I don't really expect to win over a lot of people in this thread, but I'm happy to give a constructive reply and give it a shot.
(1) You're right, in an article written in August I absolutely gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to the Xbox One ecosystem. No one had any idea the extent of the problems that awaited the console when it finally released. When that piece was written, the Xbox 360 had drafted the blueprint for how online on a console could be done, and Xbox Live was a brilliant ecosystem. It was reasonable to think Xbox One would only make the online multiplayer experience (i.e. the games themselves, not the DRM) BETTER. I try to be an optimistic guy, so I'm always going to give the benefit of the doubt. I just prefer to live my life that way. It's pretty easy to put on the 20/20 hindsight glasses and criticize me for that, but so be it.
(2) PC gaming is still largely thought of as a desk-based, monitor-viewed experience, even if Steam's Big Picture mode is slowly starting to change that. And remember who IGN's audience is: most of them are not the hardcore NeoGAF user who knows every little trick to getting their PC gaming going on an HDTV. I think a lot of criticism towards IGN by NeoGAF in general stems from that. A lot of times we write things that you guys already know and you rip us for it. And that's fine. You guys are the power users. You're the hardest of the hardcore. Most people reading ANY of the major media sites don't fall into that category.
(3) Here I feel you're just criticizing my writing style, and again, that's fine. I do my best to write even-handed previews, but if I got carried away on this one (and universal media enthusiasm for Titanfall suggests I'm not alone if I am in fact guilty of that), then it's my mistake and I'll try to do a better job of reeling it back in going forward. In fact, I've written dozens of previews since then and not one of them has been called out here, so perhaps Titanfall was an aberration. I wonder if you think my last Thief preview is even-handed or not? I try to be even-handed, but because these are not final, reviewable games, I will ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt in a preview even if my gut tells me they're not going to improve. That's just my philosophy.
Look, I get it. I write for IGN. That puts a big target on my (and any IGN editor's) back from the hardcore gamers like yourselves. That I wrote for OXM before that just doubles my alleged fanboyism even though Microsoft had nothing to do with the magazine (how it actually worked/works is that Future, the publisher, pays Microsoft for the rights to use the "Official Xbox" name and the Xbox nexus logo. That's the extent of the relationship; there is no editorial relationship). Do I prefer doing my gaming on the Xbox platform? Sure I do, but that's not unlike many fellow NeoGAF users and millions of gamers out there. I play games on all platforms and I'll get my own PS4, in time (for the Wii U, it's going to take a price drop and a mainline, Galaxy-level Mario to get me to bite). But I've been in this business for 11 years and I hope to be in it for many more. I am always trying to improve myself, because if I don't, there will always be someone else eager to take my job.
I'll conclude by saying that I've done stuff that NeoGAF actually had overwhelmingly positive things to say about recently, like this and this. But if you'd like to write me off for one over-enthusiastic preview from last year, I get that this post probably isn't going to change your mind. But I thank you for at least reading my thoughts here.
Funny how you give the impression that PR/marketing has nothing to do with each step of this process.
This quote from IGN's Titanfall preview cracks me up every time:
You WILL buy an XBO for Titanfall, even if you have a PC capable rig for it, because REASONS! Xbox ecosystem! YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK!
Of course people will interpret calling out absurd self-perpetuating media driven overhype as a critique of Titanfall's quality, but it's not. I said this same shit over the ridiculous way IGN jerked off all over GTA5 during its Grand Theft Auto week.
There is no such thing as perspective apparently with these guys.
What world do you live in?The concept that money didn't cross hands for this to happen is just as ridiculous as believing your secret Nigerian uncle is a prince, how this money crossed -menacing ad removal, or plain bribery- now that's more of a contentious argument. I have relatively little problem with advertising being pushed as "articles" when it's so obvious it's self-parody, but gaming journalism looks awkward when it tries to wear the advertising shoe in one foot and the journalism shoe in the other; putting together a paid preview of a game on one page and a skeptical preview of another game in another.
Of course it does. But not every example of barely contained excitement = shill.
Yes the industry is in a bit of a mess, but that doesn't mean many of these guys are genuinely excited. The quote in the OP, for example, is perfectly fine. The game is very frantic, so the quote fits.
The crap at the end of the article about Xbone being the only environment to experience it fully is a lot more suspicious though.
I understand why people are cynical, but sometimes they take it a little too far.
What world do you live in?
For allegedly hating me so much, you guys seem to spend an awful lot of time thinking and talking about me.
It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy.Why do you ask? I think he's talking sense.
Almost as awkward as saying a user is a hardcore PC technician if he can connect a hdmi cable between his video card and his TV and push "big picture" on steam's interface. You're the specialist journalists, you're the ones that should teach your audience those amazing tricks, not craft artificial dumbness to match a pre-constructed audience stereotype, salvo bitch and moan when the real audience congregates on a forum like this one and mocks the entire game reporting industry.
Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.
Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.
This. Exactly this.GAF is not one person and neither is IGN. People are writing these reviews/previews.
We need to focus on the writers moreso than the publication, although the latter can be a culprit.
Even though the Gies obsession here gets overbearing, I do like that he's called out specifically for whatever inaccuracies or inconsistencies. That's a better approach.
For allegedly hating me so much, you guys seem to spend an awful lot of time thinking and talking about me.
Gies has been full on Titanfall shill mode all weekend. I wish MS would just officially hire him already. Poor guy is putting in some serious hours.
It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy.
If money was actually exchanged for positive editorial coverage, don't you think that'd have come out by now? Don't you think there'd be a huge scandal? Wouldn't both the publisher and outlet be tarnished for years to come? Why would it even be worth it for anyone involved?
Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.
What you have to understand is that at professional media outlets (like, say, IGN, or Kotaku) there is a strict wall between the editorial department and the advertising department. I can speak from personal experience: I have no idea what Kotaku's ads will be on any given day. My paycheck comes every two weeks no matter what I write or say, and no matter what companies I praise or criticize.Well if my paycheck came from advertising, and I was depending on EA to play the game first at all Id be very excited too.
American game journalism is very deeply invested in the xbox and ea brands
I look to actual gamers(I mean people who don't play games for a living) for opinions now.
I think most people understand that there are no actual bags of money involved (though I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that such things happened; there are suspicious pre-embargo reviews from small, unknown sites out there). Sure, Gerstmann-Gate was seven years ago but I have no reason to believe that things have changed. The incestious relationship between reviewers and publishers still exists (and now increasingly incorporates video bloggers). Sites like IGN still operate the same way: "Hey AAA-publisher, we hype up your games, you give us more exclusivity/advertising deals in the future." That's the mutual, unwritten agreement between those sites and pulishers.It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy.
If money was actually exchanged for positive editorial coverage, don't you think that'd have come out by now? Don't you think there'd be a huge scandal? Wouldn't both the publisher and outlet be tarnished for years to come? Why would it even be worth it for anyone involved?
Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.
What you have to understand is that at professional media outlets (like, say, IGN, or Kotaku) there is a strict wall between the editorial department and the advertising department. I can speak from personal experience: I have no idea what Kotaku's ads will be on any given day. My paycheck comes every two weeks no matter what I write or say, and no matter what companies I praise or criticize.
If you don't trust that a reporter or reviewer or outlet is maintaining that wall and being transparent about any potential conflicts of interest, don't read them. Find people you trust. If you care enough about the gaming media to be participating in a NeoGAF thread about the gaming media, that shouldn't be too tough.
but I would completely bet on their being paid posters here on GAF (and other message boards for that matter) to spread positive messages.
That's another issue entirely. I was talking to the guy above who said "The concept that money didn't cross hands for this to happen is just as ridiculous as believing your secret Nigerian uncle is a prince."I think most people understand that there are no actual bags of money involved (though I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that such things happened; there are suspicious pre-embargo reviews from small, unknown sites out there). Sure, Gerstmann-Gate was seven years ago but I have no reason to believe that things have changed. The incestious relationship between reviews and publishers still exists (and now increasingly incorporates video bloggers). Sites like IGN still operate the same way: "Hey AAA-publisher, we hype up your games, you give us more exclusivity/advertising deals in the future." That's the mutual, unwritten agreement between those sites and pulishers.
My only complain about gaming press is the lack of articles like that one that gave a more in depth look at treehouse, or the recent one on polygon about underground game developers in peru during the 90s , or the little documentary on the vgx about the competitive donkey kong arcade crowd, actual investigative journalism
What you have to understand is that at professional media outlets (like, say, IGN, or Kotaku) there is a strict wall between the editorial department and the advertising department. I can speak from personal experience: I have no idea what Kotaku's ads will be on any given day. My paycheck comes every two weeks no matter what I write or say, and no matter what companies I praise or criticize.
If you don't trust that a reporter or reviewer or outlet is maintaining that wall and being transparent about any potential conflicts of interest, don't read them. Find people you trust. If you care enough about the gaming media to be participating in a NeoGAF thread about the gaming media, that shouldn't be too tough.
This quote from IGN's Titanfall preview cracks me up every time:
You WILL buy an XBO for Titanfall, even if you have a PC capable rig for it, because REASONS! Xbox ecosystem! YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK!
Of course people will interpret calling out absurd self-perpetuating media driven overhype as a critique of Titanfall's quality, but it's not. I said this same shit over the ridiculous way IGN jerked off all over GTA5 during its Grand Theft Auto week.
There is no such thing as perspective apparently with these guys.
You have to be cynical towards both the games media and towards gamers, and generally for good reason. I was entirely certain this would be about Titanfall before even clicking on the thread, for example.
Gamers are no better than the games media, because gamers share all of the same tendencies and habits that people often criticize the games media for possessing, and normally to an even more extreme degree. In fact, I firmly believe the games media takes its cues from gamers, and not the other way around.
It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy...
I suppose I can see and understand what you're getting at there, but somehow I suspect this post would have never happened if the comment was about the PS4 instead of the Xbox One while using the same exact reasons to justify it. See how that works?
What you have to understand is that at professional media outlets (like, say, IGN, or Kotaku) there is a strict wall between the editorial department and the advertising department. I can speak from personal experience: I have no idea what Kotaku's ads will be on any given day. My paycheck comes every two weeks no matter what I write or say, and no matter what companies I praise or criticize.
If you don't trust that a reporter or reviewer or outlet is maintaining that wall and being transparent about any potential conflicts of interest, don't read them. Find people you trust. If you care enough about the gaming media to be participating in a NeoGAF thread about the gaming media, that shouldn't be too tough.
(2) PC gaming is still largely thought of as a desk-based, monitor-viewed experience, even if Steam's Big Picture mode is slowly starting to change that.
What world do you live in?
It was almost too much for my eyeballs to process
Yesterday I showed my girlfriend the game and she complained "There's way too much going on I have no idea what I'm even supposed to be paying attention too.
It's really not an invalid thing to say.
That's another issue entirely. I was talking to the guy above who said "The concept that money didn't cross hands for this to happen is just as ridiculous as believing your secret Nigerian uncle is a prince."
Is this all based on your assumption of how things work or do you have specific examples in mind?I wouldn't say it's another issue entirely, more like that it's like one of those idealised sandbox games (or, to get really retro, it's like Mercenary III). There is a goal to be achieved, and multiple ways of going about it.
A straightforward, blatantly corrupt handing over of cash from one party to the other on the understanding that the product is given a glowing writeup is like the 'go in guns blazing and kill everyone in the way' solution, whereas less overt scenarios involving a quid pro quo environment of implicit understandings where nothing barely even needs to be said, except perhaps from old hands advising new entrants on the location and departure time of the gravy train, is the subterfuge or stealth approach.
It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy.
If money was actually exchanged for positive editorial coverage, don't you think that'd have come out by now? Don't you think there'd be a huge scandal? Wouldn't both the publisher and outlet be tarnished for years to come? Why would it even be worth it for anyone involved?
Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.
I think that publishers are constantly trying to exert influence over video game websites and magazines, and I think that readers always should be asking questions and criticizing what they see. Yes, publishers try to game review scores and Metacritic all the time, which is one entry on a very long list of reasons that I wish review scores would go away, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. My argument here is that you should be skeptical in a smarter way than "omg money for positive coverage!" The problems are more subtle than that. Ironically, we're in a thread complaining about hyperbole...Jason, the only reason we know about GerstmannGate is because Jeff got fired. Had he played ball, he would have kept his job and no one would have been the wiser. Do you really think no one else has ever played ball?
I don't think that this sort of thing is widespread, but I'm also not naive enough to believe the the Gerstmann situation is some weird anomaly, that it was the first an only time a publisher tried to exert influence over a publication or website. I really don't think you need to play the tinfoil hat card, it's not crazy talk to assume that publishers will do whatever it takes to make money. That's their job.
I don't really expect to win over a lot of people in this thread, but I'm happy to give a constructive reply and give it a shot.
(1) You're right, in an article written in August I absolutely gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to the Xbox One ecosystem. No one had any idea the extent of the problems that awaited the console when it finally released. When that piece was written, the Xbox 360 had drafted the blueprint for how online on a console could be done, and Xbox Live was a brilliant ecosystem. It was reasonable to think Xbox One would only make the online multiplayer experience (i.e. the games themselves, not the DRM) BETTER. I try to be an optimistic guy, so I'm always going to give the benefit of the doubt. I just prefer to live my life that way. It's pretty easy to put on the 20/20 hindsight glasses and criticize me for that, but so be it.
(2) PC gaming is still largely thought of as a desk-based, monitor-viewed experience, even if Steam's Big Picture mode is slowly starting to change that. And remember who IGN's audience is: most of them are not the hardcore NeoGAF user who knows every little trick to getting their PC gaming going on an HDTV. I think a lot of criticism towards IGN by NeoGAF in general stems from that. A lot of times we write things that you guys already know and you rip us for it. And that's fine. You guys are the power users. You're the hardest of the hardcore. Most people reading ANY of the major media sites don't fall into that category.
(3) Here I feel you're just criticizing my writing style, and again, that's fine. I do my best to write even-handed previews, but if I got carried away on this one (and universal media enthusiasm for Titanfall suggests I'm not alone if I am in fact guilty of that), then it's my mistake and I'll try to do a better job of reeling it back in going forward. In fact, I've written dozens of previews since then and not one of them has been called out here, so perhaps Titanfall was an aberration. I wonder if you think my last Thief preview is even-handed or not? I try to be even-handed, but because these are not final, reviewable games, I will ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt in a preview even if my gut tells me they're not going to improve. That's just my philosophy.
Look, I get it. I write for IGN. That puts a big target on my (and any IGN editor's) back from the hardcore gamers like yourselves. That I wrote for OXM before that just doubles my alleged fanboyism even though Microsoft had nothing to do with the magazine (how it actually worked/works is that Future, the publisher, pays Microsoft for the rights to use the "Official Xbox" name and the Xbox nexus logo. That's the extent of the relationship; there is no editorial relationship). Do I prefer doing my gaming on the Xbox platform? Sure I do, but that's not unlike many fellow NeoGAF users and millions of gamers out there. I play games on all platforms and I'll get my own PS4, in time (for the Wii U, it's going to take a price drop and a mainline, Galaxy-level Mario to get me to bite). But I've been in this business for 11 years and I hope to be in it for many more. I am always trying to improve myself, because if I don't, there will always be someone else eager to take my job.
I'll conclude by saying that I've done stuff that NeoGAF actually had overwhelmingly positive things to say about recently, like this and this. But if you'd like to write me off for one over-enthusiastic preview from last year, I get that this post probably isn't going to change your mind. But I thank you for at least reading my thoughts here.
You guys are going to love Sessler's thoughts on Titanfall...I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F3lR7z-QgU
i just rolled my eyes when he mentioned titanfall in an infamous vid. seriously they're not even in the same genre.You guys are going to love Sessler's thoughts on Titanfall...I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F3lR7z-QgU