Two forces are at play - one is that we know how incredibly embarrassing the earnest people of the 60s were even at the times they were making major positive social changes. They were ridiculous. Millennial earnestness is no different, but when they're in the forest they can't see the trees. The second is that Gen X dealt with this inherited embarrassment by coating ourselves in a thick layer of irony that sincerity has no hope of penetrating, and we've never emerged. When faced with True Believers, the effect is similar to confronting a vampire with a crucifix. But in the end, everyone is completely out of touch in their own way, and as collective generations we'll simply have to be confused by each other for eternity.
Honestly, it takes some goddamned balls for guys whose generation has never known want to throw shade on one that fought in a pointless armed conflict and suffered the brunt of one of the worst economic downturns in world history. Major goddamned balls.
I'm sorry, but are they trying to court the CNN demographic by being smug about millenials?
Oh, you were drafted?
No, but neither was Gen X.
Well, at least Gen X had Grenada and the Gulf War.
And Millenials had Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe you heard of them.
I really don't get why people are this upset at me pointing out historical context as to why Gen X really isn't in a position to look down on Millenials? Especially when a ton of people here look down on Boomers for similar reasons.
*woosh*
I got you were making fun of my pointing out that Boomers fought in Vietnam (for some reason). Just didn't get how this related to Tube's claim that Millenials never knew suffering because the draft wasn't around.
Two forces are at play - one is that we know how incredibly embarrassing the earnest people of the 60s were even at the times they were making major positive social changes. They were ridiculous. Millennial earnestness is no different, but when they're in the forest they can't see the trees. The second is that Gen X dealt with this inherited embarrassment by coating ourselves in a thick layer of irony that sincerity has no hope of penetrating, and we've never emerged. When faced with True Believers, the effect is similar to confronting a vampire with a crucifix. But in the end, everyone is completely out of touch in their own way, and as collective generations we'll simply have to be confused by each other for eternity.
Honestly, it takes some goddamned balls for guys whose generation has never known want to throw shade on one that fought in a pointless armed conflict and suffered the brunt of one of the worst economic downturns in world history. Major goddamned balls.
I'm sorry, but are they trying to court the CNN demographic by being smug about millenials?
Oh, you were drafted?
No, but neither was Gen X.
Well, at least Gen X had Grenada and the Gulf War.
And Millenials had Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe you heard of them.
I really don't get why people are this upset at me pointing out historical context as to why Gen X really isn't in a position to look down on Millenials? Especially when a ton of people here look down on Boomers for similar reasons.
I'm really struggling with where to even begin, and how to even go about this in good faith.
So perhaps it's best I just don't.
You could start by explaining what I got factually incorrect? So far, no one has pointed anything out.
Well, first, I find your proposition that Millennials have bore the brunt of a historic economic downturn, and war to be preposterous.
Millennials might be coming of age during an era of slim economic opportunity, but to say they've uniquely suffered the worst is nonsense. Millennials haven't lost their houses, their retirement, their middle class income which they were using to support a family. Millennials have no responsibilities or obligations, nothing to lose, and by and large are pushing the burden of adulthood onto their parents if statistics on how many of them still live at home into their 20's and 30's are to be believed.
As for the wars, I think others have already points out that's a wash. There is nothing uniquely burdensome about the wars an incredibly tiny minority of Millennials are fighting compared to the wars a tiny minority of Gen Xers were involved in.
True, Millenials never lost any of those things. They'll just never have them to begin with. Also, if the older generations lost their homes and incomes, how are Millenials living at home to begin with?
As for wars, I'm sorry, but Iraq and Afghanistan were MUCH more costly (both in terms of money and casualties) than the armed conflicts Gen X faced.
I guess I was more saying that every generation has had its way of telling the generation before it What The Shit Is Really Going On, and for the Boomers it was burning whatever of their parent's stuff they could find that didn't fit utopia, for Gen X it was Breakfast Club letters about what individuality really means and why they are the first ones to ever unleash it, and for Millennials it is taking every single thing they encounter and putting it through the chipper-shredder of social responsibility and presenting it back to you accusingly. They're all gyrations of the same rituals, which is being Real while others are being False.
And every generation has also had its way of telling the generation after it why they are the absolute worst, and for Boomers it was open letters to Gen X about how Boomers had ideals and Gen X has catchphrases, for Gen X it's open letters to Millennials about their easy lives and low attention spans, and for Millennials it will probably be open letters about how their kids spend too much time in virtual reality and not enough time solving real world problems.
The belief in our absolute generational superiority is the only connective tissue that truly ties us together. And that statement, in itself, is such a perfect encapsulation of my Gen X cynicism that my parents and my children would never agree!
I don't believe Millenials are perfect by any stretch (after all, our generation is the one that frequents Reddit and 4chan), I just don't think Gen X should be the ones saying that.
Two forces are at play - one is that we know how incredibly embarrassing the earnest people of the 60s were even at the times they were making major positive social changes. They were ridiculous. Millennial earnestness is no different, but when they're in the forest they can't see the trees. The second is that Gen X dealt with this inherited embarrassment by coating ourselves in a thick layer of irony that sincerity has no hope of penetrating, and we've never emerged. When faced with True Believers, the effect is similar to confronting a vampire with a crucifix. But in the end, everyone is completely out of touch in their own way, and as collective generations we'll simply have to be confused by each other for eternity.
Honestly, it takes some goddamned balls for guys whose generation has never known want to throw shade on one that fought in a pointless armed conflict and suffered the brunt of one of the worst economic downturns in world history. Major goddamned balls.
I'm sorry, but are they trying to court the CNN demographic by being smug about millenials?
Oh, you were drafted?
No, but neither was Gen X.
Well, at least Gen X had Grenada and the Gulf War.
And Millenials had Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe you heard of them.
I really don't get why people are this upset at me pointing out historical context as to why Gen X really isn't in a position to look down on Millenials? Especially when a ton of people here look down on Boomers for similar reasons.
Besides the obvious fact that Millenials were hardly the only ones to suffer during the recession, it's a flawed argument. The validity of the criticism is independent of the amount of suffering endured by the critic. There is no deprivation threshold that prevents generations from shitting on each other.
I haven't actually seen that many video game reviews like that, at least not since Tim Rogers stopped being active.
Maybe I'm just going to different places?
Or they were never really a thing and G&T have just been on this weird crusade against imaginary video game critics for some reason.
Or maybe, juuuuust maybe, they came up with a funny thing for a comic punchline and they aren't actually attacking anyone/group of people. It's a radical idea, I know.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
There are definitely some reviews out there trying to paint Doom as "immature" and "only about killing" and docking the score for being the game it's supposed to be.
But I like the bigger picture, where it's ridiculous that people are expecting developers to always bend over for reviewers. One of my biggest peeves is people getting upset over review embargoes, as if the game they want to buy will suddenly become un-purchaseable after launch day.
Satsumomo on
+3
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I haven't actually seen that many video game reviews like that, at least not since Tim Rogers stopped being active.
Maybe I'm just going to different places?
Or they were never really a thing and G&T have just been on this weird crusade against imaginary video game critics for some reason.
Or maybe, juuuuust maybe, they came up with a funny thing for a comic punchline and they aren't actually attacking anyone/group of people. It's a radical idea, I know.
Yeah. I know. I'm probably taking it too seriously and it doesn't actually bother me that much. It's just weird seeing the same pair that once praised Dan Hsu for "looking into his pants and finding his fucking testicles" now writing comics defending those same established industry powers against those same journalists.
Weird that people decided to turn this into a Millennials debate when Tycho said in his news post that he has nothing against the writers of these articles or their reasons for doing it. The comic was about whether game creators are obligated to feed a press which will crucify their work to serve another agenda, not about whether these damn kids today have no respect. I mean, I disagree with his point, because I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to look at video games in a larger context, but I understand and respect his position.
The only time Tycho ever went full Cranky Old Man was in the Undertale comic, imo. That was just sad.
Weird that people decided to turn this into a Millennials debate when Tycho said in his news post that he has nothing against the writers of these articles or their reasons for doing it. The comic was about whether game creators are obligated to feed a press which will crucify their work to serve another agenda, not about whether these damn kids today have no respect. The only time Tycho ever went full Cranky Old Man was in the Undertale comic, imo.
To be fair, that one's on me. And I mostly took umbrage with it due to a wider cultural context of the term.
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
Furthermore, the actual Doom reviews I've seen have all been very positive. I dare say that failing to send out early review copies was both a huge marketing mistake on Betehsda's part and a disservice to the game itself, which honestly seems like it deserves better, and that any suggestion Jerry may be making that it was a wise move is incredibly wrong.
Furthermore, the actual Doom reviews I've seen have all been very positive. I dare say that failing to send out early review copies was both a huge marketing mistake on Betehsda's part and a disservice to the game itself, which honestly seems like it deserves better, and that any suggesting Jerry may be making that it was a wise move is incredibly wrong.
I'm pretty sure the real reason was more in line with how the multiplayer beta was received.
And Millenials had Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe you heard of them.
I really don't get why people are this upset at me pointing out historical context as to why Gen X really isn't in a position to look down on Millenials? Especially when a ton of people here look down on Boomers for similar reasons.
Gabe and Tycho are nearly exactly my age, which means they're about 40, which means when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 we were all about 25. And when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, we were all about 27. I was in the Navy during those conflicts and deployed to the Persian Gulf. Many of my peers, my brother, co-workers of similar ages also deployed to Iraq and environs. Inasmuch as GenX and Millennials are actually a thing, which I'm very skeptical of, it strikes me that we Xers didn't actually "miss" those wars. You might counter that only late-cohort Xers went to the Middle East, to which I'd say, this whole discussion is about something written by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins.
Furthermore, the actual Doom reviews I've seen have all been very positive. I dare say that failing to send out early review copies was both a huge marketing mistake on Betehsda's part and a disservice to the game itself, which honestly seems like it deserves better, and that any suggesting Jerry may be making that it was a wise move is incredibly wrong.
It's peculiar. I've seen the game get almost universal praise from Youtubers, small rank game reviewers, and most big personalities. So far as actual reviews by what could be considered publications of record... well nobody seems to care anymore. Most don't seem to have a review out yet due to the lack of review codes. And now that Doom is so widely considered to be everything we wanted out of it, I doubt they'll buck the trend and decide to slam it like they may have, had they been writing their review before the public formed it's own opinion. Despite this being the sort of "male power fantasy" they love to take jabs at when they think they can get away with it. It's even a reboot of an old franchise with a crotchety and atrophied fan base. That's ripe for those rage clicks. You're practically leaving money on the table not pissing them off.
Now that the game is out, and public opinion has solidified, in a way, their review is even less objective. Now they have to pen their thoughts already knowing what everyone else thinks, and likely expects from them as well.
On the other hand, I've seen enough intersectional feminism lectures masquerading as "reviews" to not blame publishers for trying to twist a game reviewer's arm to knock that shit off. I'm reminded of the King of Fighter's "review" on PA's own PA Report, which had about a paragraph about the actual gameplay, and another page or two lamenting ethnic and national stereotypes in fighting games.
You increasingly get the sense these people don't want to be writing about video games. But that's the platform they have, so it's the platform they use to sneak in as much of what they really want to be writing about as possible.
And naturally, there is always The Score. I used to love listening to the Computer Gaming World podcast, and them lamenting how much the score ruined reviews. Because everything you wrote was assumed to have an impact on the score. If you gave the game an 8.3, and among the many words you wrote, you mention that you got stuck on a level, readers jump to the conclusion that you docked the game a tenth of a point because of it. And it's not fair to dock a game points because you suck at it!
In a way I'm glad reviews have finally lost all credibility, and we have a replacement ready and willing to take over.
Furthermore, the actual Doom reviews I've seen have all been very positive. I dare say that failing to send out early review copies was both a huge marketing mistake on Betehsda's part and a disservice to the game itself, which honestly seems like it deserves better, and that any suggesting Jerry may be making that it was a wise move is incredibly wrong.
It's peculiar. I've seen the game get almost universal praise from Youtubers, small rank game reviewers, and most big personalities. So far as actual reviews by what could be considered publications of record... well nobody seems to care anymore. Most don't seem to have a review out yet due to the lack of review codes. And now that Doom is so widely considered to be everything we wanted out of it, I doubt they'll buck the trend and decide to slam it like they may have, had they been writing their review before the public formed it's own opinion. Despite this being the sort of "male power fantasy" they love to take jabs at when they think they can get away with it. It's even a reboot of an old franchise with a crotchety and atrophied fan base. That's ripe for those rage clicks. You're practically leaving money on the table not pissing them off.
Now that the game is out, and public opinion has solidified, in a way, their review is even less objective. Now they have to pen their thoughts already knowing what everyone else thinks, and likely expects from them as well.
On the other hand, I've seen enough intersectional feminism lectures masquerading as "reviews" to not blame publishers for trying to twist a game reviewer's arm to knock that shit off. I'm reminded of the King of Fighter's "review" on PA's own PA Report, which had about a paragraph about the actual gameplay, and another page or two lamenting ethnic and national stereotypes in fighting games.
You increasingly get the sense these people don't want to be writing about video games. But that's the platform they have, so it's the platform they use to sneak in as much of what they really want to be writing about as possible.
And naturally, there is always The Score. I used to love listening to the Computer Gaming World podcast, and them lamenting how much the score ruined reviews. Because everything you wrote was assumed to have an impact on the score. If you gave the game an 8.3, and among the many words you wrote, you mention that you got stuck on a level, readers jump to the conclusion that you docked the game a tenth of a point because of it. And it's not fair to dock a game points because you suck at it!
In a way I'm glad reviews have finally lost all credibility, and we have a replacement ready and willing to take over.
I don't see why these kinds of topics are consider verboten in video game writing, when they're considered acceptable in literally every other form of media criticism? Why can't we talk about the fascist overtones of The Division or Battlefield: Hardline? Why can't we have a conversation about feminism of Tomb Raider? Why can't we have a conversation about the racial messages of Bioshock: Infinite? Why can't we have a conversation about the themes of elitism vs. populism in Danganronpa*? Demanding certain topics not be discussed in games seems censorious and anti-intellectual to me.
*I would LOVE to read an essay about this topic, FYI.
Furthermore, the actual Doom reviews I've seen have all been very positive. I dare say that failing to send out early review copies was both a huge marketing mistake on Betehsda's part and a disservice to the game itself, which honestly seems like it deserves better, and that any suggesting Jerry may be making that it was a wise move is incredibly wrong.
It's peculiar. I've seen the game get almost universal praise from Youtubers, small rank game reviewers, and most big personalities. So far as actual reviews by what could be considered publications of record... well nobody seems to care anymore. Most don't seem to have a review out yet due to the lack of review codes.
There's quite a few now. Averaging in the mid-80s as far as score goes, which is pretty good.
And now that Doom is so widely considered to be everything we wanted out of it, I doubt they'll buck the trend and decide to slam it like they may have, had they been writing their review before the public formed it's own opinion. Despite this being the sort of "male power fantasy" they love to take jabs at when they think they can get away with it. It's even a reboot of an old franchise with a crotchety and atrophied fan base. That's ripe for those rage clicks. You're practically leaving money on the table not pissing them off.
Now that the game is out, and public opinion has solidified, in a way, their review is even less objective. Now they have to pen their thoughts already knowing what everyone else thinks, and likely expects from them as well.
You seem to have a really bad attitude towards game reviewers, dude.
Furthermore, the actual Doom reviews I've seen have all been very positive. I dare say that failing to send out early review copies was both a huge marketing mistake on Betehsda's part and a disservice to the game itself, which honestly seems like it deserves better, and that any suggesting Jerry may be making that it was a wise move is incredibly wrong.
It's peculiar. I've seen the game get almost universal praise from Youtubers, small rank game reviewers, and most big personalities. So far as actual reviews by what could be considered publications of record... well nobody seems to care anymore. Most don't seem to have a review out yet due to the lack of review codes. And now that Doom is so widely considered to be everything we wanted out of it, I doubt they'll buck the trend and decide to slam it like they may have, had they been writing their review before the public formed it's own opinion. Despite this being the sort of "male power fantasy" they love to take jabs at when they think they can get away with it. It's even a reboot of an old franchise with a crotchety and atrophied fan base. That's ripe for those rage clicks. You're practically leaving money on the table not pissing them off.
Now that the game is out, and public opinion has solidified, in a way, their review is even less objective. Now they have to pen their thoughts already knowing what everyone else thinks, and likely expects from them as well.
On the other hand, I've seen enough intersectional feminism lectures masquerading as "reviews" to not blame publishers for trying to twist a game reviewer's arm to knock that shit off. I'm reminded of the King of Fighter's "review" on PA's own PA Report, which had about a paragraph about the actual gameplay, and another page or two lamenting ethnic and national stereotypes in fighting games.
You increasingly get the sense these people don't want to be writing about video games. But that's the platform they have, so it's the platform they use to sneak in as much of what they really want to be writing about as possible.
And naturally, there is always The Score. I used to love listening to the Computer Gaming World podcast, and them lamenting how much the score ruined reviews. Because everything you wrote was assumed to have an impact on the score. If you gave the game an 8.3, and among the many words you wrote, you mention that you got stuck on a level, readers jump to the conclusion that you docked the game a tenth of a point because of it. And it's not fair to dock a game points because you suck at it!
In a way I'm glad reviews have finally lost all credibility, and we have a replacement ready and willing to take over.
I don't see why these kinds of topics are consider verboten in video game writing, when they're considered acceptable in literally every other form of media criticism? Why can't we talk about the fascist overtones of The Division or Battlefield: Hardline? Why can't we have a conversation about feminism of Tomb Raider? Why can't we have a conversation about the racial messages of Bioshock: Infinite? Why can't we have a conversation about the themes of elitism vs. populism in Danganronpa*? Demanding certain topics not be discussed in games seems censorious and anti-intellectual to me.
*I would LOVE to read an essay about this topic, FYI.
That's exactly the crux of my point. Those would be interesting essays to read. They fit poorly into a review or buyers guide, where bringing them up implies it effects The Score. But essays on games don't bring in the all important clicks that pay the bills. Controversial "reviews" do.
They also work best when proposed with a sense of humility. "Looking at this way, it could be interpretting all these different ways". As opposed to stated with absolute authority. "This is sexist, and it harms women. End of discussion. Literally. We are closing down the comments section."
When people start questioning if killing demons should mean something, I then remember the Doom movie where "Demon's from Hell" was just too unbelievable so they just had to make it about a virus and the military complex.
I've yet to play this new one, so I don't know what the story is, but I just like the simplicity of the original.
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
Furthermore, the actual Doom reviews I've seen have all been very positive. I dare say that failing to send out early review copies was both a huge marketing mistake on Betehsda's part and a disservice to the game itself, which honestly seems like it deserves better, and that any suggesting Jerry may be making that it was a wise move is incredibly wrong.
It's peculiar. I've seen the game get almost universal praise from Youtubers, small rank game reviewers, and most big personalities. So far as actual reviews by what could be considered publications of record... well nobody seems to care anymore. Most don't seem to have a review out yet due to the lack of review codes. And now that Doom is so widely considered to be everything we wanted out of it, I doubt they'll buck the trend and decide to slam it like they may have, had they been writing their review before the public formed it's own opinion. Despite this being the sort of "male power fantasy" they love to take jabs at when they think they can get away with it. It's even a reboot of an old franchise with a crotchety and atrophied fan base. That's ripe for those rage clicks. You're practically leaving money on the table not pissing them off.
Now that the game is out, and public opinion has solidified, in a way, their review is even less objective. Now they have to pen their thoughts already knowing what everyone else thinks, and likely expects from them as well.
On the other hand, I've seen enough intersectional feminism lectures masquerading as "reviews" to not blame publishers for trying to twist a game reviewer's arm to knock that shit off. I'm reminded of the King of Fighter's "review" on PA's own PA Report, which had about a paragraph about the actual gameplay, and another page or two lamenting ethnic and national stereotypes in fighting games.
You increasingly get the sense these people don't want to be writing about video games. But that's the platform they have, so it's the platform they use to sneak in as much of what they really want to be writing about as possible.
And naturally, there is always The Score. I used to love listening to the Computer Gaming World podcast, and them lamenting how much the score ruined reviews. Because everything you wrote was assumed to have an impact on the score. If you gave the game an 8.3, and among the many words you wrote, you mention that you got stuck on a level, readers jump to the conclusion that you docked the game a tenth of a point because of it. And it's not fair to dock a game points because you suck at it!
In a way I'm glad reviews have finally lost all credibility, and we have a replacement ready and willing to take over.
I don't see why these kinds of topics are consider verboten in video game writing, when they're considered acceptable in literally every other form of media criticism? Why can't we talk about the fascist overtones of The Division or Battlefield: Hardline? Why can't we have a conversation about feminism of Tomb Raider? Why can't we have a conversation about the racial messages of Bioshock: Infinite? Why can't we have a conversation about the themes of elitism vs. populism in Danganronpa*? Demanding certain topics not be discussed in games seems censorious and anti-intellectual to me.
*I would LOVE to read an essay about this topic, FYI.
That's exactly the crux of my point. Those would be interesting essays to read. They fit poorly into a review or buyers guide, where bringing them up implies it effects The Score. But essays on games don't bring in the all important clicks that pay the bills. Controversial "reviews" do.
They also work best when proposed with a sense of humility. "Looking at this way, it could be interpretting all these different ways". As opposed to stated with absolute authority. "This is sexist, and it harms women. End of discussion. Literally. We are closing down the comments section."
Nah, that stuff definitely belongs in reviews. Stupid people might be butthurt about bias or subjectivity hurting the final score, if there even is one, but they can be safely ignored.
Excessive "in my opinion" prefacing isn't necessary, either. It's a review; we already know it's a specific person (occasionally, a group's) opinion and interpretation.
Closed comment sections are usually because of threats from alt-right troll organizations.
When people start questioning if killing demons should mean something, I then remember the Doom movie where "Demon's from Hell" was just too unbelievable so they just had to make it about a virus and the military complex.
I've yet to play this new one, so I don't know what the story is, but I just like the simplicity of the original.
The new one is light on story, there's bits of it here and there but it's mostly simplistic like the original. In the new one:
Doomguy wakes up
Demons all up in Mars' bidness
Doomguy's all "Nah man... s'not ok here."
RIP AND TEAR
*heavy metal guitar riffs*
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
Personally I'm delighted to see the Polygons and Kotakus of the world served notice that they're not as important or relevant as they wished they were.
There are definitely some reviews out there trying to paint Doom as "immature" and "only about killing" and docking the score for being the game it's supposed to be.
People have this weird expectation for there to be like one Reviewer Prime from which all criticism is handed down, when the whole point is to have a broad array of different tastes so you can see how the game plays from a multitude of perspectives. If someone's tastes don't line up with yours then look elsewhere? I dunno, even people you have nothing in common with can provide some insight.
There are definitely some reviews out there trying to paint Doom as "immature" and "only about killing" and docking the score for being the game it's supposed to be.
People have this weird expectation for there to be like one Reviewer Prime from which all criticism is handed down, when the whole point is to have a broad array of different tastes so you can see how the game plays from a multitude of perspectives. If someone's tastes don't line up with yours then look elsewhere? I dunno, even people you have nothing in common with can provide some insight.
On the one hand yes, on the other hand no.
I was listening to Funhaus debate this recently, and one of the points one of them made was that you need to judge a work on it's goals. If a racing game sets out to be the best racing it can be, and succeeds, but you hate racing games overall and give it a low score, that's not exactly informative is it? A good reviewer should recognize, man, this nails everything a racing game is supposed to be, and even though I hate racing games, I recognize that people who enjoy them will love this one.
Similarly, 2016 Doom needs to be reviewed as a sequel to 1993 Doom. I'd even provide some leeway for reviewers who were reviewing it on the basis of it being a sequel to 2006 Doom 3, and not appreciating how much faster and action oriented it is. But going into it already disliking the fundamental premise and goal of the game seems disingenuous for a reviewer.
It's ok to write a review that looks at the cultural themes and context of the game or whatever. No one is saying it isn't.
You know what else is alright? Penny Arcade poking fun at those reviews. The reviews are not so sacred that they cannot, in turn, be criticised. And neither are Mike and Jerry! Just try not to be obnoxious about it.
+3
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
There are definitely some reviews out there trying to paint Doom as "immature" and "only about killing" and docking the score for being the game it's supposed to be.
People have this weird expectation for there to be like one Reviewer Prime from which all criticism is handed down, when the whole point is to have a broad array of different tastes so you can see how the game plays from a multitude of perspectives. If someone's tastes don't line up with yours then look elsewhere? I dunno, even people you have nothing in common with can provide some insight.
On the one hand yes, on the other hand no.
I was listening to Funhaus debate this recently, and one of the points one of them made was that you need to judge a work on it's goals. If a racing game sets out to be the best racing it can be, and succeeds, but you hate racing games overall and give it a low score, that's not exactly informative is it? A good reviewer should recognize, man, this nails everything a racing game is supposed to be, and even though I hate racing games, I recognize that people who enjoy them will love this one.
If a reviewer fundamentally doesn't enjoy an entire genre of games they shouldn't be assigned to review that game. A reviewer should absolutely not try to be a completely different person for the sake of a review, that is disingenuous.
Similarly, 2016 Doom needs to be reviewed as a sequel to 1993 Doom. I'd even provide some leeway for reviewers who were reviewing it on the basis of it being a sequel to 2006 Doom 3, and not appreciating how much faster and action oriented it is. But going into it already disliking the fundamental premise and goal of the game seems disingenuous for a reviewer.
Except... no. 2016 Doom needs to be reviewed as a game that came out in 2016 with 23 years of game design in between it and 1993. It can be a stylistic throwback to 1993 and retain its core "Doomness" while still reflecting all of the evolution of game design since then. And from all the reviews I've seen, it sounds like it has.
If a reviewer dislikes the fundamental premise of "making a Doom game" then yeah they probably shouldn't be reviewing it. I don't think that's happened given the overwhelmingly positive response it's received.
Closed comment sections are usually because of threats from alt-right troll organizations.
Let's be honest. They just don't want to deal with the bullshit, not because they're threatened. This "alt-right movement" seems to be as much a myth as the "SJW movement". Which is to say - both are either Very Real Things or it's all a bunch in-group/out-group posturing.
To get on the other running tangent in this thread: Speaking as a millennial, we're ridiculous. This is not to say previous generations are in any way better than us; merely an acknowledgment that like any other era in human history, a good portion of some of our more outspoken values will inevitably be seen as a wildly boneheaded. Only time will tell which ones those will be.
Yeah. I know. I'm probably taking it too seriously and it doesn't actually bother me that much. It's just weird seeing the same pair that once praised Dan Hsu for "looking into his pants and finding his fucking testicles" now writing comics defending those same established industry powers against those same journalists.
Views can change over time. I don't think this is the case of hypocrisy that you seem to think it is, though. PA taking the corner of the enthusiast press at one point in their history does not dictate that they stick themselves in the press' corner every single time. Doing so would require some, frankly, very romantic views of the press and its integrity.
Gabe and Tycho made that comic during a time when the press was unabashedly the industry's "bitch", and Hsu breaking the script was an entirely refreshing and visible moment. It was a healthy - if anomalous - breakup of the sycophantic/symbiotic/parasitic relationship that had ossified between creators and the professional commentariat.
The above problem has never fully gone away, but G&T are commenting on something different here, which is the inane expectation of some outlets that they deserve an advanced review copy to do whatever they want with; an act that provides diminishing (possibly net negative) returns to the publisher. I understand that we're in a weird transitory state where the press wants to act as truth-telling watch dog but is largely still beholden to publisher gifts and and advertizing concerns, and it should have never gotten to this point in the first place, but here we are. So the question is: Who is going to sever the stitches between these two bodies with ostensibly different goals?
If a journalist wants to bite the hand that feeds them, and the publisher would rather get their promotion elsewhere, then withholding review copies or even "blacklisting" outlets from interacting with the company is probably a very healthy development. If you want to be a watch dog or a "truth teller", then it's obscene to make a stink about no longer getting favors; which is what those advance copies are in every sense.
I can't help but think that a lot of the sympathy for journalistic outlets in cases like this is based on the notion - long calcified for decades by even gaming audiences themselves - that a publisher withholding review copies is somehow anti-consumer, unethical, or just straight-up skeezy. But despite having held such views for a long time myself, I don't believe this any more. Day One reviews based on pre-release builds are a convenience and nothing more.
Distec on
+4
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Closed comment sections are usually because of threats from alt-right troll organizations.
Let's be honest. They just don't want to deal with the bullshit, not because they're threatened. This "alt-right movement" seems to be as much bullshit as the "SJW movement". Which is to say - both are either Very Real Things or it's all a bunch in-group/out-group posturing.
You don't have to identify them as an "alt-right movement" but there is absolutely a significant segment of the Internet population that will post insults, death threats, and rape threats on pieces that they disagree with. Significantly more so if the piece is written by a woman.
That is why comment sections are closed. Because of actual, literal, violent threats.
I mean, the reason that review copies didn't go out is because it's Bethesda. End of story. They are a dev/publisher well-known for making questionable decisions (releasing buggy messes, for example), but somehow getting away with it. *shrugs*
On the other end of the spectrum, you have publishers basically paying shills with early review copies to hype the game on YouTube, with no disclosure of payment or any special relationship. It's access journalism, although probably not the worst example of it.
I'm not sure I like either case, really. I saw the comic more as gently poking fun at themselves (especially since the florid prose matches Tycho's writing style), in any case... the egregious "crime" is exactly what they've been doing for years and still doing now. Maybe they could be a bit more self-deprecating to make the joke stick the landing, but there are only three panels. Not all of them are winners (nor should they be).
I believe Bethesda's reasoning for the delay in sending review copies was that they wanted reviewers to play the game with all three parts available to them so they could review the whole game. Multiplayer and Snap Map servers were not available until launch day. Dunno how much (or if all) of it is bullshit, but there ya go.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
There are definitely some reviews out there trying to paint Doom as "immature" and "only about killing" and docking the score for being the game it's supposed to be.
People have this weird expectation for there to be like one Reviewer Prime from which all criticism is handed down, when the whole point is to have a broad array of different tastes so you can see how the game plays from a multitude of perspectives. If someone's tastes don't line up with yours then look elsewhere? I dunno, even people you have nothing in common with can provide some insight.
On the one hand yes, on the other hand no.
I was listening to Funhaus debate this recently, and one of the points one of them made was that you need to judge a work on it's goals. If a racing game sets out to be the best racing it can be, and succeeds, but you hate racing games overall and give it a low score, that's not exactly informative is it? A good reviewer should recognize, man, this nails everything a racing game is supposed to be, and even though I hate racing games, I recognize that people who enjoy them will love this one.
Similarly, 2016 Doom needs to be reviewed as a sequel to 1993 Doom. I'd even provide some leeway for reviewers who were reviewing it on the basis of it being a sequel to 2006 Doom 3, and not appreciating how much faster and action oriented it is. But going into it already disliking the fundamental premise and goal of the game seems disingenuous for a reviewer.
I get what your saying, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong, but I think you may be putting too much stock in authorial intent. Let's go back to The Division. Ubisoft swears up and down that the game is not intended to be political. However, it's pro-authoritarian message is pretty overt. I'm sure Ubisoft isn't lying about not intending to be political, but art has a funny way of escaping the control of the creator. I think it's also worth examining what the game does, even if it isn't what it set out to do.
You don't have to identify them as an "alt-right movement" but there is absolutely a significant segment of the Internet population that will post insults, death threats, and rape threats on pieces that they disagree with. Significantly more so if the piece is written by a woman.
That is why comment sections are closed. Because of actual, literal, violent threats.
Cards on the table; I find most of this to be overblown. My enthusiasm for this particular subject is waning, though. There are a lot of basic assumptions about this general controversy that I think need to be revisited, but it's ill-placed in the context of a topic about "PA shittin' on journos". :P
The more troubling part for me was the almost-reflexive labeling of such behavior as "alt-right", as if there is never such a stink in anything considered "left". You hand-waved that label in your next post, which... okay fine, I'll identify those people as whatever I want. But you know this - this flippant categorization of crappy behavior as only belonging to a particular part of the political spectrum - is how some of these fights start, right?
+3
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
You don't have to identify them as an "alt-right movement" but there is absolutely a significant segment of the Internet population that will post insults, death threats, and rape threats on pieces that they disagree with. Significantly more so if the piece is written by a woman.
That is why comment sections are closed. Because of actual, literal, violent threats.
Cards on the table; I find most of this to be overblown. My enthusiasm for this particular subject is waning, though. There are a lot of basic assumptions about this general controversy that I think need to be revisited, but it's ill-placed in the context of a topic about "PA shittin' on journos". :P
The more troubling part for me was the almost-reflexive labeling of such behavior as "alt-right", as if there is never such a stink in anything considered "left". You hand-waved that label in your next post, which... okay fine, I'll identify those people as whatever I want. But you know this - this flippant categorization of crappy behavior as only belonging to a particular part of the political spectrum - is how some of these fights start, right.
I wasn't the one who originally said "alt-right". :P I don't label them politically at all.
You don't really lose out on much if comments are disabled anyway, the biggest factor is how moderation handles the comments and mostly the tools just aren't there or the positions not staffed/cared about enough to handle that task..
Ive seen more cases where comments are shut down and if you want to send something personal/your thoughts on an article there are other venues such as social media and email purposely displayed, instead of an all out comment brawl in some cases
I get what your saying, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong, but I think you may be putting too much stock in authorial intent. Let's go back to The Division. Ubisoft swears up and down that the game is not intended to be political. However, it's pro-authoritarian message is pretty overt. I'm sure Ubisoft isn't lying about not intending to be political, but art has a funny way of escaping the control of the creator. I think it's also worth examining what the game does, even if it isn't what it set out to do.
This is agreeable. I like it.
Absolutely discuss the political elements of the games, intended or unintended. I personally have no problem with The Division's setup, but can admit that marrying gameplay where you mow down baddies for loot with the narrative of a government operative killing citizens is not going to play well for some people. This would be horrifying in the real world, but for a game I can accept the fiction that gangs like the Rikers or Cleaners are bad dudes that got to go. Other peoples' mileage is going to vary.
What I don't like is when this kind of analysis is interwoven with personal invective and moral judgment. You may think that something being unintentionally problematic is effectively the same as being intentionally so, but these do require different responses IMO. It's off-putting to read about "Ubisoft's Problem With Women" or "Rockstar's Problem With Black People" when 1) Christ, what a fucking headline, and 2) it feels like we've skipped the entire part of the discussion where we drill down if there truly are problems as described. Now perhaps point 2 can only naturally follow the original assertions made by the author, but that discussion seems like a non-starter; it's just more arguing and psychic readings of your opponent's true motivations.
"The personal is political" and vice versa is a phrase I hear a fair bit these days. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I can't say it's outright wrong. But this probably explains why differences and judgments on a game's politics gets people so fired up versus "are the controls good" and "how are teh grafix"? Not that those elements can't get heated arguments either, but you're probably not going to give much of a shit if somebody declares that Invert Look is stupid.
There are definitely some reviews out there trying to paint Doom as "immature" and "only about killing" and docking the score for being the game it's supposed to be.
People have this weird expectation for there to be like one Reviewer Prime from which all criticism is handed down, when the whole point is to have a broad array of different tastes so you can see how the game plays from a multitude of perspectives. If someone's tastes don't line up with yours then look elsewhere? I dunno, even people you have nothing in common with can provide some insight.
I mean one of the problems is that a lot of people are more interested in reviews agreeing with them rather than being the reviewers' opinion. You don't see comments on articles being like "i haven't got this game but i don'tk now about this review", you see comments like "I AM FIFTEEN HOURS IN AND THIS CHARLATAN HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT". it's the basic My Opinion Is The Correct One that causes all internet arguments, except additionally fueled by people both investing emotionally in a product that they feel is being attacked, and also people mad that someone else's differing opinion is raised above theirs (because a lot of people have never unpacked their envy over someone else being paid to write about their hobby)
There are definitely some reviews out there trying to paint Doom as "immature" and "only about killing" and docking the score for being the game it's supposed to be.
People have this weird expectation for there to be like one Reviewer Prime from which all criticism is handed down, when the whole point is to have a broad array of different tastes so you can see how the game plays from a multitude of perspectives. If someone's tastes don't line up with yours then look elsewhere? I dunno, even people you have nothing in common with can provide some insight.
I mean one of the problems is that a lot of people are more interested in reviews agreeing with them rather than being the reviewers' opinion. You don't see comments on articles being like "i haven't got this game but i don'tk now about this review", you see comments like "I AM FIFTEEN HOURS IN AND THIS CHARLATAN HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT". it's the basic My Opinion Is The Correct One that causes all internet arguments, except additionally fueled by people both investing emotionally in a product that they feel is being attacked, and also people mad that someone else's differing opinion is raised above theirs (because a lot of people have never unpacked their envy over someone else being paid to write about their hobby)
There is certainly some of that. But to propose an absurd example that I think we can all agree on...
Lets pretend someone reviewed All Dogs Go To Heaven, and their review consisted entirely of complaints about how it promotes a godless agenda of human and animal equality. Because as we all know, heaven is for humans only. That was their review. That was it.
The same defense could be mounted for that reviewer when people post to complain he has no idea what he's talking about. That his opinion is incorrect. That the people disagreeing with him are too emotionally invested in their own enjoyment of the product.
But I mean, surely we see that's a crazy line of defense for a review of a product that has zero basis in anything the audience for that product cares about. There might be one other lunatic out there who thinks "Oh thank god, I almost exposed my children to that PROPAGANDA!" But for most people? It contributed absolutely nothing to their understanding of the product.
The same goes for any reviewer who may take to their fainting couch over Doom being too violent. Yes. Yes it is. That was the entire premise. Didn't need a review to know that.
It comes off the same as Maddox "reviewing" children's drawings. Except that was done purely for humor.
+1
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
There are definitely some reviews out there trying to paint Doom as "immature" and "only about killing" and docking the score for being the game it's supposed to be.
People have this weird expectation for there to be like one Reviewer Prime from which all criticism is handed down, when the whole point is to have a broad array of different tastes so you can see how the game plays from a multitude of perspectives. If someone's tastes don't line up with yours then look elsewhere? I dunno, even people you have nothing in common with can provide some insight.
I mean one of the problems is that a lot of people are more interested in reviews agreeing with them rather than being the reviewers' opinion. You don't see comments on articles being like "i haven't got this game but i don'tk now about this review", you see comments like "I AM FIFTEEN HOURS IN AND THIS CHARLATAN HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT". it's the basic My Opinion Is The Correct One that causes all internet arguments, except additionally fueled by people both investing emotionally in a product that they feel is being attacked, and also people mad that someone else's differing opinion is raised above theirs (because a lot of people have never unpacked their envy over someone else being paid to write about their hobby)
There is certainly some of that. But to propose an absurd example that I think we can all agree on...
Lets pretend someone reviewed All Dogs Go To Heaven, and their review consisted entirely of complaints about how it promotes a godless agenda of human and animal equality. Because as we all know, heaven is for humans only. That was their review. That was it.
The same defense could be mounted for that reviewer when people post to complain he has no idea what he's talking about. That his opinion is incorrect. That the people disagreeing with him are too emotionally invested in their own enjoyment of the product.
But I mean, surely we see that's a crazy line of defense for a review of a product that has zero basis in anything the audience for that product cares about. There might be one other lunatic out there who thinks "Oh thank god, I almost exposed my children to that PROPAGANDA!" But for most people? It contributed absolutely nothing to their understanding of the product.
The same goes for any reviewer who may take to their fainting couch over Doom being too violent. Yes. Yes it is. That was the entire premise. Didn't need a review to know that.
It comes off the same as Maddox "reviewing" children's drawings. Except that was done purely for humor.
... but if that reviewer's target audience is entirely people concerned with whether or not a movie promotes a godless anti-Christian agenda, that is exactly the review they should write.
There are definitely some reviews out there trying to paint Doom as "immature" and "only about killing" and docking the score for being the game it's supposed to be.
And they are allowed to do that.
They're also entitled to be utterly wrong, because Doom is absolutely amazing and the single player has the absolute perfect tone for what it should be doing. The multiplayer is garbage though and confuses me why they shoved slow paced Halo-like MP in there, but the single player more than makes up for it.
Posts
True, Millenials never lost any of those things. They'll just never have them to begin with. Also, if the older generations lost their homes and incomes, how are Millenials living at home to begin with?
As for wars, I'm sorry, but Iraq and Afghanistan were MUCH more costly (both in terms of money and casualties) than the armed conflicts Gen X faced.
But I'll admit I'm not the most eloquent writer, so I'll let someone more skilled than I explain why I find millennial bashing obnoxious and damaging..
I don't believe Millenials are perfect by any stretch (after all, our generation is the one that frequents Reddit and 4chan), I just don't think Gen X should be the ones saying that.
Steam: pazython
Besides the obvious fact that Millenials were hardly the only ones to suffer during the recession, it's a flawed argument. The validity of the criticism is independent of the amount of suffering endured by the critic. There is no deprivation threshold that prevents generations from shitting on each other.
Maybe I'm just going to different places?
Steam: pazython
Or they were never really a thing and G&T have just been on this weird crusade against imaginary video game critics for some reason.
Or maybe, juuuuust maybe, they came up with a funny thing for a comic punchline and they aren't actually attacking anyone/group of people. It's a radical idea, I know.
But I like the bigger picture, where it's ridiculous that people are expecting developers to always bend over for reviewers. One of my biggest peeves is people getting upset over review embargoes, as if the game they want to buy will suddenly become un-purchaseable after launch day.
Yeah. I know. I'm probably taking it too seriously and it doesn't actually bother me that much. It's just weird seeing the same pair that once praised Dan Hsu for "looking into his pants and finding his fucking testicles" now writing comics defending those same established industry powers against those same journalists.
The only time Tycho ever went full Cranky Old Man was in the Undertale comic, imo. That was just sad.
To be fair, that one's on me. And I mostly took umbrage with it due to a wider cultural context of the term.
Steam: pazython
I'm pretty sure the real reason was more in line with how the multiplayer beta was received.
Steam: pazython
Gabe and Tycho are nearly exactly my age, which means they're about 40, which means when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 we were all about 25. And when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, we were all about 27. I was in the Navy during those conflicts and deployed to the Persian Gulf. Many of my peers, my brother, co-workers of similar ages also deployed to Iraq and environs. Inasmuch as GenX and Millennials are actually a thing, which I'm very skeptical of, it strikes me that we Xers didn't actually "miss" those wars. You might counter that only late-cohort Xers went to the Middle East, to which I'd say, this whole discussion is about something written by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins.
It's peculiar. I've seen the game get almost universal praise from Youtubers, small rank game reviewers, and most big personalities. So far as actual reviews by what could be considered publications of record... well nobody seems to care anymore. Most don't seem to have a review out yet due to the lack of review codes. And now that Doom is so widely considered to be everything we wanted out of it, I doubt they'll buck the trend and decide to slam it like they may have, had they been writing their review before the public formed it's own opinion. Despite this being the sort of "male power fantasy" they love to take jabs at when they think they can get away with it. It's even a reboot of an old franchise with a crotchety and atrophied fan base. That's ripe for those rage clicks. You're practically leaving money on the table not pissing them off.
Now that the game is out, and public opinion has solidified, in a way, their review is even less objective. Now they have to pen their thoughts already knowing what everyone else thinks, and likely expects from them as well.
On the other hand, I've seen enough intersectional feminism lectures masquerading as "reviews" to not blame publishers for trying to twist a game reviewer's arm to knock that shit off. I'm reminded of the King of Fighter's "review" on PA's own PA Report, which had about a paragraph about the actual gameplay, and another page or two lamenting ethnic and national stereotypes in fighting games.
You increasingly get the sense these people don't want to be writing about video games. But that's the platform they have, so it's the platform they use to sneak in as much of what they really want to be writing about as possible.
And naturally, there is always The Score. I used to love listening to the Computer Gaming World podcast, and them lamenting how much the score ruined reviews. Because everything you wrote was assumed to have an impact on the score. If you gave the game an 8.3, and among the many words you wrote, you mention that you got stuck on a level, readers jump to the conclusion that you docked the game a tenth of a point because of it. And it's not fair to dock a game points because you suck at it!
In a way I'm glad reviews have finally lost all credibility, and we have a replacement ready and willing to take over.
I don't see why these kinds of topics are consider verboten in video game writing, when they're considered acceptable in literally every other form of media criticism? Why can't we talk about the fascist overtones of The Division or Battlefield: Hardline? Why can't we have a conversation about feminism of Tomb Raider? Why can't we have a conversation about the racial messages of Bioshock: Infinite? Why can't we have a conversation about the themes of elitism vs. populism in Danganronpa*? Demanding certain topics not be discussed in games seems censorious and anti-intellectual to me.
*I would LOVE to read an essay about this topic, FYI.
Steam: pazython
There's quite a few now. Averaging in the mid-80s as far as score goes, which is pretty good.
You seem to have a really bad attitude towards game reviewers, dude.
That's exactly the crux of my point. Those would be interesting essays to read. They fit poorly into a review or buyers guide, where bringing them up implies it effects The Score. But essays on games don't bring in the all important clicks that pay the bills. Controversial "reviews" do.
They also work best when proposed with a sense of humility. "Looking at this way, it could be interpretting all these different ways". As opposed to stated with absolute authority. "This is sexist, and it harms women. End of discussion. Literally. We are closing down the comments section."
I've yet to play this new one, so I don't know what the story is, but I just like the simplicity of the original.
Nah, that stuff definitely belongs in reviews. Stupid people might be butthurt about bias or subjectivity hurting the final score, if there even is one, but they can be safely ignored.
Excessive "in my opinion" prefacing isn't necessary, either. It's a review; we already know it's a specific person (occasionally, a group's) opinion and interpretation.
Closed comment sections are usually because of threats from alt-right troll organizations.
to be fair, if you have the time to argue this point on the internet then you're doing fine. perspective is fun.
The new one is light on story, there's bits of it here and there but it's mostly simplistic like the original. In the new one:
Doomguy wakes up
Demons all up in Mars' bidness
Doomguy's all "Nah man... s'not ok here."
RIP AND TEAR
*heavy metal guitar riffs*
On the one hand yes, on the other hand no.
I was listening to Funhaus debate this recently, and one of the points one of them made was that you need to judge a work on it's goals. If a racing game sets out to be the best racing it can be, and succeeds, but you hate racing games overall and give it a low score, that's not exactly informative is it? A good reviewer should recognize, man, this nails everything a racing game is supposed to be, and even though I hate racing games, I recognize that people who enjoy them will love this one.
Similarly, 2016 Doom needs to be reviewed as a sequel to 1993 Doom. I'd even provide some leeway for reviewers who were reviewing it on the basis of it being a sequel to 2006 Doom 3, and not appreciating how much faster and action oriented it is. But going into it already disliking the fundamental premise and goal of the game seems disingenuous for a reviewer.
You know what else is alright? Penny Arcade poking fun at those reviews. The reviews are not so sacred that they cannot, in turn, be criticised. And neither are Mike and Jerry! Just try not to be obnoxious about it.
If a reviewer fundamentally doesn't enjoy an entire genre of games they shouldn't be assigned to review that game. A reviewer should absolutely not try to be a completely different person for the sake of a review, that is disingenuous.
Except... no. 2016 Doom needs to be reviewed as a game that came out in 2016 with 23 years of game design in between it and 1993. It can be a stylistic throwback to 1993 and retain its core "Doomness" while still reflecting all of the evolution of game design since then. And from all the reviews I've seen, it sounds like it has.
If a reviewer dislikes the fundamental premise of "making a Doom game" then yeah they probably shouldn't be reviewing it. I don't think that's happened given the overwhelmingly positive response it's received.
Let's be honest. They just don't want to deal with the bullshit, not because they're threatened. This "alt-right movement" seems to be as much a myth as the "SJW movement". Which is to say - both are either Very Real Things or it's all a bunch in-group/out-group posturing.
To get on the other running tangent in this thread: Speaking as a millennial, we're ridiculous. This is not to say previous generations are in any way better than us; merely an acknowledgment that like any other era in human history, a good portion of some of our more outspoken values will inevitably be seen as a wildly boneheaded. Only time will tell which ones those will be.
Views can change over time. I don't think this is the case of hypocrisy that you seem to think it is, though. PA taking the corner of the enthusiast press at one point in their history does not dictate that they stick themselves in the press' corner every single time. Doing so would require some, frankly, very romantic views of the press and its integrity.
Gabe and Tycho made that comic during a time when the press was unabashedly the industry's "bitch", and Hsu breaking the script was an entirely refreshing and visible moment. It was a healthy - if anomalous - breakup of the sycophantic/symbiotic/parasitic relationship that had ossified between creators and the professional commentariat.
The above problem has never fully gone away, but G&T are commenting on something different here, which is the inane expectation of some outlets that they deserve an advanced review copy to do whatever they want with; an act that provides diminishing (possibly net negative) returns to the publisher. I understand that we're in a weird transitory state where the press wants to act as truth-telling watch dog but is largely still beholden to publisher gifts and and advertizing concerns, and it should have never gotten to this point in the first place, but here we are. So the question is: Who is going to sever the stitches between these two bodies with ostensibly different goals?
If a journalist wants to bite the hand that feeds them, and the publisher would rather get their promotion elsewhere, then withholding review copies or even "blacklisting" outlets from interacting with the company is probably a very healthy development. If you want to be a watch dog or a "truth teller", then it's obscene to make a stink about no longer getting favors; which is what those advance copies are in every sense.
I can't help but think that a lot of the sympathy for journalistic outlets in cases like this is based on the notion - long calcified for decades by even gaming audiences themselves - that a publisher withholding review copies is somehow anti-consumer, unethical, or just straight-up skeezy. But despite having held such views for a long time myself, I don't believe this any more. Day One reviews based on pre-release builds are a convenience and nothing more.
You don't have to identify them as an "alt-right movement" but there is absolutely a significant segment of the Internet population that will post insults, death threats, and rape threats on pieces that they disagree with. Significantly more so if the piece is written by a woman.
That is why comment sections are closed. Because of actual, literal, violent threats.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have publishers basically paying shills with early review copies to hype the game on YouTube, with no disclosure of payment or any special relationship. It's access journalism, although probably not the worst example of it.
I'm not sure I like either case, really. I saw the comic more as gently poking fun at themselves (especially since the florid prose matches Tycho's writing style), in any case... the egregious "crime" is exactly what they've been doing for years and still doing now. Maybe they could be a bit more self-deprecating to make the joke stick the landing, but there are only three panels. Not all of them are winners (nor should they be).
I get what your saying, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong, but I think you may be putting too much stock in authorial intent. Let's go back to The Division. Ubisoft swears up and down that the game is not intended to be political. However, it's pro-authoritarian message is pretty overt. I'm sure Ubisoft isn't lying about not intending to be political, but art has a funny way of escaping the control of the creator. I think it's also worth examining what the game does, even if it isn't what it set out to do.
Steam: pazython
Cards on the table; I find most of this to be overblown. My enthusiasm for this particular subject is waning, though. There are a lot of basic assumptions about this general controversy that I think need to be revisited, but it's ill-placed in the context of a topic about "PA shittin' on journos". :P
The more troubling part for me was the almost-reflexive labeling of such behavior as "alt-right", as if there is never such a stink in anything considered "left". You hand-waved that label in your next post, which... okay fine, I'll identify those people as whatever I want. But you know this - this flippant categorization of crappy behavior as only belonging to a particular part of the political spectrum - is how some of these fights start, right?
I wasn't the one who originally said "alt-right". :P I don't label them politically at all.
Ive seen more cases where comments are shut down and if you want to send something personal/your thoughts on an article there are other venues such as social media and email purposely displayed, instead of an all out comment brawl in some cases
This is agreeable. I like it.
Absolutely discuss the political elements of the games, intended or unintended. I personally have no problem with The Division's setup, but can admit that marrying gameplay where you mow down baddies for loot with the narrative of a government operative killing citizens is not going to play well for some people. This would be horrifying in the real world, but for a game I can accept the fiction that gangs like the Rikers or Cleaners are bad dudes that got to go. Other peoples' mileage is going to vary.
What I don't like is when this kind of analysis is interwoven with personal invective and moral judgment. You may think that something being unintentionally problematic is effectively the same as being intentionally so, but these do require different responses IMO. It's off-putting to read about "Ubisoft's Problem With Women" or "Rockstar's Problem With Black People" when 1) Christ, what a fucking headline, and 2) it feels like we've skipped the entire part of the discussion where we drill down if there truly are problems as described. Now perhaps point 2 can only naturally follow the original assertions made by the author, but that discussion seems like a non-starter; it's just more arguing and psychic readings of your opponent's true motivations.
"The personal is political" and vice versa is a phrase I hear a fair bit these days. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I can't say it's outright wrong. But this probably explains why differences and judgments on a game's politics gets people so fired up versus "are the controls good" and "how are teh grafix"? Not that those elements can't get heated arguments either, but you're probably not going to give much of a shit if somebody declares that Invert Look is stupid.
Whoops! I confused you with the person I was originally responding to. Apologies for implicating you in SHITTERY.
I mean one of the problems is that a lot of people are more interested in reviews agreeing with them rather than being the reviewers' opinion. You don't see comments on articles being like "i haven't got this game but i don'tk now about this review", you see comments like "I AM FIFTEEN HOURS IN AND THIS CHARLATAN HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT". it's the basic My Opinion Is The Correct One that causes all internet arguments, except additionally fueled by people both investing emotionally in a product that they feel is being attacked, and also people mad that someone else's differing opinion is raised above theirs (because a lot of people have never unpacked their envy over someone else being paid to write about their hobby)
There is certainly some of that. But to propose an absurd example that I think we can all agree on...
Lets pretend someone reviewed All Dogs Go To Heaven, and their review consisted entirely of complaints about how it promotes a godless agenda of human and animal equality. Because as we all know, heaven is for humans only. That was their review. That was it.
The same defense could be mounted for that reviewer when people post to complain he has no idea what he's talking about. That his opinion is incorrect. That the people disagreeing with him are too emotionally invested in their own enjoyment of the product.
But I mean, surely we see that's a crazy line of defense for a review of a product that has zero basis in anything the audience for that product cares about. There might be one other lunatic out there who thinks "Oh thank god, I almost exposed my children to that PROPAGANDA!" But for most people? It contributed absolutely nothing to their understanding of the product.
The same goes for any reviewer who may take to their fainting couch over Doom being too violent. Yes. Yes it is. That was the entire premise. Didn't need a review to know that.
It comes off the same as Maddox "reviewing" children's drawings. Except that was done purely for humor.
... but if that reviewer's target audience is entirely people concerned with whether or not a movie promotes a godless anti-Christian agenda, that is exactly the review they should write.
And they are allowed to do that.
They're also entitled to be utterly wrong, because Doom is absolutely amazing and the single player has the absolute perfect tone for what it should be doing. The multiplayer is garbage though and confuses me why they shoved slow paced Halo-like MP in there, but the single player more than makes up for it.