Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

Using the term "reporting" is even a stretch. By those standards if I were to copy and paste press releases onto a blog I'd be a reporter too. These guys get paid reasonably well and receive free trips and copious amounts of free swag to tow the company line. They would never risk that relationship by asking any hard hitting questions.

There is no definition of 'journalist' that includes the need of doing extensive research. And yes, the gaming press are reporters, since they report the news about games to the masses. That you aren't happy with the quality doesn't make them less of a journalist.

And I always have to laugh at 'asking the hard hitting questions'. What do you expect, that they have the number of Bethesda's CEO on speeddial and can call him in the middle of the night to ask why the PS3-version sucks? The question has probably bee asked a million times to the PR-department, but if they don't co-operate, what do you expect them to do? Publish an article everyday saying "hey, today it still sucks"?

Yes there are problems with game journalism and the interview skills of some media are questionable, but just because a portion of the people are bad at their job doesn't make everyone in the gaming press bad. Every new site deserves an opportunity, judge them when it goes live. And if you think it's bad, don't visit it, no harm done.

 

[fabricated backlash]

People keep saying this, and then don't hold any other group of journalists to the same high standard. Check out the people who write professionally, not just about movies or other entertainment, but politics and other subjects. The vast majority are in the same class as people who write about videogames. The actual investigative journalists are very few and far between.

Also, fuck playing a 100+ hour game on all three platforms, and get a review out in a reasonable time frame. You need to pull some Dr. Who shit to make that happen.

Then don't review it or get the review out when you're done with it.

Another great idea for this would be a Week of Review. Play extensive games for a week and do a write up, or live Stream of it every day. And at the end give a verdict. Not only do you engage viewers, but you can also cover more content.

There are so many ways to cover more expansive games, but most gaming media writers are so obsessed with gushing over the hype they've sucked up, that such things aren't even in the realm of consideration.

 

[Grecco]

If you guys are looking for "specific" reasons why people dislike Arthur. I can name one. He suggested "people should be great full that games press spent 80 hours in a week on reviewing Skyrim".

 

[Curufinwe]

You just made a lot of subjective criticisms of me with zero supporting statements. There's no impartiality. My value judgments are based on my personal opinions, which are based on my life experiences. My only requirements are fairness and due diligence.

Was is fair for you to claim on Rebel FM that Vanquish only got good review scores because a cabal of God Hand/Clover fanboys in the gaming press demanded that they be allowed to review it? No, it was a disgraceful attack on the professionalism of reviewers who scored the game highly like Kevin VanOrd at Gamespot and Simon Parkin at Eurogamer. Instead of being man enough to just admit your opinion of the game was in the minority, you invented a conspiracy to justify why you were right and everyone else was wrong.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Then don't review it or get the review out when you're done with it.

This would mean the review of a lot of games comes way to late. When a game isn't reviewed or is late, people will also complain.

Another great idea for this would be a Week of Review. Play extensive games for a week and do a write up, or live Stream of it every day. And at the end give a verdict. Not only do you engage viewers, but you can also cover more content.

How many people would be interested in watching hours of video of a game? Sure, it might be popular for games like Skyrim and COD, but many games just aren't that popular and this method will cost way to much time. And with most games, you are really done in a day (with the singleplayer), so do you want them to show multiple runs of the game then? And wouldn't is spoil the whole game to the viewer this way?

I agree a lot can be done with video content, but I think most people are more interested in shorter video reviews, quick looks or let's plays.

There are so many ways to cover more expansive games, but most gaming media writers are so obsessed with gushing over the hype they've sucked up, that such things aren't even in the realm of consideration.

Most of the time it just isn't possible due to cost and time restrictions to cover certain games more or take more time for a review. The release of a game is the most important event for it, you need to have the review around that time, not a week or month later. No one except for a very small audience of core gamers would be interested in that and you can't live of that. Every website is still a business that needs to make money.

 

[fabricated backlash]

This would mean the review of a lot of games comes way to late. When a game isn't reviewed or is late, people will also complain.

Well that's why I said do a continuos live review, with periodical updates (vial live stream or by having an end of day article)

How many people would be interested in watching hours of video of a game? Sure, it might be popular for games like Skyrim and COD, but many games just aren't that popular and this method will cost way to much time. And with most games, you are really done in a day (with the singleplayer), so do you want them to show multiple runs of the game then? And wouldn't is spoil the whole game to the viewer this way?

The live stream would be only one part of the equation. Since a review is the work of an author, you would have to comment, or edit it later on. But letting people in on the process of playtesting would create another much needed layer of transparency. For people who want to avoid spoilers, the written review, or final video review is the place to go.

I agree a lot can be done with video content, but I think most people are more interested in shorter video reviews, quick looks or let's plays.

Agreed, and it was merely a suggestion. You could also just release the video review at the end of the week, while having the written Review updated every day leading up to the final verdict.

Most of the time it just isn't possible due to cost and time restrictions to cover certain games more or take more time for a review. The release of a game is the most important event for it, you need to have the review around that time, not a week or month later. No one except for a very small audience of core gamers would be interested in that and you can't live of that. Every website is still a business that needs to make money.

See that's the point though. A continuos review would not only benefit the consumer (as they would get a better and more transparent review) but also increase the possibility to have adds.

I am well aware that most publications run on mere PR fumes to get by, but exactly this need to bow to the ad money that the companies you are reviewing stuff from has got to go.

As of now gaming journalism mostly is comparable to a 24h tele marketer show. Complete with early adopter promotions and exclusive knife sets. (in game that is)
You can call that idealistic, but I won't subscribe to that cynical excuse that there is no other way to run a business than to be an extended PR channel who reposts viral Marketing slogans.

 

[Mihos]

I hope these guys do well, but between GAF and GiantBomb, I am pretty well covered. I think I only have room for another if Idle Thumbs 2 were to open.

 

[obonicus]

corrects people when they are wrong and knows what he is talking about.

Honestly, I always got the opposite impression. Maybe he's changed over the years, but part of the reason I stopped listening to Rebel FM was because all of his arguments seemed to come straight from forums. Particularly when he'd go into sales-age; it'd become the same thing that drives me out of sales-age threads: you get people who can't balance their checkbooks second-guessing corporate business decisions in the absence of any data. Often with claims that could be disproven by spending a couple of minutes on google. Maybe he's gotten better after joining IGN, I don't know.

 

[Dabanton]

Then don't review it or get the review out when you're done with it.

Another great idea for this would be a Week of Review. Play extensive games for a week and do a write up, or live Stream of it every day. And at the end give a verdict. Not only do you engage viewers, but you can also cover more content.

There are so many ways to cover more expansive games, but most gaming media writers are so obsessed with gushing over the hype they've sucked up, that such things aren't even in the realm of consideration.

Tbh we the gamers are just as sucked in. Hype is what drives all media journalism. The embarrassing reactions to things like the UC3 and Zelda review scores should show that.

Late reviews are pointless to 'us' once a game is at retail you are either going to buy it day one or not and plenty do buy in the first few days. Hence we have a situations where that exclusive review is all important to get the early word out. And why companies like EA as an example with BF3 only gave copies of the game to people who they knew would give them a pleasing score to prop up their Metacritic score in that all important first week.

Hype is what drives most media journalism and for most areas of media journalism it's unfortunately all about that all important number at the end of the review.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

I only know McElroy, Crecente and Gies and I'm not a fan of any of their work...

Gies is the only one I heard of, now I know to stay away from this website.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well that's why I said do a continuos live review, with periodical updates (vial live stream or by having an end of day article)

The live stream would be only one part of the equation. Since a review is the work of an author, you would have to comment, or edit it later on. But letting people in on the process of playtesting would create another much needed layer of transparency. For people who want to avoid spoilers, the written review, or final video review is the place to go.

Agreed, and it was merely a suggestion. You could also just release the video review at the end of the week, while having the written Review updated every day leading up to the final verdict.

Could be interesting, but I would turn it around. Have the review day one and for the people who want to see more, have those extended features in the weeks after that for large games (Skyrim, Dark Souls, Deus Ex, Witcher, etc).

See that's the point though. A continuos review would not only benefit the consumer (as they would get a better and more transparent review) but also increase the possibility to have adds.

I am well aware that most publications run on mere PR fumes to get by, but exactly this need to bow to the ad money that the companies you are reviewing stuff from has got to go.

As of now gaming journalism mostly is comparable to a 24h tele marketer show. Complete with early adopter promotions and exclusive knife sets. (in game that is)
You can call that idealistic, but I won't subscribe to that cynical excuse that there is no other way to run a business than to be an extended PR channel who reposts viral Marketing slogans.

I think the 'game sites are just an extension of PR' are a bit exaggerated most of the time. But I agree that gaming sites need a more diverse source of income. That can be either ads from other industries or subscriptions. Problem with both is you can only do that when your site is already popular. The amount of people willing to pay for content is small. It's not impossible to make money that way (Giant Bomb uses this model), but you are eliminating a lot of viewers when going this route, since you need to lock off exclusive content for your subscribers. For ads from outside the gaming industry you need to have an enormous reach and compete with a lot of other mainstream websites. Sites like IGN and GameSpot can do this, but most don't have the audience.

But I agree that websites need more unique content. With a new website like these guys are starting, it is a bit useless to compete with the major ones out there already on quantity. I don't think you can win that battle (or even want to). Of course you need to cover the major news stories, if only to give your visitors a place to discuss that news in the comments. But be sure there is a good reason to visit it every day by offering something unique like opinion pieces and video content.

 

[conman]

i'm actually not seeing that from that post, though - dude is asking for specifics, and offers another venue to provide them. i get the sentiment here, but where are you reading it from that post?

It's a tone thing that was part of his ongoing responses in this thread.

 

[NHale]

Was is fair for you to claim on Rebel FM that Vanquish only got good review scores because a cabal of God Hand/Clover fanboys in the gaming press demanded that they be allowed to review it? No, it was a disgraceful attack on the professionalism of reviewers who scored the game highly like Kevin VanOrd at Gamespot and Simon Parkin at Eurogamer. Instead of being man enough to just admit your opinion of the game was in the minority, you invented a conspiracy to justify why you were right and everyone else was wrong.

This can't be true. If it is, then he's even worse than those that complain about reviews on message boards, because he actually works in the media.

 

[J-Rzez]

Also, fuck playing a 100+ hour game on all three platforms, and get a review out in a reasonable time frame. You need to pull some Dr. Who shit to make that happen.

I think they (if they are gamers) will know Bethesda's track record when it comes to their games, and would be a bit more thorough with anything with their name on it. I mean, this has been an issue with the past few games on the PS3 already. The PC version had more problems than usual this time as well. Red flags should have been raised when PS3 copies were hard to come by for reviews.

Basically it boils down to this. Are they going to be what the assumed value of "review sites" should be, which is to give the consumer facts and knowledge about a product/service, working "for the reader"? Or are they working for the publishers themselves, being a 3rd party advertising service as they have this gen? They need to pick and prove what they really are.

Still amazed how people really will defend anything. Consumers being anti-consumer.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Arthur,

First of all let me start by saying that I'm willing to give you another chance with the new site. I realize that it doesn't really matter to you or anyone involved one way or the other if lil' ol' me decides to visit it once or a million times but I'm simply stating this to let you know that I'm not bitter towards you beyond the point of no return.

Now, on to the point.

My only problem with the way you do business is the level of pride, arrogance, and cockiness that you display in your attitude in almost everything you do. Whether it's an article, an episode of RebelFM, or a post here on NeoGAF, there is rarely a time when you don't come off as someone who thinks very highly of himself and his opinion. You're always talking about how much people on the internet hate you but I must ask, why do you think that is? Look at a guy like Vinny from Giant Bomb. He has his own strong opinions on all sorts of games, and of course there are times when those opinions differ from various members of GAF and other communities. Even still, he has an incredible reputation and most people who know of him and his work are huge fans. Why do you think that is? Personally I think it's because he's kind, humble, and willing to let others voice their opinions without incessant ridicule.

It's not about your opinions on games. It really isn't. It's about your attitude. No one likes a guy who is full of himself, and I think it's helpful for every person on this planet to think about that every once in awhile and tone down our pride a notch or two. It's not like it's unforgivable or something, we've all been there and I certainly know that I have.

Consider this my attempt at constructive criticism. If you want to dismiss this as an over-the-top attack on your personality then that's fine, but my intention is only to help you realize that there is still an opportunity for you to get along just fine with many members of your audience around here and various other internet communities.

 

[Curufinwe]

This can't be true. If it is, then he's even worse than those that complain about reviews on message boards, because he actually works in the media.

Oh it's true, and that was the last episode of Rebel FM that I listened to.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Cuz they love to hate and rile people up. They don't post specifics or reasons, they just post their hatred for all gaming blogs in general and since you guys worked at those sites which had questionable articles from all sorts of people, they group you all up as the same individual who wrote it.

Funny that they hate x gaming blog even tho GAF has posted some great stories from them as the source. But why acknowledge the positive when it's so easy to to spout off the negatives instead? It's so much cooler to hate.

Pretty much. I can say Aurther has been more then nice and helpful the few times we've corresponded during Halofest. I really don't get the hate the guy is getting. Also I've seen some mention his attitude on podcasts. Um I gurantee you that a lot of these same people would probably be just like that. They'd have to have the last word too. To me if you are passionate about something you're going to argue it. I'm pretty sure that if he was being a total ass they probably wouldn't have had the guy on other times.

There is no definition of 'journalist' that includes the need of doing extensive research. And yes, the gaming press are reporters, since they report the news about games to the masses. That you aren't happy with the quality doesn't make them less of a journalist.

And I always have to laugh at 'asking the hard hitting questions'. What do you expect, that they have the number of Bethesda's CEO on speeddial and can call him in the middle of the night to ask why the PS3-version sucks? The question has probably bee asked a million times to the PR-department, but if they don't co-operate, what do you expect them to do? Publish an article everyday saying "hey, today it still sucks"?

Yes there are problems with game journalism and the interview skills of some media are questionable, but just because a portion of the people are bad at their job doesn't make everyone in the gaming press bad. Every new site deserves an opportunity, judge them when it goes live. And if you think it's bad, don't visit it, no harm done.

Pretty much. What do people want them to do? Call up Bethesda and pester them cause they won't give them an answer? Rummage through bethesda's trash? Hack Bethesda's phone system? (jk on that one) I guess they could write a new article every day saying today Bethesda gave us another no comment or some more PR spin. We'll try again tomorrow. There just isn't much they can do if people won't talk and give them these answers.

 

[plc268]

Meh. So the news story here, is that a bunch of people left mediocre video game news sites to form a new one that will cover the same exact news?

Whoopdee fucking doo.

 

[bengraven]

Wow, the only person I know in that list is Arthur.

It guess that's what I get from having not listened to gaming podcasts for almost two years.

 

[butts]

Arthur,

First of all let me start by saying that I'm willing to give you another chance with the new site. I realize that it doesn't really matter to you or anyone involved one way or the other if lil' ol' me decides to visit it once or a million times but I'm simply stating this to let you know that I'm not bitter towards you beyond the point of no return.

Now, on to the point.

My only problem with the way you do business is the level of pride, arrogance, and cockiness that you display in your attitude in almost everything you do. Whether it's an article, an episode of RebelFM, or a post here on NeoGAF, there is rarely a time when you don't come off as someone who thinks very highly of himself and his opinion. You're always talking about how much people on the internet hate you but I must ask, why do you think that is? Look at a guy like Vinny from Giant Bomb. He has his own strong opinions on all sorts of games, and of course there are times when those opinions differ from various members of GAF and other communities. Even still, he has an incredible reputation and most people who know of him and his work are huge fans. Why do you think that is? Personally I think it's because he's kind, humble, and willing to let others voice their opinions without incessant ridicule.

It's not about your opinions on games. It really isn't. It's about your attitude. No one likes a guy who is full of himself, and I think it's helpful for every person on this planet to think about that every once in awhile and tone down our pride a notch or two. It's not like it's unforgivable or something, we've all been there and I certainly know that I have.

Consider this my attempt at constructive criticism. If you want to dismiss this as an over-the-top attack on your personality then that's fine, but my intention is only to help you realize that there is still an opportunity for you to get along just fine with many members of your audience around here and various other internet communities.

This post said it better than I could have. I agree 100%. But like you, I will give the site a chance.

Congrats on the new site guys!

 

[CartridgeBlower]

I think another reason people give Arthur shit is that he seemed to ride the wave of press that the destruction of 1up got, i.e. being on those first videos and podcasts. No one knew who he was, but suddenly because of Anthony, he was featured a lot for seemingly no other reason than being Anthony's friend. I'm sure Arthur had his own stuff going on, and he's not a terrible writer, but it just seems like for someone who got pretty lucky, he rarely shows the humility one would think/expect from someone who caught such a break.

 

[tusken77]

It's not about your opinions on games. It really isn't. It's about your attitude. No one likes a guy who is full of himself, and I think it's helpful for every person on this planet to think about that every once in awhile and tone down our pride a notch or two. It's not like it's unforgivable or something, we've all been there and I certainly know that I have.

No, it's not just his attitude, it's also about his opinions on games. Two off the top of my head: watching someone play Uncharted 2 ISN'T like watching a movie, Vanquish is "clunky".

 

[firehawk12]

Man, the anti-game journalism folk are out in full force here.

Yeah, you don't all have to like these guys, nor their work, but this is a fresh start. A new site with no ball and chain from Gawker or the likes. Let's at least see what these guys can do with a clean slate before we get our pitchforks. Christ, Gaf being Gaf for sure here.

I have no idea what the Verge is like, but if it's a blog, then they'll have to post shitty stories just to keep the amount of content up. That's just the nature of news blogs these days - post whatever you can to get the hits.

Was is fair for you to claim on Rebel FM that Vanquish only got good review scores because a cabal of God Hand/Clover fanboys in the gaming press demanded that they be allowed to review it? No, it was a disgraceful attack on the professionalism of reviewers who scored the game highly like Kevin VanOrd at Gamespot and Simon Parkin at Eurogamer. Instead of being man enough to just admit your opinion of the game was in the minority, you invented a conspiracy to justify why you were right and everyone else was wrong.

Oh god, now I remember this "argument". I think my brain melted because I was hearing an internet post instead of reading it.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

No, it's not just his attitude, it's also about his opinions on games. Two off the top of my head: watching someone play Uncharted 2 ISN'T like watching a movie, Vanquish is "clunky".

I think the way you present your opinion is often more important than the opinion itself when it comes to how people view you. Not always, but often.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I like the site design of the Verge, but what kind of hipster bullshit is it to call a website 'a vertical'.

 

[eznark]

I like the site design of the Verge, but what kind of hipster bullshit is it to call a website 'a vertical'.

Fits perfectly

 

[firehawk12]

Fits perfectly

http://i.imgur.com/DVWzP.jpg

One thing games journalists have going for them? At least they aren't tech or "gadget" journalists.

 

[eznark]

One thing games journalists have going for them? At least they aren't tech or "gadget" journalists.

Will Smith > everyone at gameverge

 

[EXGN]

And I always have to laugh at 'asking the hard hitting questions'. What do you expect, that they have the number of Bethesda's CEO on speeddial and can call him in the middle of the night to ask why the PS3-version sucks? The question has probably bee asked a million times to the PR-department, but if they don't co-operate, what do you expect them to do? Publish an article everyday saying "hey, today it still sucks"?

This is something that bugs me too. I don't think people realize the stranglehold video game PR has on the industry. As someone who used to work for a publisher, your job was at risk if you broke the chain of command and spoke to press without consulting PR. Journalists ask the tough questions, but PR usually says to give "no comment" or ignores the question outright. Not their fault they can't get the answers they seek.

I also love how many GAF members bash places like Kotaku for being sensationalist or corporate schills motivated by free swag. Does anyone remember when Sony blacklisted them for reporting on Home well before it was announced?

Half the time I think the people grilling journalists are just jealous because writers get paid for something every fan would love to do.

 

[firehawk12]

Will Smith > everyone at gameverge

Both Will Smiths!

This is something that bugs me too. I don't think people realize the stranglehold video game PR has on the industry. As someone who used to work for a publisher, your job was at risk if you broke the chain of command and spoke to press without consulting PR. Journalists ask the tough questions, but PR usually says to give "no comment" or ignores the question outright. Not their fault they can't get the answers they seek.

I also love how many GAF members bash places like Kotaku for being sensationalist or corporate schills motivated by free swag. Does anyone remember when Sony blacklisted them for reporting on Home well before it was announced?

Half the time I think the people grilling journalists are just jealous because writers get paid for something every fan would love to do.

Honestly, I think it was the Jeff Gerstmann firing that made everyone aware of what a joke game press can be. And that happened at the biggest video game outlet in the industry.

 

[Massa]

Oh it's true, and that was the last episode of Rebel FM that I listened to.

You missed it when he did pretty much the same thing with Dark Souls then.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

this whole clusterfuck has the pleasant side effect of keeping me from ever clicking on the verge again

the facebook WIMMEN question was priceless

 

[eznark]

this whole clusterfuck has the pleasant side effect of keeping me from ever clicking on the verge again

the facebook WIMMEN question was priceless

?

 

[RedNumberFive]

Fits perfectly

I had no plans of visiting the site after reading about the assembled "talent", but that picture sealed the deal for me.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

?

enjoy: http://blog.whistling-fish.org/?p=35

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Fits perfectly

Oh, jesus christ. "We're so hip that we're going to wear neckties and go for that vintage look! We're all in our 20s and 30s, but we can pretend like we're reporters from the 70s, but with a new-age feel!"

 

[LiK]

Fits perfectly

Chris looks very handsome there.

 

[RedNumberFive]

Half the time I think the people grilling journalists are just jealous because writers get paid for something every fan would love to do.

Believe me, I AM jealous. I would love a job where I get paid to sit on my ass and play free games, while having the publisher's PR department do my work for me.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

You missed it when he did pretty much the same thing with Dark Souls then.

I remember when he complained about "animation priority" (applying a stock criticism of Japanese games quite inappropriately) and then said the animations weren't even that good.

The animations ARE good, often very good. And they play out exactly the way they are intended to by design. It's extraordinarily annoying when a professional games writer is unable to separate how they feel about a game from the objective qualities of that game.

I don't care whether he likes the game or not, but when he gives such laughable reasons for his opinion, and calls it an objectively bad game, it's hard not to respond critically. I might be confusing some of what he said with what Matt Chandronait said, who also sucked at critically evaluating his personal response to Dark Souls.

 

[volturnus]

Fits perfectly

Holy shit.

 

[AlanzTalon]

Oh, jesus christ. "We're so hip that we're going to wear neckties and go for that vintage look! We're all in our 20s and 30s, but we can pretend like we're reporters from the 70s, but with a new-age feel!"

I am just going on my impression...but I think that is the joke.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Was is fair for you to claim on Rebel FM that Vanquish only got good review scores because a cabal of God Hand/Clover fanboys in the gaming press demanded that they be allowed to review it? No, it was a disgraceful attack on the professionalism of reviewers who scored the game highly like Kevin VanOrd at Gamespot and Simon Parkin at Eurogamer. Instead of being man enough to just admit your opinion of the game was in the minority, you invented a conspiracy to justify why you were right and everyone else was wrong.

Ah thanks for this, my memory was hazy on why I'd slotted Gies into my 'do not read' brain tracker, but couldn't remember much beyond his anti-Japanese game slants that made little sense. I'd almost forgotten he tried to twist every other reviewer actually liking Vanquish into a conspiracy against him. Crikey.

You missed it when he did pretty much the same thing with Dark Souls then.

And this, Arthur, is why you've earned a certain reputation. You don't so much go into a game open minded, you have an exceptionally rigid expectation of what it must be and any deviation from that tickles the "ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK" prose you like to spit out. Be that a slightly different control setup (Vanquish's controls are anything but clunky or complicated) or that the game just has different design sensibilities to it compared to the rest of the medium that you seem to go into mental lockdown and lash out at anyone liking it, discussing the opposite and more. Great for trolling for hits, awful for maintaining a positive and new community.

 

[eznark]

enjoy: http://blog.whistling-fish.org/?p=35

Eh. The only female games writer I enjoy is Danielle Riendeau, I don't think it's appropriate for the Vox folks to think they need to have a woman just to have a woman.

I am just going on my impression...but I think that is the joke.

Based on the site aesthetic and the video overlays, I don't think it's meant to be a joke.

 

[eiskaltnz]

I have read many of these threads that turn into an Arthur hate fest and normally don't respond to them but i want to this time (I guess you can see that since you are reading this post). I really feel like a lot of this Arthur hate is just because when he has an bad opinion about something you love he will let you know, and basically tell you that you are wrong. I can get around that, I understand where he is coming from but I can just pass it off as Arthur stating his opinions. Other then that I can't see anywhere reason why he is hated so much and why so many people come out in force every time there is a story about him and jump on the "let's make Arthur feel as bad as we possibly can" train.

Another thing I do not understand are people saying "Oh Arthur is on this site so I an not going to visit it"... Even though it is really easy to avoid the 10% of the sites content he puts out.

That is enough for now but I really don't understand what so many of you get from making someone feel bad, so what if you dislike his personality you don't need to be a dick about it. Don't try to say that you were not trying to be mean lots of you just come in and post a one liner then get out. I can understand why he can be a hard person to like (I will never agree with you on Half Life 2's shooting) and it is nice to see above some people giving some constructive criticism. Now I feel weird having just wrote a giant post defending someone I have never met...

 

[Clear]

Sad but true: It'll take a lot of work for me to trust anything with McElroy's byline on again after his non-review of Nier.

Its not just that I think it (Nier) is a great and underappreciated game, but it was that he never actually admitted to how sloppy and unprofessional it was to simply cop-out and trash the game in spite of the fact that there was a clear and unambiguous visual clue as to what he was doing wrong.

The plain fact is that if he believed it was a game-breaking bug he should have asked around to see if anyone else had experienced it, and what workarounds were available and/or if the developers/publishers were going to "fix" it. Had he done that, he'd quickly have discovered all he had to do was go to the big red X on the mini-map and proceed.

But no. Instead he writes a snarky article and then foolishly tries to defend his lack of commitment/observation/integrity on GAF... another act of particularly poor judgement on his part.

Complaining about this sort of behaviour is not fanboyism, I'm not being childishly spiteful or disrespectful for calling him out on this - as reviews editor on Joystiq -not an inconsequential site- he should know better, and act more responsibly.

And people wonder why games journalism is held in such low regard... sheesh.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Am I wrong for liking the whole vintage thing The Verge has going in their media stuff?

I think it makes them look more professional, at least over hoodies and t-shirts in a team photo...

 

[biosnake20]

Am I wrong for liking the whole vintage thing The Verge has going in their media stuff?

I think it makes them look more professional, at least over hoodies and t-shirts in a team photo...

Yeah I definitely like it. My go to tech website now.

 

[royalan]

Fits perfectly

The worst company photo I have ever seen. Topolsky's "Oh! My life!" stare into the camera being particularly nauseating.

 

[kamspy]

- accept the PC platform (kotaku and stiq kinda come off PS360 and lol Wii)
- report on important things. Xbox Live hacking, UbiSoft PC authentication servers going down, people getting fucked over on EA Forums, Skyrim on PS3 probs, etc.
- make fun of Mass Effect fans
- keep that Verge layout. It tis sexy
- you've got good people there, but it seems like you've got all color commentators and no hard line writers.
- make fun of Dragon Age 2+

 

[frogg609]

Over the last few years I have visited less and less gaming sites besides GAF, mostly due to a lack of decent news reporting (Kotaku delved into too much "sex and violence" if you will and Joystiq was boring as hell).

However, I'm more than willing to give this a chance. I hope that it's sincere, and doesn't feel like it's trying to get hits through being grandiose or "OMFG Bewbz". I'm 33 years old. I game. I don't need "news" that I can't even look at while I'm at work due to it being borderline offensive. Quality over quantity.

Good luck to the team, and I hope it's hugely successful.