
What big news are we missing out on?

There's news stories on every site right now if you look.

I mean do you want hard hitting 30 for 30 style stories? Is that what's missing?

Go browse any big gaming site right now.. I'd missing what's so wrong with them honestly right now?

Seriously, people building up straw men of lack of news.. but what is this news they so desperately want so badly?

Is it a story on bad work conditions? It's been written about... was it not harsh enough? Maybe.

I guess I just don't see what this utopia of gaming press would actually be minus the PR.
So you honestly think the only story worth writing about is about terrible working conditions? Try going to Gamasutra, they seem to manage to fill a site without resorting to shameless puff-pieces.
 
There's a difference between reporting on new information coming from a publisher and simply hosting their PR materials (screenshots and trailers) with some cursory text of your own added.

Publishers should be releasing and hosting their own PR materials, not doling it out to game sites like some precious commodity. It's not about asking for some "utopian" ideal. It's about distinguishing yourself as a gaming site from being simply a branch of a publisher's publicity drive.
The funny thing is you can read most 'mainstream' gaming sites like an identical RSS feed with only the tag line changed usually from site to site. Most if not all publishers send these sites their news via Press Releases. If you could be bothered you could just go and add yourself to the mailing lists of all the big gun and not miss out on any news at all.

Sometimes a site will get an 'exclusive' preview or hands on but I'd hazard a guess that's been bought just like an ad space.
 
I'm starting to wonder if most of the gaming media isn't talking about this because they simply don't want to burn bridges. It's a shame you guys can't see what actually goes on at a lot of these closed-door press events.
I think it isnt much of a coincidence that former writers that now have jobs outside of game writing like Jeff Green and Shawn Elliot are among the few willing to talk about it candidly.

At first I questioned whether or not they would do that if they were still writing for gaming press. Then I remembered that they did on GFW Radio all the time.

Miss those guys so much.

It also reminds me that it is no coicidence that my favorite podcasts these days are Idle Tumbs and Gamers with Jobs. Both podcasts are created by people who are not professional game writers.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
More on that note-

Originally Posted by Dawg:
"No, that's just overgeneralization. By your logic, it is impossible to write a negative review/article if the PR gifts/food/whatever was excellent? Because, we've had plenty negatieve reviews about bad games, even if the PR was good. I remember getting a very cool Brink PR package, but that game was awful. Thus it received an awful review. PR gift was cool, but that's it."


Not at all. It's interesting that your defense is to dismiss the notion that influence works in subtle ways that we aren't always aware of (as opposed to the popular notion of blatant bribery and "money hats") as generalization, and then use as your argument the assumption that any PR interaction at all would have to guarantee a good review if in fact the psychological research was right. That is gross generalization... or you just aren't getting the argument. I can't offer a crash course on the topic at the moment as I'm at work, so instead imagine it from the "appearance of impropriety" angle.

You're publishing a review. Pretend you're willing to include a sidebar with the subhead "Things that can have no influence at all on my perspective." In this sidebar are photos of you sharing single malt Scotch and haute cuisine with PR people. There are photos of the array of tchotchkes you received at the assorted press events for the title that you attended. There are also photos taken from your night out with your hosts. Despite your confidence in you being the rare exception to rules about human behavior, how likely is your audience to come to the same conclusion?

Apparently, judges' glucose levels affect their rulings: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/
And yet you expect your audience to regard you as a Randian ubermensch rational above your biology.
It's all about access. The magazines and sites want to cover the big games, the hyped games, because that's what brings in the readers/subscribers/viewers/hits/etc. The same goes for any part of the entertainment business, really. In order to GET this access, the press has to "play ball." Most game companies explicitly tell all their employees not to talk to the press under any circumstances. In many (most) cases, it's a fireable offense if they do. It's considered breaking an NDA, or violating confidentiality.

So, except for on rare occasions, when the rare enterprising reporter is able to contact the rare game company employee willing to speak (almost always off the record), the *only* way a press outlet is going to be able to get you those sweet, sweet Assassin's Creed screen shots is by dealing with the game companies' official spokespeople/representatives---i.e., by going through the PR departments. Piss off the PR departments, and say goodbye to your access. Believe me, I know. I had it happen to me multiple times at CGW. "Playing ball" can even include showing up at whatever stupid, contrived "media event" the PR department has organized as part of the marketing plan. Should a press outlet actually decide that, hey, they'd rather actually decide for themselves what's news, and maybe that event is some kind of horseshit thing they'd rather not attend, there can be repercussions for that too. Again, I had it happen to me personally. ("You don't want to attend? FINE! We'll give the next screens to your competitors!")

In short, if an outlet decides that part of their editorial mission is to provide you with the latest/greatest "sneak peeks", screens, "first looks", whateverthefuck, if they decide they'd rather you get it from THEM rather than their competition, then they better suck it up and play along. You wanna defy them? Good luck getting access. The game companies hold all the cards. (And again--this is no different from other entertainment fields--movies, music, TV, etc.)

Now, some companies are better, more open, less dickly than others. Some will let their designers speak a little more off the cuff (rather than following scripted bullet points). Some will provide a remarkable degree of candor, or a level of access normally not seen. But, for the most part, they have little incentive to do so. They've got the press by the proverbial short hairs.

But the press certainly has some choice, in some matters. You do NOT have to accept free shit. You do not have to tweet with the hashtags the companies tell you to. You do not have to take even one free drink or travel on their dime. You can play ball without compromising your own personal integrity. But you ALSO have to acknowledge that, to some extent, you ARE playing ball, and that it is not always going to look particularly noble or brave. That's why you have to try extra hard not to do dumb shit, not to LOOK like the shill you're desperately trying not to be. Because everyone else thinks you are. Including some of the companies you're covering. THEY see you as part of their marketing plan.

Others have said it better than I the last couple days, including Jim Sterling in his great piece. But this was just me helping to answer the "how it came to this" in the post quoted above.
Goddamn. The Brodeo rides again.



"He" is the games press, I guess.
 
It does point out what AkuMifune was talking about earlier. What can we really do about this when we're quickly written off as conspiracy theorists while PR laughs about it with journalists.
I think Gaf needs to get an editorial staff again. It has a platform that has a big enough readership and Gaf doesn't really need access to press events or traditional game reviews and coverage.
 
If publicists are so powerless these department budgets could be diverted to games development. Make better games. Put me on the phone with Kotick right now! #reversestrawmaningoversimplification
 
It reminds me of that scene in Gangs of New York when all the rich people were having a party in their house in denial and mocking the poor people until the chairs came crashing through the windows.

I wish I could throw chairs through their windows right now.
I don't want to say "is just video games" because I agree is a pretty reductive way of view things... But... Dude, is just video games calm down, you are starting to sound exactly as what N'gai was mocking.
 
I think it isnt much of a coincidence that former writers that now have jobs outside of game writing like Jeff Green and Shawn Elliot are among the few willing to talk about it candidly.
Yeah, it's certainly a lot easier and safer once you are out of the industry or at least in such a high position that it doesn't matter anymore. Just like everything in life, how far you can get ahead often times depends on who you know and who your friends are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.