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

Status
Not open for further replies.
geoffmk said:
Correct, this will be an upcoming episode of SHIFT, GT's Documentary series. (A number of these are currently in production although we haven't really talked about them yet).

We plan to include lots of devs, users, and yes, EvilLore as well.
Click to expand...

He will also comment on Doritos-gate?
 
Dennis said:
Everybody should read as much of this thread as they have time for.

One of GAFs finest hours as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

I'll admit there's some great investigation in this thread for legitimate issues, but at times it felt like it turned into some weird petty witch hunt against journalists who don't validate certain people's opinions.
 
ezekial45 said:
I'll admit there's some great investigation in this thread for legitimate issues, but at times it felt like it turned into some weird petty witch hunt against journalists who don't validate certain people's opinions.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's been more or less flacid for over a month, just a Kotaku witch hunt. The one exception being when Wainwright showed up, demonstrated wilful ignorance or incredible naievete then vanished without a trace.
 
untitled-2xcu1n2sjec.png


https://twitter.com/BenParfitt/status/298850635930013696

That's his response to this thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511767

After posting this article

Anyone who played Devil May Cry 4 must surely of seen how desperately the IP needed an injection of new ideas and modernisation – which is exactly what the skilful Ninja Theory achieved.

Yet the fans revolted because Capcom dared to reinvent its IP for the 21st century and dared to change the colour of Dante’s hair. It’s really very sad.

A headline suggested by a colleague: “Devil May Cry fans destroy brand out of spite.” That about covers it.
Click to expand...

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/capcom-almost-halves-dmc-sales-expectations/0110372
 
SolidSnakex said:
untitled-2xcu1n2sjec.png


https://twitter.com/BenParfitt/status/298850635930013696

That's his response to this thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511767

After posting this article



http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/capcom-almost-halves-dmc-sales-expectations/0110372
Click to expand...

I dunno, on one hand there was a disgusting amount of fan overreaction that he's completely justified in calling out. On the other hand, no reason to lay it all on GAF. People like that are everywhere, in every forum, every comments section, every website. Calling out GAF is just going to get himself harassed even more, and he's probably insulting a pretty big portion of his website's fanbase by calling GAFers fuckwits.
 
Burt said:
I dunno, on one hand there was a disgusting amount of fan overreaction that he's completely justified in calling out.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the hatred the game received was ridiculous. No wonder Ninja Theory ended up mocking fans of the older games to a degree.

His point, however, is still moot. He [very deliberately] obscures the true reasons for the overreaction. It's also heavily implied fans of a series should buy a game regardless if it meets their desires [for the series]. Not to mention there are a wide variety of factors that influence game sales; implying a vocal minority on the internet has that degree of power [to negatively effect sales of a game by just under a million], given his role as an industry analyst, is equally ridiculous.
 
MTMBStudios said:
According to Arthur Gies twitter I am apparently entitled if I complain about bad DLC practices in Dead Space 3 because games are expensive.
Click to expand...

Awesomeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Yeah, "gaming journalists" are no longer on the consumer's side. smh. (Not that they were to begin with... maybe to a small degree).
 
Like anyone wanna pay attention to Gies after reading his checkpoint philosophy to game reviews:

Arthur Gies
@aegies
@bfod my assessment of the game went well beyond basic mechanics, and it wasn't a list of things i liked.


Arthur Gies
@aegies
@bfod what you're talking about is criticism, which is aiming for something different than a review.

Arthur Gies
@aegies
@bfod as an artist, i'm more interested in what other people think. i'm not married to my own thematic premises.
Click to expand...
 
JDSN said:
Like anyone wanna pay attention to Gies after reading his checkpoint philosophy to game reviews:
Click to expand...

I actually agree with Gies on that point. If I'm reading a review on Dead Space, I don't care about what it says about the human condition and man's inhumanity against man. I want to know "Does it maintain the atmosphere of the previous games?", "Does it add anything new to the franchise?", "Does the shooting, action get tedious/repetitive by the end?", etc. I'm not saying Gies is the person I trust with that analysis, but all the same.

There are some games that are worth purchasing on their artistic merit alone, and those games might merit a different review style. But for games about fighting zombies on spooky spaceships, I want to know if they do that well, not whether they can finally prove Roger Ebert wrong.

There is certainly room for both types of games, and games that do both well. But I think its a good thing that reviewers remember that it's okay for video games to be fun, and not just cinematic, visceral, and oscar worthy.
 
Thanasis Deitus said:
I actually agree with Gies on that point. If I'm reading a review on Dead Space, I don't care about what it says about the human condition and man's inhumanity against man. I want to know "Does it maintain the atmosphere of the previous games?", "Does it add anything new to the franchise?", "Does the shooting, action get tedious/repetitive by the end?", etc. I'm not saying Gies is the person I trust with that analysis, but all the same.
Click to expand...
To me those two are inseparable. Whether it maintains the atmosphere is directly related to whether it says something meaningful. Michael Bay movies are mechanically extremely well crafted and fun to look at. They're also terribly fleeting and should not be given a high grade for their mechanics alone.
 
Theres a difference between bad journalism and "journalists write and say things I dont like", a difference that this thread quite regularly blissfully ignores
 
Hating on the very people you serve, dismissing their issues "cuz videogames" not only insults your audience but trivializes the very career you have chosen to undertake. So weird.
 
MTMBStudios said:
According to Arthur Gies twitter I am apparently entitled if I complain about bad DLC practices in Dead Space 3 because games are expensive.
Click to expand...

It's become something of a goto line for journalists to call out gamers as being entitled. Of course, the option is to build a nuanced argument about the merits of DLC, the various pitfalls, the ways in which you can alienate your audience with bad DLC practises, of which there are quite a few, instead of wheeling out some reductive nonsense about gamers being "entitled". In other words, do your job properly.
 
SolidSnakex said:
untitled-2xcu1n2sjec.png


https://twitter.com/BenParfitt/status/298850635930013696

That's his response to this thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511767

After posting this article



http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/capcom-almost-halves-dmc-sales-expectations/0110372
Click to expand...
See, you are obligated to buy games. (There's a thread on feeling obligated to buy games, if anyone's wondering.)

I'm enjoying the game, but this insipid implication that you have to give something a chance if it's changed in a way that displeases you is pretty rich when there's a price tag attached. But apparently the fans should be ashamed for their disloyalty. Fuck me sideways.
 
MTMBStudios said:
According to Arthur Gies twitter I am apparently entitled if I complain about bad DLC practices in Dead Space 3 because games are expensive.
Click to expand...
But... couldn't the same be applied in reverse? You are ENCOURAGED to complain about bad DLC practices in Dead Space 3 because games are expensive to buy?
 
Uthred said:
Theres a difference between bad journalism and "journalists write and say things I dont like", a difference that this thread quite regularly blissfully ignores
Click to expand...
On rare occassions yeah.

spekkeh said:
To me those two are inseparable. Whether it maintains the atmosphere is directly related to whether it says something meaningful. Michael Bay movies are mechanically extremely well crafted and fun to look at. They're also terribly fleeting and should not be given a high grade for their mechanics alone.
Click to expand...

Yep. Games don´t exist in a vacuum, they leave traces on customers mind.

28 Posts Later said:
Absolutely, the hatred the game received was ridiculous. No wonder Ninja Theory ended up mocking fans of the older games to a degree.

His point, however, is still moot. He [very deliberately] obscures the true reasons for the overreaction. It's also heavily implied fans of a series should buy a game regardless if it meets their desires [for the series]. Not to mention there are a wide variety of factors that influence game sales; implying a vocal minority on the internet has that degree of power [to negatively effect sales of a game by just under a million], given his role as an industry analyst, is equally ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Well spoken. The game was surrounded by overreactions, but seriously who takes them serious. Its the internet goddamnit. And as a matter of fact, its not journalist´s duty to attack customers. Far from it. Explain the customer why he should buy this product. Why the deal is good. End of story.
MTMBStudios said:
He already did explain - with his flawless logic:
https://twitter.com/aegies/status/298916952116719617
https://twitter.com/aegies/status/298907064812576768
Click to expand...

Priceless.
 
Thanasis Deitus said:
There are some games that are worth purchasing on their artistic merit alone, and those games might merit a different review style. But for games about fighting zombies on spooky spaceships, I want to know if they do that well, not whether they can finally prove Roger Ebert wrong.
Click to expand...

Not sure I would go that far, because a game can be both an art piece and an entertainment piece if done right, and separating the two leads to a needless dissonance which would exacerbate the already painful "art games" hullabaloo.

Each game is its own thing, and has its own merits to judge. Some parts are standout and need to be mentioned in a review, and others are not really worth bringing up unless you're trying to cover every angle, but even then, I can't see it being anything but fruitless and useless information, which is why I ultimately disagree with "checklist reviewing" and I try to stray away from that.

It can have its place and its purpose, like for sports games and music games that aren't new gameplay experiences, and HD re-releases and bundles, but as time has gone on, I've found little personal use for a review that just goes through the motions. Games don't just go through the motions; there is more to them than just the basic bullet points. They're often more, and sometimes less, than the sum of their parts.
 
MTMBStudios said:
According to Arthur Gies twitter I am apparently entitled if I complain about bad DLC practices in Dead Space 3 because games are expensive.
Click to expand...

His base point is entirely correct, and I agree with it, but he seems unaware, ignorant, or unwilling to countenance the alternative solution to that problem.

Base point: Games are expensive to make, current revenue from sales at a base cost of $60 is not sufficient to recoup the development costs.
His conclusion: Increase the base cost to the consumer through DLC and microtransactions
My conclusion: Maybe don't spend so much making the thing in the first place?

I'm completely fine with his conclusion - indeed, I've often spoken of that as being a significant reason for DLC (in the form of "budgets are defined based on expected revenue") - but I'm also much more content with the alternative option.

I, personally, would be perfectly content with lower-budget games. They ought to be more readily profitable without taking so many risks and having to try to get so much money out of the end consumer.

He's not wrong, as such, but he's not thinking through the problem in its entirety; blind acceptance of that argument is an enabler for devs *to* go nuts on budget and expect the consumer to pick up the slack, which revenue numbers are suggesting may be a fools' errand for many titles.

TLDR: If you are willing to accept a lower budget for game development, complaining about DLC practices does not make you entitled.
 
spekkeh said:
To me those two are inseparable. Whether it maintains the atmosphere is directly related to whether it says something meaningful. Michael Bay movies are mechanically extremely well crafted and fun to look at. They're also terribly fleeting and should not be given a high grade for their mechanics alone.
Click to expand...

Lowlander2 said:
Not sure I would go that far, because a game can be both an art piece and an entertainment piece if done right, and separating the two leads to a needless dissonance which would exacerbate the already painful "art games" hullabaloo.

Each game is its own thing, and has its own merits to judge. Some parts are standout and need to be mentioned in a review, and others are not really worth bringing up unless you're trying to cover every angle, but even then, I can't see it being anything but fruitless and useless information, which is why I ultimately disagree with "checklist reviewing" and I try to stray away from that.

It can have its place and its purpose, like for sports games and music games that aren't new gameplay experiences, and HD re-releases and bundles, but as time has gone on, I've found little personal use for a review that just goes through the motions. Games don't just go through the motions; there is more to them than just the basic bullet points. They're often more, and sometimes less, than the sum of their parts.
Click to expand...

I think maybe I didn't fully understand the argument being made in the twitter argument. As I read it, the guy was berating Gies for talking too much about the gameplay and features, and not enough about the story and art aspects, and Gies responded by saying that in games where story takes a back seat to gameplay, gameplay should be the focus of reviews. That was the part I agree with, even if that may not have been what he was actually saying. I've seen to many reviews lately that seem to forget that games are sometimes fun to play. For instance, several reviews I've read for the new DmC have spent the bulk of the article talking about the history of development, the fan backlash, the character design, the story, and the level design, and then just have one single paragraph 2/3 of the way through the article saying "Oh yeah, and the gameplay is good in case you were wondering."

That kind of review is useless for a game that in my opinion would not stand on its own as a film. There are games that can effectively be judged on their story and design, because that's all they are, interactive stories. But very few games are like that, or even try to be like that. For a game that is primarily a game, it is a disservice to both the game and the reader to review it as a film. But far too often in this industry reviewers are more interested in setpieces than gameplay.

To the bit about checklisting, I do agree. As I said, I didn't get that out of Gies's posts on first read. But a review that reads like a back of the box feature set doesn't amount to much. Even features that are new and innovative don't simply stand on their own, unless they are cleverly woven into the game in a way that is creative and engaging. A game is most certainly greater than the sum of its parts. In some cases that means that the way story, design, and gameplay are interwoven cause all of them to be greater together than alone. But even before that, stories are more than a collection of characters and events, game design is more than a bunch of art and tech, and gameplay is more than a list of features and mechanics. Treating them as bullet points does not do them justice for sure. The problem, I think, is that most game reviewers aren't really qualified to do more in-depth analysis on the interplay between different aspects of design, so they simply stick to listing of individual items, because that's what they are capable of. I'm sure there are more capable reviewers out there who are actually doing it right, but they aren't usually working at the big sites.
 
I know he's not a "big" player in gaming journalism -- hell, I wouldn't call what he does "journalism" -- but this video from Angry Joe is some of the most hypocritical bullshit I've seen in a long time. Keep in mind, this is the guy that mocked Keighley because of Doritosgate.

His mocking of Geoff is here.

Between that and stuff like this, does he really not see how he is just as guilty as anyone else of being manipulated by publishers? When people said that Joe would jump at the chance to sell out, they weren't kidding.
 
Had to bump this thread because of another one. In "VG247: Have the tides turned on Microsoft?", we all can read how convinced Patrick Garratt, creator of VG247 and writer for Eurogamer and Huffington Post, is, that PS4 will succeed and furthermore, how much in trouble the upcoming Xbox already is. A little bit early you may think or how Stumpokapow put it:


Stumpokapow said:
yeah this is a really premature and hyperbolic editorial
Click to expand...


Later in thread, Currygan pointed out that Patrick Garratt already his very special Sony articles track record. That caught my interest and was start of my research. Well, how right he was.

First:

His article about the X360 reveal. Under the headline " Xbox 360 fails to convince in LA " (pretty similiar to the headline he produced now, isn´t it?) he summed his feelings up.



Positive pundits will obviously say that the announcement is significant. The more cynical will say that Square merely wants to make more money and why on earth would Sony care about FFXI appearing on Live now? It means nothing, they'll say. If they'd made this announcement when they launched Live, that would have been significant, they'll say. Wada showed a real-time tech demo to pep things up a little, of an ornate pier at sunset, a dragon flying over a lake. Very pretty, but not mind-blowing.


Which is a shame, because Sony's PlayStation 3 announcement this afternoon certainly was. The machine's spec has left experts watchers stunned. Read this and this and this. Xbox 360 was on the back foot before the Microsoft conference even started, and considering what Sony showed, Microsoft's new beast suddenly looks flat, from a games sense at least. The Live stuff, as we've said, looked brilliant. But the games simply didn't give the air of being truly "next gen".

Bach rounded up saying 360 will reach "new markets across the world," not millions of users but tens of millions. "We will truly redefine what it means to have fun."

From where we were sitting, the reality isn't matching the dream. Microsoft got on stage tonight and promised nothing short of entertainment revolution, games and concept far beyond anything yet conceived. Maybe they just don't have what it takes to create what they see in their mind's eye. Maybe no one does. Or, Microsoft's worst cased scenario, maybe Sony does.
Click to expand...

You may think, yeah its fanboyism but how should he know how wrong he is. It was pre-release. True that. But...

He was even wrong when had to face the obvious truth.

Second:

One of his, pardon me, dumbest articles, was

PS Vita shines as Tokyo Game Show's star, but Nintendo's 3DS has already gone supernova
Click to expand...
.

In this article, he was reporting about the TGS shows of Nintendo and Sony.

One excerpt:

Iwata's TGS trump was confirmation that the next in the Monster Hunter series - an 18 million unit-selling handheld phenomenon in Japan traditionally played on Sony's PSP, will release apparently exclusively on 3DS.
...
If there was ever a clear indication that 3DS's time has already passed, it was that the crowd refused to even applaud Iwata until the Monster Hunter announcement.
Click to expand...

Silly isn´t it?

Gamer @ Heart take on it:

He reports on a conference in japan. Ignorant of Japanese culture, confuses lack of applause for audience disdain, ignores reveals of high profile japanese sellers. Some how forgets that they clapped because Nintendo secured THE BIGGEST GAMING PHENOM IN THE COUNTRY right now.

We are done. We need to close this thread before people start to take it seriously and discuss this....again.
Click to expand...

Patrick Garratt summarized his feelings with the following lines:

3DS imploding, Vita burning bright: expect Sony to confirm western launch details in the coming months.
Click to expand...

Fun fact: While he was writing this, 3DS sales went high due to announced games and price drop, while Vita dropped under 10 000.

Another country, but the reality twisting remained. In the article "UK charts: Vita takes one and two with Uncharted and FIFA" he suggested that

Uncharted: Golden Abyss has overtaken UFC Undisputed 3 as number one in the UK charts, signaling a strong start for PlayStation Vita in the UK.
Click to expand...

In the comment section he went even further:

I’m really pleased. Very positive. I hope the hardware figures are good.

....

Just been told Vita’s sales figures for the UK. Strong. I can’t publish them because they’re owned by Chart-track, but it’s good.

...

It’s comparable to 3DS. Be interesting to see what Sony announces, because the Chart-track figure and the figure Nintendo finally announced for 3DS was very different.
Click to expand...

It bombed hard.


What makes this whole thing so extra-bitter, is that Garratt was responsible for "Doritosgate – after the storm, lets clean ourselves up".

No flights or hotels. We’ll no longer accept flights and payment for hotels from third-parties.
No hospitality. No more free bars. I mean, I’m sure there’ll be free bars. But our employees won’t be drinking at them. This rule also includes food. As of now, VG247 staff will buy their own vittles when they’re “in the field” wherever possible. If, for whatever reason, a VG247 staffer eats or drinks at the expense of a publisher, it’ll be disclosed.
Any gift over £50 disclosed. We regularly get sent promotional materials by games publishers. From now on, all “swag” will be either given away on the site or through social media, or donated to charity. This doesn’t include games, or at least it doesn’t include all of them. We need to play games a lot, and the only way we can keep up is through promos.
No engagement in publisher-held competitions. VG247 staff will never again enter a competition hosted by a publisher or platform-holder.
Any coverage resulting from press trips to be disclosed. Self-explanatory. If we do decide that we’re going to pay our own way to attend a publisher promo event, we’ll clearly say so in any resulting copy.
Writers will never report on companies or products in which they have financial interest, or on companies which employ family members or close friends. Most games journalists have friendly relationships with some publisher PR. As of now, those friendships will prevent staff members from writing about any related company’s products. Similarly, our staff will now not write about products and companies in which they have a vested interest: this includes any crowd-sourced projects they may have backed.
We will always protect the identity of our sources. VG247′s sources will never be disclosed it they speak to us under condition of anonymity. It’s normal that VG247 journalists’ sources aren’t even divulged internally.
A note on advertising. VG247 is always likely to be primarily funded by video games advertising, for reasons I hope are blatantly obvious. We will never carry advertorial. Our ads our sold by Eurogamer Network’s sales team, which is based in Brighton, UK, and is independent to VG247′s editorial staff.
Click to expand...

You may wonder why I highlighted this part. Well, back in the day, this happened:

MC Safety said:
The best example of a guy making junk up was on CVG.com. That guy Pat Garratt wrote a story about a game conference in Japan that featured Hideo Kojima. Anyway, Garratt wrote it in the first-person and claimed to have actually attended the conference.

As it turns out, Garratt didn't attend the event because it didn't happen. When confronted by this news by Daily Radar (of all places) as well as some other sites, Garratt explained it all away as a translation error.
Click to expand...
 
As it turns out, Garratt didn't attend the event because it didn't happen. When confronted by this news by Daily Radar (of all places) as well as some other sites, Garratt explained it all away as a translation error.
Click to expand...
ztWuvvJ.gif
 
Good post, Oersted. I knew he was bad, but not that bad.

VG247 is trash. I remember when Garratt posted the ending FMV for Portal 2 about a week before its release (via a leak), telling their readers that it was part of the pre-release ARG, thus inadvertently spoiling the ending for their readers and people taking part in the ARG after it was linked on Reddit and other sites like it. After watching it, you could tell it was pretty obviously the ending, and Garratt must've known this. He lied for the hits it would bring.
 
I've spoken to Pat on Twitter and thought he come across as a decent guy but I have to admit, whilst browsing that site I get the impression his choice of subjects for editorials seem to focus far more on Sony stuff than the others and wondered why. He also lets the comment sections decay into antagonistic garbage and many just fucked off and never bothered again to contribute.
 
timetokill said:
Oersted, that Garratt stuff is hilarious. Great work.
Click to expand...

Omikaru said:
Good post, Oersted. I knew he was bad, but not that bad.

VG247 is trash. I remember when Garratt posted the ending FMV for Portal 2 about a week before its release (via a leak), telling their readers that it was part of the pre-release ARG, thus inadvertently spoiling the ending for their readers and people taking part in the ARG after it was linked on Reddit and other sites like it. After watching it, you could tell it was pretty obviously the ending, and Garratt must've known this. He lied for the hits it would bring.
Click to expand...

Thank you guys. So what are you thinking? New thread or not? It feels like more people should see this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
New Tomb Raider images leak
2 3 4 5 6
292
293
TGO replied
Tomb Raider: Catalyst | Reveal Trailer - The Game Awards
11
27
DenchDeckard replied
New Tomb Raider to be Revealed at The Game Awards
News  2 3 4 5
211
333
Trilobit replied
Tomb Raider Anniversary (PS2 classic on PS5)
RTTP 
21
433
Filben replied
Tomb Raider Catalyst and Legacy of Atlantis Trailer Released
News  2
87
88
BigLee74 replied
Top Bottom