Games Journalism 2011: It Sunk Lower

TurinTur · 2012-01-04T08:03:32.000Z

Jamie Madigan:

Soooo… Not meaning any disrespect for the guys involved, but could someone explain to me why I should be interested in this? Guys from the two biggest control-C/Control-V sites get together to make yet another gaming website.

Are they doing anything different or exciting?

Oh, no no. My actual reason to post that news was to know what next new site we should avoid. I dislike Kotaku/Joystiq so when I read “a new site from ex-staff from both!” I supposed it would be the same shit (because it sells, both sites are very popular, I doubt they will make something different).

liminal · 2012-01-15T16:40:15.000Z

(THQ has cancelled its entire 2014 release line-up in a move to position the company for sale, according to rumours sweeping the internet.)

CVG’s deceptive headline isn’t significant enough to create a new thread, but at a time when I’m anxious for honest, substantive coverage of future of the company that’s publishing numerous games I want to play, CVG’s false headline really pisses me off, even if it is the most common form of bullshit used by gaming news websites.

MattKeil · 2012-01-20T10:51:50.000Z

So IGN gave the downloadable horror game Amy a 2 out of 10, which it unquestionably deserved. However, I made the mistake of reading the review itself, which not only seems to think “piss-poor” is an acceptable descriptor to use in your opening paragraph when first describing the game design, but also contains this gem:

IGN's Amy Review:

To call Amy’s gameplay unintuitive and unresponsive puts things too lightly. To call Amy’s gameplay complete and utter garbage is far more accurate.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d say the first description is much more accurate in terms of than the broad metaphor in the second description.

amandachen · 2012-01-20T15:23:16.000Z

Not sure I understand the problem.

JM1 · 2012-01-20T15:29:16.000Z

I like “piss-poor”. It leaves no room for argument.

MattKeil · 2012-01-20T15:38:21.000Z

It’s not a description. It tells me nothing about the game or its flaws and kicks the piece off with a scatological reference that I find to be fairly distasteful in a consumer reports review.

JM1 · 2012-01-20T16:14:12.000Z

It’s not really a scatalogical reference, is it. It might not be the most professional term to use, but it’s faintly ridiculous to complain about it “telling you nothing” when it’s used in the context of an overview of the game:

“a supremely muddled mess of controller-throwing frustration and piss-poor game design choices”

What more does it need to tell you?

tomchick · 2012-01-20T16:59:22.000Z

MattKeil:

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d say the first description is much more accurate in terms of than the broad metaphor in the second description.

Words are hard.

-Tom

(BTW, that’s directed at the writer of the IGN article, not you. I agree with your point about that passage. Shouldn’t a videogame reviewer know the meaning of the word “accurate”?)

Mike_Pugliese · 2012-01-20T17:35:46.000Z

X-Play recently changed their ratings system because they now believe “a more granular rating scale will help distinguish the great games from the really great games.”

I personally can’t wait until Sessler asks to be placed back on Metacritic, if only to see this hypocrisy reach its full potential.

amandachen · 2012-01-20T23:37:50.000Z

MattKeil:

but also contains this gem:

To call Amy’s gameplay unintuitive and unresponsive puts things too lightly. To call Amy’s gameplay complete and utter garbage is far more accurate.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d say the first description is much more accurate in terms of than the broad metaphor in the second description.

To be fair, he spends the rest of the paragraph explaining why he thinks the gameplay is complete and utter garbage.