Should be top of the list.

This list is pretty much hits the nail on the head.

I wish I could say more.

Then again Jim Sterling should be on there. Even I hate him and I don't hate anyone on that list.

Oh and a lot of you guys hate me. Although not nearly as much as the guys on that list.

This list is epic fail for one reason: it did not include Valve's employees.

Valve caters to their fans in the biggest way possible. They are consistently ranked as one of the best community-centric developers today. The people on this site are mainly console gamers and they don't like Valve because Valve criticizes consoles. If you don't play your Valve games on PC, then you were never a Valve fan, and therefore shouldn't hate on them because they owe you nothing. Valve takes care of their fans.

I own both PC, PS3, and 360. Their ports on the 360 are gimped in my opinion. I shouldn't have said Valve's employees, but I don't remember the specific ones that attacked the specific gaming community. I own the three major platforms (minus Wii) and I don't find it necessary when developers outrightly criticize platforms or the consumers who use them (in this case, they criticized the PS3 gamers).

Kevin Butler. and what about that woman that does the nintendo press conferences with reggie? what an annoying beeyotch.

@guy above me: they didn't criticize the ps3 supporters until the ps3 support got all over them for saying they didn't like developing for the cell processor. that's their business, but the sony guys couldn't leave well enough alone. you claim to be objective, and yet you seem to take the narrow view of a ps3-only gamer. maybe valve shouldn't have said all the things they said, but they were definitely provoked. and when you consider how much care valve takes of their community, it's hard to hate them just cuz they think developing for the cell isn't worth the additional overhead and investment.

damn every time I see Bobby kotick I want to punch him in the face

nothing personal (well maybe something) but he has THAT kind of punchable face :D

"the HipHopGamer takes all the hate and uses it to motivate, stimulate, and educate the gaming masses."

I lol'd

I guess I don't get it here.

He points out his faults but gives him respect. The list is really just about people that gamers tend to hate. HHG is on the list because of that but that doesn't mean the writer has to hate him.

If it was personal list of people he hates, then so be it but I don't think he would have been HHG on the list if it was about favoritism. Michael Pachter's isn't that bad and to be honest...none of these except Rubenstein or Kotick's are really all that bad.

"The list is really just about people that gamers tend to hate. HHG is on the list because of that but that doesn't mean the writer has to hate him."

True, but it just creates a very odd contrast when the writer DOES hate on all the others. HHG was stated as,

"Either you like him or you hate him….but you can’t ignore the HipHopGamer...His website blew up because of slightly misleading article titles and his personality kept them coming back for more. He gets more exclusive news than TMZ and his cell phone contact list is probably 16 times bigger than the average person’s. Mixing Hip Hop and gaming is not by any means new, but the hype he generates for any game creates chaos in the public arena...HipHopGamer takes all the hate and uses it to motivate, stimulate, and educate the gaming masses."

While he mentions his "embellishing stories", "ill flowing skills" and how Jack Thompson would love to hate him (?), he doesn't point out these faults as vehemently as he points out the others'. Look at how the other figures measure up:

Pachter - "Nobody likes a know-it-all but what about one whom is frequently wrong? The supposed leading gaming analyst has rarely hit the nail on the head. But does that stop Mr. Pachter? No!...He prides himself in predicting price cuts and marketing changes while the rest of us just use common sense. Perhaps this industry is not as predictable as once thought or maybe someone just likes to hear himself talk?"

Rubenstein - "Lob Mr. Rubenstein a soft question and he’ll field it in no time on the PlayStation Blog. Ask him something pertinent and well, he may be too busy to accommodate you. The man behind many videos and posts on the PlayStation Blog keeps up a good public front but a few game journalists know all too well that Jeff proves “every man is a moon and has a dark side...it doesn’t matter if Naughty Dog is in the house unless your website is big enough to boost this man’s ego.”

Greenberg - "Apparently, it’s become acceptable to be a fanboy and if there’s one fanboy more in the spotlight for always putting down the competition, it’s Mr. Greenberg. While promoting the company may be in his job description, Mr. Greenberg does tend to stick his foot in his mouth."

Kotick - "All the man can see is money...Mr. Kotick also takes pride in promoting negativity within his company. Where there’s a rainbow, Bobby is looking to steal the pot of gold. Because of his cruel intentions, shrewd business tactics, and his audacity, Activison’s CEO is Public Enemy number 1."

The contrast is very evident.

Okay. So what if this guy is tight with HHG?

HHG is still on the list. Why? Because lots of people hate him.

It seems that he / somebody he knows has experiences with multiple people on that list otherwise Rubenstein shouldn't be on there.

The point is...gamers in general hate on those five people for good reason.

I know people hate on HHG mostly because of his lies, but other than that, what bad is there to say about him? He works hard, he's cool with everybody, and doesn't spend time hating on anybody unless provoked.

I don't have a problem with HHG but I understand why he's on the list.

As far as most of the diction used for HHG, it could be good or bad. He lies and that's what he's spreading around to people. So yes...he stimulates the masses and motivates his haters to prove him wrong. When he does break a story that's proven true, he also educates. I don't see anything wrong with the writer expressing his own opinion but yet still being objective enough to put HHG on the list.

In fact, that just makes this piece more honest. Would you stick your friend on a list of the world's biggest liars just because he lied to you a lot? No...you confront him but you always have his / her back.

"Okay. So what if this guy is tight with HHG? HHG is still on the list. Why? Because lots of people hate him."

It doesn't matter if he's tight with HHG, until it starts affecting his ability to be neutral.

"I know people hate on HHG mostly because of his lies, but other than that, what bad is there to say about him? He works hard, he's cool with everybody, and doesn't spend time hating on anybody unless provoked."

I haven't seen him work but if you want to go simply by the quality of his videos, he simply stands in one place and talks. No script, no editing, no production values, nothing. If he wanted to convey his hard work, the least he could do is spruce his videos up. And unfortunately, the same guy who "doesn't spend time hating on anybody unless provoked" continuously provokes and insults IGN, Gamespot and people who simply disagree with on a daily basis. The latter are not just those who dislike his show - some people who have tried to give him constructive criticism have been threatened, and HHG has also said how he'd like to copulate with their wives/girlfriends.

"As far as most of the diction used for HHG, it could be good or bad. He lies and that's what he's spreading around to people. So yes...he stimulates the masses and motivates his haters to prove him wrong. When he does break a story that's proven true, he also educates."

I don't condone this opinion of yours because it essentially means you're okay with being lied to and riled up. And that you really don't unnderstand what it means to motivate, stimulate and educate people.

"I don't see anything wrong with the writer expressing his own opinion but yet still being objective enough to put HHG on the list. In fact, that just makes this piece more honest. Would you stick your friend on a list of the world's biggest liars just because he lied to you a lot? No...you confront him but you always have his / her back."

There's no confrontation or anything like that here. And speaking on publicly scolding friends, I would do it honestly and professionally, but I would in no way diminish or raise his value when comparing him to similar individuals. The individuals on this list have accomplished far more in their professional careers than HHG ever will, so that automatically makes him beneath them. However, rather than keep them on a similar platform, the writer seems to be giving the impression that HHG really ain't all that bad while the others are absolute scum. If I was to honestly tell a friend his problems, I'd just tell him, honestly and without regard for his feelings, because that's what friends do. Would I tell him his problems and then inflate his self worth or diminish others in an attempt to make him feel better? No. But that's just the impression the author created here, all because he took more gentle tone with HHG.

The fact that the writer is hard on every one despite their console loyalty tells you that he's not a fanboy like HHG. But that he does feel the need to be less hard on HHG than the guy truly deserves. In journalism, that's called "bias".

Edit: Also, looking at the others, the author specifically gives instances of Rubenstein, Greenberg and Kotick deserving all the hate they get. He doesn't especially mention any of HHG's "crazy stories" (not even the GoW/Uncharted one you referenced), nor does he specifically mention which companies called him out. Even more evidence of his bias in favour of HHG.

Edit 2: Found a link that proves HHG committed plagiarism (does he still do it? Don't know) -

http://www.bingegamer.net/2...

This guy is not a professional. He's a blogger. Like I said before, there's a difference between blogging and professional journalism. He doesn't present himself as a professional nor does his bio state that. Half of the stuff put on N4G is just meant to get a few website hits.

That is your main problem. You keep talking about professionalism and bias. Neither of those matter because "bloggers" are always bias and they're rarely paid to do this.

Maybe you don't understand the whole respect your peers thing, but look at all the professionals you speak about. Is Geoff dissing Jim Sterling or is Major Nelson dissing Jeff Rubenstein personally? No. So why should another blogger attack another blogger?

Attacking IGN is a whole other story. That's what ALL bloggers do...not just HHG.

Nobody is making excuses for HHG. He does what he does. That doesn't mean I'm not going to listen to what he has to say but at the same time, I'll take what he has to say as rumor until I hear something different.

This is rather simple. You either agree that HHG belongs or the list or not.

You're criticizing him for being bias when all bloggers are that. Fine that's your opinion. If you don't like bias, why are you reading blogs because that's what you're going to get.

He put HHG on the list. He put everybody on the list whether he had good reason or not because he felt gaming public opinion warranted it.

Any way, it has been good debating with you. You have a web-site or blog that you write for? Seems like you'd be pretty good at it.