|
Post by Vokkan on Sept 27, 2014 17:16:36 GMT -5
If a reviewer is playing a preview copy there's a whole list of things they arent allowed to mention. Even visiting closed showings of games at expos comes with strings attached. Putting the game on the magazine cover is a common one.
Swedish video game media is very transparent about all this stuff, and has been reviewing games with all the personal or even political perspectives you'd expect from a movie critic for a decade now. The SuperPLAY review of MGS3 was two pages on Gojira, the mentality of postwar japan and how the game examplified that. And some quick critique of the game-camera and a score at the end.
|
|
|
Post by nightdreamer on Sept 27, 2014 17:41:17 GMT -5
What I also find problematic is how games journalists (usually the same offenders as the ones above) feel it's necessary to use their reviews or articles as a soapbox for their personal political views. That's why I won't read anything by people like Leigh Alexander, Christian Nutt, or Bob Mackey, because they're going to find some way to force their agenda into whatever unrelated issue they're writing about. Yes, I know that I can ignore them and I do - unfortunately, people I do actually respect and enjoy reading will more often than not retweet whatever clickbait those "crusader" writers is shoveling that day, and it's incredibly annoying. I don't know if that was the intent but that last bit sounded a little antagonistic with the scare quotes. Not sure TonicBH deserved that. Why care so much what people retweet. >_> I mean, yes, people in the internet can be annoying, I get that, but there really comes a point where it's time to sit back and say 'it's really silly how I'm so affected by what people in the internet say'.
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Sept 27, 2014 17:46:43 GMT -5
Right, if there's some sort of technical issue, then it should be addressed. But the problem is some people wanting reviews to just be about what's on the tin, stuff that you could easily find out on the official website, the back of the box, or even a trailer. Reviews should be more about what the person thinks about the game, not this "objectivity" that some people want because that's utterly impossible. I'm going to assume that you're talking about my comments, so I'm going to clarify my position on the matter. I never said that people should try and cleanse reviews or articles from having a personal perspective. If the reviewer/author provides personal accounts or something relevant to the review in question, that's a good thing - it gives the reader an idea of who they are, where they're coming from, and how much credence to lend what the reviewer is saying. The problem is that the majority of games journalists take it to an extreme and lose sight of the forest for the trees. They aren't being paid to do Livejournal entries, they're supposed to be reviewing games. If going into a personal account strengthens an article, all the better. Problem is that most of the time they spend more time talking about themselves than they do about the games. What I also find problematic is how games journalists (usually the same offenders as the ones above) feel it's necessary to use their reviews or articles as a soapbox for their personal political views. That's why I won't read anything by people like Leigh Alexander, Christian Nutt, or Bob Mackey, because they're going to find some way to force their agenda into whatever unrelated issue they're writing about. Yes, I know that I can ignore them and I do - unfortunately, people I do actually respect and enjoy reading will more often than not retweet whatever clickbait those "crusader" writers is shoveling that day, and it's incredibly annoying. In summary, there's a time and a place for personal opinions. So, does that qualify as "rational" enough for you? I feel for you, JoJo, because I agree with you. But the standard rebuttal to you on this would be : "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem".
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Sept 27, 2014 17:48:26 GMT -5
What I also find problematic is how games journalists (usually the same offenders as the ones above) feel it's necessary to use their reviews or articles as a soapbox for their personal political views. That's why I won't read anything by people like Leigh Alexander, Christian Nutt, or Bob Mackey, because they're going to find some way to force their agenda into whatever unrelated issue they're writing about. Yes, I know that I can ignore them and I do - unfortunately, people I do actually respect and enjoy reading will more often than not retweet whatever clickbait those "crusader" writers is shoveling that day, and it's incredibly annoying. I don't know if that was the intent but that last bit sounded a little antagonistic with the scare quotes. Not sure TonicBH deserved that. Why care so much what people retweet. >_> I mean, yes, people in the internet can be annoying, I get that, but there really comes a point where it's time to sit back and say 'it's really silly how I'm so affected by what people in the internet say'. Because many times, things like that are used to harass people and ruin their real lives (see Brendan Eich, even though that's not game-related).
|
|
|
Post by nightdreamer on Sept 27, 2014 18:36:03 GMT -5
I don't know if that was the intent but that last bit sounded a little antagonistic with the scare quotes. Not sure TonicBH deserved that. Why care so much what people retweet. >_> I mean, yes, people in the internet can be annoying, I get that, but there really comes a point where it's time to sit back and say 'it's really silly how I'm so affected by what people in the internet say'. Because many times, things like that are used to harass people and ruin their real lives (see Brendan Eich, even though that's not game-related). I don't understand, how is 'not being able to stand the opinion of someone my friend is retweeting' an ammunition for harassment?
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Joestar on Sept 27, 2014 18:42:32 GMT -5
What I also find problematic is how games journalists (usually the same offenders as the ones above) feel it's necessary to use their reviews or articles as a soapbox for their personal political views. That's why I won't read anything by people like Leigh Alexander, Christian Nutt, or Bob Mackey, because they're going to find some way to force their agenda into whatever unrelated issue they're writing about. Yes, I know that I can ignore them and I do - unfortunately, people I do actually respect and enjoy reading will more often than not retweet whatever clickbait those "crusader" writers is shoveling that day, and it's incredibly annoying. I don't know if that was the intent but that last bit sounded a little antagonistic with the scare quotes. Not sure TonicBH deserved that. Why care so much what people retweet. >_> I mean, yes, people in the internet can be annoying, I get that, but there really comes a point where it's time to sit back and say 'it's really silly how I'm so affected by what people in the internet say'. I'm not sure what you mean by scare quotes. The last line was in response to something Tonic said when I was on IRC yesterday. Regardless, what I said was more than reasonable. As as for the retweets, I don't need anything setting me off. And I'm sick of seeing the Tweet lynch mobs like the stuff Polaris mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by nightdreamer on Sept 27, 2014 18:47:42 GMT -5
You know, the "rational" bit in the end.
Like I said, don't let what people retweet have any power over your emotional well-being. It's the internet, people have used it to say disagreeable things since time immemorial. Take that from someone who's been on twitter since 2008 and numbers around 400+ followers now despite only being a random, mostly anonymous guy.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Joestar on Sept 27, 2014 18:57:05 GMT -5
You know, the "rational" bit in the end. Like I said, don't let what people retweet have any power over your emotional well-being. It's the internet, people have used it to say disagreeable things since time immemorial. Take that from someone who's been on twitter since 2008 and numbers around 400+ followers now despite only being a random, mostly anonymous guy. Just curious but why have you been busting my balls so much lately?
|
|
|
Post by nightdreamer on Sept 27, 2014 19:00:20 GMT -5
You know, the "rational" bit in the end. Like I said, don't let what people retweet have any power over your emotional well-being. It's the internet, people have used it to say disagreeable things since time immemorial. Take that from someone who's been on twitter since 2008 and numbers around 400+ followers now despite only being a random, mostly anonymous guy. Just curious but why have you been busting my balls so much lately? I'm not busting your balls over anything and I'm sorry if it looks that way to you. That being said, you really seem to be down on so many things lately, and it's starting to become worrisome.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Joestar on Sept 27, 2014 19:15:16 GMT -5
Just curious but why have you been busting my balls so much lately? I'm not busting your balls over anything and I'm sorry if it looks that way to you. That being said, you really seem to be down on so many things lately, and it's starting to become worrisome. I apologize; it just seems that this type of exchange happens whenever we're posting on the same thread lately. As for me, yes, I'm incredibly angry for a number of reasons and - as an answer to your earlier question - I find retweets of people that I dislike and/or find repugnant to be incredibly annoying - especially when blocking or muting someone is supposed to eliminate them from your feed, and it apparently doesn't. Yes, it's a minor issue, but it's annoying nonetheless and isn't helping my mood any.
|
|
TonicBH
Junior Member
8-bit Alex Trebek is judging you.
Posts: 79
|
Post by TonicBH on Sept 27, 2014 20:34:18 GMT -5
Right, if there's some sort of technical issue, then it should be addressed. But the problem is some people wanting reviews to just be about what's on the tin, stuff that you could easily find out on the official website, the back of the box, or even a trailer. Reviews should be more about what the person thinks about the game, not this "objectivity" that some people want because that's utterly impossible. I'm going to assume that you're talking about my comments, so I'm going to clarify my position on the matter. I never said that people should try and cleanse reviews or articles from having a personal perspective. If the reviewer/author provides personal accounts or something relevant to the review in question, that's a good thing - it gives the reader an idea of who they are, where they're coming from, and how much credence to lend what the reviewer is saying. The problem is that the majority of games journalists take it to an extreme and lose sight of the forest for the trees. They aren't being paid to do Livejournal entries, they're supposed to be reviewing games. If going into a personal account strengthens an article, all the better. Problem is that most of the time they spend more time talking about themselves than they do about the games. What I also find problematic is how games journalists (usually the same offenders as the ones above) feel it's necessary to use their reviews or articles as a soapbox for their personal political views. That's why I won't read anything by people like Leigh Alexander, Christian Nutt, or Bob Mackey, because they're going to find some way to force their agenda into whatever unrelated issue they're writing about. Yes, I know that I can ignore them and I do - unfortunately, people I do actually respect and enjoy reading will more often than not retweet whatever clickbait those "crusader" writers is shoveling that day, and it's incredibly annoying. In summary, there's a time and a place for personal opinions. So, does that qualify as "rational" enough for you? Every time I see someone (not blaming you specifically, but I've seen this argument many times) complain about people writing articles pushing an agenda, I stare in confusion. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I haven't really *seen* the issues you've stated. There have been issues where I've seen baffling articles, yes, and there was a point where I've considered writing emails to those whom I had issue with their entries. I almost wrote one for a Polygon article about Watch_Dogs, but the writer (Danielle Riendeau) later admitted the article was in poor taste and hopefully she'll avoid that scenario for future articles. I ended up sharing the email I was gonna post on tumblr instead. But I see this people point fingers of "pushing an agenda" and I'm confused. What kind of agenda are they trying to push? Equality? I don't see anything wrong with that. If you're annoyed at people retweeting someone you hate, that's the unfortunate outcome of wanting to follow who you like on social media. Hell, a few weeks ago I wrote a blog about how I feel social media partially harms criticism because we get too personal to these people, which for some may not be what they want out of that person's work. I realize not everybody in the game criticism world is a patron saint. For example, I'm not a fan of Brian Ashcraft's Japan "fluff" articles on Kotaku, and never have been. I think I've disagreed with Patricia Hernandez more than I've agreed with her (especially when she tried to make a stink about Nintendo censoring some Fire Emblem art yet letting Animal Crossing have the statue of David untouched, something even Jim Sterling thought was ludicrous). To me, Ben Kuchera is so off-base on a lot of his opinions (Praising the Xbox One purported DRM so "it'd kill piracy and used game sales!" and saying Nintendo should go third party on numerous occasions) that I actually downloaded a Chrome extension that straight up replaces his name with a poop icon. Hell, I think Leigh Alexander writes better non-gaming pieces than gaming ones, and I don't like her abrasive personality. Sometimes when people try to force current events into something inconsequential, it's a bit baffling (Riendeau mentioned the Crimean conflict from earlier this year in a review for Mario & Sonic at the Winter Olympic Games, which I thought was inappropriate and irrelevant to the subject matter), but that's probably the closest I've seen to "pushing an agenda." Which is a bit far-fetched, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by just responding calmly that This is not okay. If they decide to rebuff your arguments and go "Get a load of this guy cam" on your response, then you can write them off as being jerks. It's a shame that happens, but sometimes people are dicks. But the people I usually follow are good people, to me. Most of them are Giant Bomb, ex-1UP or ex-GameSpot, with a few others (Jim Sterling, Chris Kohler, etc) and I had no major problems with their stuff. Always look for the stuff you like and champion that. Going on the offensive over the people you hate is never a good thing, and the people whom I mentioned I've never had any contact with because I believe it's best to praise the stuff you like more rather than go on a hate tirade against Kuchera. It's just better in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by The Great Klaid on Sept 27, 2014 20:57:03 GMT -5
I don't think there are many journalists that don't push some kind of agenda. A lot of them may not be politically charged, or even all that important, they are agendas. All the people you've named, if I'm thinking of the right people, I know they certainly do. the guy on Kotaku who keeps talking about how Japan is Valhalla on Earth for example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 21:37:55 GMT -5
I cannot stand Patricia Hernandez. I'd almost take Tim Rogers over her. At least he's just a deluded, self-absorbed asshole. Did anyone really need to know that Patricia was in a three way relationship? How is this relevant to games?
|
|
|
Post by The Great Klaid on Sept 27, 2014 21:53:22 GMT -5
I really regret googling either of those. I had repressed Tim Rogers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 22:03:35 GMT -5
Tim once had said that he was the original proto-hipster, but said it in an ironic way as if he thought, "I don't REALLY mean that. That would be absurd!" but also, "I totally actually mean that, guys."
|
|