Yeah there's a reason I described that scenario as impossible.
But if it did happen...if it did...
john ham as a person who cannot watch a lot of TV because the idea of someone making a fool of themselves in front of others causes me severe discomfort
I didn't watch the credits for Pillars of Eternity, because there are like 50,000 people in there. And I couldn't find my name. I think I forgot to send it for inclusion when they asked?
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
From the credits talk...
Back when games came with sizable manuals because they had to explain how you played the game, there was sometimes an index at the end of the manual. Jagged Alliance 2 had two entries under "This author". "... wonders if anyone actually reads this bit?" and "... will send a prize to the first person who mails the publisher of this game a letter saying they read this in the index".
Yeah I mean, I think the game looks like pandering dogshit and I'm pretty well guaranteed to never play it. But there's no reason a game reviewer/critic shouldn't at least spend some time with the game in order to have an informed opinion on it. It's just...their job.
Oh I don't think anyone's going to complain, I'm just imagining the developer looking through the list and stopping at my handle and going, to themselves, "well, look at this asshole."
well i'm sorry to tell you this but they're too busy not sleeping or seeing anyone they know outside of work to care
If you keep making me sad about game development I'll put a link to your YouTube channel in the credits of this small indie game and then you're done for.
oh fuck im sorry i forgot that you now have this power over me, ala knowing my true name
p.s. if you think anyone watches credits you are sorely mistaken i feel??? No one cares who made the game outside of maybe like, the director and the studio if that
I mean I will usually sit through the credits. I won't remember them usually, though.
Choosing not to give coverage to an otherwise unremarkable game made by people who seem to really like a lot of internationally-recognized hate groups doesn't seem like "getting wrapped up in PR tactics" or "childish nonsense" so much as a "highly defensible editorial decision" to me, but what do I know!
Choosing not to give coverage to an otherwise unremarkable game made by people who seem to really like a lot of internationally-recognized hate groups doesn't seem like "getting wrapped up in PR tactics" or "childish nonsense" so much as a "highly defensible editorial decision" to me, but what do I know!
That's the main issue I take with the decision to cover the game
It is pretty obvious what all the fuss is about if you do some research into the game and acting like the only reason people could ever take offense to the game is because they fell for a PR stunt seems willfully ignorant
this is in addition to the fact that doing something gross and then claiming it was a PR bit does not somehow make that thing not gross
Yeah I mean, I think the game looks like pandering dogshit and I'm pretty well guaranteed to never play it. But there's no reason a game reviewer/critic shouldn't at least spend some time with the game in order to have an informed opinion on it. It's just...their job.
gamespot and every other games site skips over tons of games
Choosing not to give coverage to an otherwise unremarkable game made by people who seem to really like a lot of internationally-recognized hate groups doesn't seem like "getting wrapped up in PR tactics" or "childish nonsense" so much as a "highly defensible editorial decision" to me, but what do I know!
I don't know about a defensible editorial decision, covering hatred would get a pretty good amount of eyes on gamespot as we see here
Choosing not to give coverage to an otherwise unremarkable game made by people who seem to really like a lot of internationally-recognized hate groups doesn't seem like "getting wrapped up in PR tactics" or "childish nonsense" so much as a "highly defensible editorial decision" to me, but what do I know!
I don't know about a defensible editorial decision, covering hatred would get a pretty good amount of eyes on gamespot as we see here
Absolutely true that they will get sweet clix, and I honestly sort of assumed that most big sites would cover it fifty times over regardless (thinkpieces all the way down), for exactly that reason. It's still a (subjectively) bad editorial decision, despite that it's an almost definitely better financial decision.
Promoting the game and your coverage of it on your personal Twitter account is also a separate lame decision in this case imo.
Yeah I mean, I think the game looks like pandering dogshit and I'm pretty well guaranteed to never play it. But there's no reason a game reviewer/critic shouldn't at least spend some time with the game in order to have an informed opinion on it. It's just...their job.
gamespot and every other games site skips over tons of games
right, and they also cover plenty of largely unremarkable games
people are talking about this game, it has a certain amount of cultural presence. like i said, i think it looks awful, the developers seem awful, and i hope it does poorly. but i won't begrudge game critics for spending some amount of time with this particular game so they can intelligently tell other people 'yes it is shit and here's exactly why' or whatever else their thoughts are
it's working, too: twitch banned the streaming of AO-rated games on their service, which is a completely reasonable and rational decision to make
and everywhere the comments are OH THEY'RE ONLY BANNING THIS BECAUSE HATRED IS COMING OUT, THEY DON'T WANT HATRED ON THEIR SERVICE and it's like, what? no that's like, a thing a company would just do
hatred is a nothing game, a xbox live marketplace zombie shooter with an edgelord skin, and it will be forgotten and discarded like used toilet paper a month after its release, and whispering about "ooooh we can't cover this on moral grounds" only gives it a legacy
Danny has a history of doing the "Everyone should have an equal voice" thing which how TotalBiscuit gets on his podcast (or it might have been a video)
I mean forget moral grounds even on a practical ground the "hey man we're just covering the games of the day" doesn't really work
there are more games coming out or otherwise updating their marketing every day than you can reasonably cover, all on the same development level as hatred and probably no less good
so there's nothing that you're actually really obligated to cover, gamespot makes a choice about what they want to spend time and effort on and the primary criteria is how many people want to read about this
hatred, for better or worse, has done a good job of inserting itself into the public consciousness and many people will click on a gameplay preview accompanied by advertisements
so, like, okay, do your job man, but acknowledge why you're doing it which is participation in a pr cycle, you're not giving a voice to everybody and you couldn't even if you wanted to
Posts
damn man that's my whole bit!!!!!!
now this is just confusing to me
but then again i block basically anyone who follows me on twitter that i dont know
I need more nordic themed suffering and existential despair in my life
Back when games came with sizable manuals because they had to explain how you played the game, there was sometimes an index at the end of the manual. Jagged Alliance 2 had two entries under "This author". "... wonders if anyone actually reads this bit?" and "... will send a prize to the first person who mails the publisher of this game a letter saying they read this in the index".
(Useful addendum, I thought, since the question of "why are you giving this game any coverage at all" springs to mind)
My Steam
Fuck yeah, still pretty pumped about this game
That's the main issue I take with the decision to cover the game
It is pretty obvious what all the fuss is about if you do some research into the game and acting like the only reason people could ever take offense to the game is because they fell for a PR stunt seems willfully ignorant
this is in addition to the fact that doing something gross and then claiming it was a PR bit does not somehow make that thing not gross
My Steam
gamespot and every other games site skips over tons of games
I don't know about a defensible editorial decision, covering hatred would get a pretty good amount of eyes on gamespot as we see here
Absolutely true that they will get sweet clix, and I honestly sort of assumed that most big sites would cover it fifty times over regardless (thinkpieces all the way down), for exactly that reason. It's still a (subjectively) bad editorial decision, despite that it's an almost definitely better financial decision.
Promoting the game and your coverage of it on your personal Twitter account is also a separate lame decision in this case imo.
right, and they also cover plenty of largely unremarkable games
people are talking about this game, it has a certain amount of cultural presence. like i said, i think it looks awful, the developers seem awful, and i hope it does poorly. but i won't begrudge game critics for spending some amount of time with this particular game so they can intelligently tell other people 'yes it is shit and here's exactly why' or whatever else their thoughts are
They're basically weaponizing the Streisand Effect as an intentional PR tactic.
and everywhere the comments are OH THEY'RE ONLY BANNING THIS BECAUSE HATRED IS COMING OUT, THEY DON'T WANT HATRED ON THEIR SERVICE and it's like, what? no that's like, a thing a company would just do
hatred is a nothing game, a xbox live marketplace zombie shooter with an edgelord skin, and it will be forgotten and discarded like used toilet paper a month after its release, and whispering about "ooooh we can't cover this on moral grounds" only gives it a legacy
only outlaws will stream big titty anime bukkake games
Edit: wait "no one gives a crap" makes it sound like it's a nothing game. I mean no one gives it any special moral weight. It's just another game.
with a FANTASTIC soundtrack
also maybe still Rockstar's best-written game?
i should find a way to do that
It's on Steam, and probably dirt-cheap for consoles too!
Also, it's 2015. How do games with a bunch of driving in them look worse than Burnout Revenge?
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
so it is! thy will be done, Bully
The fact that it never gets that fast or controls quite that well is the only problem I have with Burnout Paradise.
...well that and the lack of GPS.
there are more games coming out or otherwise updating their marketing every day than you can reasonably cover, all on the same development level as hatred and probably no less good
so there's nothing that you're actually really obligated to cover, gamespot makes a choice about what they want to spend time and effort on and the primary criteria is how many people want to read about this
hatred, for better or worse, has done a good job of inserting itself into the public consciousness and many people will click on a gameplay preview accompanied by advertisements
so, like, okay, do your job man, but acknowledge why you're doing it which is participation in a pr cycle, you're not giving a voice to everybody and you couldn't even if you wanted to
All posts like this do is make me sad the Rock and Roll racing reboot fell apart.
Rock and Roll Racing will go down as one of my top 5 favorite games of all time.