Gaming journalism is getting so much harder to read.
- Thread starter PanYue
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ah, I thought you meant Andy Chalk for a second.hazabaza1 said:
But yeah, ignore most gaming press. Find someone who you like in terms of games writing and FOLLOW THEIR POSTS.
Tina Amni isn't much better. Her review of Dead Space 3 was complaining about things that have been in Dead Space since the first game.Andy Shandy said:
Plus Kotaku's habit to "take a stand" about certain games is what really got on my nerve. They didn't like RE6 -- fine, that's perfectly fine, neither did Jim Sterling. But Jim Sterling didn't make every Jimquisition for a month be about how awful Capcom and Resident Evil have become. Or when they decided it was their job to defend Mass Effect 3.
There's a reason I just started blogging my own stuff. Although ironically my blog presently lives on Game Informer... *sigh*
Go look at the news section. You will generally see two or three perfect examples of what he is talking about every day on this site.Requia said:
Talking about sexism and homophobia in gaming is fine, but throwing a fit over a gay joke in a game that was never taking itself seriously in the first place? Seems like skewered priorities. That game also had a black character that was killed early on, ergo the black guy died first, but no one is complaining about that. Why? Because Blood Dragon never took itself seriously to begin with, not to mention it's a reference to the 80s action movies where the black guy dying first was a thing.Zhukov said:
Issues exist, but this is a seriously messed up way of addressing them. You need to pick your battles. This...this just wasn't worth an entire article.
That article didn't seem to constitute "throwing a fit" to me. It was pretty calm. Perhaps you have different standard of "fit".erttheking said:
Regardless, I'm not asking you or anyone else to agree with them. Hell, I'm not sure I agree with them, if only because I don't care enough about the specific games being discussed to bother forming an opinion.
I'm merely saying that as gaming, and the media that surrounds it, starts to move beyond the traditional audience, some of the things we've long regarded as business as usual (examples: the predominance of violence and every female character dressing like a hooker) are going to come under the microscope.
It's funny and perhaps even a little bit sad that the reaction from the hardcore crowd to this sort of thing usually consists of, "Just shut up, okay?!" See OP.
Lastly, I do not think that "not taking itself seriously" is the impervious anti-criticism shield you're using it as. Imagine if I were to say something offensive, like, oh, let's see now... "every woman on this earth is a miserable, worthless **** whose only purpose in life is to serve as my personal combined cock-holster and house maid". Actually, scratch that. Let's go for something a bit more tailored. How about, "Catholics are closet pedophiles (just look at their priests) who clearly hate everyone remotely different to themselves and spend their days looking for new ways to impose their primitive, backwards beliefs on the rest of us." Except I say it with a big silly grin on my face and while wearing a funny hat. That would make it okay, right? After all, I'm obviously not taking myself seriously.
I consider it a fit considering it's making a big deal out of nothing.Zhukov said:
And I'm not making the argument that the argument that gaming should pander to 14 year old boys, I'm just saying that not every single time people say "oh, this is offensive," we automatically need to agree with them. We need to analyze each situation individually. Heck, I didn't like the sorceress, but I'm not that bothered over this, because one is a character model that is a wide spread problem in games, while the other is a joke that isn't as wide spread and sticks around for about ten seconds.
Yeah, well, there's a difference between making a touch and go gay joke in a camp, cheesy environment, and then going on an anti-woman rant and claiming that you're being "ironic. There's a bit of a difference there, you really can't compare the two. I'm not saying that people need to find the joke funny, but it really wasn't worth the fuss considering it's a joke in a game that was basically a giant joke anyway.
TL;DR: Writing an entire article over a single joke is overreacting.
You've got to keep up your awareness when reading gaming news. There's huge streaks of personal bias and the fact checking isn't often very good at all and then pretty much every controversy always gets blown out of proportion and misunderstood. (Worst latest examples include the 'gay planet' sillyness), but I think if you're willing to work for it and recognise that bad points and double check the facts, it's still readable (admittedly that's not the greatest state of affairs).
Most reliable gaming news source? Checkpoint. I kid you not, unlike the gaming magazine, it's the comedy guys who actually fact check their news, do retractions and put scandals in proper context. They reported on the gay planet correctly, they were one of the people who realised the EA worst company ever thing was silly last year and whenever there is an EVE story, they seem to be the only people who know what an EVE is and manage to include the correct context for the events.
(For example with Asakai, not only did they know what mistake the pilot made (which most news sources didn't, reporting he'd accidentally ended up in the wrong system) but they even knew who was involved and how time dilation affected everything)
Most reliable gaming news source? Checkpoint. I kid you not, unlike the gaming magazine, it's the comedy guys who actually fact check their news, do retractions and put scandals in proper context. They reported on the gay planet correctly, they were one of the people who realised the EA worst company ever thing was silly last year and whenever there is an EVE story, they seem to be the only people who know what an EVE is and manage to include the correct context for the events.
(For example with Asakai, not only did they know what mistake the pilot made (which most news sources didn't, reporting he'd accidentally ended up in the wrong system) but they even knew who was involved and how time dilation affected everything)
The bold is a perfect example. Is that really the case? Can you prove that's the case? Have you ever looked into whether that is the case or not? How about in comparison to other mediums, other forms of visual media?Zhukov said:
Stating something controversial as fact when it isn't is sensationalist. These articles do what you did in that post (start off with a sensationalist basis) and then build on top of that with sensationalist bricks.
That was my reaction to the MMR hoax, that's my standard reaction to any "(insert anything here) gives you cancer" articles. That's my reaction to daily mail articles that claim immigrants are taking over the country, that was my reaction to a fox news report, stating that Nintendo DS' were paedophile friendly.Zhukov said:
There is no reason to respect or give time of day to poor, misleading, sensationalist journalism. Even if it is addressing controversial issues.
Depends if you've strolled into the realm of comedy or not.Zhukov said:
Nothing is beyond the reach of comedy.
Far Cry: Blood Dragon is a comedy game, imitating 80's action movies.
If it didn't make the gay joke then they would be compromising artistically (as well as allowing censorship of comedy).
I think this is an interesting read on why game journalism is hard.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/22/the-power-of-silence-why-the-simcity-story-went-away/
Basically you have private companies who are under no obligation to condemn or explain their product and with time on their side, most people will forget why they were angry in the first place. Suppose the next SimCity comes out in another 10 years, will I really remember this disasterous launch or care about always online?
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/22/the-power-of-silence-why-the-simcity-story-went-away/
Basically you have private companies who are under no obligation to condemn or explain their product and with time on their side, most people will forget why they were angry in the first place. Suppose the next SimCity comes out in another 10 years, will I really remember this disasterous launch or care about always online?
Since the articles you linked from kotaku as examples are all related to sexism/homophobia, let me ask you: Don't you like kotaku, or don't you wanna read about these topics?PanYue said:
Should it be the latter, why don't you just skip those articles?
"Prosecuting"? Freedom of expression is not freedom from response. Are game journalists not supposed to express their concerns over aspects of a game they find problematic, whether it is sexism, homophobia, racism, violence, political questions or what not? Should game journalists only write game previews and reviews (of products), but not critiques (of pieces of art)?
And hasn't the woman who wrote the 30 days of sexism article every right to be upset about how some dudes behave towards her?
I think it's this whole mashing up gaming journalism with social activism, it can get rather pretentious at times and cringeworthy at others.