Mr. Pumblechook: As per my statement about the absurdly self-righteous, you make my point perfectly.
Your entire post is anti-game journalism and fueled by these grand ideals that unfortunately don't - and in fact, can't - exist in the industry today. And why? Because the gamers won't allow it.
Those who have worked in the field know what I'm talking about. Unless you work for one of the major sources, you're probably on part-time pay (...
Yes, game journalists don't play games.
That's just...brilliant.
Yes, and the people at fault are those baiting the trolls, but never the trolls, right?
If gamers were more mature and didn't freak out so easily, and if a journalist with half a brain couldn't SO easily predict these freak-outs, maybe that would force journalists to put out articles that have actual substance.
When they do, nobody reads it. Whose fault is that again?
As for the latter part, I think that's probably very uncommon. The problem is that gamers seem to think that ALL journalists are somehow shady, stupid, or insulting to gamers (or all three). That's an overblown perspective.
Yeah, newsflash for the elitists of the world: A game's difficulty doesn't automatically make it hardcore, nor does it mean that anyone who doesn't play them can't be hardcore.
Good to see most gamers have about three brain cells to rub together.
A 10 doesn't mean the game is literally perfect, genius. In fact, if you just took the time to read the scoring policies for the sources and publications, you'd know how each source uses their rating system. The maximum score allowed doesn't imply perfection; no critic every said it did.
That's like saying any movie, album, or restaurant that lands four stars is completely...
Yeah, I don't bother with the shockingly self-absorbed, I-know-more-than-everyone-else , all-game-journalists-are-idiot s mentality I find around here.
Go enforce your wavering ego on someone else.
Way to take it completely literally and assume I meant that every last gamer alive should never buy a console a launch.
What a tool. LOL
Thanks for the lesson.
And as someone already said, the article does reflect the content. Next time, try reading before lecturing.
A sea of comments from people who clearly never read one word in the article in question.
Exaggeration and lies.
Know how long I've been reviewing games in this industry? 16 years. 4 different websites. Know how many times I was told to alter a review score because the site was receiving ad money from a company?
Zero. This doesn't happen. Now, the GameStop/Gerstmann thing was a definite fiasco but of course, any time something like that happens, gamers choose to treat it as the rule and not the exception.
99% of all c...
It makes no difference whatsoever that critics get their games for free. None.
The myth that critics and sources are "bought out" REALLY needs to stop. It's hugely insulting to those who actually work in the industry.
I think the definition of "real gamer" is crazy subjective, which makes this question tough. :)
No.
The sites wouldn't report on any of it if the readers (aka YOU) didn't give it so much attention every time it came out.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with the sites. Nothing at all. They deliver the content people want to read, and after people read it, they whine that they "had" to read it.
I think the problem with this idea is that the novelty of LBP appears to be wearing just a little thin. Even the most amazing games have a certain novelty that wears off, no matter how imaginative the developers are.
You've never seen me write anything that's even remotely entitled. It's the one trait that's essentially killing mankind as far as I'm concerned; I would never practice it. As for you, every word you write on here is loaded with egocentric lecturing, and I can't figure out who you think you are, or why you think you can talk down to everyone.
As for the second part, it makes no sense at all. Hundreds more games are released today than before. We ha...
No, a review of a game is never "mostly" subjective. Personal preference comprises only a small portion of any good review.
There are objective and qualitative aspects to any game.
No higher than 7.
Baloney. Sites only exist with traffic, and you only get that traffic by issuing reviews as soon as possible. The site that waits to produce all their reviews has resigned itself to volunteer writers and no income whatsoever.
We all wish it wasn't like this (and it shouldn't be) but this is the digital world.