Games Journalism 2021 - Coming to you live!

@intuitionist Mmm, fair point.

Also, I just actually looked at the art. Fucking titty armor in XCOM. I hope the original team got their bonuses and moved the fuck on to a company that doesn’t actively suck quite as much.

By the standards of the genre, titty armor is positively progressive. We’ll be lucky if this XCOM game never makes it to the lolitas in beachwear stage.

In fact, by the standards of the platform and genre, nothing about XCOM Legends is particularly notable. It’s a type of game like 2 billion people play each week and enjoy. The only reason to describe it as “shitty” is if you take offense to the use of the IP in this way because it’s too “precious”. Considering no one involved in the article appears to have even bothered playing the game, all I can say is grow up.

The reaction is also informed by the story they just ran like a week ago making fun of one of the Call of Duty directors for describing his job as being work.

It strikes me that social media endurance must be one of the necessary job qualifications to take a role like this.

I’m also amused that Twitter threads are the longform nuanced examination of the clickbait articles. What an ecosystem.

Good point, popular things are good by definition. Especially when their popularity is built on intentionally exploiting well-understood cognitive biases to drive addictive behaviors and extract maximum revenue.

But hey, at least this one covers the improbable titties up in a layer of latex! What more do you want anyway, ya SJW killjoys?!

Jason Schreier gets the goods on how Blizzard fucked up the WarCraft 3 remake.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-22/inside-activision-blizzard-s-botched-warcraft-iii-reforged-game

Blizzard Entertainment’s disastrous remake of the classic video game Warcraft III last year was the result of mismanagement and financial pressures, according to newly revealed documents and people with knowledge of the failed launch. The release also reflected Blizzard’s significant cultural changes in recent years, as corporate owner Activision Blizzard Inc. has pushed the developer to cut costs and prioritize its biggest titles.

At the time, the company apologized for the launch and said it had chosen to backtrack on updating the cinematics because “we did not want the in-game cutscenes to steer too far from the original game.” But documentation produced after its release, as well as interviews with 11 people who worked on or close to the game, indicate that Reforged was actually rescoped due to budget cuts and internal arguments over the game’s direction.

I once asked Rob Pardo (at IIRC BlizzCon) why they canned StarCraft: Ghost after the previous year’s largely well-received multiplayer at either a BlizzCon or some other event (maybe that was at the Paris thing where they announced D3?).

“I mean, what I played back then was at least an 85 sort of game,” I said.

“Why would I want to release an 85 game?” he replied.

RIP Blizzard.

Still pissed at Reforged for permanently ruining online WC3.

I can deal with a remaster that I don’t particularly like, but why destroy the original version? I still have an old disc copy of W3 and I can’t play it. Why in the world would they do that?

That said, even with Gamasutra’s reputation and editorial vision, the name was always cringey, and alienated people outside or adjacent to the game industry. The name was (and is) typically met with a “what’d you say?” or impressive side-eye. I don’t blame people who reacted that way, because as much pride as I have working on Gamasutra, I’ve felt the same way. I and the people who work on the site have for a long time.

And the stories of sheer cringe that I’ve experienced or heard have made me laugh, but equally made me shudder: A developer having to cite Gamasutra in front of government representatives to obtain funding; a teacher awkwardly telling new design students to check out this article on Gamasutra; a game industry reporter spelling out Gamasutra for an inquisitive Indian-American middle-schooler, pencil and notepad in hand. (That last example was of me.) On a more serious note, reporting on rampant industry sexism when our brand clings to a late-90s “LOL SEX” connotation is beyond the pale.

So on Thursday this week, barring any unforeseen hurdles, we’re updating our name to Game Developer and will be located at gamedeveloper.com. It makes sense–we’ve always been a sibling site to the revered paper-based Game Developer magazine. It’s a publication that, even though out of print, still gives us inspiration and a vision of what we can be, and how we can serve game developers.

Good move, it’s about time.

I dunno, “Game Developer” sounds generic as hell to me. Gamasutra is kinda dumb, but it sure as hell stands out.

Kinda both. Once you knew what Gamasutra was, it was distinct. But I can certainly understand why they want to move on from the name. One of those things that sounds better in the wild west 90’s internet than it does today.

More in the thread. Change is always slow.

Gamastura’s name was so old and established and I didn’t even think any connection to Kamasutra upon hearing it.

Same here. And it was distinct. But I get how non-industry people may find it…questionable

I mean, the Gamasutra related magazine was just called “Game Developer”

Yeah, it’s not just that non-industry people found it questionable; a lot of us found it embarrassing as well. I’m really glad they changed it. Matches up well to GDC now, as well. I don’t think they need to worry about it being distinct; it’s an industry site. I’m certain they get loads of non-industry traffic, but the site is first and foremost for those working in games, and the name now matches up well to that.

Not having ever read Gamasutra I hardly care, but I nonetheless find it sad that a word that literally just means ‘a text manual’ has been nixed so as to not upset the ignorant.

I mean, I get the pun but it’s just a little less flavour in the world. I’d at least heard of them, it’s memorable. I’d struggle to think of anything more generic.

I think we all know the site wasn’t named as a play on the literal meaning of “text manual” right? It was cheekily titled as a play on what most of the world knows as a sex arts manual.