Totally Not Corrupt Professional Objective Gaming Journalism DRAMA

[Jasede]

I thought you made that up. It looks so shopped.

"Preface by Peter Molyneux"

 

[felipepepe]

Nah, I would have thought of adding a Halo cover, but the Peter Molyneux preface was genius. Only reality can do stuff like that.

Shame I can't find anything about the changes they made in this 2013 2nd edition... I wonder if they finally added at least King's Quest, or just removed more old shit to include gems from 2010-2013...

 

[Metro]

sea bro, I love you, you're early twenties, right? Don't fall for the trap thinking game journalism is going anywhere. Just keep smooching up to Fargo and ten years from now you'll be co-lead on Bard's Tale 4!

 

[Kem0sabe]

There is no game journalism... Take a moment and take a read of most gaming news sites... Really read them and pay attention for any editorial line, any coherence, objectivity and god forbid... Any actual quality to their writing.

There are none, its a barren wasteland of talentless people.

Game journalists are like politicians, they landed their jobs because they couldn't make it anywhere else with actual standards.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

most of the gaming journos i've met

How many have you met and what sites do they write for?

three generations of italian videogame journalists. starting from the '90s. way before they could write for any "site", they wrote for real magazines. by italian laws, they had to be sort of "proper journalists" too.
so... 30 people? quite a bunch.

so tell me, why would you believe somebody who's just been paid to praise "bioshock infinite" saying it has the best plot in history ever and a refreshing gameplay?

I'd take their opinion under advisement and use myriad other sources to come to my own evaluation.

that's something *you* are capable to do, obviously not many others otherwise "gaming journalism" wouldn't have existed anymore already.

 

[Redlands]

It does not feature ANY King's Quest, Space Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Quest for Glory, Tex Murphy, Gold Box or Wizardry title. It doesn't have any of Troika's or Piranha Bytes games, not even Bloodlines. You won't see here stuff like Pitfall, Wasteland, I Have no Mouth and Must Scream or even fucking Ultima IV! The only Might & Magic in this entire book is Clash of Heroes.

Don't be silly, those games are all terrible. You can actually *fail* in them!

 

[Melan]

These people compiled a book with 1001 games to play. It does not feature ANY King's Quest, Space Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Quest for Glory, Tex Murphy, Gold Box or Wizardry title. It doesn't have any of Troika's or Piranha Bytes games, not even Bloodlines. You won't see here stuff like Pitfall, Wasteland, I Have no Mouth and Must Scream or even fucking Ultima IV! The only Might & Magic in this entire book is Clash of Heroes.

Well, holy shit. That's like a movie guide without... Citizen Kane.

Spoiler

The ironic space invader figure is a telling sign of hipster douchebaggery.

You can't make this shit up.

Preface by Peter Moulyneux?

You are right. You can't make this shit up. That's peak bullshit right there.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Speaking of people criticizing critics... the producer of the latest Transformers film, Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, had a few things to say:

Well, first of all, I think every filmmaker cares what critics think because, you know, you're being judged. I think if someone says they don't care, baloney. Does it affect the gross of the movie? Probably a little bit. But, I think the problem with critics and the big movies in general is they don't understand the format. So, they're judging it against the kind of movie experience that it is not trying to do, nor should it... What I mean is it's like they're locked into like, "OK, let's compare this to a Marty Scorsese movie or a two-hour drama.

When he was pointed out that the critics liked the new Captain America film, he went on:

But, my experience with the critics is that when they like a big movie, it's because they're afraid they're going to so go against the tide that they act like they liked it. That's my opinion. I think it's baloney. I don't think they understand the form of entertainment and I don't think they appreciate the form of the entertainment

So, I think in that respect, the reason critics don't hurt a lot of the big movies is because the audience is smart enough to go, "I don't care what he's talking about or she's talking about. What I care about is did I have a great experience? Was I wowed? Did I laugh? Did I feel like I was transported to a different place?” And they're judging it on story elements and things that...

I'm frustrated that they don't get moviemaking today. They don't get it. I don't understand why they can't evaluate movies on different experiences. My experience when I was first in the business, I really valued critics. Because even when they didn't like something, they talked about what was good in it. So now it's like these feasts of criticism - they just love killing the whole thing. I'm not really speaking about my movies - my movies have been generally pretty well-reviewed. 'Salt' was really well reviewed, 'Side Effects' was well-reviewed. I'm a fan of film and so, OK, you don't like the movie? Nothing was good in it? That's what I’m talking about.

At least the delusion isn't confined to the gaming industry alone...

 

[chestburster]

I disagree. I think especially for the bigger sites, giving a review of a title in a venerable series to a schmuck who hasn't played them in depth is extremely unprofessional, especially when they have the audacity to recommend it to the fans of the series.

Do you think a critic of Bay's Transformers 4 must have watched all seasons of G1 cartoon in order to be qualified to properly review Bayformers？

 

[felipepepe]

At least he's aware he's doing Transformers, and not a Marty Scorsese movie.

Unlike BioWare... "I'm a war fugitive, struggling to keep my family safe in a city that's controlled by a mage-hunting inquisition... while acting all smug, summoning meteor rains and banging anything with two legs." CITIZEN KANE OF GAMING!

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

Speaking of people criticizing critics... the producer of the latest Transformers film, Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, had a few things to say:

Well, first of all, I think every filmmaker cares what critics think because, you know, you're being judged. I think if someone says they don't care, baloney. Does it affect the gross of the movie? Probably a little bit. But, I think the problem with critics and the big movies in general is they don't understand the format. So, they're judging it against the kind of movie experience that it is not trying to do, nor should it... What I mean is it's like they're locked into like, "OK, let's compare this to a Marty Scorsese movie or a two-hour drama.

When he was pointed out that the critics liked the new Captain America film, he went on:

But, my experience with the critics is that when they like a big movie, it's because they're afraid they're going to so go against the tide that they act like they liked it. That's my opinion. I think it's baloney. I don't think they understand the form of entertainment and I don't think they appreciate the form of the entertainment

So, I think in that respect, the reason critics don't hurt a lot of the big movies is because the audience is smart enough to go, "I don't care what he's talking about or she's talking about. What I care about is did I have a great experience? Was I wowed? Did I laugh? Did I feel like I was transported to a different place?” And they're judging it on story elements and things that...

I'm frustrated that they don't get moviemaking today. They don't get it. I don't understand why they can't evaluate movies on different experiences. My experience when I was first in the business, I really valued critics. Because even when they didn't like something, they talked about what was good in it. So now it's like these feasts of criticism - they just love killing the whole thing. I'm not really speaking about my movies - my movies have been generally pretty well-reviewed. 'Salt' was really well reviewed, 'Side Effects' was well-reviewed. I'm a fan of film and so, OK, you don't like the movie? Nothing was good in it? That's what I’m talking about.

At least the delusion isn't confined to the gaming industry alone...

all i read is "it's the shittiest shit shat by shit and you have to judge it with a shit-o-meter. you can't deny then it's the shittiest shit shat by shit and you have to praise this new level of shittitude".

 

[Average Manatee]

I would have expected it though, simply based on the fucking image

That one is the 2010 edition. Here's the 2013 one:

You can't make this shit up.

Jesus christ.

Something tells me that by the time I actually die (hopefully around the 2060s to 2080s), the year 20xx version of this will include a grand total of about 10 games released before 2010. Might as well stop playing game until 2050, its just not gonna be worth it till then.

 

[Machocruz]

When you start making declarations of Best Ever or Best in it's Genre or Innovation, you had best damn well be aware of everything else that has been done. But in video game land it's perfectly acceptable to not be able to back up anything you claim, and there is hardly anyone, anywhere, at anytime qualified to call these claims out when they appear.

As for the Transformers guy's comments: Who's to blame for creating this relativistic hell where standards of craft don't exist and it's the critical person's fault for not understanding the intention? It's all about intention in modern creation, which is a nice little ploy to mask lack of skill and taste.

And no, the audience is not smart enough when it comes to any given thing. This includes me and everyone else here. I know fuck all about Jazz music, so I can only speak on what I like, and in very limited terms, not what is actually good or bad according to the standards of Jazz craft. If I want to know what is considered quality in that genre ( I probably don't even know what you call different music categories), I ask people who are steeped in it i.e. critics, practitioners, students, etc.

And no guy, nothing is good in these Transformers movies besides the technical FX which your butt-buddy Bay and his editor cock-up with their incompetence. His claimss about not understanding the format fall apart as soon as a critic mentions Raiders, Aliens, Robocop, Empire Strikes Back, etc.

 

[chestburster]

And no guy, nothing is good in these Transformers movies besides the technical FX which your butt-buddy Bay and his editor cock-up with their incompetence. His claimss about not understanding the format fall apart as soon as a critic mentions Raiders, Aliens, Robocop, Empire Strikes Back, etc.

I'm not defending Bayformers. All I'm saying is that a critic doesn't have to watch six seasons of G1 cartoon to properly review Bayformers. A film should be compared to its peers in its own genre, not some previous works that existed in obviously different genres and merely share the same brand name with said film.

Just like Bayfomers should be compared to Raiders and Aliens but not G1 cartoon, Fallout 3 should be compared with other hiking simulators like STALKER, not Fallout 1/2.

 

[Average Manatee]

And no guy, nothing is good in these Transformers movies besides the technical FX which your butt-buddy Bay and his editor cock-up with their incompetence. His claimss about not understanding the format fall apart as soon as a critic mentions Raiders, Aliens, Robocop, Empire Strikes Back, etc.

I'm not defending Bayformers. All I'm saying is that a critic doesn't have to watch six seasons of G1 cartoon to properly review Bayformers. A film should be compared to its peers in its own genre, not some previous works that existed in obviously different genres and merely share the same brand name with said film.

Just like Bayfomers should be compared to Raiders and Aliens but not G1 cartoon, Fallout 3 should be compared with other hiking simulators like STALKER, not Fallout 1/2.

I'd be fine if critics watched a single previous transformers movie/season. I'm not demanding that reviewers 100% both Fallouts multiple times over with all of the various shotgun/sniper/melee/int3 builds, but playing one of them and at least getting to The Hub or Vault 13 should be considered a prerequisite.

I agree that STALKER would also be a relevant point of comparison and make a worthy review. Trouble is that I don't recall reading any Fallout 3 reviews that did so (on the other hand there are plenty of STALKER reviews that mention Fallout 3, because its the more popular game that they want pick up hits with). Somehow I doubt many reviewers have played STALKER, let alone finished it.

 

[Machocruz]

I'm not defending Bayformers. All I'm saying is that a critic doesn't have to watch six seasons of G1 cartoon to properly review Bayformers. A film should be compared to its peers in its own genre, not some previous works that existed in obviously different genres and merely share the same brand name with said film.

Just like Bayfomers should be compared to Raiders and Aliens but not G1 cartoon, Fallout 3 should be compared with other hiking simulators like STALKER, not Fallout 1/2.

You quoted the wrong person. But I was referring to this producer guy. I don't think you're butt buddies with Michael Bay.

I have to disagree about Fallout 3 though. I would want to know if the quests offer as many solutions, variables, and interactions as Fallout 2 offered. I want to know if different builds can get through the game according to their skills and limitations. These are key reasons I think Fallout 1 and 2 are in the top tier of CRPGs. Those are details that aren't revealed in screenshots or videos of the first couple hours, and only someone with experience with the series would think to address in their review. I don't need them to tell me completely subjective things like how "immersive" or "fun" or "epic." If FO3 were called Fallout: Brotherhood Gaiden Desu - FPS Hiking Action, then I would agree that the comparison isn't warranted or necessary.

 

[Ninjerk]

Imagine if you only watched Godfather 3.

 

[Dr Tomo]

Most journalists endeavor to play as many games as they can, especially those considered significant. I hate to say it but many games you may hold dear are not necessarily considered industry pillars.

Playing videogames takes a lot of time and working as a journalist is usually a full-time job - much of which is actually not spent gaming. I can forgive a journalist for not having played a game before reviewing the next in the franchise, provided they've done some homework (and usually they have).

Well if they are going to review the latest installment then I expect them to review previous games as they are "gaming journalist". Also I would assume they would at least played games that actually began certain genres as I agree with a large number of people that watchnig the classics gives you something to build on. No point in taking a Banking and Finance class if you don't know Macro/micro economics. Currently I see a lot of games reviewed that are obviously for casual audiences and yet for some reason "gaming journalists" are reating the game as if it is for the hardcore which the recent X-com comes into mind with their piss easy Iron man mode and the original X-com title.

As have I. But is IGN the site to herald in a new age of journalistic integrity? Maybe, but I'm more inclined to think it'll be Forbes, the New York Times, etc. - someone who has money, an audience and doesn't rely solely on publishers' and marketing companies' advertising money to survive.

No but there is hope for other sites like PC Gamer and possibly Polygon if they get rid of that dead rat of being sponsored by Microsoft. Forbes and the bigger places has yet to consistently write about video games as the establishments still for some reason believes games are still for kids. I only listed IGN and Gamespot as examples of not changing as they seem to be too reliant and comfortable sucking off the pub's teets.

*EDIT hit reply too early ugh.

 

[Lemming42]

I'm not defending Bayformers. All I'm saying is that a critic doesn't have to watch six seasons of G1 cartoon to properly review Bayformers. A film should be compared to its peers in its own genre, not some previous works that existed in obviously different genres and merely share the same brand name with said film.

Just like Bayfomers should be compared to Raiders and Aliens but not G1 cartoon, Fallout 3 should be compared with other hiking simulators like STALKER, not Fallout 1/2.

The thing is that Fallout 3 actually tried (and failed) to replicate a lot of Fallout 1/2's elements - it attempted to have an involving story (and fucked it up through incompetence or laziness), interesting factions (and fucked it up through incompetence or laziness), C&C (and fucked it up through incompetence or laziness) and opportunities to play according to your character's skill set (and fucked it up through incompetence or laziness).

Obviously the gameplay was completely different but you can tell Bethesda wanted to bring many of the strengths of Fallout into the new format. Most of the quests in the game have (meaningless) choices, there are skill checks in dialogue and in quests and they obviously put some effort into the horrible story. The gameplay should be compared to other hiking simulators - and it's worth noting the gameplay is actually worse than most of it's contemporaries - but it's fair to compare everything else to Fo1/2 since that's what they were trying and promising to replicate.

 

[chestburster]

The thing is that Fallout 3 actually tried (and failed) to replicate a lot of Fallout 1/2's elements - it attempted to have an involving story (and fucked it up through incompetence or laziness), interesting factions (and fucked it up through incompetence or laziness), C&C (and fucked it up through incompetence or laziness) and opportunities to play according to your character's skill set (and fucked it up through incompetence or laziness).

The addition of those elements made FO3, shit as it is, a step up from Oblivion (not that it was hard to top Oblivion). Probably why it was praised by its targeted demographic.

The point is, modern gaming is made by idiots for idiots (and the occasional smart person who just wants to turn the brain off and shoots some Muslims), just like Bayformers.

Idiot reviewers are hired and paid to write idiotic reviews because they represent the taste their target demographic, namely the mountain dew dumbfucks. There is a difference between a "game reviewer" and a "film critic." The former is a servant to his dimwitted master and acts to help informing his master whether he should pay for FO3 based on the dimwit's taste; while a "critic" answers to nobody and does art criticism as a practice of art in itself.

I read a critic's article to inform myself that Bayformers 2 is pure shit; I also read a "reviewer's review" to inform myself whether Bayformers 2 has some nice shot of Megan Fox's ass and loud explosions which are as good as porns.

 

[thesoup]

I dunno, I'm fine with people like Yahtzee and stuff getting paid; they provide entertainment, and for 'free' too.

But paying some blogger for his uneducated opinions on video games? No fucking way. There's very few 'serious' video game critics. The only one I know, Alex Kierkegaard, is unfortunately completely crazy in the head and a credit card scammer.

How did that über game of his go? Has it been canceled yet?

 

[dnf]

I dunno, I'm fine with people like Yahtzee and stuff getting paid; they provide entertainment, and for 'free' too.

But paying some blogger for his uneducated opinions on video games? No fucking way. There's very few 'serious' video game critics. The only one I know, Alex Kierkegaard, is unfortunately completely crazy in the head and a credit card scammer.

How did that über game of his go? Has it been canceled yet?

There is just 2 concept arts in his latest update

 

[Lemming42]

 

[Perkel]

i don't see anything wrong with that. Wii U is dead and sold ~5,5 mln units. Both Xbox and PS4 are selling the best in their respective brands which shows there is no "people don't buy consoles anymore" just " Nintendo created underpowered console and it isn't riding casual gamer wave (via motion gimmick) so it doesn't sell To sell at least as worst mario kart they need to sell more units than consoles which is naturally impossible.

To me it looks more like Nintendo but-hurt brigade looking for every article, news like it is some conspiracy against Nintendo.
There is no conspiracy, Wii U i failure in every possible way and since all third parties moved away it will die sooner probably than Gamecube.

 

[Jaedar]

i don't see anything wrong with that. Wii U is dead and sold ~5,5 mln units. Both Xbox and PS4 are selling the best in their respective brands which shows there is no "people don't buy consoles anymore" just " Nintendo created underpowered console and it isn't riding casual gamer wave (via motion gimmick) so it doesn't sell To sell at least as worst mario kart they need to sell more units than consoles which is naturally impossible.

To me it looks more like Nintendo but-hurt brigade looking for every article, news like it is some conspiracy against Nintendo.
There is no conspiracy, Wii U i failure in every possible way and since all third parties moved away it will die sooner probably than Gamecube.

It will probably sell quite a few more units once the system seller games like smash bros and zelda come out for it.