We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.

Penny Arcade - Comic - Parabolic

1235789

Posts

  • StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    This thread is not about GG

    Again, let's keep it on topic and avoid the tangents.

    YL9WnCY.png
  • TravanTravan Registered User regular
    Jerms wrote: »
    "For years, I could never make heads or tails of the access granted to outfits whose primary contribution is aggression either towards the creators or the users of games."

    I prefer to read this as nothing to do with Kotaku, but about the realisation of the mistake that hiring Kuchera was.

    I would not be surprised if a few too many candid conversations with Kuchera over drinks was what started them down this dark path. Never knew anyone who could so perfectly undermine their own position.

    Gamertag- Travan7838


  • MetaOkamiMetaOkami Registered User new member
    Personally, I just think Kotaku are assholes for spoiling surprises. God forbid the developers that pour their lives into these games get the joy of watching them be revealed. Weren't Kotaku responsible for outing Rare Replay like two hours before it was announced? Assholes.

  • FuruFuru Registered User regular
    MetaOkami wrote: »
    Personally, I just think Kotaku are assholes for spoiling surprises. God forbid the developers that pour their lives into these games get the joy of watching them be revealed. Weren't Kotaku responsible for outing Rare Replay like two hours before it was announced? Assholes.

    "Reporting" is what a reporter does. not an asshole. If you're in entertainment news and you get a legit solid scoop, you post the scoop.

  • MetaOkamiMetaOkami Registered User new member
    ""Reporting" is what a reporter does. not an asshole. If you're in entertainment news and you get a legit solid scoop, you post the scoop."

    All I know is if I poured years of my life into something, and somebody spoiled my surprise to my fans, I wouldn't want anything to do with them either. This wasn't some big scandal, it was a game that would eventually be shown at E3 to millions of viewing fans. You want to spill dirt on shitheads being awful human beings in video game companies? Fantastic, I can certainly support that. Giving away the plot of Fallout 4? Screw you

  • WordLustWordLust Fort Wayne, INRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    It really all depends on how you look at it. Game journalists WILL shaft you, just like scorpions WILL sting you. It is their nature to do so. But can you BLAME a thing for its nature? Is a scorpion an asshole because it stings?

    I do kinda laugh at the defense of games journalists "having a responsibility to the people," as if they are reporting on the refugee crisis or some other noble cause. Most games journalism is like a cross between Buzzfeed and TMZ. Imagine a journalist posting the latest pictures of Kim Kardashian's butt insisting that he "has a responsibility to the people!" and that's about as seriously as I take that defense from games journos. We've got our games tabloids and we're working really very hard on our games paparazzi.

    Traditional consumer-oriented games journalism isn't really worth much these days. Dev-oriented news/articles can be significantly less vapid, but I won't say that realm is perfect either.

    WordLust on
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    Travan wrote: »
    Tube wrote: »
    Tasteticle wrote: »
    I guess I have a hard time figuring out exactly why 'Games Journalism' as a thing is such a hot-button issue? It exists entirely around a piece of consumer culture, and as such I have a really hard time getting riled up about 'Games Journalism' in any meaningful capacity.

    There a hojillion people out there writing or talking about games - go out there and find the people you enjoy / tend to agree with and follow them, it's not hard.

    Because Penny Arcade does three comics a week and they thought of a funny one that was about a games journalism story.

    This position doesn't seem tenable in light of the newspost. Reading something like this
    Though, I can understand why a publisher might determine that an increasingly hostile outlet whose business model is “Start Shit” might not be the best time or money investment. And you may say, “But Jerrzorz!” and that’s all you’ll get out because you’re going to look down at the floor for a second and really think about it. Why did it ever work this way? Why would you be obligated to spend millions of dollars on something and then place it gently on the black altar of a hivemind cult, bowing as you retreat? The old accord is over. Go buy your games at the store. Do you not understand that this is literally the best thing that ever happened to you? They don’t owe you shit, and now you don’t owe them shit. Having been the cowering creature beneath enthusiast media’s Eye of Sauron on more than one occasion, the object of their tender ministrations, their ostensible populism and their eerily synchronized perspective, I have no sympathy for these creatures. Which is to say, I have the same sympathy they express for those outside their cloister. You may feel very confident that there are conversations at every publisher now, wondering to what extent they are required to eat shit from these people.

    makes it pretty clear that Jerry and Mike hate professional games journalists as a class, hate gaming journalism as an enterprise, and celebrate its decline even when the alternatives mean publishers dictate terms almost exclusively, because preserving an independent games press is irrelevant compared to throwing their perceived persecutors out on the street.

    Its dismaying to say the least, but I'm glad Jerry has finally declared a position after talking out of both sides of his mouth for what seriously feels like years.

    Firstly, I can't be the only one whose read Jerry Holkins' writing before can I? I'm sure everyone here is familiar that he uses flowery language and overstates things for his own amusement and comic effect? While I'm sure he finds the people he's talking about distasteful, I can't chalk up the use of words like describing them as "creatures" as anything other than something meant to be a bit of humorous hyperbole. Secondly, while it is clear he dislikes a lot of the current games journalism and those conducting it, a less uncharitable reading is not that he hates all games journalism and that he hates all games journalists, but that he's disappointed with the quality of modern games journalism, he thinks a lot of modern games journalism is toxic rather than helpful and is just as bad, for different reasons, as the situation that it used to be, and does not sympathize with modern games journalists when game companies get fed up with their treatment of them and shuts them out. It's possible he would be more sympathetic if he thought the games journalists were doing their jobs well, but since he doesn't, he doesn't feel bad for them.

    As for "talking out of both sides of his mouth" I don't see it. The PA guys clearly care about games, and care about games journalism. They have in the past criticized both sides of the games companies games journalists system for a variety of reasons. Rather than him actually secretly hating games journalists, and talking out of both sides of his mouth when he appears to support them or is critical of something games companies do when relating to them, it might just be that he sometimes disagrees with games journalists or the way games journalism is done and in those instances, disagrees with them, and sometimes disagrees with games companies and what games companies are doing, and so disagrees with them in those instances.

    Or I don't know, maybe Jerry Holkins actually utterly despises all games journalists and is cackling with evil glee as Kotaku gets shut out for a bit of reporting they did, just waiting for the day when all games journalists lose their jobs and die on the street. It really could be one or the other, I'm sure both are just as fair, likely, and reasonable possibilities based on everything he's ever said. :rotate:

    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
  • I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    WordLust wrote: »
    It really all depends on how you look at it. Game journalists WILL shaft you, just like scorpions WILL sting you. It is their nature to do so. But can you BLAME a thing for its nature? Is a scorpion an asshole because it stings?

    I do kinda laugh at the defense of games journalists "having a responsibility to the people," as if they are reporting on the refugee crisis or some other noble cause. Most games journalism is like a cross between Buzzfeed and TMZ. Imagine a journalist posting the latest pictures of Kim Kardashian's butt insisting that he "has a responsibility to the people!" and that's about as seriously as I take that defense from games journos. We've got our games tabloids and we're working really very hard on our games paparazzi.

    Traditional consumer-oriented games journalism isn't really worth much these days. Dev-oriented news/articles can be significantly less vapid, but I won't say that realm is perfect either.

    it is not in the nature of a games journalist to "shaft" you

    that would mean the games journalist loses you as a source

    this is exactly the strawman the comic creates, where it presents the journalist as a sniveling, backstabbing scorpion, when generally speaking if the games journalist is given information by a source the source wants that information to be posted

    the company the source works for might not want that, but who cares about corporations

    liEt3nH.png
  • FuruFuru Registered User regular

    the company the source works for might not want that, but who cares about corporations

    Judging by this thread more people than you'd hope.

  • AbsalonAbsalon Lands of Always WinterRegistered User regular
    "Hivemind cult" - yeah, that makes me actively enjoy ignoring Kotaku's critics. If that's the description you get for criticizing norms in media, might as well act the part.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    I love that some people are trying to assert that the comic doesn't actually villianize games media, or that it "makes fun of both sides." The dev side of the argument is represented by a friggin' Buddhist monk, while the journalists are a scorpion. You could leave the silly-ass text off and you'd know which side is being portrayed as the bad guy in this scenario and which side is being portrayed as literal saints.

    "Are game developers flawless human beings who give up all worldly pursuits in order to serve a higher power? Read the newspost to find out!"

    Cambiata on
    "excuse my French
    But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
    - Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
  • AbsalonAbsalon Lands of Always WinterRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    Maybe there is a monk and a scorpion in the original story. What irks me is how very poorly it is written and how poor the delivery format is, regardless of the whiny accompanying text. The more blatant and exaggerating your satire is the funnier and wittier you have to be. See South Park, which always is at its best when it does madcaps, overblown dialogue and unexpectedly vicious cheap shots, and at its worst when it stops and tries to Make A Point.

    So obvious that there is a chip on the shoulder and an understanding of the entire games industry and media universe that is both mistaken and puritanical. Critical Miss made a more important point on this.

    Absalon on
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    Maybe there is a monk and a scorpion in the original story.

    Nope, it's an animal fable. It's the Scorpion and the Frog. But frogs are disliked by some people, and so a more purely good alternative was clearly needed.

    "excuse my French
    But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
    - Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
  • This content has been removed.

  • KenninatorKenninator Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    "Hivemind cult" - yeah, that makes me actively enjoy ignoring Kotaku's critics.

    Wouldn't that be... blacklisting!?

  • This content has been removed.

  • KenninatorKenninator Registered User regular
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    "Hivemind cult" - yeah, that makes me actively enjoy ignoring Kotaku's critics.

    Wouldn't that be... blacklisting!?

    Are you being denied access to a source or a platform to speak?

    Blacklisting is the same as just being ignored, right? I might be using the kotaku definition.

  • This content has been removed.

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    I have despised Gawker since they put a list of every gun owner on NYC. Which leaded, for starters, to a woman being found for her stalker, but hey, they are "making a stand".

    That's repulsive. They went out of the way to harm a bunch of innocent people for clicks. And that was on 2013, so no hiding behind "but the only people that hate Gawker are the GG'ers", screw that.

    The "outing an accountant for reasons" incident has already been covered.

    EDIT: And, on Gizmodo, there's also the iPhone 4 leak, that they got by....buying a prototype that was missing since an Apple employee lost it at a bar. Apple blacklisted them for 4 years for that stunt, and the courts said that yes, by not returning it until forced to do so, it counts as theft.

    TryCatcher on
  • KenninatorKenninator Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    "Hivemind cult" - yeah, that makes me actively enjoy ignoring Kotaku's critics.

    Wouldn't that be... blacklisting!?

    Are you being denied access to a source or a platform to speak?

    Blacklisting is the same as just being ignored, right? I might be using the kotaku definition.

    Only if you actively fail to understand the difference between a company ignoring a major industry media outlet and a consumer ignoring some random goose on the Internet.

    I guess the scale is the only major difference. The reason behind the ignoring/blacklisting is self-defense in both cases.

    Kenninator on
  • This content has been removed.

  • I'm An Elk; Shoot MeI'm An Elk; Shoot Me It's Fiddler Crab Season! Registered User regular
    MetaOkami wrote: »
    Personally, I just think Kotaku are assholes for spoiling surprises. God forbid the developers that pour their lives into these games get the joy of watching them be revealed. Weren't Kotaku responsible for outing Rare Replay like two hours before it was announced? Assholes.

    I love how this argument always puts the blame on a news site for reporting news, and not, you know, the employee of Bethesda or Ubisoft who clearly provided them the information.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited November 2015
    Kotaku occupies the exact same space as Entertainment Weekly in my mind, which makes all of this arguing sound very silly. Especially since it seems the usual suspects came back when the magic words are spoken. Much passion. So heated. Never knew that someone could hate a company so much. I suppose if Kotaku killed my cat or murdered my parents, I could whip up that level of zealot-like fervor over it or something. As it is, it boils down to "They say words I don't like!"

    If you guys really want to have a debate about this with dumb crazy tangents, then head on over to Debate and Discourse! There's a forum specifically FOR this.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • master_swordmaster_sword Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    I'm pretty sure they've been blacklisted for more than just the Fallout thing, too. Ubisoft doesn't deal with them anymore either, probably because the very last time Ubi gave them an interview they crawled up Ubi's ass about gender.

    I think people are tired of fucking around with these dipshits. Hell, look how David Jaffe tore Stephen Totillo a new asshole. Youtube that for some warm and fuzzies.

    EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IcRVGa_wws

    master_sword on
  • RatherDashing89RatherDashing89 Registered User regular
    Furu wrote: »

    the company the source works for might not want that, but who cares about corporations

    Judging by this thread more people than you'd hope.

    Corporations like Gawker? Media conglomerates fit the "evil corporation" model just as much as AAA developers, and more than most indie developers. Considering that for me and (I think) a ton of gamers, AAA has nearly fallen off the radar entirely, I'd say in the "media vs. devs" war, the media is the big company and the developers are the underdogs.

    But let's even talk AAA. If I want to decide whether to buy a hamburger, I don't base my decision off a McDonalds commercial. But neither do I base it off CNN doing a story about how these burgers are actually gross. (If they were to reveal actual health concerns, maybe, but such claims have rarely been legitimate in the fast food industry and I cannot think of any video game that is hazardous to my health). And I certainly wouldn't base it off an article someone shared on facebook saying "The SHOCKING truth about McDonalds burgers!" I would probably make my decision based on what my friends said, my past experience with McD's, and maybe just trying the burger.

    Maybe I'm spoiled because I've never found a reason to buy games immediately after release, so I don't need a review two weeks ahead of time. The last time I paid more than $10 for a game was Skyrim. I had already loved Oblivion and even played several hours of Skyrim at a friend's house. Looking at a variety of user reviews, trying demos, and going on my past experience with a company tells me WAY more than an "journalist" does.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    "excuse my French
    But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
    - Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
  • master_swordmaster_sword Registered User regular
    Patrick Klepek, huh?

    http://www.deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=patrick_klepek

    Funny to see him whining about blacklisting.

  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Furu wrote: »
    You can hate Kotaku all you want but please don't act like it's a defensible rational position to go "but they're bad, though!" in a situation where they've done nothing wrong, like that justifies everything. Because then you're left with the position of "also corporations should have total control over all information about their products" and that's. Bad.

    This is such a "But then the terrorist win!" type sentiment. Kotaku/Gawker has behaved in ways that go beyond bad reporting. Gawker is currently involved in a lawsuit over a sex tape they refuse to take down even after a judge ordered them to.

    The only way to take down Gawker for their reprehensible behavior is for people to stop reading them, and news sources to stop giving them news. And yet this is framed as "But then the corporations win!"

    There are other news outlets to keep corporations honest. And it's not like Kotaku is operating in any sort of 4th estate capacity anyways. This is the weakest possible defense of Gawker I've heard yet.

    And like I said before, maybe Kotaku was black listed for leaking marketing details. That's certainly their side of the story, and if that were the whole story, they'd be justified in being indignant. But believing that narrow perspective requires blinders to the rest of Gawker's behavior that are staggering to imagine.

  • CorpekataCorpekata Registered User regular
    Patrick Klepek, huh?

    http://www.deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=patrick_klepek

    Funny to see him whining about blacklisting.
    This thread is not about GG

    Again, let's keep it on topic and avoid the tangents.


    Like, you can't even wait a page?

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User, Moderator mod
    Corpekata wrote: »
    Patrick Klepek, huh?

    http://www.deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=patrick_klepek

    Funny to see him whining about blacklisting.
    This thread is not about GG

    Again, let's keep it on topic and avoid the tangents.


    Like, you can't even wait a page?
    Some people just can't help themselves. :D It's human nature.

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • DratatooDratatoo Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    Namrok wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I think it's genuinely hilarious that the news post seems to imply that the games journalists have traditionally been the ones in a position of power, in some way.

    The comic itself, eh, not their best.

    There are numerous stories out there about how bad reporting killed a studio. The guys who made Titan Quest suffered. They credit their studio going out of business with erroneous reviews. You see, part of their copy protection is that games running cracked versions would crash when you enter a certain cave. All these pirates took to the message boards complaining about the crash, and reviews picked that up calling the game buggy despite not experiencing any bugs themselves. Then Titan Quest got a reputation for being a great, but buggy game, people should avoid.

    Which is all the more ironic since we're talking about Bethesda...

    The way the copy protection was executed was stupid. Of course people wouldn't necessarily make the connection between pirate copy and the crash and those who pirated it wouldn't mention it in their complaints. If they really need to have this kind of protection they could have shown a in game message or popping up a dialog box with an explanation "Thank you for being interested in our product. You are playing a modified version of our game. If you want the full experience buy it retail / online / reinstall the game from the official media."

    Dratatoo on
  • I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    SECRETS OF GAMEJOURNOPROS

    SOME OF THE MOST INCRIMINATING STORIES UNCOVERED THIS FAR ABOUT THE SECRET MAILING LIST OF THE GAME JOURNALISM ELITE

    liEt3nH.png
  • I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    WRT titan's quest, it's a very convenient narrative for the studio that the only reason their game sold poorly is because of how it was reported on, and not in any way because it was a bad game

    liEt3nH.png
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited November 2015
    I realize that people have valid reasons for hating Kotaku for past transgressions, some of them have been mentioned here. The thing is, what do those stories have to do with the current issue? If I bring up how Ubisoft released Assassin's Creed in a barely playable state, or how Bethesda targeted an indie developer because they had a game called Fortress Fallout, even though the game had no similarity to their flagship game, are those stories also relevant? This isn't a battle about who is a shittier business, because frankly even my favorite game studios wouldn't hold up well to that kind of scrutiny based simply on how the industry treats their workforce overall.

    This is a discussion about a specific situation - a journalistic entity reporting what a publisher did not want reported, and refusing access to that entity as a consequence. I personally think it's a mistake for those game companies to refuse access, that in fact when a game company gives open access to their materials it's a sign of confidence in their product. Ubisoft in particular is deserving of a side-eye here because of the review embargo they put on Assassin's Creed. I think all review sites should blacklist Ubisoft based just on their behavior with AC alone. All reviewers should from now on just buy Ubisoft games instead of accepting a review copy, and post their reviews whenever the fuck they want.

    Cambiata on
    "excuse my French
    But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
    - Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
  • master_swordmaster_sword Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Corpekata wrote: »
    Patrick Klepek, huh?

    http://www.deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=patrick_klepek

    Funny to see him whining about blacklisting.
    This thread is not about GG

    Again, let's keep it on topic and avoid the tangents.


    Like, you can't even wait a page?
    Some people just can't help themselves. :D It's human nature.

    I didn't even bring up GG in that post, I brought up Patrick being a dipshit. It's almost as if GG aren't the only ones taking issue with these people.

  • GrebnuGrebnu Registered User regular
    I stopped reading Kotaku today (before this comic/text actually).

    Kotaku has good stuff about Nintendo, but they tend to drive their own agenda pretty hard and that is really annoying. They every once in a while exaggerate and bend people's sayings to fit their agenda. That is not good.

    But thanks for the comic (or text especially), that sums my views about this topic pretty well.

  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    This is a discussion about a specific situation - a journalistic entity reporting what a publisher did not want reported, and refusing access to that entity as a consequence.

    This requires you believe Kotaku's account of events. Kotaku's behavior makes this difficult. What we know, is that Kotaku has been blacklisted, and that they leaked things. Kotaku claims this is the only possible causative element. Most people who know Kotaku have a hard time believing this.

    Bethesda and Ubisoft have remained silent on this issue, and I imagine they will continue to do so. However, hypothetically, if they came out to tomorrow and said "Actually, we blacklisted Kotaku because Gawker assisted in blackmail" or "We blacklisted Kotaku because Gawker runs baseless hit pieces on developers" or "We blacklisted Kotaku because Gawker publishes sex tapes illegally" or "We blacklisted Kotaku because Gawker regularly doxes private citizens" could you say they were wrong to do so?

    There are so many valid reasons to blacklist Kotaku/Gawker. Kotaku is claiming they were blacklisted for possibly the only invalid reason that exists. Even if that's true, it's a punishment that fits so many of their so far unpunished crimes.

    If the right thing happens for the wrong reasons, and right reasons also exist, and those right reasons were never acted on previously...

    Shit, I feel like we are getting into some deep philosophical territory here. Is there a moral philosopher in the house?

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User, Moderator mod
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Corpekata wrote: »
    Patrick Klepek, huh?

    http://www.deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=patrick_klepek

    Funny to see him whining about blacklisting.
    This thread is not about GG

    Again, let's keep it on topic and avoid the tangents.


    Like, you can't even wait a page?
    Some people just can't help themselves. :D It's human nature.

    I didn't even bring up GG in that post, I brought up Patrick being a dipshit. It's almost as if GG aren't the only ones taking issue with these people.
    When you honk like a silly goose, you should expect to be called a silly goose by at least one person out there. That's also human nature. :D Welcome to the forums!

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    I realize that people have valid reasons for hating Kotaku for past transgressions, some of them have been mentioned here. The thing is, what do those stories have to do with the current issue?

    Because we have no idea why they are blacklisted. Even Kotaku can't say for sure because these companies never commented on the issue.

  • GaslightGaslight Registered User regular
    edited November 2015
    Cambiata wrote: »
    I love that some people are trying to assert that the comic doesn't actually villianize games media, or that it "makes fun of both sides." The dev side of the argument is represented by a friggin' Buddhist monk, while the journalists are a scorpion.
    Nope, it's an animal fable. It's the Scorpion and the Frog. But frogs are disliked by some people, and so a more purely good alternative was clearly needed.

    A simple Google search reveals many hits for versions of the story where it's a monk and a scorpion. They didn't invent a new version for the comic to make game developers look better.

    Gaslight on
Sign In or Register to comment.