|
|
|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
GamerGate Explained!!! [locked]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09/13/14, 05:42 Locked 01/04/16, 01:39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@CPA WeiThat's an interesting point about Grayson, but did he ever actually write any opinion articles about Quinn? It really does seem weird that some dude's tell-all blog has resulted in an ethics debate. I'd like to just say, "Who the hell cares? You should be forming your own opinion, anyway." But that does ignore how suggestible the masses are. I mean, how many fields these days are true meritocricies, in the first place? People with money skew everything to benefit people with money. Surprise! I have to say, even just narrowing the field down to the consumption of art/entertainment, of all of the examples of corruption and unfairness in the world, gaming journalism ethics might be the thing I give the least of a shit about. Seriously. I'm not anywhere near the same page of even the most honest, straightforward critics, anyway. I'm in an entirely different book. A really old one! And the last six years have led me to assume all AAA games are shit unless proven otherwise. @ZeroHonestly, the responsibility of a public corporation IS to make money. Individuals that form a group are no longer individuals. If anything, they'll become a bloodthirsty mob. Not a big, benevolent group entity. Being freed from the shackle of individual responsibility does not generally make a person more virtuous. Just look at the internet. If you were in charge of a company and a certain outlet had slagged every single game that you had released, would you bend over backwards to give them a review copy? In that situation, to whom are you responsible? A vicious pack of internet dogs, who are just waiting for the opportunity to rip you apart to score some e-points? Or the employees who rely on you for sustenance and the stockholders who support you (maybe)? I mean, Nintendo is pretty damned liberal, in terms of not trying to control the opinions of a finished product. What exactly does that get them? Granted, it might be that they just don't want to go the extra marketing mile, but still. Also, honestly, doesn't it behoove one to be naturally skeptical of Youtubers in the first place? ... Wow, I've become a cynical old man! Oh, for the days when I was an angry young man... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Anand I know that is how it IS. I'm talking about how it should be. As for your question, it seems like an odd one to me because what is it based off of? I've never heard anyone, even these gamergaters, claim that there is a site out there who singles out a publisher and hits all of their games with low scores. Other than maybe some crap publisher who deserves all low scores. Usually they are attacking individual reviews / reviewers, like the recent Polygon Bayonetta 2 review. Like, there is actually a gamergate "operation" right now where they are all mass emailing Nintendo to tell them to not give Polygon review copies anymore. Over a single negative review. I imagine Nintendo will not comply. Apparently "ethics" means reviewers not towing the line is wrong or something? Gamergate is so confusing. But to answer it anyway, you kind of answered it yourself. I've never heard of Nintendo engaging in this shady stuff with reviewers, especially to the level of the Mordor thing where they were literally paying Youtubers not just with early copies but with actual money as long as they didn't say anything negative about the game. This stuff is insane. It's not necessary to do this stuff. Does it hurt Nintendo not to? I dunno. Maybe in some vague, short-term way? But they still don't do it, and good for them. Nintendo's basic goal has always seemed to be "make games that are good enough that people will say good things about them on their own". It's debatable how consistently they succeed in this goal, but the theory at least is a good one. I don't think reviewers / sites / etc. should ever be in a position where their two options are "only say good things" or "not get access to the game others are all talking about right now". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ZeroWell, that may be true, but the gaming media is a parasitic barnacle on the whale that is the games industry. Even moreso than in other industries. The main thing that separates a professional from an amateur is early/exclusive access. That's not a god(s)-given right. That's a privilege that publishers choose to bestow on them in exchange for publicity. If that publicity turns out to be bad publicity (assuming that there IS such a thing), it wouldn't be surprising for the publisher to think better of the idea. The media outlet could go truly independent and release themselves from the teat, but they won't, because it would be financially disastrous. And most gamers wouldn't really give a shit, anyway, hashtags or no hashtags. As for my hypothetical scenario, it doesn't have to be that a reviewer has it in for a specific publisher. Maybe that reviewer just gives low scores, in general. Maybe they use 5 out of 10 as their mean score, so it brings the all-important Metacritic average down. Maybe they just don't play ball like other reviewers. Why let an x-factor like that into the equation, when people's livelihoods, including yours, may be on the line? By the way, several publishers HAVE blackballed certain outlets/reviewers, based on their scoring history. Ubisoft, for one. You asked "Does it hurt Nintendo not to?", and it definitely may, but another question is: "Does it help Nintendo?" I mean, instead of spending their marketing budget on sweet-talking the press, they've recently chosen to rely incredibly heavily on controlling their own message by releasing information themselves in controlled bursts and leaving the press to report on the scraps. It's obvious that they weren't particularly happy with their coverage from mainstream media outlets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|